Jump to content

US Supreme Court strikes down Roe V. Wade


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

1) Some are, some aren’t and some do and some don’t. You’re making overly broad generalizations with no evidence to back up your claims (as usual). And allowing some people to have a choice isn’t “forcing” anything on people who don’t want that choice.  As a fascist you don’t understand that, I know. You fascists believe that if you can’t impose your will on others, your rights are being infringed.
 

Let me dumb it down for you:  Personally I hate pineapple on pizza but allowing YOU to have it if you wish doesn’t “force” anything on me.  Get it? 
 

2) “Frivolous abortions” lmao you kill me.   In woman-hating mind, anything after fertilization is “frivolous” unless you’ve been raped in the last 10 weeks ONLY….so at 11 weeks that 10-yr old rape victim is a “frivolous” slut. And abortions are allowed if a panel of anti-abortionist appointees agree you’re about to die in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy…But if any of those fetal health tests that can’t even be conducted before 20 weeks say its a fatal pregnancy and you get your results at 20 weeks plus a day, you’re a “frivolous” c-nt for wanting to live.
 

But yeah keep claiming they didn’t “almost entirely ban” anything. LMAO your arguments are pathetic. 

1) I am all for choice, but I am not for murder

choice does not supercede human life

I am far more libertarian than you, don't preach to me about freedom as if I need a lesson on it from you

2) I'm fine with abortions that save the life of the mother

if you need more than rape and incest exceptions after that

that's just frivolous when you're terminating the life of a human being

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Equal rights would mean a fetus couldn’t use the body of another to sustain its life without consent.  

equal rights would mean you can't murder someone for being dependent on another

killing in self defense is fine

murder because of needing another body to survive is not

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

equal rights would mean you can't murder someone for being dependent on another

killing in self defense is fine

murder because of needing another body to survive is not

If someone is taking your bodily fluids without your consent, could you kill them to defend yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

If someone is taking your bodily fluids without your consent, could you kill them to defend yourself?

I'm likely missing enough context given I haven't read enough of this thread but are we talking about questioning whether someone being forced to give a blow job should not murder their rapist? ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I'm likely missing enough context given I haven't read enough of this thread but are we talking about questioning whether someone being forced to give a blow job should not murder their rapist? ?

obviously not

pregnancy is not rape

equivocating the two is not only stupid but reprehensible

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:
9 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I'm likely missing enough context given I haven't read enough of this thread but are we talking about questioning whether someone being forced to give a blow job should not murder their rapist? ?

obviously not

pregnancy is not rape

equivocating the two is not only stupid but reprehensible

Like I said,..."I'm likely missing enough context...." and was just making fun of the latest post I just begun reading on this thread.

I'm all for a right to abortion but disagree with the argument defending merely a woman's right to freely decide what she wants. I think that we need means to prevent undesired children and believe that children are NOT merely proprietary rights of parents to independentaly have power over. The complaint about women's right to her body ignores the same side's arguments regarding making the 'father' be held liable for later child supports,.....not to mention for the burden on society where both parent's power to conceive independently impose supports by the people  as a whole for those who cannot afford to raise them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Like I said,..."I'm likely missing enough context...." and was just making fun of the latest post I just begun reading on this thread.

I'm all for a right to abortion but disagree with the argument defending merely a woman's right to freely decide what she wants. I think that we need means to prevent undesired children and believe that children are NOT merely proprietary rights of parents to independentaly have power over. The complaint about women's right to her body ignores the same side's arguments regarding making the 'father' be held liable for later child supports,.....not to mention for the burden on society where both parent's power to conceive independently impose supports by the people  as a whole for those who cannot afford to raise them. 

my point is that there are three lives involved in a pregnancy

the mother, the father and the unborn child

many pro-abortion activists on this board want to pretend like the only life that matters in the decision is the mother

to justify killing the child

and pretend like that is the equal rights position

instead of extra rights for the mother and no rights for the child

 

if one is going to support abortion

at least be honest and admit it's murder

unless the life or health of the mother is at stake

dehumanizing the unborn doesn't make abortion ethical

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

my point is that there are three lives involved in a pregnancy

the mother, the father and the unborn child

many pro-abortion activists on this board want to pretend like the only life that matters in the decision is the mother

to justify killing the child

and pretend like that is the equal rights position

instead of extra rights for the mother and no rights for the child

And I would only agree to the fact that the mother's 'freedom' is not the signficant argument they should be making. However, the opposing conservative side's signficant arguers come from religiously biased people are also NOT concerned for the child but for their social dimishing power of influence OR, for the strict capitalists on top, they only want MORE children BY especially the poor because it increases demand for jobs and empowers employers to pay their workers less. 

