SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[s_bushido]

You are free to believe that of course but the world will make a lot more sense if you learn to determine the opposing view rather then assign them some cartoonishly evil motive.

That motive hasn't been assigned, it's been inferred from their behavior. They don't give a shit about life. They given even less of a shit about the quality of life.

Cases like this in particular demonstrate exactly why their """beliefs""" are horseshit. People who consider late-term pregnancies do so because of serious medical complications. Not because they're Satanic leftist whores who get a rush out of sleeping around so that they can murder their babies in the womb.

[Endus]

I think it was a response to how casually human life was being treated. I know there isn't a chance you consider life at inception and I'm not arguing abortion should be blanket banned.

"Life at inception" is an intentionally dishonest framing, used to cloud the issue;

1> Life doesn't "begin". Life began (apparently) once, some 3.8 billion years back. Propagation since that event has been a continuation of life, not a beginning; living human beings create living gametes which combine to form a living zygote which develops, eventually, into another human being. There is no point in this loop where anything that was not alive suddenly becomes alive.

2> "Conception" is a completely arbitrary point in that sequence, without much to speak for it being a particularly meaningful stage of the process. Thus, hand-wringing over a fertilized ovum when you wouldn't wring those hands over gametes (sperm and ova) is nonsensical, from a secular point of view.

It's not that I "won't consider" it; it's that I have considered it, and looked at every argument I've seen presented for it, and found all of them intellectually insufficient. They're either irrational, religious, or aesthetic. Each of which make reasonable enough grounds for personal choices, but not for endorsing them at the societal level.

Like, I seriously do not care if you have a religious objection. Feel free to not get an abortion, then; that's entirely your choice, nobody's pushing you to abort. If you try and tell someone else to not abort, though, I'm gonna get pretty pissed at the intentional attack on your target's religious freedoms. Which is what you're engaged in, by definition. Harassment and abuse to try and deny others religious freedom.

If you can't understand your political opponents thoughts you will constantly be taken by surprise and as we seem to be leaning further and further right that will become increasingly dangerous.

You're making allegations that I "don't understand their arguments", and I'd really like to know exactly what I'm getting meaningfully wrong, on any of it.

I've asked that same question over and over and over again in this and other prior threads, and on other forums, and have gotten either bullshit emotional appeals, special pleading on religious grounds, or attempts to shame me for disagreement. Never an actual, justifiable, secular justification. Literally not once, either directly or in the arguments by any group pushing to oppose abortion.

I can change my mind on things like this. I used to be a lot more in favor of the death penalty, for instance. I used to believe capitalist systems could be reformed meaningfully. And then I looked into my preconceptions, examined them against the arguments brought by others, and amended my views where I deemed it appropriate.

And I repeat; with pro-life, I have never seen an argument that, when you poked at it enough, didn't boil down to "I want women as a class to be subjugated to a greater degree" and/or "I want to enforce my petty religious views on non-believers". Feel free to take another shot. Just be ready for me (and others) to return fire.

[unfilteredJW]

You are free to believe that of course but the world will make a lot more sense if you learn to determine the opposing view rather then assign them some cartoonishly evil motive.

Really speed running bad takes on this forum huh?

Hey guys, this guy thinks oppressing women, robbing them of their rights, and forcing births isn't evil.

[Tentim]

Okay, but science nor ethical moral behaviour sides with being against available abortion, from a group of people who are more than happy to let kids starve in school, be food insecure or do nothing to resolve increasing wealth inequality and poverty levels, so the facts don’t actually gel with whatever blissful delusion the pro-abortionists give themselves so they can be evil. That’s just reality friendo.

Few people can really understand big picture problems. Most can only see the most direct and obvious actions. It's a flaw that is extremely difficult to overcome.

- - - Updated - - -

The opposing view is a bunch of nonsense, I'm going to be frank.

'Pro-life' but against any and all things that would make raising a child or, shit, being pregnant even marginally easier on the mother. They're against subsidized school lunches for disadvantaged children, they're against subsidized and affordable medical care, they've put forward no ideas or options for families struggling to raise kids or even feed themselves, they're against comprehensive sex education and contraceptives, and - in this case - they're so anti-science they'll pen and pass bills without either understanding or caring about what the implications of their laws will be.

Like it's all a mess of contrarian nonsense that doesn't look like anything but cartoonishly evil when put into practice.

The people with and against you are not a monolith. Its something to keep in mind.

[Calfredd]

The people with and against you are not a monolith. Its something to keep in mind.

And sometimes a spade is a spade. Something for you to keep in mind.

[Shadowferal]

The people with and against you are not a monolith. Its something to keep in mind.

"Jewish space lasers" comes to mind.

