Roe V Wade has been repealed

[Lacius]

That's not the same thing. Like, at all. Go back to school and educate yourself more before you make more idiotic statements like that.

Slaves in the US were dehumanized and treated like livestock. For example, they were forced to procreate with other slaves, whether or not they wanted to. Their bodily autonomy rights were inarguably violated. When a pregnant woman is told she cannot legally have an abortion, that is inarguably also a violation of her bodily autonomy rights. Where's the problem?

The only idiotic statement I see is your "nuh uh" post. Next time you want to disagree with something I said, you might want to explain where the actual problem is instead of making petty statements like "go back to school." It's embarrassing.

 

[AmandaRose]

In fact, the super scary ideas of raaaeeeeeppppp and iinnncceeesssstttt are so vanishingly rare as to be statistically irrelevant:

1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime. Rape or attempted rape is not rare at all like you claim.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem

 

[BitMasterPlus]

Slaves in the US were dehumanized and treated like livestock. For example, they were forced to procreate with other slaves, whether or not they wanted to. Their bodily autonomy rights were inarguably violated. When a pregnant woman is told she cannot legally have an abortion, that is inarguably also a violation of her bodily autonomy rights. Where's the problem?

The only idiotic statement I see is your "nuh uh" post. Next time you want to disagree with something I said, you might want to explain where the actual problem is instead of making petty statements like "go back to school." It's embarrassing.

Nobody is forcing anyone to have sex. And if you really want that abortion, go to a blue state. Your statement is full of ignorance and hate and I truly someone like you never has kids because they would truly be miserable and messed up.

 

[Lacius]

Nobody is forcing anyone to have sex.

You should do some more reading on the history of slavery in the US.

And if you really want that abortion, go to a blue state.

1. Taking away bodily autonomy rights in one state, even if they still exist next door in another state, doesn't mean taking them away isn't deplorable.
2. For some in the US, the driving distance to the nearest abortion clinic is now just under 900 miles (one-way). A lot of women don't have the money, job security, or time to do that.

Your statement is full of ignorance

This will be the second time I've asked: What did I get wrong? If you're going to say I'm wrong, it's a good idea to tell me how I'm wrong, because otherwise, you're just gasping and yelling into the void.

Your statement is full of hate

I am against it when the state violates people's bodily autonomy rights. If that's what you're referring to, then sure, I'm "full of hate." Do you have a point?

and I truly someone like you never has kids because they would truly be miserable and messed up.

Yes, I am the one full of hate.

 

[SyphenFreht]

I'm directly addressing the topic. Your arrogance is in thinking that your view is not only an American view (it's not), but that it's global or universal.

At what point did I imply that my view is global? Or that my view is shared by anyone else? You're taking an awful lot of liberties to infer a way of thinking that I have yet to show. But if that's what you have to do to avoid answering questions and contributing to the overall thread, well... Who am I to force you to do something? I'm certainly not Republican.

First, women consent to pregnancy in varying degrees. "Forced birth" implies forced impregnation, which is rape. Second I never suggested that a "mother's" life is irrelevant nor assumed to demand control over another's body.

The only time a woman consents to being pregnant is when she decides to be pregnant, not when someone else decides for her. Leaving the rape argument aside, any one person is free to have sex at their leisure without consent to getting pregnant.

No, forced birth implies that someone else is forcing the woman to give birth based on anything other than the woman's consent. You can tack on any additional feelings and filler words you want, consent is more important than your wish to control someone's body.

No, you didn't suggest that, however that's exactly the argument pro lifers debate on. Break it down and deny it all you want, that's the base argument. If it wasn't about control, then it wouldn't be illegal, even on a state level.

I pity you and the society that you want to believe in.

Pity all you want, you still have a habit of avoiding questions you can't answer and ignoring valid points to hold on to the weak platform you're barely standing on.

Your lack of recognition to said question implies that you don't believe babies have value, which leads me to believe that the only reason why you're against abortions stems from either control or religious upbringing.

Care to leave anymore one sentence responses meant to deflect the issues at hand?

 

[BitMasterPlus]

You should do some more reading on the history of slavery in the US.

Is that happening now though? It was wrong back then, but show me where that same exact situation is happening now? I don't see anyone forcing anyone to fuck at gun point from my view.

