Roe V Wade has been repealed

[smf]

When you have sex, you have a reasonable expectation that pregnancy will result if you don't take steps to prevent it,

1. What if you did take steps to prevent it?

2. It is not reasonable to expect that pregnancy will result, there is a lot of anecdotal and scientific evidence that says it's kinda random.

 

[MicroNut99]

1. What if you did take steps to prevent it?

2. It is not reasonable to expect that pregnancy will result, there is a lot of anecdotal and scientific evidence that says it's kinda random.

Details, details... the willfully ignorant ignore all of them.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/roe-v-wade-has-been-repealed.614315/post-9875087

And the trolls are here.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/roevwad...on-abortion-jay-reeves-cnn-clip.614989/page-7

 

[tabzer]

2. It is not reasonable to expect that pregnancy will result, there is a lot of anecdotal and scientific evidence that says it's kinda random.

Make sure to take your daily pregnancy test. Never know when it is going to happen!

 

[smf]

View attachment 317149
Make sure to take your daily pregnancy test. Never know when it is going to happen!

Thanks for that, it's hilarious watching you misunderstand posts and then excitedly troll.

I get to do it pretty much every time you post

 

[smf]

Details, details... the willfully ignorant ignore all of them.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/roe-v-wade-has-been-repealed.614315/post-9875087

And the trolls are here.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/roevwad...on-abortion-jay-reeves-cnn-clip.614989/page-7

What details do you think I'm ignoring?

I merely pointed out that you can't expect to get a woman pregnant.

She might have reduced fertility, you might have reduced fertility, even fertile couples aren't able to get pregnant from a single intercourse.

Of course I'm picking holes in the troll post, but trolls should expect to have their posts dissected. They have become too used to slap dash inflammatory language getting an emotional response, I'm avoiding that. You need to use logic.

 

[TraderPatTX]

1. A biological woman is someone who is born without a Y chromosome. I don't care what others say, that's my definition. If someone is born with gender dysphoria, and they're no longer under the supervision of their parents or guardians, and they want to become a woman in name, then what do I care? You do you. The idea that men can become biological women is only held by a tiny fraction on the far left. It's the equivalent to saying that all right wingers want everyone to have a gun, and zero gun restrictions. Some are out there, but the vast minority.

2-5. Not much really. But I never mentioned 8.75 months. By that time the baby is able to be removed and live without the use of the parents body. Luckily, nobody is talking about abortion at 8.75 months.

The hypothetical mentions that there are thousands of embryos in a suitcase, so you can assume that they're in test tubes. Sorry, but a 1 day old infant is more important than a thousand test tubes with a collection of cells in them.

Nobody is talking about 3rd trimester abortion?

You don't read much do you?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47066307

To answer your dumb hypothetical... All life is equally important. Just because one would have to make a certain decision during an emergency does not negate the value of those thousands of embryos. It's not an either/or for most people. It's like asking parents which kid do they love the most. It's a stupid question that stupid people ask to try and trip up people smarter than they are and it adds nothing to the conversation.

 

[TraderPatTX]

It shows the value of life that we have truly given to an embryo. 1000 embryos doesn't equal to a single child when we're put to the choice. It also shows that you don't truly believe that it's murder to abort an embryo since it would make you a mass murderer to choose a single child over 1000 test tubes.

Going further, if the single child wasn't a child, but an 80 year old man, you'd still choose the 80 year old man, knowing that he was already near the end of his life. Further lowering the idea that an embryo has the value of a baby.

Unless you are the one who set the fire putting the baby and embryos in danger, you wouldn't be a murderer for not saving the embryos.

Not only are your hypotheticals dumb, you don't even know basic good samaritan laws.

Your assumption is that people would save the baby or the old man because of your belief that they have more value than 1000 embryos. You are attaching your motives to other people. That's what lazy people do when they don't have facts on their side.

This is why people normally stop using hypotheticals in debates around the 3rd grade.

 

[tabzer]

Thanks for that, it's hilarious watching you misunderstand posts and then excitedly troll.

I get to do it pretty much every time you post

You get to do what now?

