Roe V Wade has been repealed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,101
Trophies
2
XP
18,212
Country
United States
the question is would YOU be on board?
I think it should go without saying that, no, I don't think the state should be able to forcibly remove people's kidneys, just like I don't think the state should be able to force a woman to remain pregnant.

well i am in fact an incel, so tehy can do whatever they want, doesnt matter to me either way.
Excusing deplorable policy because it "doesn't affect you" is also deplorable. I'm sure you would have been a hoot during times of slavery. "I'm not part of the group that is enslaved, so it doesn't matter to me either way." I'm sorry this is how you navigate the world.

My example was also, well, just an example. How would you feel about the state forcibly violating your bodily autonomy rights if it did affect you personally? A state that can take away one group's bodily autonomy rights can take away any group's bodily autonomy rights.

Dude, it was your thought experiment first, not mine, I just responded to it. And oh no, now you can't abort your baby, it's the end of the world, it's not like you can give it up for adoption so it can be happy then you can continue to lead your own selfish and miserable existence or anything. Or use protection. Or not fuck. Or not use the billion of other lame excuses to never take responsibilities for your own actions. My body, my choice as long as it means I don't have to take any responsibility in life. Enough with the excuses. Man the fuck up and take responsibility for your own choices. I don't know what and how else to tell you this.
How would you feel if the state could legally take one of your kidneys if you had sex? "Fuckin' take responsibility for your actions, man."
 

lolcatzuru

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
591
Trophies
0
XP
1,304
Country
United States
I think it should go without saying that, no, I don't think the state should be able to forcibly remove people's kidneys, just like I don't think the state should be able to force a woman to remain pregnant.


Excusing deplorable policy because it "doesn't affect you" is also deplorable. I'm sure you would have been a hoot during times of slavery. "I'm not part of the group that is enslaved, so it doesn't matter to me either way." I'm sorry this is how you navigate the world.

My example was also, well, just an example. How would you feel about the state forcibly violating your bodily autonomy rights if it did affect you personally? A state that can take away one group's bodily autonomy rights can take away any group's bodily autonomy rights.


How would you feel if the state could legally take one of your kidneys if you had sex? "Fuckin' take responsibility for your actions, man."

obviously i wouldnt like it but maybe if people had been more mature with mandates, this wouldnt have happened.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,101
Trophies
2
XP
18,212
Country
United States
but maybe if people had been more mature with mandates, this wouldnt have happened.
The overturning of Roe had nothing to do with COVID vaccine mandates, and these vaccine mandates were not violations of bodily autonomy rights. You can legally be unvaccinated in all 50 states, but you can't legally get an abortion in all 50 states.

obviously i wouldnt like it
Then you should be against state abortion bans.
 

chrisrlink

Has a PhD in dueling
Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,889
Trophies
1
Location
duel acadamia
XP
4,529
Country
United States

lolcatzuru

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
591
Trophies
0
XP
1,304
Country
United States
The overturning of Roe had nothing to do with COVID vaccine mandates, and these vaccine mandates were not violations of bodily autonomy rights. You can legally be unvaccinated in all 50 states, but you can't legally get an abortion in all 50 states.


Then you should be against state abortion bans.

well maybe i wouldve been if you they hadnt had mandates, now i say bring it on, also source on those 2 things not being related?
 

BitMasterPlus

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
1,188
Trophies
0
Age
122
XP
1,549
Country
United States
Dude your moving the goddamn goal post, because I just disproved how your claim doesn't work. No that is not an acceptable choice because you are still violating womens right to a choice. And now your enforcing a draconian state, to prosecute someone OUTSIDE of that state. you are removing choice.
How many more mental gymnastics are you going to play.
I'm not moving anything. If you're just gonna start making shit up and making false accusations then the conversation ends here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrdude

BitMasterPlus

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
1,188
Trophies
0
Age
122
XP
1,549
Country
United States
How would you feel if the state could legally take one of your kidneys if you had sex? "Fuckin' take responsibility for your actions, man."
Oh good lord what a piss poor comparison that's not even the same nor does it make a lick of sense. It's not even grasping at straws, it's the equivalent of me saying, "It's your fault that the criminal broke into your house and shot you so you deserve to go to jail."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Magus29 and mrdude

SyphenFreht

As above, so below
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
556
Trophies
0
Age
120
XP
1,146
Country
United States
Then go to a state where abortion is allowed. Simple. The thought experiment you presented falls apart almost immediately.

