U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

Dakitten

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
387
Trophies
0
Age
39
XP
899
Country
United States
https://babylonbee.com/news/authori...h-instead-of-traditional-brain-sucking-device

no matter your stance on this issue, you have to admit this article is funny but also partially true.
I would beg to differ. Remember that abortion is not regarded by anybody but men who don't understand the effects it causes women as a form of casual birth control, especially at the third trimester, and death by drug use by the desperate is serious stuff. The Babylon Bee is pretty one note as far as comedy goes, "Oh, leftists are so dumb, they're trying to be elitist while ignoring common sense, lul!" The onion made fun of contradictions, but BB strawmans situations they don't even understand.

I wouldn't share this kind of garbage. :wacko:
 
  • Like
Reactions: osaka35

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,383
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,161
Country
Poland
The problem is, not everybody believes that personhood requires a brain. Much of the abortion debate in the US revolves around religious beliefs, especially the idea that some sort of supreme being gives you a supernatural, immutable essence (usually called a soul) at the moment of conception. As long as people believe such a thing, they will never support abortion, since their threshold for personhood is conception, rather than brain development in the third trimester.

Since the US has separation of church and state, one could argue that these beliefs should be ignored in favour of the third-trimester threshold of personhood, as that's the best answer science can currently give us, but that's difficult to do in practice when many elected leaders hold the "life begins at conception" viewpoint (which really means "personhood begins at conception", since everybody agrees that life begins at conception. The core issue, as you've already discussed, is whether that life matters, i.e. is it a person).
Of course it’s difficult - as I said, concessions would have to be made by both parties, and the deal would likely require pushing and shoving in areas well beyond abortion itself to sweeten the deal. These kinds of difficulties are not a justification for corrupting the nation’s institutions for political gain. “We can’t agree on a solution, so we’ll use the courts to impose one from the top instead” is not how this system is supposed to work, which is the crux of the issue with Roe v. Wade. You cannot agree with a demonstrably incorrect ruling just because you like the outcome, at least not in my book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Magus29

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,383
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,161
Country
Poland
deleted since I figured it out
Did you though? I’m happy to answer the question you posed before your edit, if you’re curious. Scientific conclusions are often tainted, either by ideological biases or by various forms of interest, particularly financial. The only thing that can’t lie is numbers - either the numbers are representative or manipulated and cherry-picked. We have a whole system of peer review to debate these things, the premise being “trust, but verify”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Magus29

KennyAtom

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Messages
365
Trophies
0
Age
26
XP
285
Country
United States
I would beg to differ. Remember that abortion is not regarded by anybody but men who don't understand the effects it causes women as a form of casual birth control, especially at the third trimester, and death by drug use by the desperate is serious stuff.
You do realize this is a satire site, right? Of course abortion and drug overdoses are serious, but that doesn't mean we cannot make fun of it or poke fun at it.
The Babylon Bee is pretty one note as far as comedy goes, "Oh, leftists are so dumb, they're trying to be elitist while ignoring common sense, lul!"
I mean, are they one note? Yes, but their one note is a very true note that leftists are not the smartest bananas of the bunch. I still remember when they doxxed a twitter account for sharing tik toks of leftists acting insane.
The onion made fun of contradictions, but BB strawmans situations they don't even understand.
The one point I will agree with, but you shouldn't go into satire sites expecting to get better understandings of situations. That's why it's a satire site, and not a news/opinionated site.
I wouldn't share this kind of garbage. :wacko:
Is this really garbage just because they make fun of abortions? Awww man, I guess everything is garbage now since they make fun of things I enjoy. This sucks.
 

tabzer

etymological and/or pedantic
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,571
Trophies
1
Age
38
XP
2,753
Country
Japan
You ought to be. Not joking, you're absolutely failing at this, and it is pathetic. I also never said EVERYTHING is based on my gender, just your insults quoted above... As it clearly was based on my gender. Do better, if just for your own sake.

My "insult" was based on a few factors. You seem angry a lot and frustrated with not being in control. I see you putting yourself in this situation where you can react to those feelings. I think you use this place to unload a lot. My "insult" was also based on the fact that you are a woman, who is very much pro-abortion rights--who would more likely than not, be on birth-control. My "insult" wasn't based on your gender. It was based on this package of information and more.

