Roe V Wade has been repealed

Status
Not open for further replies.

SG854

$$$$$
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
4,937
Trophies
1
XP
7,127
Country
Gabon
And you clearly didn't read the end of my statement. (or it may of not updated to show there)
You literally don't take into account of sabotage, which is far more prevalent than I'd like to hear. People can have sex, and not consent to a child. You literally need both parties to consent to that. With what I mentioned (child trapping) I just essentially proved that two parties can consent to sex, and ONE of them decides it's time for a child without proper consent. Which would count as "irresponsible sex" because one of the parties was acting responsible, and the other was not.
Let me redefine your terms

Responsible Sex
Irresponsible Sex
Sabattoged Sex
 

Nothereed

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2022
Messages
386
Trophies
0
Age
21
Location
nope
XP
647
Country
United States
No rights are being taken away. Get over it.
Dude. You know what? Let's play a tiny thought experiment.
Say I go to Texas, in 2014. Or for that matter, ANY state. And I would be guaranteed (if I was born as a a women, or reproductive organs of one) to still have the choice to get an abortion. Now if we play that same game, but now. I don't get that guarantee. I now have to know what the states laws are on the matter ahead of time, before even being there, or else I might get a felony for attempting to get an abortion.
You still lack reading skills
Alright let's play from the top
"Sex, not responsible, isn't necessarily consent to get pregnant."
This is a modified quote you made from Lacious, here's the original quote
Whether or not a woman uses contraception is also irrelevant to whether or not she should have a right to bodily autonomy. Sex, responsible or not, isn't necessarily consent to get or stay pregnant.
Now your response to him
If you stick you hand near an alligators mouth with all the warning signs you know what your going to get
Okay. Now let's look at what I said, the most relevant part, since I gave three arguments that are relating to each other.

The last bit
Lets also not forget there is such insane shit such as child trapping (go look it up on r/childfree. horrifying concept that wants to make me vomit) (tl;dr the concept is that a man or women intentionally sabotages the contraceptive in order to force the other person into a relationship through pregnancy.)
Sex being boiled down to "touch hotstove get burned"
Is an extremely gross simplification.

in this last statement I make two arguments.
1. it's possible for one to believe that they are having responsible sex, while the other party makes it irresponsible.
2. as a result of that argument, I point out that boiling it down to something as simple as that, is stupid.
Damn near, NO ONE, is arguing that having unprotected sex will not result in a child. What I am arguing however, is that it's possible for a party, to believe that their condom is working, or that their partner is using it. When said partner than can say, remove the condom right before finishing. Or, the birth control being tampered with, or not being taken at all.
Let me redefine your terms

Responsible Sex
Irresponsible Sex
Sabattoged Sex
of course your going to redefine midway as I'm making a response. sigh
alright. I'll play be those terms, and make a new argument.
How can one have irresponsible sex, and not consent to a baby? how about if contraceptives were banned
or how about a lack of proper sex education? Which for the sex ed issue, the states really REALLY likes to not teach that.
And for the contraceptives part... well let's look at the court.
n future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” he wrote, referring to the Supreme Court cases that found a privacy-enshrined right to contraception, sexual contact with someone of the same sex, and same-sex marriage. Thomas, who is Black, did not explicitly mention interracial marriage in his statement, though the Supreme Court ruling, Loving v. Virginia, is founded on the same legal principle"

Or what if one of the parties is drunk? Or [put mind altering thing here]
Would they once they're not completely wasted still consent to having a child? No. They may of consented to having sex that night, but a child? No. And that is DEFINITELY irresponsible sex. I'm pointing out that "irresponsible sex" can happen for a variety of reasons. and just thinking that two people just randomly decide to rog dog without thinking of the possibility of a child (even then lust in the heat of the moment during intimacy can definitely break logic too so there's that too, it requires one of the parties to be of reason, which can be rather difficult. ) is incredibly short sighted.
And it's also unrealistic to say to not have sex.
 
Last edited by Nothereed,
  • Like
Reactions: Dark_Ansem

SG854

$$$$$
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
4,937
Trophies
1
XP
7,127
Country
Gabon
Dude. You know what? Let's play a tiny thought experiment.
Say I go to Texas, in 2014. Or for that matter, ANY state. And I would be guaranteed (if I was born as a a women, or reproductive organs of one) to still have the choice to get an abortion. Now if we play that same game, but now. I don't get that guarantee. I now have to know what the states laws are on the matter ahead of time, before even being there, or else I might get a felony for attempting to get an abortion.