We need populuation controls to reduce the burden on Earth itself given we are indistinguishable from bacteria or viruses in our evolved drive for derining value by self interests alone.

So I'm FOR abortion but agree that the women's 'right to their body' is not appropriate to argue without looking at the hypocrisy of the power that women always have had. [Like how women alone through time have always had the sole power to decide WHO they mate with beyond rape itself, for instance.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

And I would only agree to the fact that the mother's 'freedom' is not the signficant argument they should be making. However, the opposing conservative side's signficant arguers come from religiously biased people are also NOT concerned for the child but for their social dimishing power of influence OR, for the strict capitalists on top, they only want MORE children BY especially the poor because it increases demand for jobs and empowers employers to pay their workers less. 

We need populuation controls to reduce the burden on Earth itself given we are indistinguishable from bacteria or viruses in our evolved drive for derining value by self interests alone.

So I'm FOR abortion but agree that the women's 'right to their body' is not appropriate to argue without looking at the hypocrisy of the power that women always have had. [Like how women alone through time have always had the sole power to decide WHO they mate with beyond rape itself, for instance.]

you create a false dichotomy

there is an authentic pro-life position that opposes abortion

supporting abortion from a eugenics position, a humans are a virus anti-life position,

is even dumber than supporting it from a freedom of choice position

that's going backwards to Margaret Sanger and Thomas Malthus

it was an evil argument then, it is an evil argument now

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Men don’t have power to decide with whom they mate?

Men do not have the power where it just happens to coincide with her own desires. But women ALONE have the VETO-power outside of rape or other similar violations which has empowered them to SELECT the very kind of males that evolve to be the more physically dominant. The point in this argument for me is that it is moot to argue that women's sole 'right' to decide is at issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you create a false dichotomy

there is an authentic pro-life position that opposes abortion

supporting abortion from a eugenics position, a humans are a virus anti-life position,

is even dumber than supporting it from a freedom of choice position

that's going backwards to Margaret Sanger and Thomas Malthus

it was an evil argument then, it is an evil argument now

A dichotomy is usually referring to polar opposition by contradiction. Just because I opted to reference two examples does not make them 'dichotomies'. ANY belief regarding virtue of life of early dependent development is 'religious' because it treats them as though they suffer such extreme loss that needs attention.

Also belief in the virtue of life should not be hypociritcally accepted for humans when it is not accepted for those living things we eat. To believe WE are somehow 'special' to Nature with values of 'good' and 'evil' are themselves RELIGIOUS period.  

I expressed humans as indifferent to viruses and bacteria given we tend to not care about whether we can control our tendency to overpopulate regardless of any reflection upon the environment. Note too that viruses are not necessarily living things in contrast to bacteria. Their nature is similar to a mere chainletter that just uses any resources it encounters to replicate itself. And yet this is the foundational basis for life. So the comparison is about our DEFAULT tendency to copy (have babies) without rational insight. Religion is just a posthoc reflection of ourselves as 'superior' using a pretense of some Nature shared by ALL living things as though all other life is there to serve us. 

So stop being hypocritical to argue for some 'value' of life that you have no actual PROOF exists beyond your artificial religious preferences. As to non-religious justifications such as how overpopulation favors the capitialist greed in the same sense that viruses don't limit their own numbers, this too is 'religious' if you think that it is a 'right' to profit over others misfortunes. 

To add to the two that you mistaken for a 'dichotomy', there is a serious hypocrisy on those like yourself who may believe that you should have 'freedoms' independently to capitalize upon others' weaknesses selfishly, with sole power to rule over your own families as you wish, that contrasts hypocritically when you demand SPECIAL privileges to even CARE about whether someone else with unique indepence should choose abortion or not. Your 'side' also favors hunting and 'culling' through war without blinking which proves contradictory (and thus a 'dichotomy' on your side's part) to value of life. Do only helpless dumb but cute living dependent babies have more 'value' EARNED in life with better virue than aged living adults who have? Why is it okay to favor the CERTAINLY understood 'living' beings as being worthy of suffering but not those NON-CERTAIN unborn beings that only have the same kind of emotional compassion we have in favoring puppies or kittens to adopt over those are fully grown?

