Jump to content

US Supreme Court strikes down Roe V. Wade


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

murder is not a right

free choice doesn't mean any choice you make should be a right that governments protect

this includes abortion

if you are arguing that murder cannot be judged as good or evil

simply because religions have a stance on subject

that is totally irrational

arguing that people having differing moral views on a subject

means that no view is more rational or moral than another is stupid 

and using that as justification for the view that government should not restrict murder is also stupid

"murder is not a right"

Neither is the dircect opposite: life is not a right independent of how we define it!

...Or do pigs, cows, and other animals we eat not require being 'murdered' for consumption? If humans killings are only what one can 'murder', how does the definition get defined? What defines 'murder' outside of government legislation mean? Is war not murder on a massive scale? How do you DEFINE murder outside of a convention of different people negotiating what it means?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

"murder is not a right"

Neither is the dircect opposite: life is not a right independent of how we define it!

...Or do pigs, cows, and other animals we eat not require being 'murdered' for consumption? If humans killings are only what one can 'murder', how does the definition get defined? What defines 'murder' outside of government legislation mean? Is war not murder on a massive scale? How do you DEFINE murder outside of a convention of different people negotiating what it means?

life is a right

cows, pigs and other animals don't have the same rights as humans

dehumanizing unborn children is a key tactic of the pro-abortion advocates to justify abortion

first you call into question the value of human life to justify abortion

then you call into question the value of the unborn child relative to other humans to justify abortion

it seems most who support abortion cannot justify it to themselves without first devaluing human life to do so

and you are clearly one of them

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

first you agree that abortion shouldn't be justified by freedom of choice argument

then after your anti-life eugenics argument gets shot down

your cognitive dissonance kicks in

you immediately retreat to the freedom of choice argument to justify both abortion and your anti-life eugenics argument

clearly indicating you have no good argument in favor of abortion whatsoever

and you built your justification on a house of cards

You added this after the above. 

"first you agree that abortion shouldn't be justified by freedom of choice argument"

No. I said that women cannot hypocritically argue for a unique right to their body without accepting other conflicting issues, such as how laws are also made to force the male who impregnated her to accept responsibility SHOULD the women uniquely decide to KEEP the child; I also added that where the child is born IN NEED, the same hypocrisy extends if society is expected to support their welfare. 

Your anti-abortion view also conflicts on the conservative side because your side also dislikes ANY supports for welfare in general, let alone the fact of your feigned compassion for the baby's. 

"then after your anti-life eugenics argument gets shot down"

This is your delusion, not mine. Eugenics was considered evil for taking away the choice of some to WANT to have children AND, more definitively, to foster an "improvement" (a value) of the human genetic strain. It was abusive because it presumed a sound interpretion of what is 'improved'. [I happen to have an old Eugenics book somewhere that was based specifically on religious explanations of appropriate 'virtue'.. It COMMANDED what is or is not 'good' genetic selection of one's progeny.] So I was NOT arguing Eugenics at all. You misinterpreted the argument for humanity as being WITHOUT intrinsic value BY NATURE as though they are unvaluable. This is like how one presumes an Atheist as one who 'denies God's existence' rather than being WITHOUT a posited belief in some magical but invisible beings. 

I argued that we have to also be concerned for imposing poverty (a living environemental, not genetic) condition. My preference for using laws regarding the prevention of overpopulation concerns is dependent upon the environment's capacity to sustain all life (already existing) unrealistically. "Birth controls" do not imply evaluating the worth of living beings specifically and do not require eugenic interests. For instance, a law requiring limiting ones' right to get pregnant before a negotiated age (usually 18 for most Western countries), is an example. It penalizes those who choose to have sex based upon something we ALL share,...aging, ....not their particular 'virtue' in some assumed standard of 'quality' of sexual selection, such as one's beauty, their mental functionality, or race. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:
38 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

"murder is not a right"

Neither is the dircect opposite: life is not a right independent of how we define it!