Alright let's play from the top
"Sex, not responsible, isn't necessarily consent to get pregnant."
This is a modified quote you made from Lacious, here's the original quote

Now your response to him

Okay. Now let's look at what I said, the most relevant part, since I gave three arguments that are relating to each other.

The last bit


in this last statement I make two arguments.
1. it's possible for one to believe that they are having responsible sex, while the other party makes it irresponsible.
2. as a result of that argument, I point out that boiling it down to something as simple as that, is stupid.
Damn near, NO ONE, is arguing that having unprotected sex will not result in a child. What I am arguing however, is that it's possible for a party, to believe that their condom is working, or that their partner is using it. When said partner than can say, remove the condom right before finishing. Or, the birth control being tampered with, or not being taken at all.

of course your going to redefine midway as I'm making a response. sigh
alright. I'll play be those terms, and make a new argument.
How can one have irresponsible sex, and not consent to a baby? how about if contraceptives were banned
or how about a lack of proper sex education? Which for the sex ed issue, the states really REALLY likes to not teach that.
And for the contraceptives part... well let's look at the court.
n future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” he wrote, referring to the Supreme Court cases that found a privacy-enshrined right to contraception, sexual contact with someone of the same sex, and same-sex marriage. Thomas, who is Black, did not explicitly mention interracial marriage in his statement, though the Supreme Court ruling, Loving v. Virginia, is founded on the same legal principle"

Or what if one of the parties is drunk? Or [put mind altering thing here]
Would they once they're not completely wasted still consent to having a child? No. They may of consented to having sex that night, but a child? No. And that is DEFINITELY irresponsible sex. I'm pointing out that "irresponsible sex" can happen for a variety of reasons. and just thinking that two people just randomly decide to rog dog without thinking of the possibility of a child (even then lust in the heat of the moment during intimacy can definitely break logic too so there's that too, it requires one of the parties to be of reason, which can be rather difficult. ) is incredibly short sighted.
And it's also unrealistic to say to not have sex.
Nature doesn't care if you consent or not. You are going to get pregnant if you have sex irresponsible. Sticking your hand in a pond of electric eels you know the outcome regardless if you say you did not consent.

Women that drink and drive and kill are responsible for their actions. They go to jail. The same can be extended to sex.

Putting mind altering drugs is not consent and it's rape.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrdude

KennyAtom

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Messages
364
Trophies
0
Age
26
XP
284
Country
United States
Right but don't forget about standard of living costs and how they typically rise shortly after federal minimum wage increases, not to mention businesses raising their prices every time they suddenly have this extra money to pay employees with. It's why the "raise minimum wage" crowd gets it right on paper, but it never really makes a difference once it hits the streets.
That is true, anytime wages are raised, prices just increase. That's why I want the minimum wage raised, but also want it to stay the same because prices would most likely go up to be the exact same money pit as when the minimum wage was the lower price, just more expensive then when the minimum wage was lower.

I do have to agree with you on this point just a bit: general quality of life could be improved with government touch, as long as boundaries exist. The government already has too much overreach on a lot of levels and in a lot of places. Dialing back certain reaches and allowing other ones more reach could definitely makes things a lot better for everyone involved, but the aspect of what in particular is best reserved for another thread.
Yeah, government overreach into some areas should be repealed back, in fact, I think federal taxes in their current form are another form of government overreach at this point, but, as you said, that's reserved for another thread.

we do need limits on what intervention is repealed as well, considering if the federal government completely withdrew, we'd probably go back to ground up fingers in the hamburger meat and multiple people dying a day from suffocation because the smog is so thick.

I can almost *guarantee* that if general quality of life was enhanced across the board in a way it couldn't be monetized for someone else's gain, you could definitely see a drop in the average number of abortions per year. While not all abortions grace this example by any means, a lot of these supposed abortions due to "irresponsibility" or "inconvenience" would disappear altogether if the mother generally felt safe and secure enough to keep the baby. Call that mentality what you will, it would cease to exist if there wasn't immediate fear for survival once that period skips.
Pretty weird to call the mentality "What you will", but I suppose there have been weirder names.