Birth-control lending to an experience like constant miscarriage is new information to me. Out of empathy, curiosity, and some irreverence to your attachments, I wanted to see if you considered it or could verify it.

Taking on my "insult" as a new drive to be angry about something is more than enough of an answer.

In regards to the soul, pointing out nephesh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephesh) should be eye-opening to people on both sides of the debate. You call it "esoteric", but it is also a core tenet of your primary adversary on the current issue. You could make the argument that it is not esoteric enough. You might be uninterested in it, but your reaction in pro-actively dismissing it makes you seem unreasonable.

So... in summary, you don't know what you're talking about, don't have any experience with it, have heard some things about it that didn't pan out the way you'd like, and take pride in remaining an outsider judging it from a place of privilege... hey, progress, this is a mirror of your stance on abortion!

This is an example of pure projection. I didn't know what you are talking about. I made that clear. I know what I am talking about. Care to tell me what my stance on abortion is?

Your government is very much a beast in the world that thrives on genocide, but I believe you call that, "spreading democracy" because it sounds nice. I, too, would prefer the image of "Parks and Recreation".

Again, you're obviously being a jerk.

That implies a disproportionate (re)action.
 
Last edited by tabzer,
  • Like
Reactions: Magus29

SyphenFreht

As above, so below
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
556
Trophies
0
Age
120
XP
1,143
Country
United States
That's easy. Life is precious, abortions should not take place. However, the financial responsibility lies on the people who created the baby. Not random strangers. You're bitching because people like me don't want to pay for dead beat parents. You're basically saying it's okay for the parents to not feed or cloth their children and it should be my responsibility to do so when I had nothing to do with creating their child. Yeah, nope. I'm not supporting dead beat trash by making excuses for their actions or by voting to give them part of my income.


At what point is life precious? Precious enough to warrant a birth regardless of situation, but not precious enough to ensure it's being born into a positive, nurturing environment? Finances aside, there are a plethora of bad situations a child could be born into, but if no one cares about the child after it's born, how precious is it? I say it's a fair point to stand on if your pro life as long as you support the changes needed to ensure that life continues to prosper, even if those ideals go against yours. However, if the moment the baby is born you lose all interest and care in it's well being, how pro life are you really?

Also, no one is asking, demanding, implying, or otherwise coercing you into paying anything for anyone. Where exactly do you think your taxes are going? It sounds like you have a misguided view of how taxes and welfare funding work, and no amount of putting words in my mouth or attempting to build my own platform is going to help you figure that out.

Fact of the matter is, life isn't precious outside the handful of people you truly care about. You can say you care all you want, but pro life is a weak republican platform meant to keep people subjugated and controlled. If we were truly the land of the free, you wouldn't have to fight to make a law that literally prohibits a person from living their life and their body the want they want.
 

AleronIves

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2016
Messages
393
Trophies
0
Age
34
Location
California
XP
1,589
Country
United States
These kinds of difficulties are not a justification for corrupting the nation’s institutions for political gain. “We can’t agree on a solution, so we’ll use the courts to impose one from the top instead” is not how this system is supposed to work, which is the crux of the issue with Roe v. Wade.
I concur. Sadly, many people are going to have to suffer in order to correct that flawed decision. The correct course of action is to have Congress legislate the rules surrounding abortion, rather than legislating from the bench. If anything, this failure belongs to the Democrats, who have had 50 years to codify abortion rights the correct way but have failed to do so. Now women across half the country are going to pay the price for their complacency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Foxi4 and tabzer

Xzi

Elden Lord
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
14,612
Trophies
2
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
10,367
Country
United States
“We can’t agree on a solution, so we’ll use the courts to impose one from the top instead” is not how this system is supposed to work, which is the crux of the issue with Roe v. Wade.
C'mon now, as a libertarian you should know that making something federally legal is not "imposing" anything on anybody. By letting it fall back onto the states to decide, they're letting those states impose their will on citizens, effectively legislating morality. The reasoning for overturning Roe v Wade is also far more asinine and much more of a stretch than the reasoning for ruling the way the court did initially. Alito literally references a 17th century witch trial judge in the majority opinion brief.

If anything, this failure belongs to the Democrats, who have had 50 years to codify abortion rights the correct way but have failed to do so.
That's a fair criticism, but it also highlights just how broken our democracy is, as the Democratic defense of abortion rights has always been tepid at best. They aren't a leftist party, they're center-right, or republican lite. They know full well that Republicans haven't been playing by the rules for a solid 40 years now, but they continue to try to reach across the aisle anyway, because they're controlled opposition. Heck, in 2017, Pelosi even insisted "pro-life" politicians should be allowed to stay in the party, and here we are.
 