...Or do pigs, cows, and other animals we eat not require being 'murdered' for consumption? If humans killings are only what one can 'murder', how does the definition get defined? What defines 'murder' outside of government legislation mean? Is war not murder on a massive scale? How do you DEFINE murder outside of a convention of different people negotiating what it means?

Expand  

life is a right

cows, pigs and other animals don't have the same rights as humans

dehumanizing unborn children is a key tactic of the pro-abortion advocates to justify abortion

first you call into question the value of human life to justify abortion

then you call into question the value of the unborn child relative to other humans to justify abortion

it seems most who support abortion cannot justify it to themselves without first devaluing human life to do so

and you are clearly one of them

"life is a right"

It is only a 'right' to those who are predefined as living PERSONS themselves in law, not to the contested determination of whether an unborn potential life is a "person". Again, this decision of 'value' is still one among people to negotiate and not some 'right' that exists outside of the our artificial creation of it through the auspices of governments made up of humans. That is, there is nothing outside of our preference to call it 'right' to BE a right. The desire to assert what is 'right' independently also belongs to EACH AND EVERY lifeform. That is, to a cow, 'living is a 'right'" because it is most favorable to their OWN condition. So...

"cows, pigs and other animals don't have the same rights as humans"

Would these other animals agree with you? If it were natural for them to serve our 'right' to eat, is it not their 'right' not to be murdered too?

"dehumanizing unborn children is a key tactic of the pro-abortion advocates to justify abortion"

And humanizing unborn potential children as though they have some superior 'right' over their host's life is a key tactic of the anti-abortion advocates to dehumanize the woman's value as inferior by contrast. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

You added this after the above. 

"first you agree that abortion shouldn't be justified by freedom of choice argument"

No. I said that women cannot hypocritically argue for a unique right to their body without accepting other conflicting issues, such as how laws are also made to force the male who impregnated her to accept responsibility SHOULD the women uniquely decide to KEEP the child; I also added that where the child is born IN NEED, the same hypocrisy extends if society is expected to support their welfare. 

Your anti-abortion view also conflicts on the conservative side because your side also dislikes ANY supports for welfare in general, let alone the fact of your feigned compassion for the baby's. 

"then after your anti-life eugenics argument gets shot down"

This is your delusion, not mine. Eugenics was considered evil for taking away the choice of some to WANT to have children AND, more definitively, to foster an "improvement" (a value) of the human genetic strain. It was abusive because it presumed a sound interpretion of what is 'improved'. [I happen to have an old Eugenics book somewhere that was based specifically on religious explanations of appropriate 'virtue'.. It COMMANDED what is or is not 'good' genetic selection of one's progeny.] So I was NOT arguing Eugenics at all. You misinterpreted the argument for humanity as being WITHOUT intrinsic value BY NATURE as though they are unvaluable. This is like how one presumes an Atheist as one who 'denies God's existence' rather than being WITHOUT a posited belief in some magical but invisible beings. 

I argued that we have to also be concerned for imposing poverty (a living environemental, not genetic) condition. My preference for using laws regarding the prevention of overpopulation concerns is dependent upon the environment's capacity to sustain all life (already existing) unrealistically. "Birth controls" do not imply evaluating the worth of living beings specifically and do not require eugenic interests. For instance, a law requiring limiting ones' right to get pregnant before a negotiated age (usually 18 for most Western countries), is an example. It penalizes those who choose to have sex based upon something we ALL share,...aging, ....not their particular 'virtue' in some assumed standard of 'quality' of sexual selection, such as one's beauty, their mental functionality, or race. 

 

1) it's not her body

it's the unborn child's body

it is not my view that there should be no welfare

you pretending my views are hypocritical is not accurate

nor is your assumption that I am feigning compassion

2) human life had no intrinsic value is insane

but following that idiotic line of thinking

why should one care about poverty or the environment if humans have no value to the point that you condone murdering them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

"dehumanizing unborn children is a key tactic of the pro-abortion advocates to justify abortion"

And humanizing unborn potential children as though they have some superior 'right' over their host's life is a key tactic of the anti-abortion advocates to dehumanize the woman's value as inferior by contrast. 