[Tentim]

"Life at inception" is an intentionally dishonest framing, used to cloud the issue;

1> Life doesn't "begin". Life began (apparently) once, some 3.8 billion years back. Propagation since that event has been a continuation of life, not a beginning; living human beings create living gametes which combine to form a living zygote which develops, eventually, into another human being. There is no point in this loop where anything that was not alive suddenly becomes alive.

2> "Conception" is a completely arbitrary point in that sequence, without much to speak for it being a particularly meaningful stage of the process. Thus, hand-wringing over a fertilized ovum when you wouldn't wring those hands over gametes (sperm and ova) is nonsensical, from a secular point of view.

It's not that I "won't consider" it; it's that I have considered it, and looked at every argument I've seen presented for it, and found all of them intellectually insufficient. They're either irrational, religious, or aesthetic. Each of which make reasonable enough grounds for personal choices, but not for endorsing them at the societal level.

Like, I seriously do not care if you have a religious objection. Feel free to not get an abortion, then; that's entirely your choice, nobody's pushing you to abort. If you try and tell someone else to not abort, though, I'm gonna get pretty pissed at the intentional attack on your target's religious freedoms. Which is what you're engaged in, by definition. Harassment and abuse to try and deny others religious freedom.



You're making allegations that I "don't understand their arguments", and I'd really like to know exactly what I'm getting meaningfully wrong, on any of it.

I've asked that same question over and over and over again in this and other prior threads, and on other forums, and have gotten either bullshit emotional appeals, special pleading on religious grounds, or attempts to shame me for disagreement. Never an actual, justifiable, secular justification. Literally not once, either directly or in the arguments by any group pushing to oppose abortion.

I can change my mind on things like this. I used to be a lot more in favor of the death penalty, for instance. I used to believe capitalist systems could be reformed meaningfully. And then I looked into my preconceptions, examined them against the arguments brought by others, and amended my views where I deemed it appropriate.

And I repeat; with pro-life, I have never seen an argument that, when you poked at it enough, didn't boil down to "I want women as a class to be subjugated to a greater degree" and/or "I want to enforce my petty religious views on non-believers". Feel free to take another shot. Just be ready for me (and others) to return fire.

Most believe the fetus is a living person. You can understand your argument but the flaw in that thinking is that you believe defeating their argument matters. Any politician worth their salt will tell you how folly that is.

My layman's take on it is this. They see the fetus as a person ( the fact you and for that matter I don't is irrelevant). Abortion at least in west I can't speak for anywhere else is seen as to... cold and clinical. I think the middle ground here and yes... with the left reeling from the culture shift you are needing to look for the middle ground is to argue abortion as a means of last resort... or rather then argue it find a way to change the public perception to that.

- - - Updated - - -

We see the bigger picture: you want the oppression of women to instil totalitarianism. Don’t be so fucking transparent if you want to act like there’s some deep or convoluted machinations to the evil you wish to see perpetrated.

"You" is a funny word. My ability to see multiple sides to an issue doesn't automatically include me in any group. I support abortion but I'm sure for reasons you would find abhorrent.

- - - Updated - - -

"Jewish space lasers" comes to mind.

I mean... that is akin to say anyone who voted for biden is a mod of r/anti work.

[unfilteredJW]

Most believe the fetus is a living person.

Prove this.

The faux enlightened middle shit is boring.

[Tentim]

The enlightened centrist is the bastion for the lazily ignorant. You’ve also done nothing but bat for misogyny so I am not buying the sudden “I am for abortion” malarky. Very reminiscent non-argument styles that remind me of shit on the road, you know, that dung.

Why am I a centrist ?

[Cthulhu 2020]

There's no argument against abortion that doesn't ultimately end up in either religious baloney or a desire to control women. Even an argument that a fetus has a right to live is ALSO an argument that a woman doesn't have a right to her own body, and must become an incubator for the sake of life. Following that line of thinking, we should start harvesting organs from healthy people to give to those whose lives are in danger because of failing kidneys or livers. After all, if human life is more important than bodily autonomy, that's the obvious conclusion.

[Edge-]

I mean... that is akin to say anyone who voted for biden is a mod of r/anti work.

Eyo, except the lady that believes this shit got reelected.

What does a random reddit sub have to do with that?

[Tentim]

Eyo, except the lady that believes this shit got reelected.

What does a random reddit sub have to do with that?

Just putting out that the most crazy take isn't usually the reason a majority does something

[Endus]

Most believe the fetus is a living person.

