SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Endus]

@Endus @Mekh @Mihalik

I’ve got to run but I just want to cap the brief discussion, I’m not arguing here from a pro-life stance I’m very much in the camp that abortion should be available even if reluctantly so. I’m trying to point out how extreme some of your arguments and justifications sound even to someone who agrees with the base point. If you want abortion to be available, these are terrible talking points. Self-defense, respect for life, go with that. Bin the fetuses aren’t human crap.

Well, you're completely failing to make that point, then, since you tried to make a point about some weird-ass what-if where a living woman crawled inside another living woman to live off her and I was somehow supposed to side with the body-horror-gremlin-woman in that example.

[Ghost of Cow]

If men would be the ones getting pregnant we'd have drive-through abortion clinics with attached bar and bowling centre.

I really wish people would stop with this weird confrontational angle on this topic.

Views on abortion aren't even dictated by gender anyway. (More men are pro-choice than pro-life last I looked) And it's not like men have a lot of say in this topic in the first place. Not that we should, of course.

[Mihalik]

[MENTION=614243] Self-defense, respect for life, go with that.

THAT IS THE ORIGINAL FUCKING GODDAMNED MOTHERFUCKING ARGUMENT OF ROE V WADE FOR FUCK SAKE. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON ABOUT?

Also fetuses are not human. That's just a fact. Giving that point to you would be accepting YOUR ARBITRARY FAITH BASED interpretation of personhood. The thing is whether a fetus is human or not, is irrelevant to the argument, it's your ilk that keeps fucking making that irrelevant argument.

[Fugus]

Not sure if it's even "soon". There's certain ethical boundaries keeping us from trying, but I honestly don't know if we aren't already there.

We have already learned to turn them into human sperm
https://health.ucsd.edu/news/release...treatment.aspx

And with mice have turned them into fertile eggs
https://www.science.org/content/arti...lthy-offspring

So, not sure how much further it will be. Quite literally once we have turned them into human eggs, we will have what we need to turn my ass flakes into a fertile egg and sperm and be the ultimate in inbreeding creating a child.

And the question is, if we can create the sperm and egg already and we have access to the full set of DNA needed, within the next decade, I can see them being able to skip the sperm and egg and going straight to the fetus.

[Mihalik]

I really wish people would stop with this weird confrontational angle on this topic.

Views on abortion aren't even dictated by gender anyway. (More men are pro-choice than pro-life last I looked) And it's not like men have a lot of say in this topic in the first place. Not that we should, of course.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/...ds-gender.aspx

That's a profoundly stupid take. Men are evenly split nationally, and overwhelmingly anti abortion in red states....where they also overwhelmingly dominate legislative bodies.

[Ghost of Cow]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/...ds-gender.aspx

That's a profoundly stupid take. Men are evenly split nationally, and overwhelmingly anti abortion in red states....where they also overwhelmingly dominate legislative bodies.

What exactly is stupid about not thinking that the abortion debate should be some kind of gender war? Because it shouldn't be.

Also, you're looking at the self-identification chart. If you look at the actual views charts (100% legal, legal sometimes, illegal) men and women don't actually deviate that far from one another.

So yes, this isn't some stupid, "Women vs. Men" war. It's most of the US versus right wing shitters.

[Mihalik]

What exactly is stupid about not thinking that the abortion debate should be some kind of gender war? Because it shouldn't be.

Because it already is. And that's a simple unfortunate fact. Denying it is deeply counter productive as it utterly ignores how the abortion debate is DEEPLY intertwined with misogyny and the enforcement of a misogynistic set of gender roles.

[Specialka]

I must that some arguments from both side are totally stupid. Abortion is a necessary evil. Carrying an unwanted child, giving birth to it and eventually raising it can leave some deep scar for the mother or even both parents. Obviously, abortion should not be abused but that's an extreme minority. Abortion should be available, period.

[Endus]

What exactly is stupid about not thinking that the abortion debate should be some kind of gender war? Because it shouldn't be.

It is, by definition.

The anti-abortion movement is, explicitly, an attack on women's rights. That makes it gendered, automatically.

Yeah, this issue shouldn't be gendered, but the moment we remove gender war from the situation, we're left with pro-choice and that's it.

- - - Updated - - -

I must that some arguments from both side are totally stupid. Abortion is a necessary evil. Carrying an unwanted child, giving birth to it and eventually raising it can leave some deep scar for the mother or even both parents. Obviously, abortion should not be abused but that's an extreme minority. Abortion should be available, period.

"Necessary evil" is a horseshit term.

Abortion is as much a "necessary evil" as, say, heart surgery.

Abortion is not "evil" in the first place, "necessary" or not.

[Specialka]

It is, by definition.

The anti-abortion movement is, explicitly, an attack on women's rights. That makes it gendered, automatically.

Yeah, this issue shouldn't be gendered, but the moment we remove gender war from the situation, we're left with pro-choice and that's it.

