SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Flarelaine]

10-20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. It's absolutely "normal". It may not be the most common outcome, but claiming it's "abnormal" is like claiming that blonde hair is "abnormal", or being left-handed. It's a super weird take.

It is 10-20% among those who know they're pregnant. Wiki says it is between 30 and 50% among all fertilisations.

[Yetanothernewbie]

Have you taken a biology class beyond high school? Because the way you talk I can tell you haven't.

Bold of you to assume he passed even high school level biology. I would almost dare to think that before he found YouTube that he believed abortion was when you shot the stork before it could deliver the baby.

[Sunseeker]

"Caring for the unborn" at the expense of those who want to end an unwanted pregnancy means your position isn't really about kindness or protection, it's about antagonistic subjugation. You don't want to give people support so they might choose differently, you want to deny them basic human rights and freedoms, out of cruelty and malice.

If it were just "caring for the unborn", you wouldn't get pushback. It's all the other bullshit, and the willfully dishonest arguments you use to deflect responsibility for that malice, that gets you pushback.

I'm just going to re-quote Dave Barnhart here:

"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

[Orange Joe]

I'm talking for the situation of pregnancy and child birth. You have consensual sex, you know it could result in pregnancy, you get pregnant, you own up to your actions and birth the innocent life developing inside you.

Yeah consent can be revoked even during sex. But you can't revoke consent with pregnancy lol wtf. It's not the same thing.

You want a biological argument against abortion? How about the fact that abortion is a manmade thing that does not happen in nature.

Abortion is something humans invented for convenience.

Which by the way, a majority of.abortions are for convenience instead of things like incest or rape.

Killing your own child for convenience is evil and harmful for society.

Instead we should make strides for better sex ed and accessibility for contraceptives.

But if you choose to omit yourself from contraceptives or your contraceptives fail then you need to own up to your biological responsibility.

- - - Updated - - -



Way to twist my words.... Not once did i imply women can't opt out of sex while having sex

- - - Updated - - -



So you're in her head? You're psychic wow amazing.

The scientific argument is that a fetus is a human being. It ain't a carrot, right?

sure you can. It's called getting an abortion.

[Darththeo]

I'm just going to re-quote Dave Barnhart here:

I love that quote. It is a far nicer phrasing than George Carlin's more blunt way of putting it.

[Elder Millennial]

. But you can't revoke consent with pregnancy lol wtf.

Why not? It's your body.

Note. Literal corpses have more bodily autonomy than pregnant women for conservatives. If we mandated organ harvesting upon death TO SAVE LIVES, conservatives, especially the religious sort would lose their damned mind.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...91886918306573

But they'll restrict women's bodily autonomy to save literal cell clusters that might or might not develop into a life.

This entire debate has exactly jack all to do with "saving unborn babies". It's just about making women suffer for the sin of having had sex.

[Anevers]

I love that quote. It is a far nicer phrasing than George Carlin's more blunt way of putting it.

I'm all for blunt when it comes to human rights and healthcare

“Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no daycare, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.

Conservatives don't give a shit about you until you reach "military age". Then they think you are just fine. Just what they've been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life... pro-life... These people aren't pro-life, they're killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that? What, they'll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it? They're not pro-life. You know what they are? They're anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a broodmare for the state

Pro-life... You don't see many of these white anti-abortion women volunteering to have any black fetuses transplanted into their uteruses, do you? No, you don't see them adopting a whole lot of crack babies, do you? No, that might be something Christ would do. And, you won't see a lot of these pro-life people dousing themselves in kerosene and lighting themselves on fire. You know, morally committed religious people in South Vietnam knew how to stage a goddamn demonstration, didn't they?! They knew how to put on a fucking protest. Light yourself on FIRE!! C'mon, you moral crusaders, let's see a little smoke. To match that fire in your belly

Here's another question I have: how come when it's us, it's an abortion, and when it's a chicken, it's an omelet? Are we so much better than chickens all of a sudden? When did this happen, that we passed chickens in goodness? Name six ways we're better than chickens... See, nobody can do it! You know why? 'Cuz chickens are decent people"

[Elder Millennial]

I'm all for blunt when it comes to human rights and healthcare

George Carlin, a "comedian" whose entire shtick is just telling you the truth as it is, sprinkle in some swear words, and we all just laugh because we're so fucking uncomfortable with the truth told as it is that all we can do is laugh about it.

