1. A zygote that doesn’t implant is still a life. Tragically the life doesn’t make it through no fault of the woman. What’s your point here? 2. A zygote that doesn’t implant and a shooting victim are both tragic loses. Logically people will be more upset when they lose someone they have known for years, but couples still struggle emotionally trying to get pregnant. 3. I’m not ok with any abortions, especially though caused by the woman’s proclivity to engage in risky sex. 4. This is so devoid of logic it is hard to argue. Woman opens legs and gets pregnant vs. person needs heart transplant due to defect. Please show me where the two are connected.
1. Should we check the menses to see if a life has been lost?
2. The zygote not implanting is no less a tragic loss than an unfertilized ovum passing. I’m not speaking about persons trying to become pregnant and struggling. But the zygote is at such an early stage of development, assuming a full term pregnancy is not desired, the termination of that development isn’t tragic. This is very distinct from a fetus much later long in development because then we’re talking about a fully fledged human being.
3. Why the qualifier? It shouldn’t matter at all the circumstances.
4. The opposition to abortion is chiefly on punishing women for having elective sex. If it’s really about “this human being will die without their womb” then why can’t the State force you to give up a kidney to someone who will die without one? All life is sacred, yes? The pro-life crowd must agree that the State has a duty to compel you to give up part of your body to preserve a life.
If you’re going to counter, “I didn’t choose to create you,” why does that matter at all? Unless the anti-abortion reasoning is about punishing women and not preserving life.
I answered all your questions and then you proceeded to repeat your questions. Idk what else you want. The organ diner argument was and still is ridiculous.
1. A zygote or an early stage fetus is a long way from a fully fledged person. Half of all zygotes just never attach and are ejected, but we’re not sifting through every fertile women’s menses to see if a child has died.
2. Most people agree with the above, which is why they’re ok with an early stage abortion. Find me someone who’s just as upset about a zygote that doesn’t implant as they are about the kids who were killed in that school in Texas last month.
3. All the people who are okay with abortions only in cases of rape are telling me that this isn’t about not killing children but instead it’s about sticking it to women who have sex when they weren’t supposed to.
4. If you’re going to say that it’s ok to force women to give birth children they don’t want to because the children will die otherwise, then it must also be okay for the State to force you to give up a kidney or lung to someone who will die without it.
Yep, it's all a conspiracy against women. Great analysis. Or, you know, most people sympathize with victims of rape and thus might feel conflicted on their views on abortion in that situation since getting pregnant wasn't their fault they got pregnant and the severe emotions and trauma involved.
My biggest problem with it all is trying to assign fault to a pregnancy. It’s basically anti-sex (the worst Christian tradition) because you can never guarantee 100% safe sex. Every contraception method has some chance of error, sometimes extremely small. If an IUD fails on a woman, it’s certainly not the woman’s fault, but that won’t hold up against these laws. Not even rape does, apparently.
This thread is so ridiculous. Countless developed nations have legal, safe, and accessible abortions by law. The USA is arguing about stuff that makes it look like a s***hole country. Are you guys gonna start arguing about whether or not slavery should be legalized?
Why is it always the bible belt states that seem to be completely idiotic. Leading the nation in obesity, diabetes, uneducated people, religious fundamentalism. People quote the bible that states abortions are wrong, but conveniently leave out how women are property, and daughters can be bought and sold according to the bible. Your country has been hijacked by total whack jobs, it's really sad to see.
As I state in many other threads, I don’t care about other countries. Do you want us to be more like France and ban hijabs? Didn’t think so.
Yep, it's all a conspiracy against women. Great analysis. Or, you know, most people sympathize with victims of rape and thus might feel conflicted on their views on abortion in that situation since getting pregnant wasn't their fault they got pregnant and the severe emotions and trauma involved.
My biggest problem with it all is trying to assign fault to a pregnancy. It’s basically anti-sex (the worst Christian tradition) because you can never guarantee 100% safe sex. Every contraception method has some chance of error, sometimes extremely small. If an IUD fails on a woman, it’s certainly not the woman’s fault, but that won’t hold up against these laws. Not even rape does, apparently.
Failed contraceptive measures still are the woman and the man’s fault. They both know the only safe method is abstinence. They took a risk and if that risk means pregnancy than they should have to live with it.
Some interesting points have been raised about Clarence Thomas's concurrence, where he basically says he is going to try and find cases where he can overturn a list of substantive due process cases like Griswold (contraception), Lawrence (same-sex sex), and Obergfell (same-sex marriage). Thomas notably left the Loving case off his list of targets, which did use the Due Process clause (as well as Equal Protection) to strike down miscegenation laws. A little bit of hypocrisy is smoldering here as Thomas is presumably a big fan of miscegenation (he practices it to some degree), while he's harsh critic of same-sex anything. While there are differences between interracial sex and marriage and same-sex sex and marriage, they are much more similar than they are different for Constitutional purposes. Thomas may have to explain in an opinion some day soon why he is allowed to marry who he wants against the objection of many, while other people are not. He can do it, but it will take some legal gymnastics that will be difficult and tenuous.
(Frankly, after seeing photos of Ginni Thomas, I just assumed she had to be Clarence's gay beard and he would drop the campaign against Obergfell once it was decided. I was wrong.).
You are jumping to conclusions here. Thomas pointed out that some cases were decided in similar grounds to roe. He never said he was going to look for cases to overturn the old ones though. Quit trying to fuel the fire of misinformation.
