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

KennyAtom

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Messages
367
Trophies
0
Age
26
XP
291
Country
United States
No, they aren't. Please use the correct scientific term.
Fetuses = Babies, and nothing will change my mind.
Just because you say that, doesn't mean it's true.

A lot of murderers claim they did it because they love the person they murdered. Which is clearly not true.

All you can say is you think you don't hate women. Your actions will betray you though.
So I hate women because I hate seeing babies murdered? Man, what a society.

But in all seriousness, I don't hate women just because I don't like seeing babies die. Again, I'm fine with rape victims or women in risk of death with getting it, I just don't think it should be allowed to be used as something that removes the consequences of having unprotected sex on purpose.
 

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,050
Trophies
1
XP
4,830
Country
United Kingdom
Fetuses = Babies, and nothing will change my mind.
Your opinion = irrelevant, and nothing will change my mind.

So I hate women because I hate seeing babies murdered? Man, what a society.
Babies aren't being murdered. Fetus are being aborted.

There is a big difference, which society as a whole understands.

I just don't think it should be allowed to be used as something that removes the consequences of having unprotected sex on purpose.
How do you know they had unprotected sex? How would they prove that? Protection doesn't always work.

Women aren't having unprotected sex and then routinely getting abortions. I know women who have had a single abortion, it wasn't due to them having unprotected sex.

You very much do seem to hate women, if you can even think that this is what is going on.

Preventing all women from having abortions, just because there might be a single case of someone who did what you think not reasonable either.
 
Last edited by smf,
  • Like
Reactions: SyphenFreht

Xzi

Elden Lord
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
14,667
Trophies
2
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
10,434
Country
United States
I disagree that the analogy was "perfectly serviceable" for the reason I already pointed.
I'm not saying there aren't better analogies available, one example being forced vasectomy which would infringe on male bodily autonomy and sexuality in a similar fashion to forced birth for women. The big difference being that a vasectomy is fully and safely reversible. If the possibility of losing an organ from forced pregnancy exists, however, and it very much does, then forced organ donation is not a terrible analogy.

In attempt to be progressive, if someone stabbed you in your kidney, and they are a good match as a donor, would you consider it justice that you take their kidney?
Now that is a terrible analogy. It would at least make a little more sense if said stabber was a police officer, since they'd then be the enforcement arm of the state. And thankfully in my state at least, that would indeed give me grounds to win a civil lawsuit against the officer. They'd also face criminal charges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smf

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,050
Trophies
1
XP
4,830
Country
United Kingdom
Then why quote me, why reply to me? It seems as my opinion is very relevant, and you're just coping.
I don't have a problem quoting people with irrelevant opinion.

But thanks, because you clearly think that you would only quote people with a relevant opinion & you quoted me.

My opinions are therefore very relevant. All of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SyphenFreht

tabzer

etymological and/or pedantic
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,578
Trophies
1
Age
38
XP
2,760
Country
Japan
Now that is a terrible analogy. It would at least make a little more sense if said stabber was a police officer, since they'd then be the enforcement arm of the state. And thankfully in my state at least, that would indeed give me grounds to win a civil lawsuit against the officer

I agree. But why can't you answer the question? Your response is everything but.
 

KennyAtom

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Messages
367
Trophies
0
Age
26
XP
291
Country
United States
I don't have a problem quoting people with irrelevant opinion.

But thanks, because you clearly think that you would only quote people with a relevant opinion & you quoted me.
nah, I was quoting to ask why you quoted me if my opinion, was, per say, "irrelevant".

If you want to debate over this or that, go ahead, but just know neither of us are wrong, it's just a matter of opinion.
 

chrisrlink

Has a PhD in dueling
Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,890
Trophies
1
Location
duel acadamia
XP
4,529
Country
United States
Your opinion = irrelevant, and nothing will change my mind.


Babies aren't being murdered. Fetus are being aborted.

There is a big difference, which society as a whole understands.


