Roe V Wade has been repealed

[smf]

Am I correct in assuming that because you cannot physically rape people, that you settle to rape the conversation? I already stated my position on that. What follows is what I already posted.

No, you are incorrect. Your other posts argue that you either

a. celebrate pregnancy
or
b. celebrate abortion

and there is no other alternative.

Therefore, by your own logic you are celebrating the pregnancy as you have stated you don't want to celebrate abortion.

You can't just hand wave that away with "bad things, mumble mumble".

 

[tabzer]

I think you know that but like to pretend that you are moral and anyone who disagrees with you is immoral and make shit up to "prove" that.

I don't take offense to people disagreeing with me. I disagree with everyone on this forum to some degree. But when people make claims like "pregnancy has no social value", "home invaders only arm themselves for self-defense", or "RvW being repealed is pro rape", I consider them to be of a similar cloth.

I am not against your laws. Americans do as they please, obviously.

Your choice to argue against strawmen has little to do with how I am representing my opinions.

One can celebrate pregnancy and lament the need for abortion. I have never argued that if you do not celebrate pregnancy, that it means you are celebrating abortion. Your a or b logic is really stupid. I celebrated the decentralization of federal government and nothing more.

Oh, and you are a racist.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

agree that child abuse is a bigger issue than the RvW issue.

what if. Now this is crazy...
We allow abortions, because expecting rape to never happen, is not going to happen. And is the fastest, quickest recourse, that can be followed up with a lawsuit afterword. Instead of carrying for the child that was forced onto you with no option to remove because of your state, you can just focus on the legal battle.

 

[tabzer]

what if. Now this is crazy...
We allow abortions, because expecting rape to never happen, is not going to happen.

I'm noticing a strange trend in letting the actions of child-rapists lead the narrative on laws that do not actually stop them. Maybe just clean their mess.

(is that the point?)

 

[Deleted member 586536]

I'm noticing a strange trend in letting the actions of child-rapists lead the narrative on laws that do not actually stop them.

I'm noticing a strange tend in enabling the actions of those child-rapists have long term consquences on the women via a forced child lead the narrative on laws that does not actually stop them.
I can play that game too you know

 

[tabzer]

I'm noticing a strange tend in enabling the actions of those child-rapists have long term consquences on the women via a forced child lead the narrative on laws that does not actually stop them.
I can play that game too you know

You are going to have to come up with a convincing argument on how a child being born makes a rapist's life easier (if that's what you are trying to suggest).

 

[Deleted member 586536]

You are going to have to come up with a convincing argument on how a child being born makes a rapist's life easier.

That's a disingenuous argument with trying to rebrand what I said. How about we argue the fact that removing the choice to abortion results in a rapists life tormenting the mother through a illegitimate child for the next 18+ years of her life? Since you know, no access to abortion, no exceptions for rape.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Or if she does orphan the child, she still had to go through the trumatic process of child birth,of a child that wasn't wanted or hers by choice

 

[tabzer]

That's a disingenuous argument with trying to rebrand what I said. How about we argue the fact that removing the choice to abortion results in a rapists life tormenting the mother through a illegitimate child for the next 18 years of her life? Since you know, no access to abortion, no exceptions for rape.

Honestly, I don't know what you were trying to say, because it violated every English rule. I took a stab at it, and if you aren't satisfied, then I am genuinely sorry.

I have never taken the position that abortion shouldn't be allowed in any situation. I do find an article about a 10 year old not being allowed to have an abortion to be an eye opener. I'm sorry to say that I am not so concerned with who can and cannot get an abortion than I am with who can and cannot rape children. I have higher expectations of adults.

 

[Foxi4]

Replace abortion with cutting your hair or nails. You are removing some unwanted human cells from your body.

Your hair and your fingernails are part of your body, a foetus is not a part of the woman’s body, it is temporarily attached to the woman’s body for the period of pregnancy. This can be verified scientifically with a simple genetic test. You own each and every part of your own body, it’s arguable whether that translates to agency over of another body, even if the two are attached to each other. That’s not to say that there are no circumstances when an abortion justifiable - that little girl should’ve been served in her hoe state because a pregnancy at 10 years old can be devastating to her health, but what you’re suggesting in this comparison is simply incorrect.

 

[tabzer]

foetus

Putting the foe in fetus.

 

[Foxi4]

Putting the foe in fetus.

That’s the spelling commonly used in the United Kingdom and the rest of the Commonwealth, both are acceptable. If we want to be Latin purists then fetus will do.