Last edited by Xzi,

tabzer

etymological and/or pedantic
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,571
Trophies
1
Age
38
XP
2,753
Country
Japan
C'mon now, as a libertarian you should know that making something federally legal is not "imposing" anything on anybody.

That's a little confusing. If, Federally, abortion isn't illegal then it is legal. If it is an enforced right to access, somebody has to perform an abortion despite their conscience. Can people choose who they serve or not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Magus29

Xzi

Elden Lord
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
14,612
Trophies
2
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
10,367
Country
United States
That's a little confusing. If, Federally, abortion isn't illegal then it is legal. If it is an enforced right to access, somebody has to perform an abortion despite their conscience.
It doesn't work that way, federal law supersedes state law. Therefore if something isn't federally legal, then states are free to make it illegal. And nobody has ever been forced to perform an abortion, or even enter into that line of work. The whole point of legality is to declare that you can do something, not that you have to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dakitten

tabzer

etymological and/or pedantic
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,571
Trophies
1
Age
38
XP
2,753
Country
Japan
It doesn't work that way, federal law supersedes state law. Therefore if something isn't federally legal, then states are free to make it illegal. And nobody has ever been forced to perform an abortion, or even enter into that line of work. The whole point of legality is to declare that you can do something, not that you have to.
I didn't contest anything about state law vs federal law. I'm talking about the difference between "that's legal" and "that's a right". The latter implies someone's compliance.

For example. If I want an abortion, and nobody will provide one, then I do not have the right to an abortion. Abortion may still be legal, but where is the right to it?
 
Last edited by tabzer,
  • Like
Reactions: Magus29

Dakitten

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
387
Trophies
0
Age
39
XP
899
Country
United States
You do realize this is a satire site, right? Of course abortion and drug overdoses are serious, but that doesn't mean we cannot make fun of it or poke fun at it.

I mean, are they one note? Yes, but their one note is a very true note that leftists are not the smartest bananas of the bunch. I still remember when they doxxed a twitter account for sharing tik toks of leftists acting insane.

The one point I will agree with, but you shouldn't go into satire sites expecting to get better understandings of situations. That's why it's a satire site, and not a news/opinionated site.

Is this really garbage just because they make fun of abortions? Awww man, I guess everything is garbage now since they make fun of things I enjoy. This sucks.
It is obviously satire, but it is absolutely politically motivated satire done poorly. The right can't poke fun without providing solutions and still be taken seriously, which is why they're always shy of majority support and have to create paranoia over immigration and "the great replacement". It is opinionated as its authors are right wing activists producing content for right wing audiences in a bubble of their own design. You can knock on the Onion for being left wing, but they poked fun at both parties a fair bit and sought humor for humor's sake and found more things to mock on the right.

This is all an aside, as yes, it is garbage because they're making fun of abortions from a place of privilege and ignorance. I'll repeat it until I'm blue and then some, nobody uses an abortion as a form of birth control, and it is always a painful experience. Just like you shouldn't poke at car crash victims for humor, you shouldn't make light of those who've had abortions.

Lastly... I wouldn't compare the brainpower of the left versus the right too openly. The leader of the republican party did make light of sexual assault, assault assault, the effects and long term ramifications of a global pandemic, and how injections of disinfectants sounds like a plausible weapon against it... and he still has the party's majority support.

My "insult" was based on a few factors. You seem angry a lot and frustrated with not being in control. I see you putting yourself in this situation where you can react to those feelings. I think you use this place to unload a lot. My "insult" was also based on the fact that you are a woman, who is very much pro-abortion rights--who would more likely than not, be on birth-control. My "insult" wasn't based on your gender. It was based on this package of information and more.
I get that you are probably angry most of the time, and being irrational and spiteful is your way of dealing with it, but have you considered that it is a medical condition? Maybe it's self-induced? Are you on birth control? I don't know for sure, but I heard a curious claim that by being on birth control, your body emulates a feeling akin to constant miscarriage, and is worse than a hypothetical 24/7 menstruation cycle. Can you confirm? Try a diary.
Yeah, this isn't fixing the issue. Sorry chief, but this still confirms that you're a liar and a misogynist shooting for that trigger factor. Might not be enough to earn you any terms violations, but it is pretty ugly behavior all the same. By all means though, keep defending it, I appreciate the dedication to foot in mouth.