1. Taking away bodily autonomy rights in one state, even if they still exist next door in another state, doesn't mean taking them away isn't deplorable.
2. For some in the US, the driving distance to the nearest abortion clinic is now just under 900 miles (one-way). A lot of women don't have the money, job security, or time to do that.

1. No rights were taken away. Abortion isn't a right. Read the constitution.
2. Tough shit. Use protection, don't have sex, or suck it up and take the drive. It's not my problem that you couldn't close your damn legs.

This will be the second time I've asked: What did I get wrong? If you're going to say I'm wrong, it's a good idea to tell me how I'm wrong, because otherwise, you're just gasping and yelling into the void.

You said rights are taken away and that people are being forced to procreate like it's the slave times. Neither are true.

I am against it when the state violates people's bodily autonomy rights. If that's what you're referring to, then sure, I'm "full of hate." Do you have a point?

You're full of hate and ignorance because you don't have a basic understanding on what's actually going on and trying to equate apple to oranges and spewing vile when someone disagrees.

Yes, I am the one full of hate.

Good that you agree. From what I've seen, I genuinely believe you shouldn't have kids, ever, until you work on your massive narcissism and ignorance, lest you want those kids to also be full of hate and be miserable, cause that's whats gonna happen.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Jesus, I've never seen such a narcissistic and self destructive species like humans before. Anything to fit the agenda, huh? Even if it means cutting your own throats.

That's not the same thing. Like, at all. Go back to school and educate yourself more before you make more idiotic statements like that.

Here, let's make a better analogy: forcing women to give birth because some people don't like abortions is like slavery. In both scenarios, the "slave" is made to do things they don't agree with and often violate their right to life at the whim of someone who wishes to control them because they're seen as inferior.

Better?

Nobody is forcing anyone to have sex.

As if rape didn't exist. But forcing people to have sex is hardly the issue, isn't it? It's that forced birth thing every one seems to be up in arms about.

Do you ever bring anything actually intellectually stimulating to the table, or do you just antagonize people with hollow standpoints until you feel it's time to start trolling everyone with your hypocritical statements and draconian views?

 

[BitMasterPlus]

Here, let's make a better analogy: forcing women to give birth because some people don't like abortions is like slavery. In both scenarios, the "slave" is made to do things they don't agree with and often violate their right to life at the whim of someone who wishes to control them because they're seen as inferior.

Better?

Nope, cuz it's still not the same. They can still get abortions. No one is forcing either party, man or woman, to have sex, protected or unprotected. No one thinks they're inferior. Protecting life is not akin to slavery. Get it? :3

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Don't bring souls into this. There is no evidence for it. Seriously, when does a soul develop then? Not as the sperm. As soon as the sperm hits the egg? Then *Poof* soul? It's just nonsensical on any level.

They also aren't babies. I can prove that to you with my usual fun hypothetical. I used this previously and had a fun chat with someone else. But in the end, any points they tried to make didn't relate to our current situation in the world. So here's the situation:

You're in a fertility clinic. It's on fire and about to come down. You're in the middle of a long hallway. On one side, there's an old man in a wheelchair. On the other side of the hallway is a briefcase containing hundreds of viable embryos (Fertilized and good to go), which are scheduled to be implanted into women that week. You only have time to save one. Which do you choose? And please don't try to say something inane like "I'd save them both!".

I won't have to wait for your answer though, since there is only one single answer that isn't monstruous. A normal person would choose the old man in the wheelchair. Which should prove that you yourself don't consider hundreds of embryos equivalent to the life of a single person, even if that person is old and near the end of their life.

I would choose the briefcase. The briefcase contains thousands of years of life with the potential to become millions of years of life. It would be selfish of the old man to assume that he should be saved instead. It is a typical way of thinking among semites (Arabs, Jews) and alluded to in both Islam and Judaism. My thinking is not based on religion though. I mean it as I have stated it.
A single person is not a plural btw; i hate it when people write "they". So confusing.

 

[tabzer]

At what point did I imply that my view is global? Or that my view is shared by anyone else? You're taking an awful lot of liberties to infer a way of thinking that I have yet to show. But if that's what you have to do to avoid answering questions and contributing to the overall thread, well... Who am I to force you to do something? I'm certainly not Republican.



The only time a woman consents to being pregnant is when she decides to be pregnant, not when someone else decides for her. Leaving the rape argument aside, any one person is free to have sex at their leisure without consent to getting pregnant.

