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

[Deleted member 559230]

Your statements seem contradictory. Are you admitting a fetus isn't a kid?

No, a fetus is a developing human being. Just because you misunderstood my statement about a father having a say in what happens to his kid during its lifetime doesn't mean the kid is not a kid. I don't even see how the two are related.

You do not consent to being pregnant when having sex. Do you consent to being hit by a car when crossing the street?

If you have sex knowing there's a chance you could become pregnant then you are then resposible for the life you create, or at least should be. If you're good person you'd take responsibility, but if you're evil like the liberals then you'd kill the baby.

So are you advocating that women should have less rights than men? I reject that it would not just be her body any longer unless she has consented to sharing her body.

If the women willingly had sex she needs to be held accountable for her actions if she becomes pregnant. That means she needs to carry the baby to full term. Tough shit if she decides she doesn't want to care for the life she created. She needs to be forced to care for the child. That means carrying the baby to full term and then caring for the child after its born and until it turns 18 years old.

You aren't killing a human being and you are not punishing anyone. You are exercising your right to remove something from your body that you did not consent to having in there.

I'm sorry, but if you are advocating that women should have less rights than men I think you should take another look at your moral compass.

My moral compass is clean and shiny and pointing in the the right direction. I just dislike baby killers. I'm glad I'm not evil like the democrats are. They are truly spawn of Satan.

 

[The Catboy]

She needs to be forced to care for the child.

That's literally a crime against humanity.

Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-humanity.shtml
I am not shocked by how much you hate freedom but I am disgusted that you are willing to commit a crime against humanity as a means of oppressing women further. I deeply feel sorry for any of the women in your life.

My moral compass is clean and shiny and pointing in the the right direction. I just dislike baby killers. I'm glad I'm not evil like the democrats are. They are truly spawn of Satan.

I am pretty sure you just want to control people and that's all you want.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

As older guy who doesn't want kids at my age.... Honestly my opinion means nothing. I feel like it should be up to the woman or girl (depends on the age) and their situation. They should have the final say in what is right for them.

 

[Dakitten]

If you have sex knowing there's a chance you could become pregnant then you are then resposible for the life you create, or at least should be. If you're good person you'd take responsibility, but if you're evil like the liberals then you'd kill the baby.

My moral compass is clean and shiny and pointing in the the right direction. I just dislike baby killers. I'm glad I'm not evil like the democrats are. They are truly spawn of Satan.

Anyone else notice these conservative misogynistic bible thumping pro lifers have the worst grammar and spelling on the site? Just saying...

 

[Stone_Wings]

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!!! They are truly spawn of Satan.

You've been proven at this point to be a hypocritical, misogynistic, pig. And still with this entire "DEMOCRATS ARE SATAN!!!" thing? Are you like 12 yrs old? If I'm literally spawn of Satan, I'll be waiting for the day you die so I can gobble up your evil as fuck self-rightous soul.

 

[mammastuffing]

If the women willingly had sex she needs to be held accountable for her actions if she becomes pregnant.

So if you get hit by a car while crossing the road, you should be held accountable for your action to cross the road and pay for any damage done to the car, right?

That means she needs to carry the baby to full term. Tough shit if she decides she doesn't want to care for the life she created. She needs to be forced to care for the child. That means carrying the baby to full term and then caring for the child after its born and until it turns 18 years old.

Should your potential children have the right to your body? For example, should they have the right to take one of your kidneys without your consent if they would die without it? Or should they even have the right to be inside you? Even if you do not consent?

My moral compass is clean and shiny and pointing in the the right direction. I just dislike baby killers. I'm glad I'm not evil like the democrats are. They are truly spawn of Satan.

Come on, now it just sounds like you're saying that you can't be wrong and everyone who disagrees with you are just evil.

If there is a sound argument for why women should not have equal rights to men I honestly really want to hear it. Until then I am not convinced that women should have less rights than men and therefore a woman must also have the right to terminate a pregnancy as a result of her right to bodily autonomy.

 

[Lumstar]

Choosing how and when to have sex is bodily autonomy.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

So if you get hit by a car while crossing the road, you should be held accountable for your action to cross the road and pay for any damage done to the car, right?


Should your potential children have the right to your body? For example, should they have the right to take one of your kidneys without your consent if they would die without it? Or should they even have the right to be inside you? Even if you do not consent?


Come on, now it just sounds like you're saying that you can't be wrong and everyone who disagrees with you are just evil.

If there is a sound argument for why women should not have equal rights to men I honestly really want to hear it. Until then I am not convinced that women should have less rights than men and therefore a woman must also have the right to terminate a pregnancy as a result of her right to bodily autonomy.

You're simply oversimplifying the issue. The baby is a person. A kidney is not a person. Crossing the road is not the same thing as willingly having sex knowing you could become pregnant. Your mind is already made up. Nothing I could say could make you any less evil.

 

[KennyAtom]

Great, let's make a law where any man who receives a blowjob must be compelled to donate a kidney to a compatible patient if the need arises.