If you don't like that people are having abortions, move to a country that outlaws them as a whole.

If someone kills and mutilates a corpse in cold blood, or just kills, then they gave up their right to be called human anymore, so no.

I don't think that's how that works, or else everyone in the military that's killed someone isn't human.

You don't support the "defense of women's bodily autonomy", you support the killing of life.

Why can't it be both?

The constitution states man has the natural rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, and that includes those who will be born. It says life, the baby in almost all situations has the right to life.

The pursuit of happiness designates through inference that abortions are covered unless it's amended that it isn't. Same way you people infer the 2A rights includes the right to own guns.

I'm not moving anything. If you're just gonna start making shit up and making false accusations then the conversation ends here.

Why? You do it all the time.
 
Last edited by SyphenFreht,

SyphenFreht

As above, so below
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
556
Trophies
0
Age
120
XP
1,146
Country
United States
Why does John settle for less? He could be getting tested and wearing PPE, staying home more etc. Majority of spread is caused by the vaccinated so John has a lot to answer for, putting public health at risk when he could be minimising the risk.

OH wait , I know why! Because John has already "done his bit". He already did his bit for medical conscription, so it doesn't matter if he puts people at risk, because he has already signaled his virtue and committed himself to society and state. Because of this, John gets to oppress the vaccine-free because he is righteous.

If John wishes to live and function in an active society, he should take whatever steps necessary to ensure that society continues to function, even if it means getting a vaccine and abiding by whatever measures the CDC recommends to keep that safety. If he doesn't wish to comply, then he shouldn't leave his house.


What is your reasoning against:

* donating blood
* registering as an organ donor
* getting vaccinated against other viruses
* donating to starving children
* not consuming junk food & alcohol
* only driving cars with airbags
* not riding motorcycles
* wearing helmet when cycling
* wearing sunscreen and hat
* eating a vegan diet (50% lower risk of high blood pressure; 66% lower risk of type-2 diabetes, 15% lower risk of cancer, significantly lower cholesterol levels, avoid cruelty to animals)

I don't disagree with most of that. Where are you going with this besides dodging the question at hand?
 

mrdude

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2015
Messages
1,587
Trophies
1
Age
54
XP
4,448
Country
I'm not moving anything. If you're just gonna start making shit up and making false accusations then the conversation ends here.
It's pointless responding to that guy (Nothereed)
. He's a woke trans SJW (you know the type) NPC and can never get pregnant so this change in law doesn't affect him in any way whatsover. He just likes complaining about Republicans, Hate's patriots, and doesn't like the police or anyone with authority over him. He thinks there's Nazi's around every corner and that all white people are guilty or some sort of hate crime. You may as well argue with a piece of wood as the wood won't try any do mental gymnastics and make up words or new definitions for existing words to justify the mental stuff that his brain CPU is trying to compute.
 
Last edited by mrdude,

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,101
Trophies
2
XP
18,212
Country
United States
Oh good lord what a piss poor comparison that's not even the same nor does it make a lick of sense. It's not even grasping at straws, it's the equivalent of me saying, "It's your fault that the criminal broke into your house and shot you so you deserve to go to jail."
You're saying a person should lose their right to bodily autonomy if they have sex. Finding my example inconvenient doesn't mean it isn't comparable.

Do you think the state should be able to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights in order to save a life? Pick a side and be consistent.
 

