U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[Creamu]

Government becomes more bureaucratic and more of a racket and I don't see an end to that trajectory.

That is what Max Weber predicited. Bureaucratic goverments become increasingly unmanuveurable and the pillars that hold the increasingly bureaucratic apparatus will break eventually. It will work for a while and then quickly collapse under the weight of an increasingly growing bureaucratic apparatus..

Maybe it has always been that way, and what I am seeing is just the result of "government transparency".

There are builders of civilisation and those who leach off of their fruits. Once the civilisation is saturated with unproductive parasitic entities it collapses. The builders of that civilisation then flee and build a new one and the cycle starts over. How this will work in this uprooted globally populated world is not clear.

Call me cynical, but I see human rights being a recruitment tool (and other) instead of an actual goal.

It's a front to build a phalanx an shocktroops around the parasitic entities that can't show themselves for who they are, else it would fall flat on its face.

So far, more people find themselves more obligated to work longer and harder to maintain the idea of freedom as the government debases their own currency via inflationary practice (and their mission seems to be to find more excuses to do so).

Yes, we are approaching the end of the cycle.

 

[Stone_Wings]

You still are accusing me of making false accusations. Care to demonstrate how?

Sure. There are PLENTY of examples, but here's one. False accusations. Case closed.

Comparing embryos to cancer was your shortcut to handwave the proposed embryonic rights vs woman's rights conundrum. That's already documented. You weren't even trying to be nuanced and I pointed that out too.

And here it is again. You go from step 1: saying that unwanted pregnancy "can" be like cancer, to step 2: treat pregnancy like it's cancer.

 

[tabzer]

We've got Tabzer preaching how the soul is real (which you can't and his argument about etymology is adorable but even equating "life" to "souls" still leaves it to the debate of when life starts, which doesn't support him)

I'm not an end justifies the means type of guy. I don't need to pretend something is wrong just because I'm afraid of dealing with a more complicated issue. The fact is that naphesh (soul) does mean living creatures (or creatures that breathe) and does complicate the claim of embryos as being souls. But it doesn't change the fact that people would have to choose to forfeit the benefit of the doubt when terminating a life.

I get that you are probably angry most of the time, and being irrational and spiteful is your way of dealing with it, but have you considered that it is a medical condition? Maybe it's self-induced? Are you on birth control? I don't know for sure, but I heard a curious claim that by being on birth control, your body emulates a feeling akin to constant miscarriage, and is worse than a hypothetical 24/7 menstruation cycle. Can you confirm? Try a diary.

Sure. There are PLENTY of examples, but here's one. False accusations. Case closed.

Showing an example of an analysis that I made (sans the actual phrasing I quoted) doesn't demonstrate a false accusation. If anything, it gives a link for people (and creates incentive for them) to click and be directed to a place in the thread where they can see it for themselves. I was kind of annoyed that the tactic was switching to "ignore and bury", so thank you.

 

[Stone_Wings]

Showing an example of an analysis that I made (sans the actual phrasing I quoted) doesn't demonstrate a false accusation. If anything, it gives a link for people (and creates incentive for them) to click and be directed to a place in the thread where they can see it for themselves. I was kind of annoyed that the tactic was switching to "ignore and bury", so thank you.

Accusing someone of things they didn't say is a false accusation. NIce logic. LMFAO.

 

[tabzer]

Accusing someone of things they didn't say is a false accusation. NIce logic. LMFAO.

Great. I do agree and I didn't expect that. Just one more step, though. Point out the discrepancy. If you could focus more on that instead of copy/pasting "LMAO" I think that would be great! Showing where the difference exists is a vital part in demonstrating false attribution (or "accusation").

Otherwise you are falsely accusing me of making a false accusation. Sublime, if that's the point.

 

[Stone_Wings]

Great. I do agree and I didn't expect that. Just one more step, though. Point out the discrepancy. If you could focus more on that instead of copy/pasting "LMAO" I think that would be great! Showing where the difference exists is a vital part in demonstrating false attribution (or "accusation").

Otherwise you are falsely accusing me of making a false accusation. Sublime, if that's the point.

I don't need to point anything out to you. That was already done for you by the person you made the false accusations against.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

I said abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the killing of a fetus. There's an important distinction. The fetus dies because it cannot live outside the mother. If the fetus can survive outside the mother, it's called a birth. That's why fetal viability is so important, and it's why it comes up numerous times in the bill @Valwinz didn't read closely enough to see.

