Roe V Wade has been repealed

[SyphenFreht]

pretty supprised Ohio didn't make an exception for abortion due to child Molestation burn in hell Ohio https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...pc=U531&cvid=b4d2e0f1174d47d99ff7abafb07feb9b

Well Republicans, here's your time to shine. Show of hands, which one of y'all thinks she should've just kept her legs shut?

Who here wants to advocate for dad's rights on this?

Which of y'all pro-lifers are ready to tell her to take personal responsibility for her actions?

I will assume any right wing pro lifer that ignores this isn't against abortion, they're just anti woman.

 

[smf]

I haven't seen anybody agree with the idea that pregnancy is worthless.

Pregnancy is less than worthless, it costs money to have a baby. It's a serious drain on resources and could end in the mothers death. Even childhood has a huge cost, children cost parents and tax payers for decades.

The only reason for pregnancy is sentimental value, which is lacking in people who are seeking abortions anyway.

 

[tabzer]

Great. It wasn't used to sway your opinion, it was used to highlight how everyone else sees my comment the way it was intended, not for the bastardization you're trying to make it.

It's used to undermine my position, which is the definition. Suggesting that you'd need more people to disagree with you before you would consider it is lame. Pretending it's my fault that you said it is just pathetic.

That's because no one, including me, has made that claim. When I posted the idea originally, it was in relation to the society America lives in.

What information have I presented that's been useless? The only person spamming the thread at this point is you, trying to constantly take people's words out of context.

"The society America lives in". You've been unable to contextually rationalize "pregnancies have no value". Every response you make to me about how you aren't going to give me what I am asking for is exactly what I was referencing.

Please show where I said I held that ideal, and that the idea was not an implied product of living in a capitalistic society.

I don't know if you hold that as an ideal or not. I would hope not. It's not my responsibility to invent an argument for you. In or out of a capitalistic society, I'd disagree anyway.

Not even remotely. On either of your two comments.

I tend to be very accurate.

That's the idea behind the design, yes.

Then that means pregnancy has value in a capitalistic system. (it does)

What's irredeemable?

The phrase I quoted.

Bodily autonomy > Pregnancy

That is the goal.

 

[chrisrlink]

Pregnancy is less than worthless, it costs money to have a baby. It's a serious drain on resources and could end in the mothers death. Even childhood has a huge cost, children cost parents and tax payers for decades.

The only reason for pregnancy is sentimental value, which is lacking in people who are seeking abortions anyway.

funny the anti aborters (GOP) want babies to survive but the also want to cut welfare,wic and other life sustaining programs such fucking hypocrites

 

[tabzer]

Pregnancy is less than worthless, it costs money to have a baby. It's a serious drain on resources and could end in the mothers death. Even childhood has a huge cost, children cost parents and tax payers for decades.

The only reason for pregnancy is sentimental value, which is lacking in people who are seeking abortions anyway.

After all the whining from @SyphenFreht we get this nice capture of him liking this shit that @smf spews.

You did a service @smf, I did not expect.

You did fail to mention how all that is GREAT for "capitalism" though.

 

[SyphenFreht]

The only reason for pregnancy is sentimental value, which is lacking in people who are seeking abortions anyway.

I would still argue that there's sentiment in at least *some* abortions (quantifying it further requires stats I'm not sure logically exist). I've definitely known some first hand scenarios where the fate of the baby, fetus, was already know to be dire, and so the abortion was performed at great pain to the mother, who knew it needed to be done to preserve already existent life and prevent turmoil to a life that didn't ask for either life or turmoil. Exceptions, yes, but exceptions often prove the rule. Not that I entirely disagree with your other point.

 

[tabzer]

I would argue, further, that women who get abortions can and do experience remorse for their actions regardless of how ethical the decision was. @smf's representation is a romanticized view of abortion.

 

[smf]

funny the anti aborters (GOP) want babies to survive but the also want to cut welfare,wic and other life sustaining programs such fucking hypocrites

Right, if pregnancy is worth so much to them they should be happy to pay women to stay in a fully furnished apartment with good food, water, heat, light and give the child a decent education.

It seems they just want children who the police can go on to murder later on.

After all the whining from @SyphenFreht we get this nice capture of him liking this shit that @smf spews.

You did a service @smf, I did not expect.

You did fail to mention how all that is GREAT for capitalism though.

A service? I set the scene to destroy your arguments, you just don't think far enough ahead.

An unwanted child or a child growing up in a disadvantaged home is not necessarily great for capitalism. You were saying pregnancy had an inherent worth, I disagreed with that statement.

 

[Lacius]

That is the goal.

That would mean you are against state bans on abortion.

 

[linuxares]

Why are non-women argue about abortion rights?

 

[SyphenFreht]

It's used to undermine my position, which is the definition. Suggesting that you'd need more people to disagree with you before you would consider it is lame. Pretending it's my fault that you said it is just pathetic.

You wouldn't have to worry about that if you had anything viable to say that wasn't stemmed in emotion or overanalyzing the vernacular and structure of ones words when you clearly understand the point.

"The society America lives in". You've been unable to contextually rationalize "pregnancies have no value". Every response you make to me about how you aren't going to give me what I am asking for is exactly what I was referencing.

Probably because that's not a standpoint I made. I think every pregnancy is valuable to those who care about the baby. I implied, several times, that pro lifers only advocate forced birth because they equate pregnancy with being valueless unless they can gain something from it, a capitalistic ideal.

Every response you ask for something different and then when I present something you don't like, you ignore it and ask for more. You're not even trying to debate the topic anymore, you're just mad that you can't have the last word.

