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

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,190
Country
United States
While I know you're being sarcastic here, this actually would make for an abusive list, people lying and saying they had sex as revenge, plus it's easy to lie and say no sex took place.
This wasn't sarcasm. I was making the point that a situation you likely consider to be foolish and abhorrent (compulsory organ donation, with or without sex as a prerequisite) is analogous to a state restricting what a woman can do with her own body. It speaks volumes that I've brought up this analogy in this thread before, and nobody has been able to tell me why one is good while the other is bad. You either take one or take both.

It's literally not about sex, it's about taking personal fucking responsibility.
Taking personal fucking responsibility... for fucking.
 

KennyAtom

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Messages
364
Trophies
0
Age
26
XP
284
Country
United States
This wasn't sarcasm. I was making the point that a situation you likely consider to be foolish and abhorrent (compulsory organ donation, with or without sex as a prerequisite) is analogous to a state restricting what a woman can do with her own body. It speaks volumes that I've brought up this analogy in this thread before, and nobody has been able to tell me why one is good while the other is bad. You either take one or take both.
That doesn't make any fucking sense though. If no one can tell you how one is good and the other isn't, maybe you just made a bad fucking analogy.

Taking personal fucking responsibility... for fucking.
Not for fucking, but for the thing that comes from fucking.
 

SG854

$$$$$
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
4,937
Trophies
1
XP
7,133
Country
Gabon
It's not the sex, hell, have all the goddamn sex you want, it ain't none of my beeswax.

The problem I have is when people get abortions to get out of the consequences of having sex. That's when it irks me.

Not for fucking, but for the thing that comes from fucking.
Look if you want to get laid so badly why not go to eHarmony.com?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Xzi and SyphenFreht

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,190
Country
United States
That doesn't make any fucking sense though. If no one can tell you how one is good and the other isn't, maybe you just made a bad fucking analogy.
It means it's a good analogy. :unsure:

Not for fucking, but for the thing that comes from fucking.
You already said this isn't about the fetus (otherwise, abortion in the case of rape would be bad in your view). You said this was about the consequences of having sex. Your problem is with women having sex.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xzi and SyphenFreht

KennyAtom

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Messages
364
Trophies
0
Age
26
XP
284
Country
United States
You already said this isn't about the fetus (otherwise, abortion in the case of rape would be bad in your view). You said this was about the consequences of having sex. Your problem is with women having sex.
Again, since you seem to be dense enough to not get the point, I don't care about sex. I care when you want to kill a baby to avoid the consequences of having sex.
 

KennyAtom

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Messages
364
Trophies
0
Age
26
XP
284
Country
United States
But you don't care about "killing a baby" if it's a consequence of rape. Therefore, your issue is with the sex.
fine, no more abortions for anyone. There, you happy? Everyone can just give up their baby when they're done giving birth.

I can take you to meet some Women. Your life doesn't have to be empty.
I'm fine, completely happy.

Just because someone is against abortion doesn't mean their life has no meaning.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,190
Country
United States
fine, no more abortions for anyone. There, you happy? Everyone can just give up their baby when they're done giving birth.
Are you making this up as you go?

It should also be noted that this position wouldn't solve the precedent that leads to things like compulsory organ donation. To be truly consistent, you would have to accept that one too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xzi

KennyAtom

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Messages
364
Trophies
0
Age
26
XP
284
Country
United States
Are you making this up as you go?

It should also be noted that this position wouldn't solve the precedent that leads to things like compulsory organ donation. To be truly consistent, you would have to accept that one too.
not making it up as I go, just tired of people saying I want to control women having sex just because I dare want exceptions for rape victims. They already went through one trauma, why make them go through another? Are you just that heartless that you want consistency for all?

Also Roe v Wade never solved any precedent like that, it just said abortion was required federally. Closest thing I can think of that it set a precedent for other than abortion is gay sex.
 

SyphenFreht

As above, so below
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
556
Trophies
0
Age
120
XP
1,140
Country
United States
not making it up as I go, just tired of people saying I want to control women having sex just because I dare want exceptions for rape victims. They already went through one trauma, why make them go through another?
You didn't even mention anything about rape exceptions until it was mentioned by someone arguing against you. It seems like you relented so you can seem... cooperative, at best.

Like abortion isn't traumatic? At least at that point they can choose to go through with the procedure, it's not being forced upon them.

Also, do you know what a woman goes through having an abortion? It's not as glamorous as you pro lifers make it out to be. It weighs pretty heavily on one's shoulders to have to make that decision, regardless of reasoning.

You do realize the I hate women comment was sarcasm right? Then again, half the people here aren't the smartest bananas of the bunch. Also, fetuses are babies and that won't ever change.

I didn't say all the time, I admitted there were exceptions such as rape. But sure, make a mountain out of a molehill I guess.

