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

[smf]

It is a consequence to those who'd see pregnancy as an equivalency of being forced to donate an organ-- unless you like being forced to donate organs and are advocating for that.

Isn't that true though? A fetus can't survive without the mother.

If it's ok to force a woman to continue a pregnancy, then should we not force people to go along with direct blood transfusions if they are a compatible match?

 

[tabzer]

No, they aren't. Please use the correct scientific term.


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.

It is true because it is a statement contained to the propositions supplied. It adds nothing new nor does it change the context. If you see hate for women in it, it would be because you consider the biological function of pregnancy, exclusive to women, to being an affliction. That is something I never suggested. The stupid analogy does that. Go be dumb somewhere else.

 

[smf]

If you see hate for women in it, it would be because you consider the biological function of pregnancy, exclusive to women, to being an affliction. That is something I never suggested. The stupid analogy does that. Go be dumb somewhere else.

Again, just because you say that is the only way that hate for women could manifest in your argument, doesn't mean it's true.

I'd suggest you follow your own advice. We don't need you to build any more straw men.

 

[tabzer]

Again, just because you say that is the only way that hate for women could manifest in your argument, doesn't mean it's true.

I'd suggest you follow your own advice. We don't need you to build any more straw men.

You should be presenting an argument, but so far, you've only demonstrated that you didn't read the corresponding post (which you criticized).

 

[tabzer]

Isn't that true though? A fetus can't survive without the mother.

If it's ok to force a woman to continue a pregnancy, then should we not force people to go along with direct blood transfusions if they are a compatible match?

This is the comment in question:

"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.

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?"

If you could point out where the hate for women exists, I'd be happy to either prove you wrong or show you where the language originated (also proving you wrong).

You make these random posts pretending to know what's going on, but in subsequent posts prove that you don't even read.

 

[smf]

You should be presenting an argument, but so far, you've only demonstrated that you didn't read the corresponding post (which you criticized).

Again, you say I've demonstrated that. But that doesn't make it true.
You seem to like to keep making these accusations, without backing them up.

You clearly don't like women as they really are and wish they were different.

A life is created and it is indentured to its condition. Those responsible to creating this indentured condition are responsible for maintaining it,

You're using your assumption to justify your assumption.

There is no responsibility, other than that which people have arbitrarily decided.

In nature, animals will abandon their young or even eat them. While we have a cut off time for abortions, after which you have a reasonable responsibility. But the west don't usually (at present) prosecute for miscarriages, therefore even then we don't make the mother liable for what happens.

If you could make a non circular argument, then it might be worth reading.

 

[MicroNut99]

but the brain cannot live without the heart, artificial heart or real.

Therefore, it must be based on heartbeat.

Heartbeat does not equal brain. We know this.

 

[Xzi]

It has nothing to do with hating women or casual sex.

Suuure...

 

[tabzer]

Again, you say I've demonstrated that. But that doesn't make it true.

It's not because I said it that makes it true. It's because it's true that it's true. It's a matter of record now. You brought up blood transfusions as if they changed the point. You are either an idiot or did not read. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

You clearly don't like women as they really are and wish they were different.

You seem to like to keep making these accusations, without backing them up.

You're using your assumption to justify your assumption.

There is no responsibility, other than that which people have arbitrarily decided.

A woman is responsible for her body, whether she is pregnant or not. "Responsibility" is not a moral claim, here. Whether she gets an abortion or carries to term, that is her response-ability. If the state could force a woman to carry to term, or abort, that would make it the state's responsibility.

 

[tabzer]

Suuure...

Care to back up that pent up sexual frustration?

 

[smf]

If the state could force a woman to carry to term, or abort, that would make it the state's responsibility.

States will be forcing a woman to carry to term by removing her choice to have an abortion.

You brought up blood transfusions as if they changed the point.

Being forced to give a blood transfusion to prolong someones life and being forced to continue with a pregnancy to prolong the life of a fetus are the same.

Don't you agree? If not, how is it different?

 

[tabzer]

States are forcing a woman to carry to term by removing her choice to have an abortion.