I don't know if you hold that as an ideal or not. I would hope not. It's not my responsibility to invent an argument for you. In or out of a capitalistic society, I'd disagree anyway.

The only interaction you've had with me on this thread is the constant struggle of you trying to formulate an argument with me based on your fabrications of my intent based on your bastardization on the context I presented my arguments in. Sit down, Aristotle, not everyone you meet is blind to your play on diction to prove your worth.

I tend to be very accurate.

Is it only when you fabricate people's points and posts to prove you're intellectually fit to sit at the table?

Then that means pregnancy has value in a capitalistic system. (it does)

Where's the value then?

The phrase I quoted.

I posted 3 lines, two of which were questions. I'd like some of that accuracy you advertised, please.

That is the goal.

Except for women, right?

After all the whining from @SyphenFreht we get this nice capture of him liking this shit that @smf spews.

You did a service @smf, I did not expect.

You did fail to mention how all that is GREAT for "capitalism" though.

And I'll like it again and again. Because, yet again, you ignore context and facts in favor of pushing your own agenda. Never mind the post I started toward @smf or my explanation, what's important is my like.

Thought bandwagoning didn't work on you? Or is hypocrisy just another play on your book on subjugating women?

 

[SyphenFreht]

Why are non-women argue about abortion rights?

I for one have many women in my life that I love and want to see the best for. At the end of the day it's not up to me to regulate any portion of a woman's body, but I have no qualm going toe to toe with people who feel they have the right to suppress or subjugate anyone, women in particular regarding the topic at hand. I'm sure there are many others on a similar platform

Otherwise, it's about control. Plain and simple.

 

[tabzer]

The fucking irony in you asking for evidence when you’ve literally never provided any for your bullshit claims in the past I am not going through thousands of posts to find posts that I know were removed.

Arguing about sources already presented doesn't require additional sources, which is the majority of the positions i take on this forum. The last time I posted a reference in introducing something new to a conversation was to a that comedian's podcast. You were too illiterate to notice that he had listed every publication reference that he cited.

It's mighty convenient for you to post bullshit about something nobody can verify. You can stfu. It's apparent that "sources" are your way of gatekeeping the conversation, but you wouldn't be convinced to back up your own claims.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Arguing about sources already presented doesn't require additional sources, which is the majority of the positions i take on this forum. The last time I posted a reference in introducing something new to a conversation was to a that comedian's podcast. You were too illiterate to notice that he had listed every publication reference that he cited.

It's mighty convenient for you to post bullshit about something nobody can verify. You can stfu. It's apparent that "sources" are your way of gatekeeping the conversation, but you wouldn't be convinced to back up your own claims.

Didn't you whine about sources from my post a few posts before? You're literally doing the same thing you're accusing them of, and then derail when you're proven wrong.

 

[lolcatzuru]

It is, but contraception is not 100% effective, and the same people who are against abortion have also reduced access to contraception and safe sex education.

well neither is the vaccine but people wanted that forced on people, sucks.

 

[tabzer]

You were saying pregnancy had an inherent worth, I disagreed with that statement.

"Intrinsic value", and I was quoting @SyphenFreht . Thanks.

You wouldn't have to worry about that if you had anything viable to say that wasn't stemmed in emotion or overanalyzing the vernacular and structure of ones words when you clearly understand the point.



Probably because that's not a standpoint I made. I think every pregnancy is valuable to those who care about the baby. I implied, several times, that pro lifers only advocate forced birth because they equate pregnancy with being valueless unless they can gain something from it, a capitalistic ideal.

Every response you ask for something different and then when I present something you don't like, you ignore it and ask for more. You're not even trying to debate the topic anymore, you're just mad that you can't have the last word.



The only interaction you've had with me on this thread is the constant struggle of you trying to formulate an argument with me based on your fabrications of my intent based on your bastardization on the context I presented my arguments in. Sit down, Aristotle, not everyone you meet is blind to your play on diction to prove your worth.



Is it only when you fabricate people's points and posts to prove you're intellectually fit to sit at the table?



Where's the value then?



I posted 3 lines, two of which were questions. I'd like some of that accuracy you advertised, please.



Except for women, right?



And I'll like it again and again. Because, yet again, you ignore context and facts in favor of pushing your own agenda. Never mind the post I started toward @smf or my explanation, what's important is my like.

Thought bandwagoning didn't work on you? Or is hypocrisy just another play on your book on subjugating women?

Look. You've already undone yourself with @smf's post and there is nothing that can undo that. All I can see from you, now, is flailing. Good chat though.

 

[SyphenFreht]

well neither is the vaccine but people wanted that forced on people, sucks.

Vaccines help prevent the spread of viruses, a public health issue. Condoms help prevent pregnancy, a private issue. Big difference. Though if the argument against vaccines is bodily autonomy, then the same should be upheld for abortions.

 

[tabzer]

Didn't you whine about sources from my post a few posts before? You're literally doing the same thing you're accusing them of, and then derail when you're proven wrong.

Did you ask for a source. I must have missed that. Sorry.

 

[Lacius]

well neither is the vaccine but people wanted that forced on people, sucks.

First, that was as much about the right to not be exposed to the disease by anti-vaxxers as much as it was about anything else.

Second, I don't remember anyone seriously talking about requiring vaccination by law. Sure, there were policy positions that would require proof of vaccination under specific circumstances (public transit, working in a healthcare facility, etc.), but nobody's bodily autonomy rights were ever being violated.

Try again.

 

[tabzer]

That would mean you are against state bans on abortion.

I'd still see that as temporal and conditional. If you need a state or a federal government to represent you for you, then we aren't there yet. Banning abortion might be a wake up call. I don't know.