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

[tabzer]

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.

The discrepancy here is that "the religious" probably wouldn't admit to forcing a pregnancy to term as cruel (it's a blessing), even if the politically minded could see the merit in such a solution. There is a resolution where "church and state" can co-exist, and that's when the church is the state.

I'd argue that instead of approaching futility head on, that other societal issues can be addressed. Issues that contribute to the demand for abortion, like poverty, education, mental health and other socially eroding elements. Heading off the demand for abortion won't resolve the dilemma inherent in abortion as it's literally mind vs body. I wouldn't wish anybody to be in that situation, where they'd feel the need to consider it. The less that can occur, the better.

If there could be an agreement that less demand for abortion is better, I would see that as a socially progressive point of focus.

 

[omgcat]

honestly this might be the wedge that finally divides america. i'm tired of my tax dollars being used to bail out failing red states, so we should agree to an amicable breakup of the union. they can have their religious craziness and failed economies.

 

[Stone_Wings]

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.

So first you want me to point out some proof. Which I did. Now you're asking me for proof that I proved you wrong? That can easily be done, again, but it's been pointed out to you several times already. Why does it need to be done again? Then what? You'll just say something as stupid as "BUT BUT BUT!!!! Point out proof of the proof that you proved me wrong with proof of the proof that you proved me wrong with some proof of proving me wrong with proof!!!!" I'm not repeating things again, that have alrady been repeated. Not my fault those reading comprehension issues still plague you.

 

[tabzer]

So first you want me to point out some proof. Which I did. Now you're asking me for proof that I proved you wrong? That can easily be done, again, but it's been pointed out to you several times already. Why does it need to be done again? Then what? You'll just say something as stupid as "BUT BUT BUT!!!! Point out proof of the proof that you proved me wrong with proof of the proof that you proved me wrong with some proof of proving me wrong with proof!!!!" I'm not repeating things again, that have alrady been repeated. Not my fault those reading comprehension issues still plague you.

You never pointed out the discrepancy, which is required for proof of a false accusation, because there is none.

In your variety of responses to my request for the discrepancy, you went from saying things like,"look at this thing you said, it's a false accusation" (it wasn't), to saying "I don't have to, someone else did" (in which case, you didn't have to comment at all), then to "I already showed you." (no, you didn't).

You've given me nothing worthwhile. Why should I be expected to give you more in return?

 

[Creamu]

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.

Oh, thank you.

I have an issue with the labelling of people as "parasitic entities" and "shocktroops" as being somewhat dehumanizing.

I can see your point. What I am getting at that you have people of different nature, some build and preserve civilisation other contribute to its downfall.

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.

This I believed for a very long time. I have come to the following conclusion:
There are fish and birds and neither one of them are doing eachother a favor when instructing the other side to behave like themselves.

I would see these "parasitic entities" you speak of as being failed by their civilization--earned.

No, they are just different and thats okay. The question is, do you want civilisation? If so, you will have to collecitivise with people that build civilisation and make sure that people that don't build civilisation have their own places where they can do their thing.

 

[Creamu]

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.

I'm flattered.

No woman should *ever* have an abortion for financial reasons.

Agreed. What an awful situation.

That is a a complete system failure, and it happens all the time.

Well, it may very well be not a failure at all but population control.

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.

Yes, a society a culture that respects motherhood would do that.

Those who oppose abortion must do more to support the financial security of mothers.

Yes, the republicans are a smokescreen, theyre not intersted in cultivating respect for mothers.

 

[tabzer]

There are fish and birds and neither one of them are doing eachother a favor when instructing the other side to behave like themselves.

In the case of successful education, it wouldn’t confuse fish with birds? Obviously, with the current trend, it seems to be going the opposite direction. Good education should be devoid of proselytization as much as possible, imo.

No, they are just different and thats okay. The question is, do you want civilisation? If so, you will have to collecitivise with people that build civilisation and make sure that people that don't build civilisation have their own places where they can do their thing.

I’m having trouble following. If they have their own place, doing their own thing, what makes them parasitic?

 

[Dakitten]

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.

This is misogynistic as hell, and you accuse me of being spiteful? Also your definition of soul is pretty unique, and your "complication" of being able to use it to define fetuses as BEING souls (gods that is a weird string of words) still only satisfies your own esoteric reasoning. A machine can artificially simulate breath with a real heart attached to it, in order to keep it fresh for transplant, but the machine doesn't have a soul at that point does it? The heart has living cells, ready to be used to potentially save somebody. If you remove it from its host machine, does this constitute murder for you when the heart clearly dies? Honestly, I don't care about your actual answer, I just think your argument about a factual soul is amusing and obviously obfuscating the bigger issue that your belief makes you think you have the right to determine what the other gender is allowed to do with their own bodies.