 

when either the pro-abortion side prioritizes the mother's life above the unborn child

or the fake pro-life side prioritizes the unborn child's life above the mother

I criticize them for valuing one life over the other to the point of justifying the death of them for bad reasons

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

most of the pro-abortion crowd can't argue their position without

1) valuing one human life above another

and/or

2) valuing the choice to murder above the right to life

and/or

3) not valuing human life at all

all of which are terrible arguments

I addressed this in my last post but after you posted this. I showed that if you accuse the proabortion of dehumanizing the zygote, you are counter-dehumanizing the value of the woman to chose to abort. Thus, you are evaluating one human life above another as your (1) here. 

You have not defined 'murder' and need to read my above two posts to note my reference of defining this term BY govenerments, not Gods. 

I do not devalue life, I realistically interpret our human life as equivalent in value BY NATURE to every other part of nature. This includes anything by nature and would be equally applicable to non-living chemistry and physics. If WE evaluate ourselves as MORE worthy by nature, then we should respect ALL of Nature's existence as equally worthy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I addressed this in my last post but after you posted this. I showed that if you accuse the proabortion of dehumanizing the zygote, you are counter-dehumanizing the value of the woman to chose to abort. Thus, you are evaluating one human life above another as your (1) here. 

this is not true

I value both lives equally

there is no dehumanization involved in opposing the murder of a human

you are dehumanizing the unborn child by supporting it

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

this is not true

I value both lives equally

there is no dehumanization involved in opposing the murder of a human

you are dehumanizing the unborn child by supporting it

 I already agreed that I do not evaluate the life of a zygote or preborn POTENTIAL child as signficantly worthy in contrast to the living person. I do not believe that life before birth are persons in light of the inability to define whether they have a common sensation of things like pain (or pleasure) and that terminating them is not 'murder'. I compared this to other animals in which you need to address. Isn't eating eggs literally eating aborted chicks? At what point does the life being developed within the egg turns from being one that lacks sensation to one that does? If the animals we eat are invalid relative to us, are we not invalid in our treatment against them in kind? 

This is not a question of whether I prefer other animals over humans but whether they are not 'naturally' equal in their 'right' to live relative to themselves. And if so, Nature itself does not care whether we eat other animals or if other animals eat us. Nature does not specify life as 'superior' nor 'inferior'. 

As to whether an unborn entity is or is not worthy to justly YOUR 'right' to respect, if Nature favored your view, .....if God favored your view.... then the death of a validly worthy being would be saved regardless of what we could do. So why is it YOUR right to  impose limitations about others where the question still exists about whether it is signficantly valuable to Nature that is at question? If Nature apart from human intervention should be preferred, then NO form of civilization matters and should be 'aborted'. That is, if you think that our direct technological capacity to abort seems 'unnatural' to you, then why are you accepting the benefits of any technology. [This assumes you may be dubious of the act in the way one might feel if they had to choose to kill one man to save many. The positive act psychologically affects your perception to chose to kill another even if the nature of it is just.]

You dehumanize the grown human person opting to abort over the mere potential life of a baby because you prioritize a belief that the potential child's life is paramount over the actual certain life of the woman as a host to it. 

Note too that while my own belief about life is more nihilistic, this is NOT the case for the vast majority of those believing in a right to abortion. Most do not believe, for instance, in abortion close to birth (within the last trimester).  The degree of life for most is based upon structure of the lifeform (its 'stage' of development) with the added assumption of sufferring as pre-existing. My stonger position would even place question upon babies born as having a capcity to suffer (or find pleasure) but require LEARNING to feel as they develop past birth. So it is unlikely that the unborn baby would even 'care' whether it exists or not. It is ONLY a  religioius belief to assume so. 