A woman has a right to bodily autonomy, so she should be able to end a pregnancy whenever she wants. If we could somehow move an embryo or fetus somewhere where it could survive after ending a pregnancy, then we wouldn't have any issues. That is, however, not an option with our medical technology.

The fetus dies when it's shredded to bits by the machine they use to suck it out of the mother with. Go load up Google Images, turn off the safe search and type in "aborted babies". I'm not sure what the hell you're thinking making claims that abortions don't end the life of the baby.

Edit: There's also this ->

https://www.whyprolife.com/abortion-methods-vacuum-aspiration-or-suction-abortion/

Do you think women who get abortions and doctors who perform abortions should be put on trial for murder and go to prison if convicted, then?

Yes, that sounds fair.

But sperm is the harbor of life, the seed for what life comes from. At what point does it redefine the difference between when its stored in your testicles and when it ends up in an egg does it consider defending it as an unborn life? There is no weight in this, again the female produces an egg for the sperm to fertilize, its not like these eggs are a life upon themselves. Its simply a means to protect and help its development until it is born as a baby. Its a form of human nature but the responsibility of original life falls on us not them, especially if we ever cross the threshold of technology where we could create artificial eggs and wombs for development without the need of a female needing to bare any responsibility for carrying it. Something that is far more likely in the scope of the near future, would those that would be born of this method be considered protectable or would the be hated by the same pro-life groups because its considered "unnatural"?

Simply said, the sperm is a foreign entity to the female body, an entity that holds life in its very essence for without it life cannot be brought into this world. A woman simply does not produce life, its an acceptance and understanding of what they will have to help produce life by accepting someone's sperm and agreeing to have a child. If this is not the case, or can't be the case for the woman, then they have every right to refuse this and refuse the responsibility especially given the amount of harm and difficulty it could be for them. To not give them the right to reject and refuse means no difference in mind to basically raping them and getting away with it, with them being forced to carry because they no longer have any right to reject, refuse and fight for their own right. You want that to be taken away from them and basically turn them into unwilling tools for procreation. That's just inhuman no matter how you slice it.

Sperm first needs to impregnate the egg before life can form. Before that it's natural for the sperm to be discarded in certain circumstances, such as masturbation or the eventual loss when a male ejaculates into a female.

Also to go with that other conversation at the bottom there. Tell me what does a miscarriage constitute as?

A miscarriage is the natural death of a baby before it's born. It dies in the mothers womb.

Also don't go throwing around shit like Satanic at shit you dislike, especially since they are far more respectable of a people than I could say for any mainline religions. Less I could very much say to you how typically Christian/Catholic of you to state such of your fellow man, woman and child. After all if you cannot respect the freedom God has given us to advance ourselves and make the choices that we are within our natural power to make happen and possible, you are rejecting his very nature of giving us free will and therefore are against God's will to substitute your own twisted mentality of right and wrong based squarely on the mental gymnastics of morality being used as a weapon rather than a personal guideline for yourself to be an example of being better for yourself and to inspire others to be good for themselves, not to push your shit onto others, even by force. That is the core problem with most modern religion mentality, you got it all wrong.

My relationship with God is none of you're damned business. It's between me and my maker.

 

[KennyAtom]

Golden.

Seriously, I know PragerU has a LOVELY video about how the southern switch didn't happen, but... it did. I used to live in Tennessee, in a small town that literally had a black population of less than 30 folks and a store with a decorative placard talking about how even after being ordered not to, they refused to serve "colored folk" until the 80s. Care to guess the dominant political affiliation of the town by a huge margin?

If you want to go further, just look at how often minorities vote Democrat over Republican, or how many minorities take part in either party. There are the occasional odd ducks, but the numbers are a complete avalanche for the Dems. Republicans tend to push legislation that doesn't benefit minority households, conservatives draw in actual neo-nazis, and voter suppression tactics tend to be focused on minorities by the GOP. There really isn't a case for Dems being the "pro slavery" party in this day and age, and this whole thread is about Roe v. Wade being overturned, denying a right for women.