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.

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

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

I'm really starting to think all your knowledge of abortions comes from South Park TSOT. There are actually quite a few ways to have an abortion, and if you're so far along that the baby is self sustaining, the simplest solution is to induce labor and NOT an abortion. Most abortions end in something so small and unrecognizable that it is hard to affiliate with a baby, but hey, go ahead and keep making decisions for other people simply because you don't know much on the topic but think it sounds bad...

Wait, no, your faith in a god has no damned business in policy decisions. It may surprise you to know that in my faith, your god is really damned evil and would absolutely be tried as a war criminal several times over in a court of man's law, but even if he was a flower child out to cure cancer, he'd still be imaginary until proven otherwise, and thus have no place in social policy.

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.

This isn't untrue, but one shouldn't ignore the most obvious danger just because something else has a problem. Also off the topic, I was actually a part of the GOP for a few years in my early life, before I got a good grasp of economics. It is a good thing to shift about and get different perspectives on things!

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.

Oy, where to begin with this one...

First, the ideology of those against abortion rights is rooted in theology. Religion is not universally shared and interpretations do not all lend to the idea that abortions are bad for any faith, also it is not rooted in any sort of facts about the nature of the world. Any compromise would legitimize a state religion and that would be a pretty miserable state of affairs. Roe v Wade may not have had the strongest legal foundation, but the Supreme Court did honor it and consistently had elected officials bring it up before adding members to the bench, only to have many members betray the trust of the representatives of the people. It might have been struck down on a legal premise, but it was removed over a theological concept against the will of the populous it serves.

Admitting that abortion is murder is just wrong on its face. Unless menstruation is accidental manslaughter like Baxter's insane rant about soul vessels and "natural death", it isn't murder, it is a medical procedure done for a myriad of reasons on something with the potential for life. If you're having an issue about when something is viable or alive or whatever, I encourage you to talk with somebody who has had an abortion or even a miscarriage. It is an emotional, painful thing, something nobody would wish on themselves a second time let alone anybody else, and accusing people of being murderers on top of it is just disgusting.

Topping off, like I've said before, nobody has a 5 month abortion just because they got a wild hair up their butt one day. I don't know what kinds of scenarios guys think women get abortions for, but it just doesn't work like that. There is no room for compromise here, women are masters of their own bodies and should be able to choose if something should or shouldn't be inside of them. IF there is some lady out there who wants to endure all the pain and agony of going to 5 months routinely just so they can imagine they're a mass murderer, that person needs mental help immediately, not legal repercussions. Everyone else has reasons, and men have to learn to respect that. End of story.

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.

Oh, if this thread has proven anything, it is EASY to argue. Difficult to convince others on, maybe, but at least in America, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, so the argument is that religion shouldn't alter policy.

The discrepancy here is that "the religious" probably wouldn't admit to forcing a pregnancy to term as cruel (it's a blessing), even if the politically minded could see the merit in such a solution. There is a resolution where "church and state" can co-exist, and that's when the church is the state.

I'd argue that instead of approaching futility head on, that other societal issues can be addressed. Issues that contribute to the demand for abortion, like poverty, education, mental health and other socially eroding elements. Heading off the demand for abortion won't resolve the dilemma inherent in abortion as it's literally mind vs body. I wouldn't wish anybody to be in that situation, where they'd feel the need to consider it. The less that can occur, the better.

If there could be an agreement that less demand for abortion is better, I would see that as a socially progressive point of focus.

And here we come back to my favorite. I'll tell you what, you come up with a way to have a birth with your own body in a society where all your needs for a happy and healthy life for you and your child are guaranteed by the government, and I will humor this argument endlessly. Until then, I'm going to focus on the fact that you say it is a blessing with no earthly idea of what it can do to your body and mind and pocketbook and personal goals, and that you actually said the quiet part out loud and mentioned the church becoming the state. Good luck with that in Japan.

 

[Creamu]

In the case of successful education, it wouldn’t confuse fish with birds? Obviously, with the current trend, it seems to be going the opposite direction. Good education should be devoid of proselytization as much as possible, imo.

proselytize
1. To attempt to convert someone to one's own religious faith.
2. To attempt to persuade someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

What I am getting at is, that it is not a matter of ideology or religion, but a matter of different beings. Aboriginal Australians can get the best education of an eskimo and yet they will surely perish in the biosphere of an eskimo.