I DO favor at least a need to defend life post birth regardless. But the likely reason we lack memory of these times with more force than we do later is because our early memory is 'anethetized'. A baby has unnecessary networked links in the brain that would probably be as potentially halucinogenic and uncomfortable to us if we were to experience it consciously as adults. A similar factor of nature that hunters should know is that when an animal is killed, if it isn't killed quickly, its meat tastes 'wild' due to reactionary chemistry that pain amplifies where it suffers longer. This points to the anesthetizing capacity of living things to evolve mechanisms that reduce the suffering more siginficantly to the younger creatures that tend to become victims of another predator. 

It is unlikely then that an unborn baby 'feels' suffering under the operation of abortion. As to anything that you may otherwise BELIEVE about souls being implanted by God into the zygote, there is no real suffering that remotely compares to the nature of death we ALL eventually succumb to at some point in our lives regardless. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

valuing both lives doesn't mean valuing the mother less

some humans can't feel pain, that doesn't make murdering them moral

and it doesn't make murdering some unborn children moral either

having a way to painlessly murder someone doesn't make it moral either

drawing the killing is moral line at feeling pain makes no sense

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2022 at 7:09 AM, Infidel Dog said:

....the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is right in the American constitution. Now it's true they connected that to a regulated militia but the best evidence of what they meant by it is the fact the people had the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves for the rest of that century and yadda yadda yadda.. 

Yes but the real crux of this bisquit is that most US gun nuttiness is founded upon the belief that people need weapons so they can protect themselves from governments that turn rogue or against the people or even worse...into commies...

Which only begs the question, what exactly are patriots waiting for? Weren't there already enough boogy-men under our beds decades ago?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2022 at 8:37 PM, eyeball said:

Yes but the real crux of this bisquit is that most US gun nuttiness is founded upon the belief that people need weapons so they can protect themselves from governments that turn rogue or against the people or even worse...into commies...

It's pretty hard for the American gov't to treat their citizens like the Chinese gov't treats theirs, because the citizens of Dallas have something that the citizens of Shanghai don't. 

To you that's nuttiness, to Americans it's freedom and self-determination. To each their own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republican tears up after teen nearly loses her uterus because of anti-abortion law he voted for

"That weighs on me," South Carolina state Rep. Neal Collins said, "I voted for that bill"
 

Collins revealed that he had sleepless nights after learning that doctors refused to extract the fetus from a 19-year-old woman whose water broke at 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Doctors told Collins there was a "greater than 50% chance that she's going to lose her uterus."

He said there was also a 10% chance that the woman could die of sepsis.

"That weighs on me," Collins remarked. "I voted for that bill. These are affecting people and we're having a meeting about this. That whole week I did not sleep."
 

https://www.salon.com/2022/08/17/tears-up-after-teen-nearly-loses-her-uterus-because-of-anti-abortion-law-he-voted-for_partner/
 

Louisiana woman forced to carry fetus missing skull to term or travel to Florida for abortion

 

A woman in Louisiana said that she has been told that she must carry a fetuswithout a skull and part of its head to term or travel out of state to recieve an abortion.…

If Ms Davis does want to get an abortion, she will have to travel out of state to Florida. But time is running out for her to make a decision: Florida has banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, giving Ms Davis a small window to schedule an appointment and arrange her travel should she decide to get the procedure.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/louisiana-woman-headless-fetus-abortion-florida-b2146452.html?amp


 

Because of Texas abortion law, her wanted pregnancy became a medical nightmare

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/26/1111280165/because-of-texas-abortion-law-her-wanted-pregnancy-became-a-medical-nightmare
 

 

The headlines coming in daily from Gilead aka Red State America are chilling  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 1:12 PM, Infidel Dog said:

Why aren't these guys who hate guns so much squawking about the arming of the 87,000 new IRS agents ordered in that new Biden Regime bill they're all so proud of.