 

[Lacius]

Yes, you did. It's the same argument. Replacing "bodily autonomy" rights with "property" rights changes nothing, as "bodily autonomy" is the same thing as a right to control your property, of which your body is the most essential element. The argument says that your right to control your property/body gives you license to violate the right to life of a fetus, even though the right to life is generally considered more important than the right to property (and thus bodily autonomy).

The bodily autonomy rights argument is different from the property rights argument. If you want to say they're the same, then great, we can ignore the property rights argument.

Killing it would violate its right to bodily autonomy (as well as, more importantly, its right to life), so you're merely pitting its right to bodily autonomy against your own.

Two things.

1. For the umpteenth time, bodily autonomy rights only refer to one's rights over their own body. It does not extend to someone else's body. It's unfortunate for the fetus that it cannot survive outside the womb, just like it's unfortunate I hypothetically cannot survive without your kidney, but that doesn't mean the woman shouldn't have bodily autonomy rights, just like it doesn't mean you shouldn't have bodily autonomy rights. This isn't about pitting one person's right to bodily autonomy against someone else's. We can give the woman and the fetus equal bodily autonomy rights, and that doesn't change anything. Even if the fetus has full bodily autonomy rights, that doesn't allow it to take away a shred of the woman's bodily autonomy. We can give you and me equal bodily autonomy rights, but that doesn't allow me to take away a shred of your bodily autonomy.
2. You just said that a right to life is more important than bodily autonomy rights, so why don't you think the state can mandate organ donations?

That's because I didn't cause your death; your kidney failure did. I am merely refusing to fix a problem you already had.

You're right that if you refused to give me one of your kidneys, you didn't kill me. My kidney failure killed me. It goes both ways, however. If someone has an abortion, it's the fact that the embryo/fetus cannot survive outside the woman's body that led to its death. I don't have a right to your kidney, and a fetus doesn't have a right to the resources of a woman's body.

After your children are born, you have a reasonable expectation that they will be healthy and have self-sustaining bodies. When you have sex, you have a reasonable expectation that pregnancy will result if you don't take steps to prevent it, and it is wholly expected that the fetus will require the help of the woman's body to sustain itself for the first nine months. In other words, if a woman has consensual sex without protection, this act could reasonably be interpreted as giving consent for a fetus to violate her bodily autonomy for the next nine months, because getting pregnant is an obvious and natural result from having unprotected sex.

After your children are born, you have a reasonable expectation that they will be healthy and have self-sustaining bodies, yes. This doesn't violate anybody's bodily autonomy rights.

Nothing takes away a person's bodily autonomy rights. It doesn't matter if a person has sex, how consensual the sex was, or whether or not the sex was responsible. Consent to have sex is not consent to be pregnant. Consent to become pregnant is not consent to stay pregnant. I doubt you believe the state should be able to force people to donate kidneys to biological children, even if the children were consensual. I doubt you believe the state should be able to force people to donate kidneys to people because the law requires consensual sex-havers to register with a organ donor database.

Yes, and the "forced organ donation" question was already settled in McFall v. Shimp. Obviously the abortion question must be significantly different from the forced organ donation question, or Americans wouldn't still be debating it. Even so, you continue to use the flawed analogy.

1. This wasn't a Supreme Court case, so it isn't exactly settled.
2. Before the very recent fall of Roe, McFall v. Shimp was pretty consistent with other state and federal court rulings.
3. I 100% agree with this court case. It's the anti-choice people who can't agree with this court case without being inconsistent.
4. If, hypothetically, Pennsylvania took away abortion rights, McFall v. Shimp would be one good legal precedent for striking it down in the Pennsylvania courts.

Your right to bodily autonomy is already regularly violated. The government forbids you from using certain drugs

I agree. Repeal these laws.

it subjects you to invasive strip searches at the airport

You have the choice to decline, turn around, and walk out, so it isn't really a violation of bodily autonomy rights.

and it prevents people with terminal illnesses from killing themselves in many cases.

I agree. Repeal these laws.

You could even argue that your employer violates your bodily autonomy by forcing you to wear certain clothing as a condition of employment.