 

[smf]

Your choice to argue against strawmen has little to do with how I am representing my opinions.
...

Oh, and you are a racist.

If you keep building strawmen, then I'll argue against them.

I don't care if you think I'm a racist, I'm not sure how it's relevant to your post but I guess you are running out of shit to throw at me.

 

[smf]

Your hair and your fingernails are part of your body, a foetus is not a part of the woman’s body, it is temporarily attached to the woman’s body for the period of pregnancy..

How is the egg which grew into the fetus, not part of their body?

 

[Deleted member 586536]

I'm sorry to say that I am not so concerned with who can and cannot get an abortion than I am with who can and cannot rape children

Do you not realize there's a direct correlation? Like idk, maybe that if a rapist, impregnates a women. That the women's recourse is you know, an abortion followed by legal recourse on the offender (suing, criminal prosecution)
(And yes, I heard you say that you support exceptions. Good. Now can we please have roe v wade back so that exception is universal and always accepted)
But instead, somehow, the party who passed that ruling, with their states banning abortion, here missed the forest for the trees. I give incredible doubt on the "somehow" since it they knew what they were doing.
So now your only action is to just sue. You still have to go through child birth.

Honestly, I don't know what you were trying to say, because it violated every English rule. I took a stab at it, and if you aren't satisfied, then I am genuinely sorry.

Two edited sentences got conjoined funny. Here's how it's supposed to read, and paraphrase what the intent was.

. How about we argue the fact that removing the choice to abortion results in a rapists life tormenting the mother through a illegitimate child for the next 18+ years of her life?

"how about we argue the fact that removing the choice to an abortion results in rapists making women's lives even worse, since she no longer abortion has a recourse she can follow."

 

[smf]

Do you not realize there's a direct correlation? Like idk, maybe that if a rapist, impregnates a women. That the women's recourse is you know, an abortion followed by legal recourse on the offender (suing, criminal prosecution)
(And yes, I heard you say that you support exceptions. Good. Now can we please have roe v wade back so that exception is universal and always accepted)

JonhathonBaxster has previous said that women should be happy about pregnancies even in cases of rape, which is completely fucked up. The problem is, nobody other than the woman and health professionals can realistically make a decision as to whether abortion would be right.

Government shouldn't be interfering by passing laws to ban all abortions. I'm ok with a cut off point where the fetus gains rights (with exceptions in cases of life and death etc)

 

[Foxi4]

How is the egg they were born with and grew into the fetus, not part of their body?

It’s a different body, by the virtue of being a separate life form - their DNA proves that. Not too dissimilar from conjoined twins which are also two separate entities joined at one or more points. More specifically, in the case of pregnancy they’re joined by the umbilical cord and, early on, the lining, both of which are disposable.

 

[smf]

It’s a different body, by the virtue of being a separate life form - their DNA proves that.

You can have multiple DNA within the same body, it doesn't prove anything.

It's only when the brain develops that there is any argument that it's a separate life form. Which is basically Roe V Wade.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

JonhathonBaxster has previous said that women should be happy about pregnancies even in cases of rape, which is completely fucked up. The problem is, nobody other than the woman and health professionals can realistically make a decision as to whether abortion would be right.

Yeah I'm aware, it's the reason some of these people's shit is in my signature, to raise at least a level of awareness of what these people have said. the supreme court has ruled in the past through multiple cases that the constitution cannot apply to the unborn (primarily because of how dicy of a situation it is) and instead, only life that is already currently existing. Which just, gives another reason for me to suspect that Roe v Wade being overturned, was stupid, and they completely could of kept roe, but a different legal backing for it. Since those rulings go even further back.

 

[tabzer]

Do you not realize there's a direct correlation? Like idk, maybe that if a rapist, impregnates a women. That the women's recourse is you know, an abortion followed by legal recourse on the offender (suing, criminal prosecution)
But instead, somehow, the party who passed that ruling, with their states banning abortion, here missed the forest for the trees. I give incredible doubt on the "somehow" since it they knew what they were doing.
So now your only action is to just sue. You still have to go through child birth.

I get that it is a shitty situation. I just find that a 10 year old getting pregnant is more shitty. If government needs to make laws about what should happen if you are an impregnated 10 year old, then anarchy has already won the moral position.

"how about we argue the fact that removing the choice to an abortion results in rapists making women's lives even worse, since she no longer abortion has a recourse she can follow."

Nah, because I don't think I disagree on that. But I won't say that the rapist is "winning" either.