No, forced birth implies that someone else is forcing the woman to give birth based on anything other than the woman's consent. You can tack on any additional feelings and filler words you want, consent is more important than your wish to control someone's body.

No, you didn't suggest that, however that's exactly the argument pro lifers debate on. Break it down and deny it all you want, that's the base argument. If it wasn't about control, then it wouldn't be illegal, even on a state level.



Pity all you want, you still have a habit of avoiding questions you can't answer and ignoring valid points to hold on to the weak platform you're barely standing on.

Your lack of recognition to said question implies that you don't believe babies have value, which leads me to believe that the only reason why you're against abortions stems from either control or religious upbringing.

Care to leave anymore one sentence responses meant to deflect the issues at hand?

Look guy. You said "we" live in a society were pregnancy "has no value".

You seem to think that a woman can wake up 8 months pregnant and claim that she doesn't consent, as if it were some "arbitrary social construct", like some treat gender. You are an idiot.

As for the great question--it answers itself.

At what point is the baby's life valuable to anyone other than the immediate parents?

You are just an asshole.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

As if rape didn't exist. But forcing people to have sex is hardly the issue, isn't it? It's that forced birth thing every one seems to be up in arms about.

Rape does exist, and those who do it should be punished. Then abortion should be considered as a rare instance, depending on the circumstances, but you shouldn't also punish the sins of the child because of the father. And considering how many states still allow abortion, the forced birth argument falls flat.

Do you ever bring anything actually intellectually stimulating to the table, or do you just antagonize people with hollow standpoints until you feel it's time to start trolling everyone with your hypocritical statements and draconian views?

I could say the same to you and others since you I've seen some evil and twisted views on here. I mean, if we're gonna go there, most of you should be locked up in an insane asylum, never to see the light of day every again. Society would be better for it, I guarantee it.

 

[Lacius]

Is that happening now though? It was wrong back then, but show me where that same exact situation is happening now? I don't see anyone forcing anyone to fuck at gun point from my view.

You seem to have missed my point. I didn't say it was happening now. I was showing how @N7Kopper's analogy comparing abortion and slavery was backwards.

1. No rights were taken away. Abortion isn't a right. Read the constitution.

Whether or not you agree with the recent Supreme Court ruling, access to abortion was a legal right women had in this country until now. This also sets a precedent for any bodily autonomy right being infringed upon.

2. Tough shit.

You're the one who implied that anti-abortion laws were no big deal because a woman could just go to another state. I explained how you were mistaken.

Use protection

1. Protection is not 100% effective.
2. Access to contraception is not equal in this country.
3. Right-wing politicians in this country have made access to contraception and safe sex education more difficult in this country.
4. Whether or not a woman uses contraception is irrelevant to whether or not she should have a right to bodily autonomy.

don't have sex

1. Sex is a biological drive comparable to the biological drives for food or water.
2. Whether or not a woman has sex is irrelevant to whether or not she should have a right to bodily autonomy.

or suck it up and take the drive.

As I have already explained, that's an impossibility for many women if they care about keeping their jobs, taking care of their families, or having time/money for other things.

It's not my problem that you couldn't close your damn legs.

1. Whether or not something is "your problem" is irrelevant to whether or not it's an injustice and/or deplorable. I'm sorry this is how you view the world.
2. Thank you for the admission that this is about sex.

You said rights are taken away

Yes.

people are being forced to procreate

Yes.

people are being forced to procreate like it's the slave times.

I was showing how @N7Kopper's analogy comparing abortion and slavery was backwards. Slavery in the US included examples when slave-owners would violate the bodily autonomy of their slaves, and restricting access to legal abortion is also a violation of bodily autonomy rights. That's all.

Nope, cuz it's still not the same.

That's what makes it an analogy.

They can still get abortions.

Many states have made it so women cannot get legal abortions. Whether or not other states allow abortion access is irrelevant for the reasons I've already stated.

No one is forcing either party, man or woman, to have sex, protected or unprotected. No one thinks they're inferior. Protecting life is not akin to slavery. Get it?

The point was that both are examples of someone's bodily autonomy rights being violated.

Do you believe the state should be allowed to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights?