Birth-control lending to an experience like constant miscarriage is new information to me. Out of empathy, curiosity, and some irreverence to your attachments, I wanted to see if you considered it or could verify it.
Cool, it is new information to me, too! Probably because it was pulled out of your keister, but what the hey I like throwing in some education whenever possible!

Birth control comes in many different forms, and they all can have widely different ranges of side effects! Often, the most effective methods of birth control come with stronger side effects, and can cause long term health issues or even endanger a woman over a long period of time! As birth control is something that women generally have to manage, it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't know much about this sort of thing, but it is often a life-long journey of figuring out what treatments work best for people and it isn't uncommon to try many different kinds.

Naturally, as it is impossible to figure out a one size fits all without side effects kind of birth control, success rates can also fluctuate and lessen due to issues beyond reasonable control. It also can wildly alter menstruation cycles, further complicating the issue of family readiness and abortion as a last resort.

Taking on my "insult" as a new drive to be angry about something is more than enough of an answer.
Because you obviously care about the actual side effects of birth control on an individual and aren't just looking for digs at "an angry irrational medicated woman" that disagrees with you.

In regards to the soul, pointing out nephesh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephesh) should be eye-opening to people on both sides of the debate. You call it "esoteric", but it is also a core tenet of your primary adversary on the current issue. You could make the argument that it is not esoteric enough. You might be uninterested in it, but your reaction in pro-actively dismissing it makes you seem unreasonable.
Why? Nobody but those invested in the Abrahamic faiths should care for more than a minute about the hebrew etymology of the word. It is literally an ancient religion pulling from even earlier philosophers and faiths (a common occurance with the Abrahamic faiths since they weren't very original) to imagine an answer as to what is life and blindly rubbing up against nothing of significance to anyone outside their doctrine. Bring something other than religion to a social policy topic.

This is an example of pure projection. I didn't know what you are talking about. I made that clear. I know what I am talking about. Care to tell me what my stance on abortion is?
As for me, someone who isn't indoctrinated into the government's mental framework, I work, and pay taxes. My taxes are supposedly used for great things, like government spending that I cannot begin to comprehend. I get promised a lot of things by politicians every election cycle. Those things don't happen. Maybe a lot is happening behind the scenes, but I'm still unsure about this democracy thing you guys keep bringing up.
You literally gloat about being "free of government indoctrination" while being lied to by politicians trying to get elected and yet you're still paying into it. You go on to mention you don't know what is going on behind the scenes, and that you don't feel sure about democracy as a result. You're displaying that you don't want to be researched in government, and you do kinda imply that you're in a place of some level of privilege since you don't seem to have ever needed government aide.

In summary, you aren't involved and judge without experience, just like with abortions. You see yourself as above the systems that are in charge, evident by your certainty that indoctrination has corrupted your would be peers, and you don't want to comprehend why those politicians might be promising so many things and yet aren't getting the ones that catch your interest done. You don't add anything to the discourse but a flimsy philosophy you parrot from the sources you trust, and you have no relevant experience to draw from and thus cannot offer any solutions of worth to those who do have relevant experience. In this topic at the very least, you're utterly worthless for anything but filling pages with copypasta, and trolling just like Val and Bit.

Your government is very much a beast in the world that thrives on genocide, but I believe you call that, "spreading democracy" because it sounds nice. I, too, would prefer the image of "Parks and Recreation".
I never said the government of the country I lived in operates exactly as I'd like it to, nor do I condone the actions abroad that are largely taken. I protest often and will likely continue to do so for quite some time. Y'know, like regarding abortion rights! This being said, you can judge from afar all you like, but I wouldn't judge too harshly considering Japan was an imperialist nation too. All we as individuals can do is try to do better for the future while learning from the past and resisting the errors of the present. All the better if you get involved in the government from within to best utilize its positive aspects! You should consider it, maybe it will help you figure out why the world doesn't live up to your expectations.

That implies a disproportionate (re)action.
If goading more childish behavior seems appropriate to you, it kinda proves the quality of your character for everyone else reading all this.