You are either religious in some way or in favor of the potential advantages that overpopulations represent to your own interests regardless of the literal compassion of the unborn. These are 'contrasts' most representive of the conservative politics involved. They lead to dichotomies in rationale given the contradictions of other beliefs you hold that are hypocritical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

A dichotomy is usually referring to polar opposition by contradiction. Just because I opted to reference two examples does not make them 'dichotomies'. ANY belief regarding virtue of life of early dependent development is 'religious' because it treats them as though they suffer such extreme loss that needs attention.

Also belief in the virtue of life should not be hypociritcally accepted for humans when it is not accepted for those living things we eat. To believe WE are somehow 'special' to Nature with values of 'good' and 'evil' are themselves RELIGIOUS period.  

I expressed humans as indifferent to viruses and bacteria given we tend to not care about whether we can control our tendency to overpopulate regardless of any reflection upon the environment. Note too that viruses are not necessarily living things in contrast to bacteria. Their nature is similar to a mere chainletter that just uses any resources it encounters to replicate itself. And yet this is the foundational basis for life. So the comparison is about our DEFAULT tendency to copy (have babies) without rational insight. Religion is just a posthoc reflection of ourselves as 'superior' using a pretense of some Nature shared by ALL living things as though all other life is there to serve us. 

So stop being hypocritical to argue for some 'value' of life that you have no actual PROOF exists beyond your artificial religious preferences. As to non-religious justifications such as how overpopulation favors the capitialist greed in the same sense that viruses don't limit their own numbers, this too is 'religious' if you think that it is a 'right' to profit over others misfortunes. 

To add to the two that you mistaken for a 'dichotomy', there is a serious hypocrisy on those like yourself who may believe that you should have 'freedoms' independently to capitalize upon others' weaknesses selfishly, with sole power to rule over your own families as you wish, that contrasts hypocritically when you demand SPECIAL privileges to even CARE about whether someone else with unique indepence should choose abortion or not. Your 'side' also favors hunting and 'culling' through war without blinking which proves contradictory (and thus a 'dichotomy' on your side's part) to value of life. Do only helpless dumb but cute living dependent babies have more 'value' EARNED in life with better virue than aged living adults who have? Why is it okay to favor the CERTAINLY understood 'living' beings as being worthy of suffering but not those NON-CERTAIN unborn beings that only have the same kind of emotional compassion we have in favoring puppies or kittens to adopt over those are fully grown?

You are either religious in some way or in favor of the potential advantages that overpopulations represent to your own interests regardless of the literal compassion of the unborn. These are 'contrasts' most representive of the conservative politics involved. They lead to dichotomies in rationale given the contradictions of other beliefs you hold that are hypocritical.

ideas being religious doesn't make them wrong

you don't just get to label an idea as religious to dismiss it

again you are creating dichotomy between rationality and religion

and creating a moral relativism where human life is no more valuable than any other form of life is asinine

you speak of rationality, yet present none

if you really value rationality as much as you claim, then you would value human life above other life on this planet

because humans are the most rational life forms on the planet

you strawman ideas of those you disagree with

to justify your idiotic positions as being the only alternative to the strawman

because your ideas don't stand on their own merit and only look good when compared to deliberate misrepresentation of the actual alternatives

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

ideas being religious doesn't make them wrong

you don't just get to label an idea as religious to dismiss it

again you are creating dichotomy between rationality and religion

and creating a moral relativism where human life is no more valuable than any other form of life is asinine

you speak of rationality, yet present none

if you really value rationality as much as you claim, then you would value human life above other life on this planet

because humans are the most rational life forms on the planet

you strawman ideas of those you disagree with

to justify your idiotic positions as being the only alternative to the strawman

because your ideas don't stand on their own merit and only look good when compared to deliberate misrepresentation of the actual alternatives

See, you interpret government as being a place to EXPRESS your own personal preferences about things beyond the capacity of living people to know, such as your personal religion. You also interpret FROM your religion (whichever one of many exists) and this biases your interpretation that government laws that express 'value' however 'good' are DUE TO your religion. 

I interpret government as BEING the contemporary and tentative beliefs about functionality among us as HUMANS who DEFINE our collective idea of 'value' through the laws we make. That is, there is nothing valid about expecting govnerment to accept particular religious views but rather that our governments serve to make laws that participating members negotiate and agree to by some means regardless of religious views to serve. 

