Jump to content

US Supreme Court strikes down Roe V. Wade


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

What of the rights of the mother? 

what right?

the "right" to kill a child to preserve feelings

is somehow more important than the right to life?

not in my books

still I disagree if a state government were to ban it

but if they do, I certainly see their point

life > feelings

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

what right?

the right to kill a child to preserve feelings

is somehow more important than the right to life?

not in my books

still I wouldn't want the government to ban it

but if they do, I certainly see their point

life > feelings

Again, you're making the value judgement that a fetus is a child. 

What of an Embryo? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Boges said:

Again, you're making the value judgement that a fetus is a child. 

What of an Embryo? 

life begins at conception

devaluing human life is thee worst way to attempt to justify abortion

that is just evil

just because it isn't born doesn't mean it isn't a human or not alive

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dialamah said:

Men don't have to carry the daily reminder of their rape for nine months, so many of them aren't going to get it.

many women do and don't agree with you and agree with me

so evidently my ability to reason and tell right from wrong isn't compromised by my inability to carry a child

and your sexist men should have no say argument is abhorrent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Boges said:

The point I'm making is there is no way to debate abortion without applying your own morality to it. And there's no consensus on where life begins.

So allowing states to dictate these things puts a moral judgement on it. 

you say that like it's a bad thing

pretending it isn't a moral issue is asinine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

abortion isn't contraception

contraception prevents conception

So another value judgement. Is preventing implantation murder? 

Some "contraception" allows the embryo to form but prevents implantation into the placental wall. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

if people want to behave irresponsibly

there will be negative consequences as a result

has nothing to do with me

Wait I heard that line before... but of course, vaccine mandates! Hurray, we are all onboard now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

calling that contraception is a misnomer

better alternatives that don't terminate human life exist

So you'll quibble that an IUD, Plan B, or the Birth Control Pill are actually Contraception. 

Then we would need to address IVF, where embryos are fertilized in a lab in hopes that they can be separately implanted because natural fertilization has proved difficult for the parents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

which is why the federal government shouldn't force their moral position on the states and they should decide for themselves

It's precisely why they should.

The Feds aren't advocating for Abortion either. They're stating that it should be the mother's decision. Which is why the right to privacy was invoked in Roe v Wade. 

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

The opinion on when an embryo/fetus become a "child" vary significantly. 

Not only when, also what has varied significantly, over times. So my opinion can be a valid ground for terminating someone's basic human right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, myata said:

Not only when, also what has varied significantly, over times. So my opinion can be a valid ground for terminating someone's basic human right?

It also could be valid ground for forcing a woman to give birth to an unwanted by banning them from terminating it at any point. Including fertilization. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boges said:

It also could be valid ground for forcing a woman to give birth to an unwanted by banning them from terminating it at any point. Including fertilization. 

OK. Only why are we watching Supreme Court spectacle in this 21st century for that? Five thousand years back they didn't need that. A word of the Supreme Priest would do. Or is it the progress?

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
      10,721
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    paradox34
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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