I concur. Sadly, many people are going to have to suffer in order to correct that flawed decision. The correct course of action is to have Congress legislate the rules surrounding abortion, rather than legislating from the bench. If anything, this failure belongs to the Democrats, who have had 50 years to codify abortion rights the correct way but have failed to do so. Now women across half the country are going to pay the price for their complacency.
The failure of one party to do the job of both parties isn't exactly a fair dig. Republican politicians aren't even in lockstep with their own voters on this topic in particular, and yet not a single one voted to codify these rights while they've also made it more difficult to do so for Democrats and used hypocritical methods to bring things to this point. If anything, this shows how one party is trying to rig the system for a minority while the other struggles to exist while clinging to a status quo and the rules established to maintain it. This adds in to why the rest of the world sees the USA as a backsliding failure of a democracy, both parties might not be very good but one party is exceptionally problematic.
 
Last edited by Dakitten,

tabzer

etymological and/or pedantic
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,571
Trophies
1
Age
38
XP
2,753
Country
Japan
Yeah, this isn't fixing the issue. Sorry chief, but this still confirms that you're a liar and a misogynist shooting for that trigger factor. Might not be enough to earn you any terms violations, but it is pretty ugly behavior all the same. By all means though, keep defending it, I appreciate the dedication to foot in mouth.

There's nothing to fix. I was wondering if you are angry and irrational because you are on medication, not if it is because you are a woman. It is apparent that you are on medication and you don't want to disclose how it affects you. That's fine.

Why? Nobody but those invested in the Abrahamic faiths should care for more than a minute about the hebrew etymology of the word.

I'm fairly sure that represents a nice bulk of the people you'd argue against regarding abortion. Might be good to understand who you are talking to, or what they are even talking about. I get that you like to display utter contempt for people you disagree with, but "the soul doesn't exist" is not a moving response when trying to rationalize abortion.

Bring something other than religion to a social policy topic.

I addressed what was brought up, lol take a walk.

You literally gloat about being "free of government indoctrination" while being lied to by politicians trying to get elected and yet you're still paying into it. You go on to mention you don't know what is going on behind the scenes, and that you don't feel sure about democracy as a result. You're displaying that you don't want to be researched in government, and you do kinda imply that you're in a place of some level of privilege since you don't seem to have ever needed government aide.

In summary, you aren't involved and judge without experience, just like with abortions.

You said that the, "government is not a beast that roams the lands feasting on baby flesh and plotting world genocide" when that is an apt description of it. It roams the world, like a beast, leaving death and genocide in its wake. And your response? "Oh your country did that too."

If we strapped on boots, and performed the atrocities ourselves, then we'd be in the position to judge? That's hardcore.

Please tell me my position on abortion. I'd really like to know. Still waiting.
 
Last edited by tabzer,

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,383
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,161
Country
Poland
C'mon now
…Joe? :unsure:


:P
as a libertarian you should know that making something federally legal is not "imposing" anything on anybody. By letting it fall back onto the states to decide, they're letting those states impose their will on citizens, effectively legislating morality. The reasoning for overturning Roe v Wade is also far more asinine and much more of a stretch than the reasoning for ruling the way the court did initially. Alito literally references a 17th century witch trial judge in the majority opinion brief.
You’ll have to be more specific in describing which part of me opposing the government bypassing the democratic process by way of imposing law from above using an unelected panel of judges (literally big government, focusing ultimate power in the hands of a handful of wisemen cherry-picked by presidents over the years) and being in favour of reverting the issue back to the states instead (small government elected locally) is inconsistent with my libertarian principles. I know how to pick my battles, and the battle to reduce government interference is on-going. Abortion wouldn’t be an issue if the government simply didn’t have the power to interfere, so taking that power away, one weapon at a time, is a priority. I don’t care what kinds of brain farts Alito brings up to support his objectively correct assessment of the case. This matter should’ve gone through the usual legislative pipeline, but this process was abruptly stopped in favour of ramming it through the court - that’s wrong, and should be corrected.

The process works out like this - states get the power to legislate abortion locally, and if the majority of said states come up with provisions that are similar, the federal government will have both the impetus and the broad support to pass legislation on a national level. If anything, you should be cheering on for this outcome as it effectively gives your camp the silver bullet to win elections with, provided support for abortion rights is as broad as you claim. It’s a hot button issue that candidates can and will run on, and they will win seats based on their position. People care about this, and they will vote accordingly.