You have the choice to decline, turn around, and walk out, so it isn't really a violation of bodily autonomy rights.

 

[tabzer]

The bodily autonomy rights argument is different from the property rights argument. If you want to say they're the same, then great, we can ignore the property rights argument.


Two things.

1. For the umpteenth time, bodily autonomy rights only refer to one's rights over their own body. It does not extend to someone else's body. It's unfortunate for the fetus that it cannot survive outside the womb, just like it's unfortunate I hypothetically cannot survive without your kidney, but that doesn't mean the woman shouldn't have bodily autonomy rights, just like it doesn't mean you shouldn't have bodily autonomy rights. This isn't about pitting one person's right to bodily autonomy against someone else's. We can give the woman and the fetus equal bodily autonomy rights, and that doesn't change anything. Even if the fetus has full bodily autonomy rights, that doesn't allow it to take away a shred of the woman's bodily autonomy. We can give you and me equal bodily autonomy rights, but that doesn't allow me to take away a shred of your bodily autonomy.
2. You just said that a right to life is more important than bodily autonomy rights, so why don't you think the state can mandate organ donations?

You're right that if you refused to give me one of your kidneys, you didn't kill me. My kidney failure killed me. It goes both ways, however. If someone has an abortion, it's the fact that the embryo/fetus cannot survive outside the woman's body that led to its death. I don't have a right to your kidney, and a fetus doesn't have a right to the resources of a woman's body.


After your children are born, you have a reasonable expectation that they will be healthy and have self-sustaining bodies, yes. This doesn't violate anybody's bodily autonomy rights.

Nothing takes away a person's bodily autonomy rights. It doesn't matter if a person has sex, how consensual the sex was, or whether or not the sex was responsible. Consent to have sex is not consent to be pregnant. Consent to become pregnant is not consent to stay pregnant. I doubt you believe the state should be able to force people to donate kidneys to biological children, even if the children were consensual. I doubt you believe the state should be able to force people to donate kidneys to people because the law requires consensual sex-havers to register with a organ donor database.

1. This wasn't a Supreme Court case, so it isn't exactly settled.
2. Before the very recent fall of Roe, McFall v. Shimp was pretty consistent with other state and federal court rulings.
3. I 100% agree with this court case. It's the anti-choice people who can't agree with this court case without being inconsistent.
4. If, hypothetically, Pennsylvania took away abortion rights, McFall v. Shimp would be one good legal precedent for striking it down in the Pennsylvania courts.

I agree. Repeal these laws.


You have the choice to decline, turn around, and walk out, so it isn't really a violation of bodily autonomy rights.


I agree. Repeal these laws.


You have the choice to decline, turn around, and walk out, so it isn't really a violation of bodily autonomy rights.

You are trying way too hard to ignore the existence of a dependent.

 

[Lacius]

You are trying way too hard to ignore the existence of a dependent.

Could you please be more specific? I don't think I've ignored the existence of a dependent. Having a dependent, however, doesn't void anybody's bodily autonomy rights.

 

[SG854]

You are confused. A woman has a right to bodily autonomy, but she does not have the right to kill a fetus. She does, however, have the right to remove the fetus from her body. There's a very real difference, and the fact that the fetus can't survive outside her is irrelevant, just like the fact that I hypothetically can't survive without your kidney is irrelevant.

The Women is killing the fetus


The woman is placing the fetus in an environment where it can't survive. She knows the fetus will die.

Same argument like leaving a baby in a hot car with the windows rolled up. Women is leaving baby in an environment where it can't survive. She know what will happen.

 

[Lacius]

The Women is killing the fetus

The woman is placing the fetus in an environment where it can't survive. She knows the fetus will die.

The woman isn't killing the fetus anymore than you're killing me by not donating one of your kidneys to me. The fetus doesn't have a right to someone else's body, just like I don't have a right to yours. It's unfortunate that the fetus or embryo will die, and it's unfortunate that I will die, but neither is murder (and that's even pretending that a fetus or embryo is a person).

