SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Varx]

Funny how you stop caring about consent the moment the woman's pregnant. Then, her consent literally does not matter to you.

That's the whole issue, here.

Because consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.

You an adult, you know what the gamble is?

You go out gambling you know exactly what you're signing up for

[Pannonian]

What?????

You seriously comparing a tumor to a baby???

Several people did this, and after 4 pages you can stop with this pearl clutching posts. We are still waiting for a single point of yours that's not based on your religious beliefs.

[Endus]

Because consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.

This is both categorically false and such a galling example of brutal misogyny that it says everything anyone needs to know about the origin of your views.

Straight up Handmaid's Tale bullshit.

[Pannonian]

Because consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.

You an adult, you know what the gamble is?

You go out gambling you know exactly what you're signing up for

No, this is not how that works. Consent to sex is consent to sex, up to the point where consent is withdrawn (and if its in the middle of the action). There is no implicated pregnancy consent. Again, this is you projecting your religion on society.

[Varx]

Well, @Endus put it much more eloquently than i ever could, but glad you finally showing your true colors. So just to get it straight. Because you describe some immaterial features based on your personal beliefs to a lump of cells, you're fine with taking away rights from half the human population. Glad we could clear that up.

Pro-tip: Contraception can fail, and abortions happen because of medical necessity, but that would make the colorful and easy to understand world of yours to complicated. Am i right?

I already said that inviable pregnancy are okay to terminate.

But yeah half the population doesn't have the right to murder. That's as simple as it is. No one is forcing that half to conceive and if you can't afford failed contraceptives then don't have sex, period.

[tehdang]

You'd be surprised how many pro choicers make similar insane comparisons.

Congrats you've taken a small, yet significant step into pro life. We meet every Wednesday and bring empanadas

And to think I’ve been missing the empanadas this whole time.

The radical comparisons like cancer or organ donation just affect the political winds pushing on people without firm convictions. Its a weakness in popular argument, but it doesn’t invalidate all the others. Allowances for the failure of birth control, allowances for youth, allowances for the father abandoning responsibility, allowances for very early stage abortions after a mistake. Those all involve compromises. Those are still around even as the pro choice side becomes more shrill and dogmatic. Especially on the internet.

[Edge-]

What?????

You seriously comparing a tumor to a baby???

I'm asking for a clear definition of "life" that doesn't involve metaphysical explanations like a "soul". Which you have yet to elucidate.

We're all waiting, though.

[Endus]

No, this is not how that works. Consent to sex is consent to sex, up to the point where consent is withdrawn (and if its in the middle of the action). There is no implicated pregnancy consent. Again, this is you projecting your religion on society.

This is the key bit he's willfully ignoring; consent is an active process. It can, at any moment, be withdrawn. Abortion is the withdrawal of consent to remain pregnant, essentially.

Saying you can't withdraw consent is the kind of shit rapists try and argue; "she said she wanted it, she doesn't get to tell me "no" once I've got my pants off!" Literally that same misogyny.

[Pannonian]

This is both categorically false and such a galling example of brutal misogyny that it says everything anyone needs to know about the origin of your views.

Straight up Handmaid's Tale bullshit.

I think that became clear when he claimed he is fine with striping woman of their human rights because of some nebulous "respect for life".

[Varx]

No, this is not how that works. Consent to sex is consent to sex, up to the point where consent is withdrawn (and if its in the middle of the action). There is no implicated pregnancy consent. Again, this is you projecting your religion on society.

Nope because I ain't religious. Believe it or not.

And that's where our opinions differ. Sex is not JUST some recreational activities. The scientific fact, not religious, is that sex creates life.

Now whether or not you have the morals to respect and value that life is up to you. Which clearly you don't.

[Draco-Onis]

And to think I’ve been missing the empanadas this whole time.

The radical comparisons like cancer or organ donation just affect the political winds pushing on people without firm convictions.

Or maybe because the people who wrote the laws made them so broad that that it affects cancer, organ donations and medical treatments that involve birth control. But we cannot expect you to actually read the shit you are supporting.

[Endus]

I'm asking for a clear definition of "life" that doesn't involve metaphysical explanations like a "soul". Which you have yet to elucidate.

We're all waiting, though.

I'm particularly interested in the attempt to define "life" in a way that includes a fertilized zygote but not the gametes pre-fertilization.

[Draco-Onis]

is that sex creates life.

Gay people don't exist in your universe? or is gay sex not sex?

[Varx]

I'm asking for a clear definition of "life" that doesn't involve metaphysical explanations like a "soul". Which you have yet to elucidate.

We're all waiting, though.

The life of a single living organism.

I mean you know exactly what I mean. Why bother asking questions like that. This isnt a "got you moment" at all and you know it

- - - Updated - - -

Gay people don't exist in your universe? or is gay sex not sex?

Gay people can't adopt if you kill all the unwanted babies.

[Mekh]

Gay people can't adopt if you kill all the unwanted babies.