You don't seem to have a clear argument

My only argument was about a broken analogy, and it should be acknowledged by people on either side of the debate. My argument is not about what the state, federal government, or women should do.

What are you looking for?

 

[Xzi]

Care to back up that pent up sexual frustration?

I must've missed the part where we swapped roles in this discussion and I became the conservative prude obsessed with consequences for premarital sex. Whenever I feel the need for sex I go find it. Thankfully I've never accidentally impregnated a woman, but if I had, you can bet I'd pay half for the abortion in a heartbeat. I more or less live paycheck to paycheck like most Americans, and having to support a kid would be enough to put me on the street. Precisely the reason that you cannot be allowed to force your authoritarian and dogmatic beliefs on other people.

 

[smf]

My only argument was about a broken analogy, and it should be acknowledged by people on either side of the debate. My argument is not about what the state, federal government, or women should do.

What are you looking for?

You can't just say it's a broken analogy without making a compelling case for why it's broken. One side things it's broken, the other side does not. Why would both sides acknowledge it is broken, if they believe it is not broken?

It seems like you want to make it appear broken, because it fits your argument rather than because you have an argument for why it's broken.

All your posts come over as that. I'm looking for you to only make an argument for something you believe, with a clear reason for why.

Otherwise, why don't you accept that all your arguments are broken?

 

[tabzer]

I must've missed the part where we swapped roles in this discussion and I became the conservative prude obsessed with consequences for premarital sex.

I never assumed roles. You came up with them. They were always your roles. Now you would have us believe that you are successful at "finding sex", with language like that?

You can't just say it's a broken analogy without making a compelling case for why it's broken.

I doubt I could compel you if you aren't literate enough to address the actual complaint that I had about it.

 

[Xzi]

I never assumed roles. You came up with them. They were always your roles.

So then you concede that the concept of "consequences" for any sort of sex is a ridiculous one? I'll take it. There are only consequences for it if they're forced upon people by government or religious overreach.

 

[tabzer]

So then you concede that the concept of "consequences" for any sort of sex is a ridiculous one? I'll take it. There are only consequences for it if they're forced upon people by government or religious overreach.

I already told you why I used the word "consequence", and I find it daft that I would have to explain the biological role of sex.

Though consequence isn't always negative, in the analogy it was likened as an affliction. It was out of respect to the nomenclature used, not a personal belief.

If A -> B. Even though many people respond to pregnancy with a Pikachu face, it isn't because the outcome is an unreasonable one.

 

[Xzi]

I already told you why I used the word "consequence", and I find it daft that I would have to explain the biological role of sex.

Though consequence isn't always negative, in the analogy it was likened as an affliction. It was out of respect to the nomenclature used, not a personal belief.

If A -> B. Even though many people respond to pregnancy with a Pikachu face, it isn't because the outcome is an unreasonable one.

A state-enforced forced birth policy creates new consequences where there needn't be any. The analogy was perfectly serviceable, as medical complications with pregnancy are not uncommon, and they can cause damage to or total shutdown of organs. Therefore unless the state can be held financially liable for the damage incurred by forcing women to carry pregnancies to term, the policy is an unreasonable one.

 

[SexiestManAlive]

Rape and incest is less than 1% of abortions. For the sake of argument, if we said "you can murder your unborn child if they are the product of rape/incest", are you on board with protecting the life of the other 99%?

Let me guess, you aren't. So stop bringing up "rape" as an excuse to justify murdering unborn children.

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.

 

[tabzer]

A state-enforced forced birth policy creates new consequences where there needn't be any. The analogy was perfectly serviceable, as medical complications with pregnancy are not uncommon, and they can cause damage or total shutdown of organs. Therefore unless the state can be held financially liable for the damage incurred by forcing women to carry pregnancies to term, the policy is an unreasonable one.

I understand your perspective about the role of the state and that the state should be held liable in forcing harmful outcomes on its people. I disagree that the analogy was "perfectly serviceable" for the reason I already pointed.

If you have a complaint about the argument I made, then I would like to hear it. Diversions to hating women or not being capable of "finding sex" are not appreciated.

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?