 

[Lacius]

You seem to think that a woman can wake up 8 months pregnant and claim that she doesn't consent

Consent to sex is not consent to get pregnant. Consent to become pregnant is not consent to stay pregnant. A woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy whenever she chooses and regardless of the circumstances. If it's before fetal viability, that would be an abortion. If it's after fetal viability, that would be a birth.

"arbitrary social construct", like some treat gender.

"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender

 

[SyphenFreht]

Nope, cuz it's still not the same. They can still get abortions. No one is forcing either party, man or woman, to have sex, protected or unprotected. No one thinks they're inferior. Protecting life is not akin to slavery. Get it? :3

"They can still get abortions". And slaves could still run away. You know what happens when they get caught? Death. You know what's on the docket for a lot of these red states should a woman get caught getting an abortion? Death. Can't make this up bruh. And you can't call it protecting life if you're endangering the life of the woman involved.

Rape does exist, and those who do it should be punished. Then abortion should be considered as a rare instance, depending on the circumstances, but you shouldn't also punish the sins of the child because of the father. And considering how many states still allow abortion, the forced birth argument falls flat.

How does the argument fall flat? Some states outlaw abortion on pain of, at worst, death. Just because some states allow abortion doesn't mean the argument falls flat, you just wish it does because arguing against it shows the issue pro lifers have with control.

I could say the same to you and others since you I've seen some evil and twisted views on here. I mean, if we're gonna go there, most of you should be locked up in an insane asylum, never to see the light of day every again. Society would be better for it, I guarantee it.

There it is again, that control thing. What is it with you people wanting to control everyone else just because their views are different than yours? You people haven't been happy since the slaves were freed.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Look guy. You said "we" live in a society were pregnancy "has no value".

Yes, because I live in the society that overturned Roe v Wade, so "we" as a society are dealing with it and it's view against capitalism as a whole.

I never said pregnancy didn't have value, nor did I imply that children didn't have value in my eyes. In fact, I asked a question that you're still avoiding by arguing over what you inferred when I said "we". You're derailing to stay relevant without having to actually contribute by answering.

You seem to think that a woman can wake up 8 months pregnant and claim that she doesn't consent, as if it were some "arbitrary social construct", like some treat gender. You are an idiot.

No, that's how you chose to infer my words. I can't be held responsible because you lack reading comprehension.

But to call the kettle black, you seem to think that women all over the world are eagerly waiting until last minute to... What did another user say? "Decapitate" babies? As if women weren't struggling with the after effects of shitty men peeling off condoms as soon as they could, because they often feel the same way about abortion as a lot of you. That's why most abortions take place during the first trimester and anything after that is a direct result of the projected death of either the baby or the mother.

As for the great question--it answers itself.

You are just an asshole.

Glad to see you passively admitting your lack of intellectual reasoning.

Tell you what: if you can't place the value of the baby on anything than what it's worth to the parents, then you have nothing to argue for regarding abortion aside from control.

Care to ignore this for two to three more comments?

 

[titan_tim]

I would choose the briefcase. The briefcase contains thousands of years of life with the potential to become millions of years of life. It would be selfish of the old man to assume that he should be saved instead. It is a typical way of thinking among semites (Arabs, Jews) and alluded to in both Islam and Judaism. My thinking is not based on religion though. I mean it as I have stated it.
A single person is not a plural btw; i hate it when people write "they". So confusing.

Wow, unexpected. I guess, well done on taking the monstrous route. No sane person would ever think that would be the moral choice, but here we are....

All I can say is that I envy anyone who has never met you.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

You seem to have missed my point. I didn't say it was happening now. I was showing how @N7Kopper's analogy comparing abortion and slavery was backwards.

Except is still isn't.

Whether or not you agree with the recent Supreme Court ruling, access to abortion was a legal right women had in this country until now. This also sets a precedent for any bodily autonomy right being infringed upon.

No it isn't. No rights were taken away.

You're the one who implied that anti-abortion laws were no big deal because a woman could just go to another state. I explained how you were mistaken.

And I explained on what to do. People just like to make excuses in order to never take responsibility.

1. Protection is not 100% effective.
2. Access to contraception is not equal in this country.
3. Right-wing politicians in this country have made access to contraception and safe sex education more difficult in this country.
4. Whether or not a woman uses contraception is irrelevant to whether or not she should have a right to bodily autonomy.