Fake news, you’ve been double suckered yet again 

First IRS “agents” are auditors and accountants, they’re not armed, although that’s been a popular Republican lie since Obama took office 

 

Second there’s no “army” of 87,000 new IRS “agents”. That’s just the most recent Republican lie  based on a year-old memo about how many total staff (including call centre reps, IT employees, etc) the IRS would need to hire over the next 10 years due to forecasted retirements and new compliance measures   

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/08/15/kevin-mccarthys-mostly-false-claim-about-an-army-of-87000-irs-agents/65401671007/
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Republican tears up after teen nearly loses her uterus because of anti-abortion law he voted for

"That weighs on me," South Carolina state Rep. Neal Collins said, "I voted for that bill"
 

Collins revealed that he had sleepless nights after learning that doctors refused to extract the fetus from a 19-year-old woman whose water broke at 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Doctors told Collins there was a "greater than 50% chance that she's going to lose her uterus."

He said there was also a 10% chance that the woman could die of sepsis.

"That weighs on me," Collins remarked. "I voted for that bill. These are affecting people and we're having a meeting about this. That whole week I did not sleep."
 

https://www.salon.com/2022/08/17/tears-up-after-teen-nearly-loses-her-uterus-because-of-anti-abortion-law-he-voted-for_partner/
 

Louisiana woman forced to carry fetus missing skull to term or travel to Florida for abortion

 

A woman in Louisiana said that she has been told that she must carry a fetuswithout a skull and part of its head to term or travel out of state to recieve an abortion.…

If Ms Davis does want to get an abortion, she will have to travel out of state to Florida. But time is running out for her to make a decision: Florida has banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, giving Ms Davis a small window to schedule an appointment and arrange her travel should she decide to get the procedure.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/louisiana-woman-headless-fetus-abortion-florida-b2146452.html?amp


 

Because of Texas abortion law, her wanted pregnancy became a medical nightmare

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/26/1111280165/because-of-texas-abortion-law-her-wanted-pregnancy-became-a-medical-nightmare
 

 

The headlines coming in daily from Gilead aka Red State America are chilling  

 

none of the laws ban these kind of abortions

doctors fearful of legal repercussions simply don't know the law

fake news city

all of these chilling tales are simply ignorant people being scared of laws that don't exist

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republican men are getting blindsided by their own ignorance in the wake of Roe’s reversal (msn.com)

Quote

 

Republican South Carolina state Rep. Neal Collins broke down in a hearing telling the story of a 19-year-old woman whose water broke at 15 weeks when the fetus wasn't viable. The so-called "heartbeat bill" that Collins voted to support, meant that the teen had to be sent home for the fetus to die inside her. The doctor told him there was a 50 percent chance the teen could lose her uterus and never be able to have children. There was a 10 percent chance she could die.

He made it clear he never realized the impact the law could have on the life and health of women.

 

 

7 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

fake news city

The story was discussed in the hearing that this State Rep was at.  If you click on the link, you can see the actual video.

So, it is not "fake news".

Why are you lying about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Republican men are getting blindsided by their own ignorance in the wake of Roe’s reversal (msn.com)

 

The story was discussed in the hearing that this State Rep was at.  If you click on the link, you can see the actual video.

So, it is not "fake news".

Why are you lying about this?

it's fake news because what happened has nothing to do with the law

and everything to do with a doctor being scared of an imaginary law in their head

so the state rep is either misinformed or knows what happened but is caving to pro-abortion propaganda

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

it's fake news because what happened has nothing to do with the law

and everything to do with a doctor being scared of an imaginary law in their head

so the state rep is either misinformed or knows what happened but is caving to pro-abortion propaganda

I guess you didn't watch the video testimony from that State Rep because he clearly states that the fetal heartbeat bill specifically says, if there is a heartbeat detected after 6 weeks - NO ABORTION.  He also states that attorneys advised the attending physician of what the law stated and thus, nothing could be done and thus, the girl was sent home with a 50% chance of losing her uterus and a 10% chance of dying.

Again, why are you lying about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I guess you didn't watch the video testimony from that State Rep because he clearly states that the fetal heartbeat bill specifically says, if there is a heartbeat detected after 6 weeks - NO ABORTION.  He also states that attorneys advised the attending physician of what the law stated and thus, nothing could be done and thus, the girl was sent home with a 50% chance of losing her uterus and a 10% chance of dying.

Again, why are you lying about this?

they are lying about this

and you buy the lie

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...