Same argument like leaving a baby in a hot car with the windows rolled up. Women is leaving baby in an environment where it can't survive. She know what will happen.

That has nothing to do with a woman's bodily autonomy rights, and she's killing the baby.

 

[SG854]

The woman isn't killing the fetus anymore than you're killing me by not donating one of your kidneys to me. The fetus doesn't have a right to someone else's body, just like I don't have a right to yours. It's unfortunate that the fetus or embryo will die, and it's unfortunate that I will die, but neither is murder (and that's even pretending that a fetus or embryo is a person).


That has nothing to do with a woman's bodily autonomy rights, and she's killing the baby.

I don't know why you are talking about the rights of a fetus to someone's body. It's a fetus. It's created and starts off in someone's body.

Sorry your argument doesn't fly. The women's actions is killing the fetus. I support abortion but your argument comes off as you doing mental gymnastics.

 

[Lacius]

I don't know why you are talking about the rights of a fetus to someone's body. It's a fetus. It's created and starts off in someone's body.

How is this relevant to whether or not people have bodily autonomy?

Sorry your argument doesn't fly. The women's actions is killing the fetus. I support abortion but your argument comes off as you doing mental gymnastics.

Be sure to tag me to respond to one of my posts directly if you decide to say anything substantive other than "nuh uh." Thanks.

Do you believe the state should impose laws violating people's bodily autonomy in the name of saving lives?

 

[tabzer]

Could you please be more specific? I don't think I've ignored the existence of a dependent. Having a dependent, however, doesn't void anybody's bodily autonomy rights.

Where does the dependent, aka fetus, exist in your kidney metaphor?

 

[Lacius]

Where does the dependent, aka fetus, exist in your kidney metaphor?

If you found out today you have a biological son, and that son needs a kidney transplant, should you be required by law to donate your kidney to him.

 

[SG854]

How is this relevant to whether or not people have bodily autonomy?


Be sure to tag me to respond to one of my posts directly if you decide to say anything substantive other than "nuh uh." Thanks.

Do you believe the state should impose laws violating people's bodily autonomy in the name of saving lives?

I did tag you. Should've been implied when I replied and quoted your post.

And this is not a nuh uh argument. I gave you a reason. You're just trying to downplay the fact that the fetus is being killed.

At the end of the day you are killing the fetus. It doesn't matter if you twist the argument to try to convince yourself that you are not killing the fetus or try to not use the word kill so that the anti abortion crowd doesn't get rilled up at that emotionally charged word.

Do you believe the state should impose laws violating people's bodily autonomy in the name of saving lives?

You'll need to give examples of what you mean by this. Saying something general is useless if I don't have a specific scenario since not everything is black and white. There may be some cases where laws may make sense but other times where it doesn't. In general, no laws should not be imposed in the name of saving lives. But that's in general without any specific situations.

 

[tabzer]

If you found out today you have a biological son, and that son needs a kidney transplant, should you be required by law to donate your kidney to him.

Can you pretend to be straight for argument? Where is the dependent, aka fetus, in the kidney metaphor?

 

[SyphenFreht]

You're projecting something you think you and others don't have but already do.

Ok, and what is that? You keep commenting one liners in an attempt to prove you're either humorous or relevant, and your last few posts toward me have only proven that you're humorously irrelevant. I would ignore you, but I like to think I'm polite.

Please, indulge me in what values or rights or whatever you think it is I'm projecting, because I'm fairly certain at this point you have no idea what projection is on a philosophical level, do unless you have something coherent to say, you should probably rethink how you try to annoy me.

You're another one who has no voice or identity. You've mentioned multiple times you're here to drink liberal tears, but then you've spent two days posting one liners that has only created tears of laughter, far from whatever you think you need to further sustain yourself and your mindless posts. Please God post back with something other than "OoOoOoh libtard mad" and spare us the inane drivel that's come from your fingers the past few days.

Or maybe you haven't replied much because you've spent your time acclimating yourself with Stormfront, a KKK website that seems like a great place to spread your vitriol and draconian opinions. Maybe grab yourself an incest-bred Nazi bride while you're there so you can someone else to cry over abortions with.