1. It's still pretty damn effective. If you're that scared, then don't fuck. Simple.
2. Um, yes it is. Not sure where you get that.
3. Replace with left-wing then it's actually true.
4. Not really. It's the persons responsibility to make their own decisions regarding how they have or don't have sex. If it's the women's choice, why are you so concerned? It's not your business now, is it?

1. Sex is a biological drive comparable to the biological drives for food or water.
2. Whether or not a woman has sex is irrelevant to whether or not she should have a right to bodily autonomy.

1. It's not my fault people can't control how damn horny they get. A person can go through life without having sex once. It's actually not needed for a person's personal survival. The body needs food and water. Outside of making sure humanity exists for another generation, you won't die if you don't fuck.
2. No is isn't.

As I have already explained, that's an impossibility for many women if they care about keeping their jobs, taking care of their families, or having time/money for other things.

And as I have explained, it's not my problem if people make poor choices then don't have the time to fix those choices.

1. Whether or not something is "your problem" is irrelevant to whether or not it's an injustice and/or deplorable. I'm sorry this is how you view the world.
2. Thank you for the admission that this is about sex.

1. No it's not.
2. It's about protecting human life. I know you can't see beyond yourself so it's easy to mistake.

Yes.

Nope.

Yes.

Nah.

I was showing how @N7Kopper's analogy comparing abortion and slavery was backwards. Slavery in the US included examples when slave-owners would violate the bodily autonomy of their slaves, and restricting access to legal abortion is also a violation of bodily autonomy rights. That's all.

Well maybe I misunderstood? It's hard to keep up when 500 posts show up at once, but I try, as anyone would. I have a life outside here that take priority as well.

That's what makes it an analogy.

And it's still not the same.

Many states have made it so women cannot get legal abortions. Whether or not other states allow abortion access is irrelevant for the reasons I've already stated.

No it isn't.

The point was that both are examples of someone's bodily autonomy rights being violated.

Do you believe the state should be allowed to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights?

No I don't, but no rights are being violated since you can still get abortions.

"They can still get abortions". And slaves could still run away. You know what happens when they get caught? Death. You know what's on the docket for a lot of these red states should a woman get caught getting an abortion? Death. Can't make this up bruh. And you can't call it protecting life if you're endangering the life of the woman involved.

Pfft HAHAHAHAHA You're unreal. I mean, what reality do you live in?

How does the argument fall flat? Some states outlaw abortion on pain of, at worst, death. Just because some states allow abortion doesn't mean the argument falls flat, you just wish it does because arguing against it shows the issue pro lifers have with control.

It falls flat because it's bullshit.

There it is again, that control thing. What is it with you people wanting to control everyone else just because their views are different than yours? You people haven't been happy since the slaves were freed.

If it's about control, then why can't you or all the other left wing nut jobs let this go? Roe v. Wade is overturned, get over it. Move on. Live life. Instead you wanna reee and screech every time you don't get your way, and threaten to burn down business and murder people on top of that. No rights has been taken away. You can still walk outside and live your life the same as before. Don't talk about control when it's your side who wants to force their twisted views on the masses who don't want it. Like it or not, you are the twisted minority, and we're not backing down to you anymore.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Wow, unexpected. I guess, well done on taking the monstrous route. No sane person would ever think that would be the moral choice, but here we are....

All I can say is that I envy anyone who has never met you.

Perhaps the difference lies in the memory of genocide. The tragedy of genocide is not only the lives lost but also their would-be (or would-have-been) descendents. Just look at North America as an example. The once proud Native Americans reduced to undeserving plots of land and their heritage mocked by presidential candidates.

Interesting how you think people of other cultures are insane. So unless I think as you do I cannot be sane.

 

[titan_tim]

Perhaps the difference lies in the memory of genocide. The tragedy of genocide is not only the lives lost but also their would-be (or would-have-been) descendents. Just look at North America as an example. The once proud Native Americans reduced to undeserving plots of land and their heritage mocked by presidential candidates.

Yeah, no.... If there was a choice of killing 6 million jews vs killing 6 million viable fetuses, morally there's no competition. On which would be considered more important to try and save.

You're comparing a group of people who have had lives, memories, and experiences to a bunch of cells.

 

[Lacius]

No I don't, but no rights are being violated since you can still get abortions.

If you do not believe the state should be allowed to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights, then you are against state bans on abortion.