Dad jokes aside, if the standard of living was raised without prices being raised completely, I'd have to completely agree. At this point, abortions are done because women don't feel safe bringing a kid into the world, or because they (or the baby) would die if they gave birth. If the standard living was raised, we'd get less of the first, and that'd be a win in my book.

As much as I don't want abortions to happen after a certain time period, I do understand they must happen in specific circumstances, and raising the standard of living would defiantly be a win in my book in that department, as most women wouldn't need that reason anymore.
 

Dakitten

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
384
Trophies
0
Age
39
XP
895
Country
United States
Letting the states decide their own laws enhances democracy, so the Supreme Court decision is still the right thing in principle if you value democracy. Do you want to run the risk of a very conservative president getting elected & trying to pass restrictions at a federal level?
If the president was elected by a democratic process and not an out of date system designed to limit democratic power, I'd have to yield the point... Of course, fixing the country so as to bypass gerrymandering and allow the masses to work towards their own destiny would mean even a rogue President would have to work with the checks and balances around them to deny a right to bodily autonomy. As for letting the states decide for themselves, I despise the idea as it pits powers inside the country against its own interests for self centered gains.

Now assuming this story of a 10 year old is true, it's clearly a case of rape and the victim would have to be more than 6 weeks pregnant as Ohio appears to be using the "heartbeat" law which caps abortions at 6 weeks, or at any week if the mother's life is threatened or "severely compromised physical health".
It isn't uncommon for women to be late a week or two, particularly due to stress. It gets even more complicates should bleeding occur, which is again not unheard of and can lead to a false negative regarding pregnancy. Six weeks is simply insufficient, but you seem interested in this topic so I'm sure you're well versed in female anatomy and functions. You're cool like that!

For adults I don't have too much of an issue with Ohio's law as adults are generally mature enough to identify rape and use contraception within 6 weeks of the crime. But children don't necessarily have that level of maturity so perhaps they deserve special consideration and should be allowed to have later abortions.

Now the hard question for you is: at what month would you cap abortions, and what would you do if this 10 year old girl was already past that month?
Not a hard question at all. There is no cap. If it is in the womb, it can meet its doom.

Put bluntly, an abortion isn't a form of birth control, it is family planning. NO WOMAN EVER WANTS AN ABORTION JUST SO THEY CAN NOT HAVE A KID AFTER HAVING SEX. That is what condoms, injections, pills, stupid mesh that cuts into people, and a myriad of other goodies are for. An abortion is an action of last resort, and there are a countless number of perfectly good reasons women might find to get one depending on their individual circumstances, ranging from financial issues to risks to personal health to being mislead or raped to just knowing they aren't ready to be a good parent.

The longer a pregnancy goes on, the more the WOMAN has to deal with the pains and problems of the abortion, but it is their body being used for this process. The fetus could be singing with the voice of an angel the mathematical solutions to the calculus of the universe a month before it is ready to be brought into the world, and I wouldn't flinch for a second if their mother made the call to abort because it could well end her life to even try delivering. I might raise an eyebrow if the mother just thought their kid to be was tone deaf and didn't want them brought into the world and threaten Beyonce's dominance, but wouldn't deny the abortion even if I could see into the future they just wanted their bodily autonomy back so they could do drugs and lick drywall for a week. It doesn't matter because a woman still has to deal with those repercussions in order to enact their own bodily autonomy men take for granted.

Is it the best idea in every circumstance? Maybe not. What boys here seem to forget is that the would be mother is in the best position to make that call and nobody but her and her doctor working for her best interest and information (like ADVISING inducing rather than aborting at 8 months because that would be so much less dangerous and less effort!) should get the chance to say booboo about it. End of story.
lower taxes means higher wages, since businesses don't have to pay as much in taxes, therefore they will have an incentive to pay more in wages.
Yeah, this theory has been tried out before to not much success. Having more money does NOT equal more incentive to pay more in wages, having government step in and ensure competition can thrive and setting strong baselines with government positions and federal minimum wages does. A business will always find a way to make a profit or die, and it will always afford the minimum amount of workers to do the most work for the maximum amount of profit, and that means no matter what government does to regulate them they'll still exist and hire people... until maybe the people utilize the government to make all jobs owned and sanctioned by the state, but that is a whole other can of worms~
government intervention can be toned down a bit on our side as well, why can I go to war, vote, legally sign contracts, and get into debt, but not get a nice alcoholic beverage or smoke a pack of Newports? that's the kind of government intervention I'm on the side of removing, not stuff like "Oh you cannot make the environment worse" or intervention like that.
Why can a woman join the military (which I did) and be trusted with the well being of others, but not be trusted to manage their own body and how it should be utilized? My family might have had three children... and it might have had one less parent, and clear signs of bad getting worse weren't apparent until after some time had passed. Anybody who says that call wasn't the right one had best brace their nose for impact because that sort of thing happens all the time and it is damn well worth fighting for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dark_Ansem