How do you know they had unprotected sex? How would they prove that? Protection doesn't always work.

Women aren't having unprotected sex and then routinely getting abortions. I know women who have had a single abortion, it wasn't due to them having unprotected sex.

You very much do seem to hate women, if you can even think that this is what is going on.

Preventing all women from having abortions, just because there might be a single case of someone who did what you think not reasonable either.
and considering they want contraception banned too is pure dumbassery it's like they WANT to over populate the world til we starve
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,207
Country
United States
Of course it would be. Pregnancy has a small chance of causing bodily harm, a compulsory kidney transplant inevitably leads to losing a kidney. I can’t hold the state liable for unexpected twists of fate, I can hold it liable for deliberate organ theft. There is no uncertainty in regards to a compulsory organ transplant - the donor is losing an organ, at minimum.

*hums “one of those things is not like the other”*

*If* a woman were to be forced to carry to term by the state, for instance due to how advanced the pregnancy is (there’s a strictly medical cut-off point for when an abortion is a viable option, ethics aside), the only duty the state has is duty of care.

You’d like to hear a specific example of the state restricting a citizen’s freedom and agency? Have you not heard of prison? :lol: Why would I “concede” when the state does things like this routinely, and always has?

EDIT: Just to put things into perspective, around 6% of pregnancies encounter high-risk complications which, if left untreated, may be detrimental to the health of the mother or the child in question. If the state were to force the woman to carry to term, duty of care would dictate that it has to provide a reasonable standard of medical care in order to alleviate such issues. By comparison, 100% of kidney transplants leave the donor a kidney short, and there is no way to alleviate this - the only thing one can ensure is that the procedure itself is safe. Comparing the two as if they’re similar is silly - they’re not. Even if potential health risks were exactly the same, only one of those procedures involves direct and deliberate harm via organ removal.
Your issue appears to boil down to "but the risks associated with pregnancy are lower than the risks associated with kidney donation."

1. That wouldn't matter even if true. It's still an issue of the state interfering with bodily autonomy, which is the point.
2. In terms of the detrimental effects to the patient of donating a kidney, it can range from not much at all to fatal, similar to pregnancy. The odds of health risks are comparable between the two (again, not that it matters).
3. Like I mentioned earlier, we could change the hypothetical to be about temporarily losing a kidney, and it'd fix all your bad objections.
4. We could change the analogy to be about blood donation instead of kidney donation, and that would also fix any bad objections you have.
5. Your objections are absurd, and the idea that forced pregnancy isn't "direct and deliberate harm" would be laughable if it weren't sad.

I've made the point before @Lacius, that the analogy of forced organ transplant does not coordinate with the conditions of a forced pregnancy. It is a broken analogy of convenience. You apparently hate analogies, and only use them as a last resort. (You are bad at them)

A life is created and it is indentured to its condition. Those responsible to creating this indentured condition are responsible for maintaining it, or providing an alternative that is better, not worse--unless they are willing to sacrifice that life. Your organ transplant analogy will not acknowledge a situation where the person being forced to give an organ made the organ transplant necessary.
Should all parents be forced to be organ donors to their biological children, regardless of the circumstances, if the need arises?
 
  • Like
Reactions: smf

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,050
Trophies
1
XP
4,830
Country
United Kingdom
nah, I was quoting to ask why you quoted me if my opinion, was, per say, "irrelevant".

If you want to debate over this or that, go ahead, but just know neither of us are wrong, it's just a matter of opinion.

If you want to have a debate, then you need to step back from your current trolling strategy of using wrong words.

But you clearly said that you considered quoting someone as thinking they were relevant. I disagree with that, so it doesn't describe my actions, but it describes yours.
 

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,050
Trophies
1
XP
4,830
Country
United Kingdom
This perfectly misses the point. Well done.
No it doesn't, if you can be forced to sustain a fetus using your body before birth then why not your biological children after birth.