Ahh yes, whataboutism. If we do this, this will happen!

The fall of Roe means the legal precedent for things like gay marriage, gay sex, oral sex, interracial marriage, and more could be subject to state bans (and trigger laws for these things are already on the books in some states). Embracing the kind of right wing authoritarianism where the government controls your body has its consequences.

Again, just blowing stuff out of proportion. If we ban the merciless slaughter of babies except in extreme cases, then you will be banned from having gay sex or criticizing the government!

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Choosing how and when to have sex is bodily autonomy.

Yes it is and if you create life during the process then its your responsibility to care for it.

 

[Lacius]

Ahh yes, whataboutism. If we do this, this will happen!

1. You're confusing whataboutism with a slippery slope argument. Learn the difference.
2. We are talking about an issue regarding what is/isn't the legal precedent. Striking down Roe creates a precedent for a state to do what I described. They are analogous.

Again, just blowing stuff out of proportion. If we ban the merciless slaughter of babies except in extreme cases, then you will be banned from having gay sex

A fetus is not a baby.

See above for my point on legal precedent. In a nutshell, Roe v. Wade was literally precedent for Lawrence v. Texas. If you pull the Roe thread, the Lawrence ruling also unravels. If Roe falls, and Lawrence reappears before this court, they would almost certainly strike it down, and states would be able to criminalize gay sex again. Trigger laws already exist for it.

or criticizing the government!

When did I say anything about not being able to criticize the government? That clearly falls under free speech.

 

[Dakitten]

Ahh yes, whataboutism. If we do this, this will happen!

Again, just blowing stuff out of proportion. If we ban the merciless slaughter of babies except in extreme cases, then you will be banned from having gay sex or criticizing the government!

This isn't whataboutism. Whataboutism is deflecting by saying "X MAYBE is bad, but what about Y? Y is bad, so forget X, focus on Y!" This is obviously hyperbole to point out hypocrisy.

Also, fetuses and embryos aren't babies or children, they're biological matter with the potential to become babies. If you see babies getting slaughtered, please don't be quiet! However, if you're crying over fertilized goo not being allowed to continue on at great pain and some genuine risk to a person... I suspect you have other issues. Get your terms right, love.

 

[Lacius]

Yes it is and if you create life during the process then its your responsibility to care for it.

If your kid you've never met requires an organ transplant from you, should the government require you to donate that organ?

"If you create life during the process then its your responsibility to care for it."

 

[mammastuffing]

You're simply oversimplifying the issue. The baby is a person. A kidney is not a person. Crossing the road is not the same thing as willingly having sex knowing you could become pregnant. You're mind is already made up. Nothing I could say could make you any less evil.

You are claiming that the baby should have the right to the mothers body. I'm asking if they should also have the right to the fathers body. I am not oversimplifying the issue, I am pointing out a fundamental problem with your views.

You're mind is already made up. Nothing I could say could make you any less evil.

That's a lie. Now you are just being dishonest and childish. Like I said, a sound argument could convince me. Is there something that could change your mind?

 

[Dakitten]

You are claiming that the baby should have the right to the mothers body. I'm asking if they should also have the right to the fathers body. I am not oversimplifying the issue, I am pointing out a fundamental problem with your views.


That's a lie. Now you are just being dishonest and childish. Like I said, a sound argument could convince me. Is there something that could change your mind?

Gender-bent Jesus at 8 months with the antichrist in their womb?

 

[KennyAtom]

1. You're confusing whataboutism with a slippery slope argument. Learn the difference.
2. We are talking about an issue regarding what is/isn't the legal precedent. Striking down Roe creates a precedent for a state to do what I described. They are analogous.

1. Yes, I got my terms wrong, and I'm sorry for that.
2. Striking down Roe would not lead to more rights being taken away, if anything, if those came in, just do another supreme court case if you're really that mad.

A fetus is not a baby.

See above for my point on legal precedent. In a nutshell, Roe v. Wade was literally precedent for Lawrence v. Texas. If you pull the Roe thread, the Lawrence ruling also unravels. If Roe falls, and Lawrence reappears before this court, they would almost certainly strike it down, and states would be able to criminalize gay sex again. Trigger laws already exist for it.

A fetus is a baby.

Also, just because one ruling is reversed doesn't mean another, more important one, would be.

When did I say anything about not being able to criticize the government? That clearly falls under free speech.

But dude, if they ban killing babies inside the womb, then that will obviously lead to the 1st amendment being taken away! It's the slippery slope! The moment they leave the decision to kill babies inside the womb to the state, the states can obviously now do whatever they want as that is the point where we slip down the slope or whatever!

 

[KennyAtom]

Also, fetuses and embryos aren't babies or children, they're biological matter with the potential to become babies. If you see babies getting slaughtered, please don't be quiet! However, if you're crying over fertilized goo not being allowed to continue on at great pain and some genuine risk to a person... I suspect you have other issues. Get your terms right, love.

Babies are babies, unborn or born.