KennyAtom

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Messages
364
Trophies
0
Age
26
XP
284
Country
United States
Why can a woman join the military (which I did) and be trusted with the well being of others, but not be trusted to manage their own body and how it should be utilized? My family might have had three children... and it might have had one less parent, and clear signs of bad getting worse weren't apparent until after some time had passed. Anybody who says that call wasn't the right one had best brace their nose for impact because that sort of thing happens all the time and it is damn well worth fighting for.
Honestly, I don't know much about this at all, which is why I most likely seem uninformed most of the time.

I do try and stay informed, to the best of my abilities, but sometimes I don't know.

All in all, government overreach is bad, and most things should be left up to the states. Abortion I'm not sure about, but most other things should be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dark_Ansem

UltraDolphinRevolution

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
1,616
Trophies
0
XP
2,205
Country
China
Contraceptives,
ARE
NOT
100%
Effective
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.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Dark_Ansem

SyphenFreht

As above, so below
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
556
Trophies
0
Age
120
XP
1,140
Country
United States
It's different when someone willingly murders and mutilates a body in cold blood vs. an unborn child who has not lived their life yet, don't try to equate the two.

Aren't the both of them human?

You already dehumanize others, and the majority is out there, whether you see it or not.

I dehumanize others? Is that apparent in my defense of women's bodily autonomy?

Yes they do. Roe v. Wade is done, and red states are banning abortion. Get over it.

Show me in the Constitution where they explicitly have the right to life.
 

mrdude

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2015
Messages
1,545
Trophies
1
Age
54
XP
4,313
Country
I support abortion @mrdude since you liked my comment. Just letting you know.
I also support it in special circumstances. Rape/Incest or when there's going to be a bad disability to the child or the mothers life is in danger because of the pregnancy, or a genetic abnormality in the family history where the kid is likely to have a poor life plagued with illness and die young.
As for normal healthy females that got pregnant because they just liked having sex and failed to use protection or take the morning after pill, will that's a different matter.
 

Acid_Snake

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Messages
332
Trophies
0
Age
28
XP
942
Country
Spain
It's both. That was kind of the point. Gender is a social/cultural construct. Thanks for agreeing.


One's biological sex doesn't necessarily comport with one's gender, and that's without even mentioning being intersex.
You know who said that sex was a social construct? Those who, in the 20th century, would force homosexuals into conversion theories to make them straight.

So what you're saying is that homosexuality is an invention and it's not natural, and we know that in nature it exists, it's not a human creation, it's very natural.

Gender is NOT a social construct, homosexuals are homosexuals since the day they are born, it's NOT something "they learned from society" as you say.

How we VIEW sexuality is a social construct, but the fact that humans are either male or female, that's nature, that's human, that's the real world we live in.

You know, trans people are trans becase they transition from one sex to the other. If sex/gender is a social construct, then so is being trans, and as far as science goes, gender disphoria and homosexuality appear to be innate, not a socially motivated conduct.

Now I wanna know, who is the real homophobe here?
 

Dark_Ansem

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2014
Messages
820
Trophies
0
Location
Death Star
XP
807
Country
United Kingdom
when there's going to be a bad disability to the child [...], or a genetic abnormality in the family history where the kid is likely to have a poor life plagued with illness and die young.
Oh so basically eugenics are ok, but poverty and immaturity aren't?
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,189
Country
United States
If you stick you hand near an alligators mouth with all the warning signs you know what your going to get
Whether or not someone makes a stupid decision is irrelevant to whether or not their bodily autonomy should be taken away. We don't punish the alligator bite victim by refusing medical care, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dakitten

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,189
Country
United States
You know who said that sex was a social construct? Those who, in the 20th century, would force homosexuals into conversion theories to make them straight.