The Democrats had 50 years to fix this, but they chose to coast on Roe v. Wade instead - a decision they knew was based on shaky grounds from Day 1, one that was threatened numerous times since. If you want to blame someone, blame the Democrats for bypassing the democratic process to get their desired outcome, no matter the cost. They’re the ones who transformed the Supreme Court into Congress Lite, this is their bed, and they can lay in it now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Magus29

KennyAtom

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Messages
365
Trophies
0
Age
26
XP
285
Country
United States
It is obviously satire, but it is absolutely politically motivated satire done poorly. The right can't poke fun without providing solutions and still be taken seriously, which is why they're always shy of majority support and have to create paranoia over immigration and "the great replacement". It is opinionated as its authors are right wing activists producing content for right wing audiences in a bubble of their own design. You can knock on the Onion for being left wing, but they poked fun at both parties a fair bit and sought humor for humor's sake and found more things to mock on the right.

This is all an aside, as yes, it is garbage because they're making fun of abortions from a place of privilege and ignorance. I'll repeat it until I'm blue and then some, nobody uses an abortion as a form of birth control, and it is always a painful experience. Just like you shouldn't poke at car crash victims for humor, you shouldn't make light of those who've had abortions.

Lastly... I wouldn't compare the brainpower of the left versus the right too openly. The leader of the republican party did make light of sexual assault, assault assault, the effects and long term ramifications of a global pandemic, and how injections of disinfectants sounds like a plausible weapon against it... and he still has the party's majority support.
This is an awfully long way to say "Grr, satire site bad because it mock wrong party" but i suppose i can take it apart.

"It is obviously satire, but it is absolutely politically motivated satire done poorly. The right can't poke fun without providing solutions and still be taken seriously, which is why they're always shy of majority support and have to create paranoia over immigration and "the great replacement"."
Is it really done poorly? I've always enjoyed their satire because it was done pretty damn well in my opinion, not as good as The Onion, which you mention later in the paragraph, but good for laughing at.

"It is opinionated as its authors are right wing activists producing content for right wing audiences in a bubble of their own design."
Again, harking back to "Grr, satire site bad because it mock wrong party".

"You can knock on the Onion for being left wing, but they poked fun at both parties a fair bit and sought humor for humor's sake and found more things to mock on the right."
Pretty much the only good point in this entire essay. The Onion does do satire a little better, but their content has fallen off ever since 2013.

"This is all an aside, as yes, it is garbage because they're making fun of abortions from a place of privilege and ignorance. "
Damn, I guess I can no longer make fun of rich people because I am doing it from a place of privilege (I have the privilege of never being rich.) and ignorance (I have the ignorance of knowing how it is to be rich, as i will never be rich). Sad!
But in all seriousness though, just because you don't know how it's like doesn't mean you cannot make fun of it. We don't understand how back then (like middle ages and such) was like, and we still make fun of it.

"I'll repeat it until I'm blue and then some, nobody uses an abortion as a form of birth control, and it is always a painful experience. Just like you shouldn't poke at car crash victims for humor, you shouldn't make light of those who've had abortions."
Yes, no one uses abortion as a form of birth control, and yes, it is painful, but that doesn't mean it's safe from satire and such. Hell, people do satire on 9/11, car crashes, and people addicted to drugs. Why should we allow satire on terrorist events but draw the line at a baby being sucked out of a woman?

"Lastly... I wouldn't compare the brainpower of the left versus the right too openly."
Both parties are stupid, the democratic party more so. Lets not forget they were the slave party, they avocated for slaves and jim crow, then tried to deny it much later, in this century.

"The leader of the republican party did make light of sexual assault, assault assault, the effects and long term ramifications of a global pandemic, and how injections of disinfectants sounds like a plausible weapon against it... and he still has the party's majority support."
And that's why I won't vote for him if he comes on the ballot again. Unrelated but Ron Desantis 2024.
 

Xzi

Elden Lord
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
14,612
Trophies
2
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
10,367
Country
United States
I didn't contest anything about state law vs federal law. I'm talking about the difference between "that's legal" and "that's a right". The latter implies someone's compliance.

For example. If I want an abortion, and nobody will provide one, then I do not have the right to an abortion. Abortion may still be legal, but where is the right to it?
See the thing is we have no shortage of medical professionals willing to provide abortion services, even in red states. They simply created a hostile environment surrounding abortion clinics even before this leak happened, as well as chipping away at them via malicious regulations that even other healthcare providers did not have to adhere to.