Also I literally said in extreme cases like rape or risk, you're just trying to make me look like a douchebag who enjoys women dying.

 

[Lacius]

2. Striking down Roe would not lead to more rights being taken away, if anything, if those came in, just do another supreme court case if you're really that mad.

It would not automatically lead to other rights being taken away, but it creates precedent for them to be taken away, and if they appeared before the same court, they would certainly take them away. The court clearly doesn't care about a right to privacy or anything that isn't explicitly laid out in the Constitution. Gay sex, oral sex, interatrial marriage, gay marriage, etc. These are things that would likely fall if brought before the court.

A fetus is a baby.

No, it's a fetus.

But dude, if they ban killing babies inside the womb, then that will obviously lead to the 1st amendment being taken away! It's the slippery slope! The moment they leave the decision to kill babies inside the womb to the state, the states can obviously now do whatever they want as that is the point where we slip down the slope or whatever!

You should also know a slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

The First Amendment isn't at risk. It's a part of the Constitution. The Court has a problem with what I outlined above.

 

[Dakitten]

But dude, if they ban killing babies inside the womb, then that will obviously lead to the 1st amendment being taken away! It's the slippery slope! The moment they leave the decision to kill babies inside the womb to the state, the states can obviously now do whatever they want as that is the point where we slip down the slope or whatever!

You do realize this was the case for a while and society didn't crumble, right? On the flip side, prior to Roe women WERE dying needlessly.

Babies are babies, unborn or born.

Also I literally said in extreme cases like rape or risk, you're just trying to make me look like a douchebag who enjoys women dying.

Well, if the shoe fits...

 

[BitMasterPlus]

So what you're saying is, you don't believe in freedom. Especially medical freedom.

No, I'm saying that you don't believe in any freedoms at all. And you don't.

Sexuality is a biological drive. In general, the desire for sex is comparable to the desire for food or water, regardless of whether or not you need it to literally survive. This "just say no" attitude of yours suggests you don't know what you're missing and don't understand sex.

You need food and especially water to survive. While procreation is necessary for humanity to continue in general, one can go through life without sex and still live a long healthy life if they choose to. I do know what sex is. I'm not going into detail into my personal life with strangers on the internet I don't like, but I do know and even though pleasurable, you can say no easily. You make it sound like people are sex crazed addicts you constantly need sex all the time. You can say no and/or use protection if you're that worries. It's that simple. And before you say "I didn't say you need sex like you need food and water" you compared the need for sex to needing food and water, so you did. We need and desire food and water to survive. We can desire sex, but we don't actually need it unless to procreate.

Snuff out "someone else's" life. How can you call a life form that has neither the sentience nor the intelligence of a human, a "someone", a "person"? A life form that is objectively less wrong to kill than a rat, or a cow, or even a shrimp, all of which have functioning brains that respond to stimuli? Cows and rats especially containing their own social circles. A fetus is nothing more than an unintelligent parasite that feeds off it's host. We kill pests and parasites, why wouldn't we kill a human fetus that serves the same function.

The left always act like they aren't sentient or have the intelligence of a human and yet we're forced to call them people. lol But really, comparing a fetus that is life to pests and parasites, how twisted and evil can one be? For you to think that human life in the womb is a parasite, you need to re-evaluate yourself and your values immediately.

I see you ran out of arguments. Not that you had any to begin with.

Like you? Like you.

I don't recall anyone arguing during the pandemic that anybody didn't have a right to bodily autonomy.

.....Have you been living under a rock or did someone heave a rock at your head and you were in a coma the past two years?

Currently in the US, the father has no say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion, and that's how it should be.

I can't speak for what a dystopian right-wing version of this country might do in the future.

It can't be worse than the dystopian left-wing version of the country we're living in now.

The same group of people also pissed and moaned over imaginary vaccine mandates

Um.....

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/vaccine-mandates#1
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/vaccine-mandates

I guess people around the world must have great and powerful imaginations then for this to become reality.

That's literally a crime against humanity.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-humanity.shtml
I am not shocked by how much you hate freedom but I am disgusted that you are willing to commit a crime against humanity as a means of oppressing women further. I deeply feel sorry for any of the women in your life.

I am pretty sure you just want to control people and that's all you want.

Not killing a baby is a crime against humanity? Jesus, you people will stretch to the ends of the Earth to try to back up your twisted view points and arguments.

Anyone else notice these conservative misogynistic bible thumping pro lifers have the worst grammar and spelling on the site? Just saying...

I've seen plenty of people on the left with incredibly bad grammar and spelling. We don't need someone like you to be a grammar nazi for us, we can type just fine.

You've been proven at this point to be a hypocritical, misogynistic, pig. And still with this entire "DEMOCRATS ARE SATAN!!!" thing? Are you like 12 yrs old? If I'm literally spawn of Satan, I'll be waiting for the day you die so I can gobble up your evil as fuck self-rightous soul.

Well at least you admit what you are. As the old saying goes: May the Lord have Mercy on your soul.