1> "Living", yes. Same term applies to a house plant, so not helpful.
2> "Person", no. Literally legally defined as not a person, pretty much everywhere. And before you contest the legal definition, "personhood" is a legal term, thus legal definitions are where you look.
3> Appeals to popularity are irrational, and should be immediately discarded on principle. It doesn't matter if "most people" believe a false or harmful statement; that just means those people are wrong/abusive. Popularity means nothing.

You can understand your argument but the flaw in that thinking is that you believe defeating their argument matters. Any politician worth their salt will tell you how folly that is.

And "politics" is also the process by which Hitler rose to power. Pointing to the failures of politics is not a counter-point about basic ethical principles. Sure, to stay in power, some representatives might do/support unethical things to curry favor with their base. That just makes them unethical, themselves, it doesn't justify their choices.

My layman's take on it is this. They see the fetus as a person ( the fact you and for that matter I don't is irrelevant). Abortion at least in west I can't speak for anywhere else is seen as to... cold and clinical.

The USA is lagging way behind the rest of the developed world with regards to abortion rights. This is a debate that's almost uniquely American at this point. The rest of the developed world, and increasing members of the developing world, are enshrining abortion rights into their legal systems. The USA is particularly backwards and regressive, and not typical of other developed nations, let alone other Western nations specifically.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...bortion-rights

I'll note that's from immediately after Roe v. Wade was overturned, and things have gotten significantly worse in the USA than the article presents, at the State levels.

I think the middle ground here and yes... with the left reeling from the culture shift you are needing to look for the middle ground is to argue abortion as a means of last resort... or rather then argue it find a way to change the public perception to that.

If you're willing to consider a "middle ground" with respect to basic rights and freedoms, you're opposed to those being rights and freedoms, and that means your position is not some neutral middle ground. Some issues, like rights, are absolutely binary; you either support them, or you don't. You'd have had us debating with Hitler about how many Jews he could incinerate in a given year, or with Antebellum slavers about how often they could beat their slaves, rather than ending the Holocaust or abolishing slavery. Compromise on issues of rights is not actually compromise. It's just surrender.

I'll also note I asked you to justify your position, and what you've just given here all told boils down to "you should compromise with bigots, so that they can get at least half the abusing and harm they really want". Which is fundamentally a terrible argument, both in terms of structure and in apologism for open bigotry.

[Xyonai]

Few people can really understand big picture problems. Most can only see the most direct and obvious actions. It's a flaw that is extremely difficult to overcome.

- - - Updated - - -



The people with and against you are not a monolith. Its something to keep in mind.

Oh I don't disagree, there are wildly different viewpoints between person to person even between people who agree with eachother.

But that doesn't matter when they just so happen to keep voting for the same copy-paste dipshits who're against all the things I listed above and I'll continue to judge them for platforming disengenous and outright malicious politicians who either don't care about people or actively legislate to make people's lives worse for seemingly no reason.

Like you, personally, might believe in stronger healthcare for mothers so when these anti-abortion laws force them to carry to term they'll be comfortable and have minimal complications. That sentiment doesn't mean anything when the people you vote for seem to think that a septic fetus must be carried to term for reasons despite it being unviable and a clear and present danger to the mother.

[Kathranis]

Like it's all a mess of contrarian nonsense that doesn't look like anything but cartoonishly evil when put into practice.

It fundamentally boils down to the widespread conservative notion that poverty is both immoral and a consequence of immorality. They genuinely believe at some level -- whether or not they'll admit or even realize it -- that the consequence of an unplanned pregnancy should be financial hardship. Inevitably the argument they make will be one of personal responsibility: "if you can't afford a child, don't have sex."

As others have said, the cruelty is the point. Poverty is punishment.

[Endus]

It fundamentally boils down to the widespread conservative notion that poverty is both immoral and a consequence of immorality. They genuinely believe at some level -- whether or not they'll admit or even realize it -- that the consequence of an unplanned pregnancy should be financial hardship. Inevitably the argument they make will be one of personal responsibility: "if you can't afford a child, don't have sex."

As others have said, the cruelty is the point. Poverty is punishment.

Not just financial. There's a hell of a lot of retributive intent in there to punish "loose women" who dare to have sex out of wedlock and for any reason but procreation. Often with financial hardship, among other things, but the supposed immorality of having a sex life of any kind is really where they're coming from.

[Tentim]

1> "Living", yes. Same term applies to a house plant, so not helpful.
2> "Person", no. Literally legally defined as not a person, pretty much everywhere. And before you contest the legal definition, "personhood" is a legal term, thus legal definitions are where you look.
3> Appeals to popularity are irrational, and should be immediately discarded on principle. It doesn't matter if "most people" believe a false or harmful statement; that just means those people are wrong/abusive. Popularity means nothing.