You’ll have to be more specific in describing which part of me opposing the government bypassing the democratic process by way of imposing law from above using an unelected panel of judges (literally big government, focusing ultimate power in the hands of a handful of wisemen cherry-picked by presidents over the years) and being in favour of reverting the issue back to the states instead (small government elected locally) is inconsistent with my libertarian principles. I know how to pick my battles, and the battle to reduce government interference is on-going.
I'm not sure how you can argue in good faith that states stepping between pregnant women and their doctors qualifies as "small government." That equates to more government interference in peoples' everyday lives, not less.

I don’t care what kinds of brain farts Alito brings up to support his objectively correct assessment of the case.
If it was objectively correct, it wouldn't require brain farts and massive leaps in logic to attempt to justify the decision.

This matter should’ve gone through the usual legislative pipeline, but this process was abruptly stopped in favour of ramming it through the court - that’s wrong, and should be corrected.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I find the concept of unelected officials stripping away our rights one by one equally unpalatable, if not more so. I also don't believe there was any point in the last fifty years where the pro-choice side would've had the votes to codify abortion rights into law.

If anything, you should be cheering on for this outcome as it effectively gives your camp the silver bullet to win elections with, provided support for abortion rights is as broad as you claim. It’s a hot button issue that candidates can and will run on, and they will win seats based on their position. People care about this, and they will vote accordingly.

The Democrats had 50 years to fix this, but they chose to coast on Roe v. Wade instead - a decision they knew was based on shaky grounds from Day 1, one that was threatened numerous times since. If you want to blame someone, blame the Democrats for bypassing the democratic process to get their desired outcome, no matter the cost. They’re the ones who transformed the Supreme Court into Congress Lite, this is their bed, and they can lay in it now.
The crux of the problem is a disconnect between popular support for a given issue and our representatives' support for that same issue. As I've said before, Dems' defense of abortion rights has been tepid at best, and they even allow "pro-life" representatives to remain in the party on a state and federal level. 2/3rds of Americans supporting abortion as a basic right should mean that close to 2/3rds of both parties also support it, but the reality is that only maybe 2/3rds of one party does. Should that disparity continue to grow, literally the only recourse the American people will have left is revolution.
 
Last edited by Xzi,

JonhathonBaxster

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
407
Trophies
0
XP
549
Country
United States
At what point is life precious? Precious enough to warrant a birth regardless of situation, but not precious enough to ensure it's being born into a positive, nurturing environment? Finances aside, there are a plethora of bad situations a child could be born into, but if no one cares about the child after it's born, how precious is it? I say it's a fair point to stand on if your pro life as long as you support the changes needed to ensure that life continues to prosper, even if those ideals go against yours. However, if the moment the baby is born you lose all interest and care in it's well being, how pro life are you really?

You sound like you're pro socialism and think these parents have the right to my finances, time and effort. You're wrong. I care about the child as much as I care about any random person, but it's not my responsibility to raise it and make sure it has a decent upbringing. That's the parents job.

Also, no one is asking, demanding, implying, or otherwise coercing you into paying anything for anyone. Where exactly do you think your taxes are going? It sounds like you have a misguided view of how taxes and welfare funding work, and no amount of putting words in my mouth or attempting to build my own platform is going to help you figure that out.

My taxes already go to programs that help homeless and low income individuals through direct payments, food assistance, housing assistance, etc ... I don't want any more taxes that would divert income to any parents who refuse to work and take care of their kids. The money probably wouldn't be used to take care of the child anyway.

Fact of the matter is, life isn't precious outside the handful of people you truly care about. You can say you care all you want, but pro life is a weak republican platform meant to keep people subjugated and controlled. If we were truly the land of the free, you wouldn't have to fight to make a law that literally prohibits a person from living their life and their body the want they want.

I agree about the law part. There shouldn't be a need to for laws related to killing babies. People should just take responsibility for their actions and not commit murder and raise the life they brought into this world without the need of "laws". It would be the just and correct thing to do while abortion or not taking care of their child is plain out wrong.
 