Relys

^(Software | Hardware) Exploit? Development.$
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
878
Trophies
0
XP
1,218
Country
United States
These people were just called "ugly people" when I was younger. Usually smallish fat/stocky ladies that had a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp (like Nicola Sturgeon), and were unlikely to be found to be attractive by males, which would most likely only have sex with them for a drunken bet with their mates. Males that found it difficult to have sex with (non prostitute) girls/women and were usually weird gaunt looking and effimate types. These people today just wear makeup and claim to be women then claim everyone they disagree with is an incel or a reincarnation of Hitler.
Actually most transgender women are lesbians or pansexual and the reason for transition isn't for lack of sex, but to match the internal image of how they view themselves (both physically and emotionally).

Anyways, let's stay on the thread topic shall we. :)
 

BitMasterPlus

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
1,188
Trophies
0
Age
122
XP
1,549
Country
United States
If you don't like that people are having abortions, move to a country that outlaws them as a whole.
Why when the simpler solution is to live in a state where abortions are may or may not be allowed than to move to another country?
I don't think that's how that works, or else everyone in the military that's killed someone isn't human.
Yes it is how that works. In the military, it's to kill terrorists. It may depend on the type of military in different nations, but it's different in war.
Why can't it be both?
It's one thing to support a person's rights, but if that means the murder of an innocent life, then yes, it's two different things.
The pursuit of happiness designates through inference that abortions are covered unless it's amended that it isn't. Same way you people infer the 2A rights includes the right to own guns.
No it doesn't. And the 2ndA explicitly states for people to bear arms, aka guns and whatnot. Don't try to pull that bs with me.
Why? You do it all the time.
Not really, just unhinged people like you do. And that wasn't even a response to you so butt out asshole.

You're saying a person should lose their right to bodily autonomy if they have sex. Finding my example inconvenient doesn't mean it isn't comparable.

Do you think the state should be able to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights in order to save a life? Pick a side and be consistent.
No I'm not, but I know it's hard for someone so unhinged and programmed with hardcore NPC ideals to understand so I can't blame you completely. Your example isn't inconvenient, it's just plain wrong and shallow. There is nothing that is violating a person's autonomy rights to save a life. Why do you think a baby is a god damn parasite if you don't like it? If that were the case, we were all parasites in one point in our lives that deserved to die. Do you think you or I or anyone still deserve to die today even though we've long gone outside our mother's womb? Why don't you look past yourself for once, actually go outside, and educate yourself before you make even more ridiculous and borderline to just plain evil and vile responses.
 

Relys

^(Software | Hardware) Exploit? Development.$
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
878
Trophies
0
XP
1,218
Country
United States
No I'm not, but I know it's hard for someone so unhinged and programmed with hardcore NPC ideals to understand so I can't blame you completely. Your example isn't inconvenient, it's just plain wrong and shallow. There is nothing that is violating a person's autonomy rights to save a life. Why do you think a baby is a god damn parasite if you don't like it? If that were the case, we were all parasites in one point in our lives that deserved to die. Do you think you or I or anyone still deserve to die today even though we've long gone outside our mother's womb? Why don't you look past yourself for once, actually go outside, and educate yourself before you make even more ridiculous and borderline to just plain evil and vile responses.
So should we also extend child support payments, welfare, medicaid and voting rights to a fetus?

But you don't care do you? You don't even care about supporting it once it's outside the womb. It's just a convenience excuse to feel morally superior and call your opponents a bunch of baby killers without having to worry about passing any legislation to expand social services to take care of the children we already have in poverty and the foster care system.

A fetus is potential to develop into a human. What separates us from animals is our ability to use tools, language, think abstractly, and modify the world around us. A fetus has none of those abilities. Giving it more rights than the adult women that's carrying it is absolutely absurd.
 

assassinz

Visoly 512 Flash Advance Linker Xtreme Master!
Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
1,243
Trophies
0
Location
The Internet
XP
877
Country
United States
All this means is just go get an abortion in states where it's legal.

No constitutional rights have been violated or taken away.
 

Nothereed

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2022
Messages
457
Trophies
0
Age
21
Location
nope
XP
751
Country
United States
As a reminder
 

Attachments

  • 20220704_165020.jpg
    20220704_165020.jpg
    106.8 KB · Views: 2
Status
Not open for further replies.
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    KenniesNewName @ KenniesNewName: +2