I do not see it that way. At least, that is not what they are after. The attack on the women's right are the consequences of their choices.

[Xyonai]

I must that some arguments from both side are totally stupid. Abortion is a necessary evil. Carrying an unwanted child, giving birth to it and eventually raising it can leave some deep scar for the mother or even both parents. Obviously, abortion should not be abused but that's an extreme minority. Abortion should be available, period.

I think that's a stance for most pro-choice people anyway: It's a "necessary evil" to safeguard the health and wellbeing of the mother. I don't know a single rational minded person who believes in using it as some kind of easy birth control method, despite what deranged regressives like to think.

[Specialka]

It is, by definition.

The anti-abortion movement is, explicitly, an attack on women's rights. That makes it gendered, automatically.

Yeah, this issue shouldn't be gendered, but the moment we remove gender war from the situation, we're left with pro-choice and that's it.

- - - Updated - - -



"Necessary evil" is a horseshit term.

Abortion is as much a "necessary evil" as, say, heart surgery.

Abortion is not "evil" in the first place, "necessary" or not.

Nope, I do not agree. I stand by necessary evil. Abortion should be available but not something we should "rejoice" about.

- - - Updated - - -

Abortion is a necessary good, even if "necessary evil" is a turn of phrase, just putting it in that phrase is wrong. Giving people control over their own bodies is a GOOD thing.

Again, I stand by it.

[Endus]

I do not see it that way. At least, that is not what they are after. The attack on the women's right are the consequences of their choices.

There's no other motivation, though. I keep asking,, and not getting.

If they mention their religious views, well, their religion is misogynist, then. It's still about a gender war.

[tehdang]

I really wish people would stop with this weird confrontational angle on this topic.

Views on abortion aren't even dictated by gender anyway. (More men are pro-choice than pro-life last I looked) And it's not like men have a lot of say in this topic in the first place. Not that we should, of course.

You're aware of the rhetorical win once you accuse somebody pro-life as being anti-woman and misogynistic? Watch them squirm as they defend their views on women, and try to distance themselves from being aligned with a more-patriarchal past?

I think it's quite obvious, not "weird" at all, even if you want to suggest its a low road to take.

[Endus]

Nope, I do not agree. I stand by necessary evil. Abortion should be available but not something we should "rejoice" about.

Nobody is "rejoicing" about needing an abortion, the same way nobody's "rejoicing" about needing heart surgery.

They're real glad that the procedure's available when and if they need it, however.

I reject your completely empty and meritless attempt to demonize abortion. It's precisely as "evil" as a lot of medical procedures are, as many medical procedures (all surgeries and injections, for instance) require an element of harm to the patient.

[Ghost of Cow]

It is, by definition.

The anti-abortion movement is, explicitly, an attack on women's rights. That makes it gendered, automatically.

Yeah, this issue shouldn't be gendered, but the moment we remove gender war from the situation, we're left with pro-choice and that's it.

So who are you "fighting" if it's a war of Men vs. Women, exactly? And do you stand with pro-life women on this issue purely because of gender? Of course not. It's a stupid way to approach the issue, the only thing that comes out of it people fighting about the wrong thing and the low hanging fruit of throwing labels around.

The reality is that it's not "Men vs Women", it specifically IS pro-life vs pro-choice. Bodily autonomy vs. religious or other irrelevant beliefs. Not gender vs. gender.

[Specialka]

Okay, you are just being outwardly wrong and misogynistic then, which you stand by as well.

- - - Updated - - -



Pro-life are anti-woman and misogynistic.

Nope, but you can have your opinion even if it is horseshit as you say.

[Specialka]

If the shoe fits, and in this case, it does.

I fail to see why I am being misogynistic while I am pro abortion ? That is why your opinion is horseshit.

[Endus]

So who are you "fighting" if it's a war of Men vs. Women, exactly?

The pro-choice movement is the one fighting against women's rights.

The rest of us are fighting to protect them.

Only one side is making this "men vs women". The rest of us are fighting for equity and equality.

And do you stand with pro-life women on this issue purely because of gender? Of course not.

I mean, you're just willfully misrepresenting the issue at this point. "Gender war" does not automatically translate to "men vs women".

[Endus]

Because you are calling it a necessary evil, and you stand by it. You are only "pro" abortion because you can at least submit to SOME accommodation for women's bodily autonomy. Abortion isn't, in any way, evil, as long as you believe that, the shoe fits.

And that's why I used the example of heart surgery.

If you just strapped a random guy down and cut into their chest to fiddle with their heart for funzies, that'd be violently evil and horrible, right?

Well, if your goal is to fix a health problem and you've got the training and expertise to do it as safely as possible, that's just "heart surgery". And nobody calls surgeries "necessary evils", because that's obviously asinine.

It doesn't matter if, in some other context, similar actions could be construed as "evil". What matters is this context, where it isn't evil, in any way whatsoever.