Roe V Wade has been repealed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,191
Country
United States
Yeah but humans don't have gender unless you make them up
Now you're getting it. Gender is a social construct.

Basically what you are saying is that a trans person is different from me
Transgender people are different from cisgender people, yes. Heterosexual people are different from homosexual people. People are different from each other. What is your point, and what does it have to do with Roe?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dakitten

Acid_Snake

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Messages
339
Trophies
0
Age
28
XP
955
Country
Spain
Now you're getting it. Gender is a social construct.


Transgender people are different from cisgender people, yes. Heterosexual people are different from homosexual people. People are different from each other. What is your point, and what does it have to do with Roe?
No, homosexual people are not different from heterosexual people the same way liking apples doesn't make you different from someone who likes oranges. That's biggotry and hatred.

You aren't an advocate for trans people rights, you can't even properly define what trans people are.
All you are really doing is pushing for seggregation among people and I won't participate in it.
 

SyphenFreht

As above, so below
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
556
Trophies
0
Age
120
XP
1,141
Country
United States
A human isn't born with a non-binary or genderqueer organ between their legs.

So you are making up new ways to seggregate people.

It's not segregation to classify unless you're doing it to maliciously and purposely deem one class lower than another. I understand what you're trying to say when you suggest that labels only belong to objects, but when you have movements this large, they need to be classified to some degree. That's where you get things like statistics and representation from. At the end of the day, people classify themselves a certain way not just for scientific based reasons, but also for a sense of belonging. Any breakdown of that exists only to dehumanize and undermine the uniqueness of the individuals in question.

To bring this round back to the topic at hand, there is a difference of classification when it comes to sex and gender, and the formation of a fetus into a baby. In this sense, the classification and identity associated with the fetus and related stages are to designate how far along the eventual person is during it's developmental stage, not necessarily unlike the classification of sex and gender, however the latter, again, classifies also based on belonging.

Of course, people tend to forget that science is constantly changing and getting better at identifying things. For example, it was widely accepted fact that there were only men and women back in the '50's because science hadn't progressed far enough. These days, from a combination of both biological and psychological science, we've come to know that while most people are born with one other or another, a person's attachment to this predetermined "gender" differs between people and only recently have people been comfortable enough to try and figure themselves out, despite the animosity they've received for trying to figure themselves out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dakitten

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,191
Country
United States
No, homosexual people are not different from heterosexual people the same way liking apples doesn't make you different from someone who likes oranges.
You're minimizing the differences between gay and straight people.

You aren't an advocate for trans people rights, you can't even properly define what trans people are.
I'm not the one entering irrelevant threads to spam about how transgender people don't exist, lol.

All you are really doing is pushing for seggregation among people and I won't participate in it.
I haven't once pushed or promoted segregation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dakitten

NoobletCheese

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
479
Trophies
0
Age
23
XP
849
Country
United States
I perceive consciousness as the state of being, when the fetus starts to feel anything at all, starts to dream and becomes aware. For simplicity, we can say when it wakes up to life. Consciousness manifests around the 30th week, which is beyond six and a half months.

My philosophy is that if I don't know exactly when I can reasonably doubt the baby's lack of consciousness, then I'll err on the side of caution and set the cutoff point a bit lower just to be sure, as in my view it's a "lesser evil" to infringe on a woman's bodily autonomy a few weeks earlier than risk accidentally killing a conscious baby.

@10:12 this guy is saying 18-20 weeks

Then there's that analogy of the coma patient who is unconscious and will wake up in 9 months. But "potential consciousness" is problematic for me as it could be used to set the cutoff point to a very low value since even a clump of cells would have "potential consciousness".

By forcing a baby into the world, we might be often condemning a woman and a child to a life of misery and unhappiness

Adoption tho

even a rogue President would have to work with the checks and balances around them to deny a right to bodily autonomy.

This happened with Biden's attempt to mandate vaccines at a federal level. To me this felt risky even just letting him even have a shot at it. The guy's an authoritarian menace and I presume you would feel the same way about a whackjob conservative trying to pass the "heartbeat" law at a federal level. Giving all the power to a small group of people at the top is dangerous. imo it's already dangerous enough at a state level -- I'd like to see individual cities/councils have their own autonomy.

If it is in the womb, it can meet its doom.

jennifer-lawrence-oh-ok.gif
 
Last edited by NoobletCheese,

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,191
Country
United States
My philosophy is that if I don't know exactly when I can reasonably doubt the baby's lack of consciousness, then I'll err on the side of caution and set the cutoff point a bit lower just to be sure, as in my view it's a "lesser evil" to infringe on a woman's bodily autonomy a few weeks earlier than risk accidentally killing a conscious baby.
Do you think the state should be able to violate your bodily autonomy to save a life then?

Adoption tho
The option of adoption doesn't solve the bodily autonomy problem.
 