I’m having trouble following. If they have their own place, doing their own thing, what makes them parasitic?

In that case nothing. I hope this will soon happen to avoid unessecary suffering.

 

[AleronIves]

Yes, that sounds fair.

Thanks for replying and for at least being logically consistent.

 

[Creamu]

honestly this might be the wedge that finally divides america. i'm tired of my tax dollars being used to bail out failing red states, so we should agree to an amicable breakup of the union. they can have their religious craziness and failed economies.

Okay, lets do it!

 

[Stone_Wings]

I’m having trouble following.

Gee. Imagine that. LMFAO!!!

 

[tabzer]

This is misogynistic as hell, and you accuse me of being spiteful?

You are the one that said that you are a woman, took this subject personally, and are moody about what I say; as if they give merit to whatever substance you are contributing. Contextually I attest that I am, maybe, as misogynistic as you. Maybe I understand women better than you.

Also your definition of soul is pretty unique, and your "complication" of being able to use it to define fetuses as BEING souls (gods that is a weird string of words) still only satisfies your own esoteric reasoning.

If a colloquialism defies a fact, and I see someone being condescending about the issue, I have no problem throwing that wrench. The thing is alive, and "life is sacred". Nobody is going to break through that by a claim as immaterial as "there is no soul".

I just think your argument about a factual soul is amusing and obviously obfuscating the bigger issue that your belief makes you think you have the right to determine what the other gender is allowed to do with their own bodies.

That's illogical and not my position. Even if it were women telling other women what to do, I don't think that's what would make it okay.

And here we come back to my favorite. I'll tell you what, you come up with a way to have a birth with your own body in a society where all your needs for a happy and healthy life for you and your child are guaranteed by the government, and I will humor this argument endlessly. Until then, I'm going to focus on the fact that you say it is a blessing with no earthly idea of what it can do to your body and mind and pocketbook and personal goals, and that you actually said the quiet part out loud and mentioned the church becoming the state. Good luck with that in Japan.

I'm more interested in how we behave as a society than I am interested in government guarantees.

I'm not saying that the church should be the state or that pregnancy is a blessing. That is the ideology that exists that prevents "the agreeable compromise" proposed. You seem to agree with my point that less need for abortion is a good thing. If you want something amicable, I think it is necessary to have the goal to find where agreement already exists. You can't force people to agree with you because you think you are the reasonable one--that's unreasonable, lol. You want people to respect your body but you want to disparage people's minds?

proselytize
1. To attempt to convert someone to one's own religious faith.
2. To attempt to persuade someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

What I am getting at is, that it is not a matter of ideology or religion, but a matter of different beings. Aboriginal Australians can get the best education of an eskimo and yet they will surely perish in the biosphere of an eskimo.

Right, sorry if that was difficult to understand. I was suggesting that successful/good education would respect the differences that you expressed and consider context. I don't really consider that as big of an issue as education being a form of indoctrination, in regard to the current state.

Gee. Imagine that. LMFAO!!!

Perhaps you did not read his response acknowledging the reason for that. Pay attention. Also, it's in your interest to encourage such behavior if you'd want people to admit such things to you. It would also help if you said something thought provoking.

 

[Dakitten]

You are the one that said that you are a woman, took this subject personally, and are moody about what I say; as if they give merit to whatever substance you are contributing. Contextually I attest that I am, maybe, as misogynistic as you. Maybe I understand women better than you.

This is fairly rich. I've never actually stated my gender here, I just stated that this topic is personal and makes me irate. If that is all you're going for, congratulations, you're extremely depressing to read without a doubt. But no, you went several steps further, displaying a lack of empathy and understanding for women on birth control and/or who have experienced the fairly serious topics here first hand. I know you're trying to be an edgy debate lord, but this just comes off as degrading and disgusting. I haven't taken ANY digs at anyone based on gender, so I'm going to say that contextually, definitely, you're full of yourself and a troll and wrong. Trifecta.

If a colloquialism defies a fact, and I see someone being condescending about the issue, I have no problem throwing that wrench. The thing is alive, and "life is sacred". Nobody is going to break through that by a claim as immaterial as "there is no soul".

Nobody is going to take "there is a soul" just based on your word. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and while I find the life and breath concept funny, it doesn't hold water. I've also read enough of the works of Plato to know that misogyny has existed a long damn time and I can see where you would find his and similar works convenient and interesting, it still breaks down to beliefs from a time far removed from today and even if you still cling to it personally it holds no grounds in reality.