And "politics" is also the process by which Hitler rose to power. Pointing to the failures of politics is not a counter-point about basic ethical principles. Sure, to stay in power, some representatives might do/support unethical things to curry favor with their base. That just makes them unethical, themselves, it doesn't justify their choices.



The USA is lagging way behind the rest of the developed world with regards to abortion rights. This is a debate that's almost uniquely American at this point. The rest of the developed world, and increasing members of the developing world, are enshrining abortion rights into their legal systems. The USA is particularly backwards and regressive, and not typical of other developed nations, let alone other Western nations specifically.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...bortion-rights

I'll note that's from immediately after Roe v. Wade was overturned, and things have gotten significantly worse in the USA than the article presents, at the State levels.



If you're willing to consider a "middle ground" with respect to basic rights and freedoms, you're opposed to those being rights and freedoms, and that means your position is not some neutral middle ground. Some issues, like rights, are absolutely binary; you either support them, or you don't. You'd have had us debating with Hitler about how many Jews he could incinerate in a given year, or with Antebellum slavers about how often they could beat their slaves, rather than ending the Holocaust or abolishing slavery. Compromise on issues of rights is not actually compromise. It's just surrender.

I'll also note I asked you to justify your position, and what you've just given here all told boils down to "you should compromise with bigots, so that they can get at least half the abusing and harm they really want". Which is fundamentally a terrible argument, both in terms of structure and in apologism for open bigotry.

I mean you are making an argument against the very notion of democracy. It's an easy argument to make granted. One simply needs to spark up a conversation with the average voter.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh I don't disagree, there are wildly different viewpoints between person to person even between people who agree with eachother.

But that doesn't matter when they just so happen to keep voting for the same copy-paste dipshits who're against all the things I listed above and I'll continue to judge them for platforming disengenous and outright malicious politicians who either don't care about people or actively legislate to make people's lives worse for seemingly no reason.

Like you, personally, might believe in stronger healthcare for mothers so when these anti-abortion laws force them to carry to term they'll be comfortable and have minimal complications. That sentiment doesn't mean anything when the people you vote for seem to think that a septic fetus must be carried to term for reasons despite it being unviable and a clear and present danger to the mother.

It's a balancing of evils. Voting works best when your choice makes you hold your nose, gag a little and twist your face in disgust as you vote.

[Endus]

I mean you are making an argument against the very notion of democracy. It's an easy argument to make granted. One simply needs to spark up a conversation with the average voter.

No, I'm making an argument against the idea that "popularity" is in any way an analogue of "correctness".

Democracy does not exist for societies to make the best decisions. It exists to make the process of governance so fraught with internal disputes that it's difficult for change, good or bad, to be done, in the hope that what little does get passed into law has to pass through a significant burden of debate first. It's intentionally rooted in compromise, with the goal of sacrificing the utopia to make the dystopia just as impossible to achieve, and to pursue mediocrity instead, as mediocrity is risk-averse and "adequate".

And it doesn't always work out. Let's not forget that Hitler rose to power through democracy. And he's not alone. Putin also qualifies. As much as both did everything they could to eliminate democratic processes, they started out in democracies and couldn't take those steps until after they held power.

And if a democratic government tries to pass a law saying that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago or that Pi is equal to three (and that last one's a real example, not a hypothetical), that just means that government is stupid and wrong, not that their new laws is somehow now "right" and "correct" due to being passed democratically.

[Tentim]

No, I'm making an argument against the idea that "popularity" is in any way an analogue of "correctness".

Democracy does not exist for societies to make the best decisions. It exists to make the process of governance so fraught with internal disputes that it's difficult for change, good or bad, to be done, in the hope that what little does get passed into law has to pass through a significant burden of debate first. It's intentionally rooted in compromise, with the goal of sacrificing the utopia to make the dystopia just as impossible to achieve, and to pursue mediocrity instead, as mediocrity is risk-averse and "adequate".

And it doesn't always work out. Let's not forget that Hitler rose to power through democracy. And he's not alone. Putin also qualifies. As much as both did everything they could to eliminate democratic processes, they started out in democracies and couldn't take those steps until after they held power.

And if a democratic government tries to pass a law saying that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago or that Pi is equal to three (and that last one's a real example, not a hypothetical), that just means that government is stupid and wrong, not that their new laws is somehow now "right" and "correct" due to being passed democratically.

True. I think the future debate on this will be if human life is seen as a inconvenience or not. While its easy to point out the flaws of a blanket ban on abortion the prevailing sentiment on the topic was it was becoming to accessible and seen as simply another form of contraception.

In the decades to follow I am sure we will hammer out a new line in the sand on the issue... likely to will first be reserved for medical complications.

[Shadowferal]

Hmf...the lady, pregnant, is the final arbiter. The law isn't relevant.