You were comparing the last years of a single individual vs hundreds of fertilized eggs ready to be implanted. Now you compare 6mio to 6mio.
Sleight of hand?
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Roe V Wade has been repealed
- Thread starter Noctosphere
- Start date
- Views 72,117
- Replies 2,460
- Likes 4
- Status
Sleight of hand?
Just like having an abortion. A baby has no right to life.
The pot calling the kettle black.
The one where conservative Republican Christians and their issues with control are becoming a minority. As they should be.
Uh huh. *heavy breathing intensifies*
Ok, let's apply the same logic. If it's not about control with you people, then why must you put your fingers where they don't belong? The difference between left and right wing is the right wing only cares about subjugating those who aren't right wing, and even that is starting to get blurred with all these RINO references they've been toting recently. It's almost reminiscent of Aryan Nazi supremacy, except the Nazis were kinda ok with abortions.
Imagine being part of a group of people that are slowly becoming more disgusting than Nazis. That's our current Republican party.
How are we the minority? There are more Democrats and liberals and other not bipartisan groups than there are non RINO Republicans. Do you know how numbers work? You also seem to forget that the only time we riot is against injustice. When's the last time you people stood up for anything you supposedly believe in?
If you'd care to notice, the argument that consent to sex is not consent to get pregnant wasn't made. I mentioned that there are varying degrees of consent. Your attempt to present "consent" being as trivial as deciding on what to wear for the day falls flat with me. There is no genuine concern being presented.
At least you have my back on something.
What on what? Please parse your points so that they are clear. You have this habit of muxing ideas into this "implied inference based on perspective" logic of yours. If you think government decisions determine the consensus of your society, then why are you even here? Just to be ironic?
"What's the concern about preserving it's life? It offers nothing of value to society."
I haven't made an argument that is against abortion. My argument was that consent isn't as fickle as you, and others, would like to present.
What the hell is this? Do you think it is logic? You seem to consider yourself intellectual and then you spout out something so self-defeating .
"I don't think @SyphenFreht should be aborted"
"You just want control!"
You said, "You seem to think that a woman can wake up 8 months pregnant and claim that she doesn't consent." The answer is yes, a woman can revoke her consent to be pregnant at any time, and I provided an explanation.
Anything else is a violation of one's right to bodily autonomy.
I am glad you agree gender is a social construct.
Can a man revoke his duty to financially provide for the child? If not, isn´t that a violation of his bodily autonomy (see slavery)? Unless he is rich, he has to work for it.
(not taking a position here; just testing consistency)
You think a woman can wake up 8 months pregnant and feel violated by her unborn baby. Ok.
No one else here seems to have a problem with my clarity. Must just be you.
"Implied inference based on perspective".
How else do you formulate responses on a forum thread? People comment, and other people comment based on what they perceive. If that perception is wrong, the original commenter will (hopefully) explain themselves, and the debate goes on from there.
You're trying to argue semantics again as a way of misdirecting the argument you still don't know how to tackle.
Because government decisions are designed to be the consensus of society? Back before lobbying became a staple for politicians, elected government officials were supposed to make rulings based on what was best for their community, an idea called solidarity. The overturn of Roe v Wade proves even moreso that the government of today cares nothing for it's people, and only wishes to push Christian values on the same people they've devalued in order to maintain that cash flow.
Show me on my quote where it's hurt you due to inconsistency.
Nor did I accuse you of such, just that your idea on consent constantly seems to imply that a woman's consent is oblivious in terms of the baby being forced to birth. Consent is not fickle. Yes means yes, everything else means no. Implied consent should never be utilized, and if it is, that's moreso the fault of the perpetrator, though I can't say the consenter isn't completely at fault in every situation either. The fact that you think pro choice supporters think consent is fickle is a farce.
Yeah, lol, it is logic. And the fact that you've consistently avoided answering the question only shows that you're not equipped to deal with that kind of intellectual debate, which is fine.
For the record, it's not up to you to choose whether I should've been aborted or not, that's a choice that was only ever up to my parents. I applaud your desire to fight for those who don't have voices, but you'll find with that scenario that a lot of people don't want you fighting for them.
That has nothing to do with bodily autonomy.
A woman can decide at any time, for any reason, to do whatever she wants with her body. That's bodily autonomy. Consent to have sex can be revoked even after sex has started, and consent to remain pregnant can be revoked even after already becoming pregnant (pretending it was a choice to become pregnant in the first place).
Edit: So we are clear, if it's past the point of fetal viability, terminating the pregnancy would be a birth, not an abortion.
No I'm not.
Spoken like a true monster. Why should general murder be illegal then?
You displayed it first.
Keep thinking that buddy, whatever helps you cope.
What's wrong? Need a breather? Or a diet?