Dark_Phoras

Master of Hounds
Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
293
Trophies
0
Age
27
XP
604
Country
Portugal
@NoobletCheese the earliest recorded timeframe of a brain developed enough to theoretically be conscious (as in, to be able to send and receive sensory information through the nervous system, if I understood correctly) is 24 weeks (Wikipedia cites Oxford and Cambridge [1] [2] academia, I don't have access). The recorded first evidence of their function occurs around week 30. Also, I believe we should strive to have fewer orphans, the more there are, the harder it is for them to receive proper care and education.
 

Dakitten

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
384
Trophies
0
Age
39
XP
895
Country
United States
sure they arent, but hey, as long as you are responsible, who cares about collateral damage right?

Honestly, abortion isn't something im overly invested in ( as a man/incel) but i support the bans out of spite, because this wasn't a concern with the magic needle, and it wasnt a concern with gun control, its only a concern when liberals dont get what they want.

As far as my actual stance, i don't care much for the practice, as i think it generates a lack of discipline, but i think there are some people who may need it, and those people will suffer, but you should be ok with that because you are doing whatever you can to be responsible.
Okay, seriously, because it can't be said enough...

ABORTION IS NOT BIRTH CONTROL, IT IS A LAST RESORT REGARDING FAMILY PLANNING! THEY ABSOLUTELY SUCK TO GET BUT ARE SOMETIMES REQUIRED BECAUSE LIFE IS UNPREDICTABLE, AND EVEN BEING RESPONSIBLE CAN ENDANGER LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS! IF YOU CANNOT EXPERIENCE ONE, PLEASE STFU ABOUT HOW IT IS USED BY IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE LIKE A REPEAT METHOD FOR BIRTH CONTROL, YOU PIG HUMPING SMOOTHBRAINS!

Women are only fertile part of the month. If one can keep track of the moon or a modern calendar, it is 100% effective. Coitus interruptus is also 100% effective unless the man is an unexperienced 17-year-old. Put both together and a nuclear war with Russia is more likely.
You... really have never had sex, have you? That is so wrong it hurts.

First of all, women have a peak fertility during their cycle, but sperm can survive for several days inside a woman, and cycles can vary a fair bit. No scientist worth their salt would give the calendar projection model a 100% effective rating, and there have been cases of women getting pregnant even during their period! "Pulling out" also fails to get a 100% rating, but this one is far less complicated. Pre-ejaculate still contains sperm and can knock one's partner up, and is far more difficult to control and regulate. Also, and this is a little more subjective so bare with me, women have enough difficulty with the staying power of their partners so pulling out, while appreciated from a family planning perspective, would generally appreciate methods with more certainty and less excuses on performance. Somewhat anecdotal, I know, but hopefully it helps.
My philosophy is that if I don't know exactly when I can reasonably doubt the baby's lack of consciousness, then I'll err on the side of caution and set the cutoff point a bit lower just to be sure, as in my view it's a "lesser evil" to infringe on a woman's bodily autonomy a few weeks earlier than risk accidentally killing a conscious baby.

@10:12 this guy is saying 18-20 weeks

Then there's that analogy of the coma patient who is unconscious and will wake up in 9 months. But "potential consciousness" is problematic for me as it could be used to set the cutoff point to a very low value since even a clump of cells would have "potential consciousness".

Adoption tho
Thousands of folk don't get adopted in the USA, and plenty of folk wish they'd never been put up for adoption. This is absolutely ridiculous since we don't even have a system in place to ensure a good home with guarantees to food, shelter, and education for all children in families, let alone children without one. Also, "potential consciousness" is a cute point and all, but it doesn't change the fact that an undeveloped life is causing a HUGE impact on a fully realized life, and they may have any number of perfectly valid reasons they want or need to end that process. That is on them, not you or anybody else, to figure out, at any time.
This happened with Biden's attempt to mandate vaccines at a federal level. To me this felt risky even just letting him even have a shot at it. The guy's an authoritarian menace and I presume you would feel the same way about a whackjob conservative trying to pass the "heartbeat" law at a federal level. Giving all the power to a small group of people at the top is dangerous. imo it's already dangerous enough at a state level -- I'd like to see individual cities/councils have their own autonomy.
Congratulations, you're on the crazy train of antivax and government upheaval. Amazing. THIS will surely get you taken more seriously! :grog: While we're here though...

Yes of course, eg. if I'm conducting an armed robbery then I could be arrested, or if I have Ebola I could be quarantined.
Or if you're a potential spreader risk for Covid-19, you could get vaccinated to reduce your ability to propagate the virus! Full circle, comrade.

The funny thing is, Biden has actually been annoyingly lax on a true vaccine mandate. If you think he is a whackjob, an actual progressive would be so much better at seeing this actually happen. For the good of genuine constructive discourse, conservative men need to up your game.
 

NoobletCheese

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
479
Trophies
0
Age
23
XP
849
Country
United States
Congratulations, you're on the crazy train of antivax and government upheaval. Amazing. THIS will surely get you taken more seriously!
Or if you're a potential spreader risk for Covid-19, you could get vaccinated to reduce your ability to propagate the virus! Full circle, comrade.