So what you're saying is that homosexuality is an invention and it's not natural, and we know that in nature it exists, it's not a human creation, it's very natural.

Gender is NOT a social construct, homosexuals are homosexuals since the day they are born, it's NOT something "they learned from society" as you say.

How we VIEW sexuality is a social construct, but the fact that humans are either male or female, that's nature, that's human, that's the real world we live in.

You know, trans people are trans becase they transition from one sex to the other. If sex/gender is a social construct, then so is being trans, and as far as science goes, gender disphoria and homosexuality appear to be innate, not a socially motivated conduct.

Now I wanna know, who is the real homophobe here?
I didn't say sex was a social construct. I said gender was a social construct. You seem to be confusing the two.
 

Dark_Phoras

Master of Hounds
Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
284
Trophies
0
Age
27
XP
572
Country
Portugal
Why? I mean it's not a baby's fault they were incorrectly conceived. Either they have moral value or they don't. If not, then why not allow it across the board?

And I think it's fair calling it a baby as "any point of the pregnancy" could be so close to birth so as to be practically indistinguishable from a literal baby.

So you have proposed that babies may be killed if they were incorrectly conceived. I'm not saying you can't have this opinion but you would have to justify it if the burden of proof is on the killer.

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. Personally, I’m for the right of a woman to choose to abort before the fetus reaches its state of consciousness, and for the right to abort for medical reasons after that in particular circumstances, such as risk to life or of debilitating injury to the woman, deformity on the baby, new significant medical/psychiatric events in any of the parents, or if the insemination was forced upon the woman.

However, I think about the practical effects of these restrictions after consciousness. How are we going to verify if the woman had valid reasons to abort, and should we trust a third-party to judge the decision? The woman would be subject to expose potentially sensible information on her private life, and she could be exposed to several interferences that make the abortion inviable. As we know, there are plenty of people that put themselves in positions of power to submit others to their political, social, or religious dogmas, and the same would happen here. Before the due process is concluded, or before there’s a chance to appeal, we’d see pregnancies carried to term and pregnancies aborted in the same set of personal circumstances, but with different arbitrary decisions imposed by people of authority.

The right to abortion brought with it a bigger emancipation and financial success for women, along with reduced criminal rates. By forcing a baby into the world, we might be often condemning a woman and a child to a life of misery and unhappiness, as well as levelling down the quality of society. The future potentially miserable existence of a non-rational being (the fetus) shouldn't take precedence over the preference of a rational being (the mother). She knows best about her life, she knows how well she'll be able to provide for her child; she has the right to choose which life she wants to live and what responsibilities to carry.

Ultimately, the most elegant and safest idea would be to just allow a woman the right to decide whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy. There are some things in which the state shouldn’t have a say – as we’ve seen in the past and in the present, an overreaching state only stagnates personal and collective lives into mediocrity, and dehumanizes and traumatizes people in the process.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,189
Country
United States
Or he'd just say really rare (even though it happens)
The odds of serious side effects with the COVID-19 vaccines, particularly the mRNA vaccines, are vanishingly small, and these risks are broadly more likely with actually contracting COVID-19. However, that is not the same thing as saying these risks don't exist. I don't know what your point is, and I don't know what it has to do with Roe.

The COVID-19 vaccines are relatively safe and effective, and they've saved millions of lives. Next time you talk about me, have the courage to tag me or respond to one of my posts directly.
 

WiiMiiSwitch

RiiConnect24 STAN
Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2020
Messages
1,949
Trophies
1
Age
23
Location
Not Society
XP
4,612
Country
United States
The odds of serious side effects with the COVID-19 vaccines, particularly the mRNA vaccines, are vanishingly small, and these risks are broadly more likely with actually contracting COVID-19. However, that is not the same thing as saying these risks don't exist. I don't know what your point is, and I don't know what it has to do with Roe.

The COVID-19 vaccines are relatively safe and effective, and they've saved millions of lives. Next time you talk about me, have the courage to tag me or respond to one of my posts directly.
@Lacius My point is vaccines aren't as secure as everyone says, please don't try mock me with the "have courage to tag me or respond", like just don't be like that
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Dark_Ansem
Status
Not open for further replies.
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    maryxmary @ maryxmary: is pingy here?