Gay people can have sex without getting pregnant, so sex does not automatically lead to pregnancy. Maybe your Hispanic mother didn't have the time to tell you or didn't know if she had 8 kids.

[Edge-]

The life of a single living organism.

Good lord, every ejaculation (including wet dreams) is a holocaust. Girls and women who menstruate are committing murder each and every month. You ripped off some skin falling down? Tens of millions of deaths are on your hands.

That tumor on your brain? Can't remove that, either. That's a living organism.

And probably also shouldn't do much about that bacterial infection you got, bacteria is alive so we wouldn't want to commit mass-murder.

I mean you know exactly what I mean. Why bother asking questions like that. This isnt a "got you moment" at all and you know it

Because I honestly don't know your position as it's a jumbled mess of appeals to the metaphysical, claims to not being arguing from the metaphysical, and generally you being painfully vague and non-specific with comments/arguments.

[Pannonian]

And to think I’ve been missing the empanadas this whole time.

The radical comparisons like cancer or organ donation just affect the political winds pushing on people without firm convictions. Its a weakness in popular argument, but it doesn’t invalidate all the others. Allowances for the failure of birth control, allowances for youth, allowances for the father abandoning responsibility, allowances for very early stage abortions after a mistake. Those all involve compromises. Those are still around even as the pro choice side becomes more shrill and dogmatic. Especially on the internet.

You know what's funny? The whining about the civilized discourse. I'm all for compromise, because at the end of the day we as a society have to work. I think we in europe have found a compromise that makes life work for nearly everyone.

Still, i'm getting annoyed. Could we have had this discussion like that? Maybe. But that guy jumped into the thread whining about librul profs. See, if you set the tone in that way, then i have no qualms about using crude and graphic arguments.

Want to argue about your scientific prowess, well use scientific argument.

But if you jump into the thread, insult people, then whine about civility - not gonna happen mate.

(Not talking about you, but the guy you quoted. Just wanted to make sure you understand that he was shown the same civility he opened with. If he wants to have a more friendly conversation, he could have opened with that and not by insulting everyone. No need to paint it as one side only has shrill arguments.)

[Draco-Onis]

Gay people can't adopt if you kill all the unwanted babies.

You said the only purpose of sex is to have babies so I am asking you does gay sex not count?

[Endus]

And that's where our opinions differ. Sex is not JUST some recreational activities. The scientific fact, not religious, is that sex creates life.

Right there, in bold. That's anti-scientific faith-based garbage.

The creation of life, scientifically, is "abiogenesis". As near as we can tell, the last time abiogenesis occurred was some 3.8 billionish years ago. That's when life was first formed. Hell, even the use of "created" is scientifically problematic, as it implies a "creator", and you'd be hard-pressed to find any actual paleobiologists who's regularly use that term.

Since that origin point, life has replicated, and mutated, and evolved, but it's a continuous replicatory stream, with no new "life" being "created". Just life continuing to replicate. When a single-celled organism splits in two, there was never any un-life that became alive. And the same is true of mammalian reproduction today, including human reproduction; there is no spark of life that is "created" at any point. It's a torch that's consistently passed on, never going out; the fire was lit billions of years ago.

The idea that life is "created" in fertilization is fundamentally and irrevocably religious, and contradicts scientific understanding. This is why nobody takes your bullshit seriously.

[Varx]

This is both categorically false and such a galling example of brutal misogyny that it says everything anyone needs to know about the origin of your views.

Straight up Handmaid's Tale bullshit.

Lmao

Handmaid's is just unrealistic liberal nightmare BS. No one is gonna rape you to make a baby to help the population lol chill out man

- - - Updated - - -

You said the only purpose of sex is to have babies so I am asking you does gay sex not count?

I never said that....

Sex is fun. I'm not saying not to have sex. I'm saying be prepared for the possible consequences

- - - Updated - - -

Right there, in bold. That's anti-scientific faith-based garbage.

The creation of life, scientifically, is "abiogenesis". As near as we can tell, the last time abiogenesis occurred was some 3.8 billionish years ago. That's when life was first formed. Hell, even the use of "created" is scientifically problematic, as it implies a "creator", and you'd be hard-pressed to find any actual paleobiologists who's regularly use that term.

Since that origin point, life has replicated, and mutated, and evolved, but it's a continuous replicatory stream, with no new "life" being "created". Just life continuing to replicate. When a single-celled organism splits in two, there was never any un-life that became alive. And the same is true of mammalian reproduction today, including human reproduction; there is no spark of life that is "created" at any point. It's a torch that's consistently passed on, never going out; the fire was lit billions of years ago.

The idea that life is "created" in fertilization is fundamentally and irrevocably religious, and contradicts scientific understanding. This is why nobody takes your bullshit seriously.

Because it is?

Until someone can show me that a fetus will turn into a PS5 after conception then I'll shut up. Untill then it's just a part of HUMAN development.