Last edited by JonhathonBaxster,

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,383
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,161
Country
Poland
I'm not sure how you can argue in good faith that states stepping between pregnant women and their doctors qualifies as "small government." That equates to more government interference in peoples' everyday lives, not less.
Where was this fundamentalist attachment to bodily autonomy for the last 2 years? The states are free to legislate how they please as long as they do not infringe upon the constitution or federal law, citizens are free to vote accordingly or move to communities that reflect their values and provide services they require. Having the SCOTUS pull legislation out of a hat at will whenever Congress can’t push their agenda through is less freedom, not more - it removes one of the quintessential checks against government tyranny. If the constitution can be “interpreted” to mean whatever the court wants it to mean at any given time then it means nothing. If people want abortion rights, they will elect congressmen and congresswomen who include that in their platform. There are established pipelines for both legislating on a local and federal level, and making amendments to the constitution, should that need arise. That’s what the phrase “living document” means, not that it magically changes meaning depending on which direction you feel like twisting it.
If it was objectively correct, it wouldn't require brain farts and massive leaps in logic to attempt to justify the decision.
It’s objectively correct. Neither privacy nor abortion are enumerated or even mentioned in passing anywhere in the constitution. *Aspects* of privacy are, because privacy as a right would automatically require the government to refrain from investigating citizens, even if it has good reason to. There is nothing in or outside of the constitution that indicates its authors, or the authors of the subsequent amendments, had any intention to include abortion rights in the document.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I find the concept of unelected officials stripping away our rights one by one equally unpalatable, if not more so. I also don't believe there was any point in the last fifty years where the pro-choice side would've had the votes to codify abortion rights into law.
Nobody’s stripping away anyone’s rights - it wasn’t a right to begin with. The ruling was erroneous, and it should be corrected. You liking the outcome of that ruling doesn’t make it a good or just ruling.
The crux of the problem is a disconnect between popular support for a given issue and our representatives' support for that same issue. As I've said before, Dems' defense of abortion rights has been tepid at best, and they even allow "pro-life" representatives to remain in the party on a state and federal level. 2/3rds of Americans supporting abortion as a basic right should mean that close to 2/3rds of both parties also support it, but the reality is that only maybe 2/3rds of one party does. Should that disparity continue to grow, literally the only recourse the American people will have left is revolution.
Their defense of the issue was tepid because they operated under the impression that the SC will cover their ass until the end of time. If Roe v. Wade is repealed, it sets a precedent against using the court as means of avoiding doing the legwork required to pass proper legislation. The court should *never* be used like that, by any party - the text is what it is, and if you’re reading between the lines, you should do so both carefully and at your own peril. Nonsense that is in no way reflected in the historical values associated with the document can and should be repealed, that fact has nothing to do with whether women should have access to abortion or not and everything to do with the scope of influence the SCOTUS is supposed to have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Magus29

SyphenFreht

As above, so below
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
556
Trophies
0
Age
120
XP
1,143
Country
United States
You sound like you're pro socialism and think these parents have the right to my finances, time and effort. You're wrong. I care about the child as much as I care about any random person, but it's not my responsibility to raise it and make sure it has a decent upbringing. That's the parents job.

You say socialism like it's a bad thing. You also seem to, again, bring up the point that you're in some way going to have to help take care of these people, which is still wrong. You care about the child about as much as a random person, but you've said yourself at least twice now that other people's problems are not yours. But then, abortions are your problem? You're being hypocritical and trying to use a proven fallacy to justify it.

My taxes already go to programs that help homeless and low income individuals through direct payments, food assistance, housing assistance, etc ... I don't want any more taxes that would divert income to any parents who refuse to work and take care of their kids. The money probably wouldn't be used to take care of the child anyway.

Congratulations. Welcome to living in a society that, at one point, was built upon solidarity. Too bad you don't get to choose where your taxes go. Seems to me you'd be better fit to argue against unjust tax laws than abortions.

I agree about the law part. There shouldn't be a need to for laws related to killing babies. People should just take responsibility for their actions and not commit murder and raise the life they brought into this world without the need of "laws". It would be the just and correct thing to do while abortion or not taking care of their child is plain out wrong.

Except there are cases of rape and incest and complicated pregnancies. And because these people don't deserve to be forced to live with a mistake they didn't create, their needs to be something established that will protect them. Blanket laws hurt just as much as they help.
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
    DEMONGreninjaPG @ DEMONGreninjaPG: earlier there was someone in one of my games spam really inappropriate stuff and idk why