To be honest Carlin oddly always reminded me of Diogenes. In a different world, in a different time, we would have called him a philosopher and not a comedian.

[Darththeo]

I'm all for blunt when it comes to human rights and healthcare

Oh I love Carlin too. It is just nice to have a feather and a club than just a club.

[Shadowferal]

Virginia Democrats Defeat 15-Week Abortion Ban And Glenn Youngkin's Anti-Choice Agenda

[gondrin]

If you cared about the unborn, then you better start adopting and paying higher taxes for the women and families that can't afford these children they are forced to have. If you aren't ready for that, then you are a fucking hypocrite and just another ignorant conservative.

That is one of the biggest problems I have with the "pro-life", screw it, gonna call it what it is, pro-birth crowd is that they are also for reduction in social safety nets that would help out new mothers. They are for removal or outright refusal of mandatory paid maternity leave so that the mother and father can take care of said infant.

If they were really pro-life and really for the well-being of the infant, they would also be for the ability to pay for the care for said infant too. But they aren't.

That is why the lot of them are hypocrites in every sense of the word.

George Carlin said it best. This is from 1996:

[The Stormbringer]

No one is being oppressed relaxed. This ain't handmaid's tale, no one is being forced to get pregnant

No, just forced to stay pregnant if they don't want to be. That also includes women who have serious health issues or pregnancies that highly put them at risk, btw. I know this was yesterday and you're banned, but this statement was so ridiculous that I had to comment on it. It is absolutely oppression.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You have little to no sense of nuance I swear. It like black and white with you.

This dude responds to one of the most nuanced takes that is several paragraphs long with "YoU'rE nOt NuAnCeD jUsT bLaCk AnD wHiTe!"

The Tate and rape fanboy is responding with one liners and saying someone who spent multiple paragraphs explaining something in incredible nuance "isn't nuanced".

Real life is wilder than fiction.

Kinda wild that the Tate fanboy can get this thread going for 20 pages. But he's just another rabid con-servative with little in the way of facts to back up his entirely emotional positions.

Starting to get the feeling that the wife he claims to have is either a body pillow or a mail order. Cause no woman in their right mind would date this kind of misogyny.

[The Stormbringer]

You don't want kids YET....

You will. If you don't then you could argue you have some kind of mental pathology that prevents you from wanting children.

Doesn't make you a bad person, but biologically speaking, it's not exactly normal.

Also have to comment on this one. As intelligent, thinking creatures who have the potential for great self control, human beings are not confined to our biological impulses. I can be hungry, and choose not to eat. I can be tired, and choose not to sleep. I can biologically want to breed, but choose not to have children. It's not "biologically normal" (or perhaps it is) because humans have evolved beyond such things. The fact that you're so ignorantly willing to ignore this is laughable.

[Xyonai]

That is one of the biggest problems I have with the "pro-life", screw it, gonna call it what it is, pro-birth crowd is that they are also for reduction in social safety nets that would help out new mothers. They are for removal or outright refusal of mandatory paid maternity leave so that the mother and father can take care of said infant.

If they were really pro-life and really for the well-being of the infant, they would also be for the ability to pay for the care for said infant too. But they aren't.

That is why the lot of them are hypocrites in every sense of the word.

George Carlin said it best. This is from 1996:

It's one of those things Varx was remarkably silent about. Instead it was easier to make up woo-woo stuff about magical feelings than engage with how things actually are. For "some reason".

- - - Updated - - -

Also have to comment on this one. As intelligent, thinking creatures who have the potential for great self control, human beings are not confined to our biological impulses. I can be hungry, and choose not to eat. I can be tired, and choose not to sleep. I can biologically want to breed, but choose not to have children. It's not "biologically normal" (or perhaps it is) because humans have evolved beyond such things. The fact that you're so ignorantly willing to ignore this is laughable.