To any confused vax zealots reading this: the gov't's failure to prove I'm a Covid threat to others stems from the fact that others can protect themselves from me with three vaccines, PPE, social distancing, me testing negative while zealots aren't testing negative, me being asymptomatic, me having natural vaccine from prior infection, and me being part of a small population cohort which they have a dramatically lower chance of encountering in public or the workplace.
 

NoobletCheese

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
479
Trophies
0
Age
23
XP
849
Country
United States
@NoobletCheese the earliest recorded timeframe of a brain developed enough to theoretically be conscious (as in, to be able to send and receive sensory information through the nervous system, if I understood correctly) is 24 weeks (Wikipedia cites Oxford and Cambridge [1] [2] academia, I don't have access). The recorded first evidence of their function occurs around week 30. Also, I believe we should strive to have fewer orphans, the more there are, the harder it is for them to receive proper care and education.

So this whole dispute is about whether we violate women's autonomy at week 18 or week 24, and that decision is based on science not morality, so it's not even a moral dispute, so we don't have any reason to be annoyed with eachother.
 

Dark_Phoras

Master of Hounds
Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
293
Trophies
0
Age
27
XP
604
Country
Portugal
So this whole dispute is about whether we violate women's autonomy at week 18 or week 24, and that decision is based on science not morality, so it's not even a moral dispute, so we don't have any reason to be annoyed with eachother.

Yes, but that's if we both had the pro-life perspective. However, why week 18?
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,191
Country
United States
So this whole dispute is about whether we violate women's autonomy at week 18 or week 24, and that decision is based on science not morality, so it's not even a moral dispute, so we don't have any reason to be annoyed with eachother.
Do you believe it's ever okay to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights? If a state can ban abortion in order to "save a life," couldn't a state also take one of your kidneys in order to save a life?
 

SG854

$$$$$
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
4,937
Trophies
1
XP
7,142
Country
Gabon
You seem to be confused by your own analogy. The "dumb" behavior of hanging around an alligator is analogous to having irresponsible sex. The alligator bite is analogous to the pregnancy. Medical treatment for the alligator bite is analogous to medical treatment for the pregnancy (e.g. an abortion). Let me know if you have any questions.


Using words to describe different types of people isn't inherently discriminatory. You might as well be making the same argument about the words homosexual and heterosexual, lol.


Transexual deals with sex, and transgender deals with gender.


People who are transgender have a gender identity that differs from the one that society says would normally comport with the sex they were assigned at birth.

Transgender people can also be transsexual, but that isn't always the case.


Nonbinary or genderqueer.

For the last time, what does this have to do with Roe?
How'd you come to the conclusion I'm confused by my own analogy lol
 

Dakitten

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
384
Trophies
0
Age
39
XP
895
Country
United States
This actually isn't my core reasoning for being against civilian disarmament. My reasoning is that the burden is on the gov't to prove I'm a threat to others, and they have failed to do so. Just like they failed to prove I'm a Covid threat to others, so they don't get to revoke my bodily autonomy wrt drugs, so why would they get to revoke it wrt guns. To any confused vax zealots reading this: the gov't's failure to prove I'm a Covid threat to others stems from the fact that others can protect themselves from me with three vaccines, PPE, social distancing, me getting tested, me being asymptomatic, me having natural vaccine from prior infection, me being not significantly more likely to transmit covid than a vaccinated person, me being part of a small cohort which they have a lower chance of encountering in the wild, and probably more things I can't think of right now.
This makes you look foolish when you made that post, and foolish now. Hey, fun trick, what do covid and roe have in common? Birth control and vaccines are both not 100% effective but that doesn't mean they're worthless and we should prepare for exceptions while working with any tools we can to plan against exceptions~ Covid might get around with better reliability than pregnancy around birth control, but to be fair we've only really been working on that one for three years.

Just because YOU don't feel like you're a thread doesn't mean you aren't, either with guns or vaccines, but in a proper functioning society I'm pretty sure you'd be denied one and forced by any civil means available to have the other or to quarantine. Civilization means more than your selfish way of thinking, comrade.
So this whole dispute is about whether we violate women's autonomy at week 18 or week 24, and that decision is based on science not morality, so it's not even a moral dispute, so we don't have any reason to be annoyed with eachother.
No, the dispute is that a woman's autonomy should never be infringed upon. Some people draw up timelines and exceptions and limitations, but at the end of the day, it should be total freedom.
If nobody wants to look after these animals is it ok to kill them?
Animals aren't fetuses, but thanks for playing. Please don't try again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SyphenFreht

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,191
Country
United States
How'd you come to the conclusion I'm confused by my own analogy lol
Because you made the bad analogy in the first place, lol.

In all seriousness though, it's because you don't understand that restricting access to legal abortion is comparable to restricting access to medical care for the person bitten by an alligator. Whether or not the person did something stupid leading up to their medical condition is irrelevant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
General chit-chat
Help Users
    Dark_Phoras @ Dark_Phoras: People, if you want to talk, just go to a café, or the park