As such, govnerment should not be a system to serve YOUR particular beliefs that are contentious in their ability to be provable nor disprovable. So a religious argument regarding whether women should or should not have abortion is 'religious' if you think that you have some wisdom of God (or 'goodness' in general) to know which is right or wrong for all. 

I also mentioned capitalist self-interests to which you think is some 'opposing' anti-religious position. [The defintion of 'dichotomy' requires accepting OPPOSING positions, not shared ones.] The capitalist (which can and often DO include the religious), would be interested in population growth as an advantage. This is a contrasting interest beyond just the religious alternative for why one on the conservative right would still be interested in preventing birth controls. I was covering the grounds for those non-religious  who MAY still agree to a ban on abortion. The example of how more people implies more supply over demand then suffices to explain anyone's general beliefs against abortion. That though would be for long-term interests and so the religious view is the most predominant problem here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

See, you interpret government as being a place to EXPRESS your own personal preferences about things beyond the capacity of living people to know, such as your personal religion. You also interpret FROM your religion (whichever one of many exists) and this biases your interpretation that government laws that express 'value' however 'good' are DUE TO your religion. 

I interpret government as BEING the contemporary and tentative beliefs about functionality among us as HUMANS who DEFINE our collective idea of 'value' through the laws we make. That is, there is nothing valid about expecting govnerment to accept particular religious views but rather that our governments serve to make laws that participating members negotiate and agree to by some means regardless of religious views to serve. 

As such, govnerment should not be a system to serve YOUR particular beliefs that are contentious in their ability to be provable nor disprovable. So a religious argument regarding whether women should or should not have abortion is 'religious' if you think that you have some wisdom of God (or 'goodness' in general) to know which is right or wrong for all. 

I also mentioned capitalist self-interests to which you think is some 'opposing' anti-religious position. [The defintion of 'dichotomy' requires accepting OPPOSING positions, not shared ones.] The capitalist (which can and often DO include the religious), would be interested in population growth as an advantage. This is a contrasting interest beyond just the religious alternative for why one on the conservative right would still be interested in preventing birth controls. I was covering the grounds for those non-religious  who MAY still agree to a ban on abortion. The example of how more people implies more supply over demand then suffices to explain anyone's general beliefs against abortion. That though would be for long-term interests and so the religious view is the most predominant problem here.

you sure use a whole lot of words to say nothing of relevance

do you have a point somewhere in all that gobbledygook?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you sure use a whole lot of words to say nothing of relevance

do you have a point somewhere in all that gobbledygook?

So given I gave you more than enough proof of your position being unsound you opt to dismiss it as too complex and irrelevant? Without repeating the post, you can 'summarize' it as expressing how and why your preference for anti-abortion is invalid (not able to be logically 'fit') with closure. 

To ease your mind regarding your God's disapproval of abortion: If He is sufficiently powerful, he doesn't need privileged humans to be His vangaurd. If He gave us all 'free will', why would he expect SOME SELECT human-representatives to uniquely be able to DEFINE where the limits of ALL others' freedoms should end? If you interpret value as meaning we all agree to the same ideas of 'good' and 'evil' intrinsically, you misinterpret your personal evaluation of what is 'good' or 'bad' FOR YOU as coinciding with God's prematurely.

[I think you need to wait post-life judgement by your God to decide whether you WERE 'good' or 'bad' independently, or you believe you represent God and so LACK 'free choice' to believe for 'knowing' God]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

So given I gave you more than enough proof of your position being unsound you opt to dismiss it as too complex and irrelevant? Without repeating the post, you can 'summarize' it as expressing how and why your preference for anti-abortion is invalid (not able to be logically 'fit') with closure. 

To ease your mind regarding your God's disapproval of abortion: If He is sufficiently powerful, he doesn't need privileged humans to be His vangaurd. If He gave us all 'free will', why would he expect SOME SELECT human-representatives to uniquely be able to DEFINE where the limits of ALL others' freedoms should end? If you interpret value as meaning we all agree to the same ideas of 'good' and 'evil' intrinsically, you misinterpret your personal evaluation of what is 'good' or 'bad' FOR YOU as coinciding with God's prematurely.

[I think you need to wait post-life judgement by your God to decide whether you WERE 'good' or 'bad' independently, or you believe you represent God and so LACK 'free choice' to believe for 'knowing' God]

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

 

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

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
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • 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
  • Recently Browsing

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