That's illogical and not my position. Even if it were women telling other women what to do, I don't think that's what would make it okay.

It would hold more water if women were telling other women what to do in this scenario, as they could have a direct knowledge of everything an abortion entails. Men can't, but are leading the charge anyways. Considering the long history of oppressive behavior against women in the world, you can't pretend you don't see how this would be disturbing... unless you maybe believe in a religion absolving such behavior, anyways.

I'm more interested in how we behave as a society than I am interested in government guarantees.

I'm not saying that the church should be the state or that pregnancy is a blessing. That is the ideology that exists that prevents "the agreeable compromise" proposed. You seem to agree with my point that less need for abortion is a good thing. If you want something amicable, I think it is necessary to have the goal to find where agreement already exists. You can't force people to agree with you because you think you are the reasonable one--that's unreasonable, lol. You want people to respect your body but you want to disparage people's minds?

You are of course correct in saying there should be a drive to require fewer abortions, nobody is debating that and NOBODY but the mentally ill are giddy at the thought of getting an abortion. It would be nice for a society to exist that ensures that every mother has the ability to have their child with the best possible care, support, and resources before and after birth, but the only apparatus that can ensure that happens is a governing body over said resources. If you're interested in how we behave as a society but not how we ensure rights and privileges, you're only invested in a fraction of the big picture... which explains a lot.

Lastly, I don't care if you agree with me. You've repeatedly disrespected me and several others, droned on and on about the most irrelevant things and obfuscated actual points with weird fixations on analogies and unique descriptors of esoteric terms, and just displayed an ugly attitude towards everyone who gives you the smallest bit of attention. You don't need to agree with me, and I'm not working to convince you. I'm aiming at anybody else who comes into this thread with some confusion and are curious to what sensible viewpoints there are on the topic, and you just happen to be a wonderful tool for displaying how disingenuous and callous the other side is. To that end, thank you for not failing to disappoint!

Stone_Wings:
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.

This sort of thing, however, is not helping the discourse here. Counter-trolling is cute for a minute, but at this point you're kinda dancing to the same tune of "look how annoying I can be too". Please be the bigger person and stop now, comrade.

 

[Creamu]

It would be nice for a society to exist that ensures that every mother has the ability to have their child with the best possible care, support, and resources before and after birth, but the only apparatus that can ensure that happens is a governing body over said resources.

Yes, hopefully people will rise to power to make this a reality

 

[Foxi4]

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.

I don’t see any issue with his reasoning. I’ve always considered abortion to be murder of convenience. It’s very clear to me that a fetus is a human life - it’s based on a unique combination of genes that is human, and it is alive, just at a very early stage of development. That’s all there is to it, I never saw a need to muddy the waters any further. The actual question is whether we care about that life enough to keep it alive by any means necessary or are we willing to make concessions in circumstances that warrant it.

In general, we agree that human life deserves some reverence from other humans, but on the flip side, we also agree, if reluctantly, that ending life is sometimes prudent. We make specific provisions to enable doing just that in certain situations, although we disagree on which ones are applicable. For example, I am perfectly okay with the death penalty being issued to exceptionally cruel criminals who cannot be reformed - housing them for life is a waste of food and cells otherwise, they’re not getting out either way, and prisons are overcrowded as it is. If anything, forcing them to stay in confinement against their will for the rest of their life seems more cruel than the mercy of death. The same can be said about euthanasia - patients in agony should be able to go out on their own terms, they deserve peace if that is what they desire, and it is not up to me to decide whether they should live or die since it’s their life, not mine. Why would I use a different measuring stick here? A life is a life. I might feel uncomfortable with the thought of ending a life, but I can understand the thought process. All other arguments on both sides are red herrings, in my opinion. Agreeing that abortion is what it is would be the first step to finding a middle ground, rather than pretending that it’s okay because “it’s just a clump of cells” or it’s not okay because “an old book says so”. We’re all clumps of cells, and I don’t expect people to live according to the same moral standards I follow, even if I advocate for them.

Legally speaking, Roe v. Wade is a bad decision - it establishes the existence of a non-existent right in order to enshrine something that should be handled by the legislature, but wasn’t because finding a mutually agreeable consensus is difficult when the issue is polarising. It was always a prime example of judicial activism and legislating from the bench. The Supreme Court was not established to legislate, and from that perspective it should be overturned. The court has been usurped to invent legislation that would otherwise sink in Congress without lengthy deliberation and plenty of concessions from both sides. In other words, it interferes in the democratic process by replacing elected representatives voting on issues with a panel of wisemen making the decision for us, often out of whole cloth. It’s egregious, whether you approve of the final outcome or not.