The democrat party are like, socialists and nazi's combined at this point, add along with Rinos. The act like nazi's, and want to implement socialist values, it's crazy. You're the minority because the actual majority of Americans agree with this decision. It's just the vocal minority being blasted by the news and social to make it seem like they're bigger then they are, but they're not. If you can't handle this now, you're not gonna like any future decisions that might crumble your world view. And you never riot against injustice, only then the corrupt politicians command you to for intimidation like the good sheep you are. I'm standing up for traditional American values that created this country, and I'm not backing down. Neither are millions of Americans either.
Claiming that pregnancy has no social value is not an intellectual argument.
Play that scenario out for me mister intellectual.
So you do believe the state should be allowed to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights? You're not making any sense.
In a perfect Republican world, it wouldn't be, cuz everyone would have guns. But if all you people argue about is "personal responsibility", then both scenarios of abortion and legal homicide should be fine with you, since in both situations you have people handling their own problems without relying on the government or anyone else.
Where?
I mean, I have numbers and statistics to back me up. You just have idealistic dreams of control and hatred to back you.
Someone to debate with that isn't a Republican mouthpiece completely devoid of their own identity.
I'm still curious to see where these "millions" of Americans are. So far you've done nothing but tackle on one faithless argument after another to prove you actually have a platform to debate on, which you don't.
The traditional values you're mentioning? That's "all men are created equal" and the separation of church and state, both of which seem to be oblivious to you and your Nazi-esque cohorts. Remember, the Nazis dehumanized a whole lot of people, the way Republicans are now by equating women to incubators. But that's ok because you guys are for the baby, despite not caring about it the minute it's born anyway.
Except, yet again, I never said pregnancy has no social value. I asked you, and the other guy, what value they have to society, and by extension, you. You've put words in my mouth yet again because you can't argue one basic question, yet feel the need to somehow stay relevant. But yet somehow that's more of an intellectual argument than my original question.
Well, in my personal case, I just did. Otherwise, you and I would have to get together and do some polling. Does that interest you, or are you formulating a facade of the idea thinking I'll back down and therefore prove my entire argument irrelevant?
If at any point you actually want to discuss topics within the confines of the thread as opposed to trying to undermine people intellectually, please feel free to do so. You can't win many arguments by constantly trying to attack how they argue; eventually you're going to have to make the choice to either argue the point you don't know how or take the "L" and try again later.
the right to the choice, and bodily autonomy to an abortion, regardless of state, was indeed taken away. Instead of being accepted as a general right, you have to now question what state your living in, if you want to get one. And that's assuming state governments such as Texas, don't make it a felony to get an abortion out of state, which their platform wants to do that, so go figure. Which by the way, a felony removes your right to vote in most cases.
Nope. it was more for backwards reasons. If you didn't match the perfect Aryan image. An abortion would occur. General rights for those women? Nope.
The problem with arguing this point is that, to some extent, they are right. Abortions are not a constitutional right, that is for sure. However, they seem to forget there are plenty of other things not in the Constitution, such as a baby's right to life. Or owning guns. Or the overarching rule of Christianity. It must be in the Republican playbook to be abhorrently hypocritical.
Exactly. I didn't mean to imply that the Nazis were so progressive that they were cool with abortions, just that as deplorable as they were/are, they're equatable with how the Republican party views women until they get to that point. Nazis gave abortions, but Republicans dehumanize women even worse by forcing them to carry births of any kind
Last edited by SyphenFreht,
Actually, if you looked a few posts back, I did state that there was previous other rulings they could of used to keep Roe v Wade as constitutional (and make sense from a precedent standpoint)
Tl;dr there's a group of rulings that essentially state that the United States cannot apply the law to the unborn. And a lot of the cases go much, much further back. The only issue with Roe v Wade (and what they keep stating) is that the right to privacy clause is too vauge. (Even though technically the 9th amendment could also apply here. That the right to an abortion is again, not up to the federal government, nor states. But "to the people")
Point being, no that argument doesn't exactly work, there's more than plenty of ways they could of kept Roe, while also changing the legal basis into something stronger.
Hmm...yet again, you said this:
This is you saying that it has no value to society, then when called out, you asked me "when does it have value?" as if rephrasing it as a question makes your initial claim less nihilistic.
If you tell me, flat out, that you are on the spectrum, I'll let you be to run around doing as you please--with no further commentary.
I think it's required that we add some context mr tabzer. Since he was not replying to you at that time.
Start of the reply chain in order.
Intentionally pulling out something from a similar but different argument is rather bs don't you think?
Is this is what left wing teachers are teaching kids nowadays, there's no wonder parents are in uproar at the gaslighting that's being taught. There's male and female and that's it, no matter how much mental gymnastics you do in your head, and that's all there has ever been or will ever be for the human species.
Woman - Biological adult female human.
Man - Biological adult male human.
There's nothing else, all that stuff you were gaslit into believing is false. You will come realise this on your own in time, sooner or later the penny will drop.
- Status
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
@Purple_Heart, then I will be actually older than him for a bit (ik thats not how ages work btw) -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