It's just inconvenient because it doesn't fit your black/white narrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lacius

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,207
Country
United States
And yes, sex does lead to pregnancy, if done correctly. The pregnancy is a reasonable expectation. When would you argue that people should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions when the consequences are the expected outcome?
For >99% of human sex on this planet, sex that does not lead to pregnancy was sex done correctly. In other words, for the vast majority of sex, pregnancy is not the goal.

Sex is not consent to pregnancy, regardless of the risks and regardless of any other circumstance for that matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smf

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,207
Country
United States
This perfectly misses the point. Well done.
I asked you a question that addresses your objections. If you're having a conversation about abortion in good faith (lol), you'll answer it. I could have addressed your objections one by one, but this should clear things up much more efficiently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smf

SyphenFreht

As above, so below
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
556
Trophies
0
Age
120
XP
1,145
Country
United States
and considering they want contraception banned too is pure dumbassery it's like they WANT to over populate the world til we starve
People are products. Without a working class, without someone to exploit, many political infrastructures would collapse. If women were forced to give birth regardless of scenario or outcome, then those at the top would have a never ending supply of workers to exploit, soldiers to fight for them, and people to manipulate. Same thing with Christianity as a whole and a few other nationwide religions.

Every baby we kill takes potential money away from the wealthy and powerful.
 

KennyAtom

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2021
Messages
367
Trophies
0
Age
26
XP
291
Country
United States
Your opinion = irrelevant, and nothing will change my mind.


Babies aren't being murdered. Fetus are being aborted.

There is a big difference, which society as a whole understands.


How do you know they had unprotected sex? How would they prove that? Protection doesn't always work.

Women aren't having unprotected sex and then routinely getting abortions. I know women who have had a single abortion, it wasn't due to them having unprotected sex.

You very much do seem to hate women, if you can even think that this is what is going on.

Preventing all women from having abortions, just because there might be a single case of someone who did what you think not reasonable either.
did you really just add on to think I wouldn't notice? Man, we live in a society where people try to go behind your back, but I will reply to this.

Babies aren't being murdered. Fetus are being aborted.

There is a big difference, which society as a whole understands.
Then society is dumb.

How do you know they had unprotected sex? How would they prove that? Protection doesn't always work.

Women aren't having unprotected sex and then routinely getting abortions. I know women who have had a single abortion, it wasn't due to them having unprotected sex.

You very much do seem to hate women, if you can even think that this is what is going on.

Preventing all women from having abortions, just because there might be a single case of someone who did what you think not reasonable either.
While it's true that you cannot prove they had unprotected sex, you still shouldn't snuff out a human life just because it's inconvenient for you.
I also understand that they aren't routinely getting abortions, but it still makes me think horribly of the practice itself, especially when it was proven they sell the fetuses for profit. If we had to have abortion, I'd much prefer that clinics like planned parenthood be banned.
Finally, I'll repeat what I just said, just because I don't want to see babies die does not mean I hate women. That's some backwards ass way of thinking, and it's pretty goddamn fucking stupid of someone to presume you hate women because you hate seeing babies die, and are willing to compromise on cases of rape or death.
 

chrisrlink

Has a PhD in dueling
Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,890
Trophies
1
Location
duel acadamia
XP
4,529
Country
United States
if the baby or mothers life is in danger because of the birth, or if someone is raped, they should 100% be able to get an abortion, if you wanna say protect the rest go ahead, but removing that ability from rape victims and people that can die from it, is just outright retarded. And if its murdering unborn children, as I said to someone else, my sperm leaving my body and going splash into the toilet is also murder.
yah and that evil PA GOP candidate endorsed by trump just wan't that NO exeptions (just wait for the wrongful death lawsuits in that state to pile up due to mother's dying for fatal pregnancy/child birtth speaking of i'm supprised no exceptions occur for prepubesic pregnancy from rape or othewise (I heard stories of children as young as 10 giving birth it does happen
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
    danijerez @ danijerez: hi!