I wanted to reply with much the same, but I was so flabbergasted by someone making such broad, unfounded, and dismissive assumptions about me that I didn't think I could articulate anything polite enough to reply with and I am not gonna waste my potential first ban on someone like that lol.

[Levelfive]

And the sexual assault exception, again, just proves she (and you) really don't believe it's a human person from conception. If you did, sexual assault wouldn't constitute an exception. Are rape-babies less "human" or less deserving of rights? Every time you people make this argument, you're just admitting to being liars and con artists.

"It's also different when it's unplugging rather than actively killing". The vast majority of abortion methods used detach the fetus, which leads to immediate death of the fetus. It's the literal biological equivalent of "unplugging", so she's lying again. Also, when it comes to end-of-life considerations, "unplugging" absolutely is considered "killing", so it's not even an honest approach.

Then she insists that women forced to bear to term aren't being "punished" despite the torturous circumstances, solely because she wants them to be pregnant. Absolutely morally galling. Evil as fuuuuck. Literally dismissing people's consent and desires for her religious views.

That's 4 wasted minutes of my life I'm not getting back. Absolutely awful woman and her whole schtick is incredibly dishonest and ill-informed.

The rape exception gives away both that they don't really believe (or even care) life "begins at conception," and that the whole purpose is to punish women who have consensual sex.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/27/polit...ion/index.html

The Supreme Court did not disclose its longstanding financial ties with former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff even as it touted him as an expert who independently validated its investigation into who leaked the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.

The court’s inquiry, released last week with Chertoff’s endorsement, failed to identify who was responsible for the unprecedented leak. The decision to keep the relationship with Chertoff quiet is a reflection of a pattern of opacity at the nation’s highest court, whose rulings affect every American.

CNN has learned from sources familiar with the arrangements that the court in recent years has privately contracted with The Chertoff Group for security assessments, some broadly covering justices’ safety and some specifically related to Covid-19 protocols at the court itself.

Man, Roberts really is seemingly doing everything possible to destroy any trust or credibility in the SCOTUS.

Is this actually a huge deal? If it was disclosed, probably not at all.

But given the microscope on the SCOTUS right now and the LONGRUNNING ethical breaches from Justice Thomas, this is the kind of thing they should be making the extra effort to be transparent on in order to attempt to repair some of that trust.

I really do hope that Chief Justice Roberts wakes up some nights in a cold sweat, hearing the sound of a toilet flushing through a telephone in his nightmares.

[Xyonai]

The rape exception gives away both that they don't really believe (or even care) life "begins at conception," and that the whole purpose is to punish women who have consensual sex.

Honestly from the posts of his that were really hitting the 'Humans -need- to procreate, it's the only thing that matters!' point, I think the dude just has a breeding/pregnancy fetish.

[gondrin]

Honestly from the posts of his that were really hitting the 'Humans -need- to procreate, it's the only thing that matters!' point, I think the dude just has a breeding/pregnancy fetish.

Nah. It is religious dogma nonsense where you have to have a big family for whatever reason. Sex isn't meant for enjoyment, just procreation in the eyes of those who believe that stuff.

He claims he isn't religious but repeats the same dogmatic bullshit that you would hear out of Fundamentalist Southern Baptist churches.

[Darththeo]

Nah. It is religious dogma nonsense where you have to have a big family for whatever reason. Sex isn't meant for enjoyment, just procreation in the eyes of those who believe that stuff.

He claims he isn't religious but repeats the same dogmatic bullshit that you would hear out of Fundamentalist Southern Baptist churches.

Pretty much. Even that mother-child bond is the strongest bond we have is out of that dogma.

It maybe the strongest bond people have, but it isn't everyone's universal strongest bond.

His entire argument is religiously motivated despite arguing that there were "scientific reasons to oppose abortion." There is no "scientific" reason to oppose abortion. The religious people in America just have gotten really good at hiding their religious motivations in their arguments.