I wager you probably felt a bit attacked by the pretty bombastic comment about needing to destroy the Republican party, and I aknowledge that some people in this thread are getting a bit bitey, but this thread has devolved into some pretty frustrating and ugly stuff with very little being offered by the conservatives here. We've got Tabzer preaching how the soul is real (which you can't and his argument about etymology is adorable but even equating "life" to "souls" still leaves it to the debate of when life starts, which doesn't support him), Baxter who has jumped straight onto the Jesus jet, and Bit and Val who can't go five minutes without making insane suppositions like the Dems support terminating pregnancies at 9 months (which is just stupid on so many levels, at 9 months you're pushing out a self sustaining child or enduring a tragedy and emergency medical procedure, and in either case it should not be taken lightly and they should be ashamed for even insinuating that women and health care providers are just wanting to murder).

I appreciated your taking a moment earlier, and encourage you to take another. Don't just sling mud, go play the new Ogre Battle translation or something. You want nothing to do with some of the trolls that lurk in this place, and spoilers... they tend to be conservative elitists.

I honestly never knew that, thank you for teaching me about that.

To be honest, I was getting a little tired of the conservative hate at this point, already was having a pretty horrible day at that point, and when i saw that comment, I just jumped on it in anger trying to make their point seem stupid.

Honestly though, I think we need to start over with both parties anyway.

 

[Lacius]

Honestly though, I think we need to start over with both parties anyway.

Just because the Republican Party is a shitty party doesn't mean both parties need to "start over."

 

[KennyAtom]

Just because the Republican Party is a shitty party doesn't mean both parties need to "start over."

The democratic party is also shitty, just in their own way.

Source : was part of the party for 6 or 7 years before moving sides.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

The democratic party is also shitty, just in their own way.

Source : was part of the party for 6 or 7 years before moving sides.

Both parties suck. There's too many damned rules and ways you're supposed to think about things for me to be a part of either of them. I like to make up my own mind and that's what made me an Independent.

 

[tabzer]

I don't need to point anything out to you. That was already done for you by the person you made the false accusations against.

Nobody did anything of the sort. No indication of discrepancy. Just a denial and the changing of the topic. Which, honestly, I'm okay with. Name-calling to stick up for a friend was a nice gesture though.

 

[tabzer]

That is what Max Weber predicited. Bureaucratic goverments become increasingly unmanuveurable and the pillars that hold the increasingly bureaucratic apparatus will break eventually. It will work for a while and then quickly collapse under the weight of an increasingly growing bureaucratic apparatus..

There are builders of civilisation and those who leach off of their fruits. Once the civilisation is saturated with unproductive parasitic entities it collapses. The builders of that civilisation then flee and build a new one and the cycle starts over. How this will work in this uprooted globally populated world is not clear.

It's a front to build a phalanx an shocktroops around the parasitic entities that can't show themselves for who they are, else it would fall flat on its face.

Yes, we are approaching the end of the cycle.

I don't know if I like it, but it's an interesting take. I have an issue with the labelling of people as "parasitic entities" and "shocktroops" as being somewhat dehumanizing. I would like to think that a "good education" can exist, where the knowledge (and experience) of how a prospering society may function is incentivizing enough for people to become motivated to contribute in building/fortifying life. I would see these "parasitic entities" you speak of as being failed by their civilization--earned.

 

[Stone_Wings]

Nobody did anything of the sort. No indication of discrepancy. Just a denial and the changing of the topic. Which, honestly, I'm okay with. Name-calling to stick up for a friend was a nice gesture though.

I've already proven you wrong at your own request once. Then you move the posts, say it never happened, and make further false accusations.

And you want to talk about denial. I don't believe for a second that you're actually as dumb as you lead on. You're nothing but a troll and I don't think you even believe most of what you say. You just enjoy the drama of it all. Not sure what the deal with the right is, but why do you all need to pretend to be stupid? It's one of the weirdest tactics to defend yourselves that you could possibly use.

 

[tabzer]

I've already proven you wrong at your own request once. Then you move the posts, say it never happened, and make further false accusations.

And you want to talk about denial. I don't believe for a second that you're actually as incredibly fucking stupid as you lead on. You're nothing but a troll and I don't think you even actually believe most of what you say. You just enjoy the drama of it all.

You appear to be hurt. Very imaginative though.

 

[Stone_Wings]

You appear to be hurt. Very imaginative though.

It's even better after the edits I was making when you were replying. And hurt? Sure thing. Yeah. Oceans of tears over hear from you. At least mine was imaginative. "You hurt bro?"... not so much. Keep trying. One day you might get it.

 

[AdamCatalyst]

I've been following this for years now, armchair legal scholar. Here's my $0.02.