 

[Creamu]

Look at any major liberal city and you'll see mostly people of particular visuals commiting crimes in broad daylight with police not being able to do anything.

Are they wearing nightgoggles? In broad daylight???

 

[Creamu]

Your jokes are as dumb as your disturbing avatar and signature. You do realize you're the embodiment of a troll in a dungeon?

Okay. Are you talking about people of color?

I have EMF sensitivity and I do not appreachiate your comment.

 

[tabzer]

This is fairly rich. I've never actually stated my gender here, I just stated that this topic is personal and makes me irate. If that is all you're going for, congratulations, you're extremely depressing to read without a doubt. But no, you went several steps further, displaying a lack of empathy and understanding for women on birth control and/or who have experienced the fairly serious topics here first hand. I know you're trying to be an edgy debate lord, but this just comes off as degrading and disgusting. I haven't taken ANY digs at anyone based on gender, so I'm going to say that contextually, definitely, you're full of yourself and a troll and wrong. Trifecta.

You've talked about your pregnancies and posed yourself as some sort of authority on the subject. To a degree you are right. But at the same time, you aren't every woman. I'm not "taking digs" at you based on gender. I'm responding to a very personalized way of how you project yourself. You aren't my queen bee, so pardon me for not giving you the "empathy" you act entitled to.

Nobody is going to take "there is a soul" just based on your word. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and while I find the life and breath concept funny, it doesn't hold water.

I made a literal reference to what the transliterated word is, and provided the definition. Both are a matter of
public record. You are free to check yourself.

I've also read enough of the works of Plato to know that misogyny has existed a long damn time and I can see where you would find his and similar works convenient and interesting, it still breaks down to beliefs from a time far removed from today and even if you still cling to it personally it holds no grounds in reality.

Are you projecting or are you recommending a reading list? Does poetry or philosophical musings cancel out the existence of the subject matter (or source material)?

It would hold more water if women were telling other women what to do in this scenario, as they could have a direct knowledge of everything an abortion entails.

So as long as someone has direct knowledge about abortion, they are in a "better" position to deny a woman to their "rights for an abortion"? Does it have to be a woman too? Interesting how this works.

You are of course correct

Thanks, I know.

If you're interested in how we behave as a society but not how we ensure rights and privileges, you're only invested in a fraction of the big picture... which explains a lot.

I do acknowledge that the government is disproportionately a bigger part of the picture, which is probably why we should be more interested in how we behave as a society. "People first." However, what you are responding to was that I was more interested in how we behave as a society than government guarantees. Does your government's track record of keeping its guarantees make you more confident in them? Are they more important or "real" than your actual experience?

Lastly, I don't care if you agree with me. You've repeatedly disrespected me and several others, droned on and on about the most irrelevant things and obfuscated actual points with weird fixations on analogies and unique descriptors of esoteric terms, and just displayed an ugly attitude towards everyone who gives you the smallest bit of attention. You don't need to agree with me, and I'm not working to convince you. I'm aiming at anybody else who comes into this thread with some confusion and are curious to what sensible viewpoints there are on the topic, and you just happen to be a wonderful tool for displaying how disingenuous and callous the other side is. To that end, thank you for not failing to disappoint!

Nice cope. I'm no more the "other side" than you are. Maybe you are hurting your own interest. We are all here for our own interests, and sometimes the points you want to focus on are kind of irrelevant to the points I want to make. If you think you are better than me, just say it out loud. I think some arguments here are plain shit and disrespectful. Some analogies are crafted to bypass the discomfort of being direct about that. I will always try my best to give you the respect you demonstrate. It would be offensive if I gave you something different, no?

This sort of thing, however, is not helping the discourse here. Counter-trolling is cute for a minute, but at this point you're kinda dancing to the same tune of "look how annoying I can be too". Please be the bigger person and stop now, comrade.

Thanks for having my back, comrade.

 

[osaka35]

I don’t see any issue with his reasoning. I’ve always considered abortion to be murder of convenience. It’s very clear to me that a fetus is a human life - it’s based on a unique combination of genes that is human, and it is alive, just at a very early stage of development. That’s all there is to it, I never saw a need to muddy the waters any further. The actual question is whether we care about that life enough to keep it alive by any means necessary or are we willing to make concessions in circumstances that warrant it

that's more of a personal opinion and not based on a deeper understanding of genetics and how the whole thing works. which is fine, but you shouldn't just dismiss those who dig deeper because it's "inconvenient" for you to do so.