Sarcasm? Sure. But the way you present your arguments and reasoning? Doesn't seem that far fetched.

Mountain out of a molehill? Kinda like saying removing cells constitutes killing a baby?
 
Last edited by SyphenFreht,

AleronIves

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2016
Messages
392
Trophies
0
Age
34
Location
California
XP
1,583
Country
United States
just tired of people saying I want to control women having sex just because I dare want exceptions for rape victims. They already went through one trauma, why make them go through another? Are you just that heartless that you want consistency for all?
If we accept your premise that abortion is "murdering babies", then it doesn't matter how the woman got pregnant. Just because she's a crime victim doesn't give her the right to commit a crime against somebody else. That's the problem with the position that women can't have abortions, because the rights of the fetus come first. If that's true, then exceptions for other circumstances don't make sense. You can't have it both ways.
 

SyphenFreht

As above, so below
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
556
Trophies
0
Age
120
XP
1,140
Country
United States
If we accept your premise that abortion is "murdering babies", then it doesn't matter how the woman got pregnant. Just because she's a crime victim doesn't give her the right to commit a crime against somebody else. That's the problem with the position that women can't have abortions, because the rights of the fetus come first. If that's true, then exceptions for other circumstances don't make sense. You can't have it both ways.

"The rights of those yet exist outweigh the rights of those already in existence", basically. But you don't see these people arguing against masturbating. Sperm eventually becomes a baby, so they should have rights too, right?

But you don't care about "killing a baby" if it's a consequence of rape. Therefore, your issue is with the sex.

... Closest thing I can think of that it set a precedent for other than abortion is gay sex.

Seems to me like you do have a problem with sex.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,190
Country
United States
not making it up as I go
You literally changed a major position before our eyes.

just tired of people saying I want to control women having sex just because I dare want exceptions for rape victims.
You said you are only for laws against abortion if the pregnancy is the consequence of willful sex. The issue is, clearly and objectively, sex.

They already went through one trauma, why make them go through another?
The life of a fetus/embryo? I'm sorry, I mean "baby."

Are you just that heartless that you want consistency for all?
I think a woman should be able to end a pregnancy whenever she wants. Pointing out your inconsistencies, and the fact that you've all but admitted to your problem being with sex, are separate issues.

Also Roe v Wade never solved any precedent like that, it just said abortion was required federally.
If laws against abortion are upheld by the courts, then laws for compulsory organ donation would have to be upheld as well.

Both are issues of bodily autonomy and saving "lives."

Closest thing I can think of that it set a precedent for other than abortion is gay sex.
If we are talking about the legal precedent Roe set, then yes, the fall of Roe would necessarily mean the fall of Lawrence (which made laws against gay sex, oral sex, etc. unconstitutional) if brought before the courts.

As a separate issue, the fall of Roe being largely because "abortion isn't in the Constitution" means the fall of lots of other constitutional rights (gay marriage, interracial marriage, and many more) if brought before the courts.
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,383
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,158
Country
Poland
By your logic, organ donation should become compulsory if it means saving lives, right? The state should, of course, be able to take one of your kidneys under penalty of law.

I don't hate you. I just don't want people in need of organs to be murdered by you.
False dichotomy. In the event of an organ transplant, the donor loses an organ and the recipient gains one. You are forcing one party to relinquish a part of their body on behalf of the other party. In the event of a pregnancy, which is temporary and transitory, the woman is walking out with just as many organs as she walked in with - the only quantifiable loss is time (unless you want to count losing the placenta and umbilical cord, but she’s losing them anyway, so it makes no difference). You used this argument last time we talked about this, it’s not a very good one. Being forced to carry to term is more akin to imprisonment than it is to organ theft, and there’s ample precedent for the state robbing us of our time.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,190
Country
United States
False dichotomy. In the event of an organ transplant, the donor loses an organ and the recipient gains one. In the event of a pregnancy, which is temporary and transitory, the woman is walking out with just as many organs as she walked in with - the only quantifiable loss is time. You used this argument last time we talked about this, it’s not a very good one. Being forced to carry to term is more akin to imprisonment than it is to organ theft, and there’s ample precedent for the state robbing us of our time.
We had this conversation a long time ago where you refused to acknowledge that a pregnancy can cause irreparable change, harm, or even death, and you refused to acknowledge how that made it comparable to organ donation. Frankly, I'm not interested in reading the same disingenuous points again.

Lol, we could also make the hypothetical use of the kidney temporary, and your objections would fall apart regardless.

False dichotomy.
This also isn't the fallacy you meant to say. Whether or not you're right about the problems with my analogy (you aren't right), it wouldn't be a false dichotomy. It'd be a false analogy.
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    DEMONGreninjaPG @ DEMONGreninjaPG: i feel like shit