The leaked Supreme Court opinion is a legal one, and it is the correct legal one. There is nothing ideological about this. Roe v. Wade has always been an incorrect decision, bending the interpretation of the 9th Amendment beyond a reasonable interpretation of its intent. The decision with Planned Parenthood is the same. Both were always going to be vacated, it was only a question of when.

The debate over the legality and availability of abortion is absolute positively an ideological one. It is a problem that can only be solved through compromise, as it is a fundamental philosophical difference that is unlikely to ever disappear. The best we can do is seek a fair compromise. No absolute or extreme decisions will stand the test of time, they will merely encourage the pendulum to swinger harder the other way. This will be a forever war, until we resign to find a peaceful compromise, and protect it in proper legislation, something that Roe v. Wade was not.

What happens next? I have no idea, but I fear that there is little appetite for compromise. Using the 9th Amendment, one could argue that a woman could never be punished in any way for having an abortion, however, States could decide that other people who facilitate this are committing criminal actions. And other States may go so far as to allow abortion all the way up to, and after child delivery, an actual thing that has been proposed.

My solution? Admit that abortion is murder, period. Admit that forcing a woman carry a child to term against her will is cruel, unusual, and inhumane. Acknowledge the power imbalance in this relationship, in that the fetus cannot speak for itself, and it cannot live without the woman's consent. Recognize that this is a dilemma that is *impossible* to solve through rational science, and propose a symbolic compromise. The standard term for carrying a child to birth is 9 months. Allow *unconditional* abortion up until 4.5 month. Rights of the mother dominate for the first 4.5 month, rights of the unborn have precedence over the following 4.5 months. Allow all the obvious conditional (incest rape, danger to mother, etc.) abortions at the discretion of the medical professionals involved without legal limitation.

 

[AdamCatalyst]

That is a really good point. The hermetic dialectic that is at play here seems to be designed to keep debate oscillating without resolving anything in the long run. In my observation it is an useful tool to activate different voter segments and have a everlasting struggle that results in nothing.

A more productive direction would be a pro motherhood and family discourse, that is centered on the idea that mothers and families play anexistential role in society and should be valued accordingly. This direction would take an implicit anti-abortion stand while constructing a fertile cultural context, that would be critical in preventing the current fall and the liquidation of civilisation.

That this is not the direction the discourse is moving shows you that the leading actors on both sides of the debate must be cynical.

That is true under a realistic perspective. There have been, however, regimes in history that were determined enough to have the constitution to stop even that. That being said, this would be very unlikely to happen.

Yes, it would be better to make it highly unattractive to have abortions on a cultural route. Conservatives have never understood this, this amount of disfunction can only explained by deliberite design.

I'll add one more point to this interesting dialogue. No woman should *ever* have an abortion for financial reasons. That is a a complete system failure, and it happens all the time. Regardless of legislation, a just society would ensure that there were sufficient social supports so that women could make this decision solely on their moral prerogative, without consideration for the financial burdens. Those who oppose abortion must do more to support the financial security of mothers.

 

[tabzer]

It's even better after the edits I was making when you were replying. And hurt? Sure thing. Yeah. Oceans of tears over hear from you. At least mine was imaginative. "You hurt bro?"... not so much. Keep trying. One day you might get it.

Cool trick, post editing. I was baited into believing that you were genuinely upset, but you were retroactively pretending. Props. Time travel is a good skill to have.

If you do have a calm mind, please point out how you proved me wrong.

 

[osaka35]

My solution? Admit that abortion is murder, period. Admit that forcing a woman carry a child to term against her will is cruel, unusual, and inhumane. Acknowledge the power imbalance in this relationship, in that the fetus cannot speak for itself, and it cannot live without the woman's consent. Recognize that this is a dilemma that is *impossible* to solve through rational science, and propose a symbolic compromise. The standard term for carrying a child to birth is 9 months. Allow *unconditional* abortion up until 4.5 month. Rights of the mother dominate for the first 4.5 month, rights of the unborn have precedence over the following 4.5 months. Allow all the obvious conditional (incest rape, danger to mother, etc.) abortions at the discretion of the medical professionals involved without legal limitation.

Basically, "the religious will never stop fighting their religious war against human rights. its best to find a compromise where we can at least establish some of the more basic human rights, even if the science has to be ignored to do."? it's a bit depressing, but hard to argue.