My biggest problem with it all is trying to assign fault to a pregnancy. It’s basically anti-sex (the worst Christian tradition) because you can never guarantee 100% safe sex. Every contraception method has some chance of error, sometimes extremely small. If an IUD fails on a woman, it’s certainly not the woman’s fault, but that won’t hold up against these laws. Not even rape does, apparently.
Failed contraceptive measures still are the woman and the man’s fault. They both know the only safe method is abstinence. They took a risk and if that risk means pregnancy than they should have to live with it.
Abstinence isn’t 100% either because you can be raped. A woman could be forced to birth a child through no action she took. And no, I don’t think it’s a woman’s fault if their IUD fails. Like it wouldn’t be my fault if my car shut down due to a manufacturing defect and then I caused an accident as a result.
Green Day frontman Billie Joe Armstrong has told fans at a concert that he intends to renounce his United States citizenship following the US Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade -- a controversial move that elimi...
Green Day frontman Billie Joe Armstrong has told fans at a concert that he intends to renounce his United States citizenship following the US Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade -- a controversial move that eliminates the federal constitutional right to abortion nationwide. During a performance as part of the band's Hella Mega tour at the London Stadium in the UK on Friday, Armstrong expressed his frustration as he told the crowd: "F**k America. I'm f***king renouncing my citizenship. I'm f**king coming here." He went on to say there's "too much f**king stupid in the world to go back to that miserable f**king excuse for a country,"
Failed contraceptive measures still are the woman and the man’s fault. They both know the only safe method is abstinence. They took a risk and if that risk means pregnancy than they should have to live with it.
Abstinence isn’t 100% either because you can be raped. A woman could be forced to birth a child through no action she took. And no, I don’t think it’s a woman’s fault if their IUD fails. Like it wouldn’t be my fault if my car shut down due to a manufacturing defect and then I caused an accident as a result.
Didn’t think I’d have to spell it out for you.
In regards to pregnancy not involving rape, abstinence is 100% effective.
Rape is a tragedy. We don’t need to compound it by throwing murder into the mix.
The car analogy is ridiculous but I’ll play along. If you were in a car crash because the engine failed and you were paralyzed as a result, you would have to deal with that paralysis regardless of whose fault it is.
Green Day frontman Billie Joe Armstrong has told fans at a concert that he intends to renounce his United States citizenship following the US Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade -- a controversial move that eliminates the federal constitutional right to abortion nationwide. During a performance as part of the band's Hella Mega tour at the London Stadium in the UK on Friday, Armstrong expressed his frustration as he told the crowd: "F**k America. I'm f***king renouncing my citizenship. I'm f**king coming here." He went on to say there's "too much f**king stupid in the world to go back to that miserable f**king excuse for a country,"
I hope he follows through on his commitment, but like many leftists he is probably all talk.
Does he think doing this will change anyone’s mind? He should go back to making bad music.
Ok, now you are just making stuff up with no logic or coherence. I’m giving you a rationale and fixed and universally recognized endpoint, brain activity. I want to hear a real argument as to why the definition of the beginning of human life should differ from the established definition of the end. I don’t think you can apart from some sort of faith base argument or one based on squishy concepts like “potential.” I am a scientist and I’m pretty confident my explanation is data based and scientifically sound. If you want to argue that we also have wrongly defined the end of life, fine. But no, if you have a set cut point to define the end, this cut point defines the beginning.
I gave you logic, coherence of principle, and other examples of application of that principle, namely no reason why start and end have to be the same. At the end of the day, you have as rigid a personal belief system as Yawn does. There is no higher-level more compelling justification of your respective beliefs; the buck stops there.
Btw I’m also a scientist, so what? We are not debating credentials here, just the strength of our respective arguments.
So you're a scientist? Is that a bit like Dr Mengele was a doctor?
Harambe has just become gorilla-brained is what I can surmise. Attributing this nonsensical belief to anyone makes no sense, not to mention I remotely didn’t imply anything like that. When people lose an intellectual argument and get so angry that their brain stops functioning, it’s kinda funny to watch the train wreck.
When you can't even bring yourself to say prosecuting a woman for a miscarriage is bad, it's pretty clear where your true beliefs lie.
How stupid are your reading comprehension skills? I already explicitly decried it and it as the only thing bad about that case.
You really typify what the conservatives say about crazed libs generalizing, virtue signaling, shrilling out, and what not.
"If you want to just have unprotected sex whenever and sh1t out babies like poop with a laxative, just go find a state and people that are okay with that. Don’t expect all peoples, especially Christian conservatives, to be okay with that behavior in their neighborhood".(quote)
You couldn't have made a clearer statement about how much you despise women. Very "Christian".
I gave you logic, coherence of principle, and other examples of application of that principle, namely no reason why start and end have to be the same. At the end of the day, you have as rigid a personal belief system as Yawn does. There is no higher-level more compelling justification of your respective beliefs; the buck stops there.
Btw I’m also a scientist, so what? We are not debating credentials here, just the strength of our respective arguments.
So you're a scientist? Is that a bit like Dr Mengele was a doctor?
The left has “scientist” who don’t follow science. I don’t put much stock in anyone’s online credentials but when a “scientist” supports abortion or is pro experimental vaccine, then we know who is probably lying about their credentials.
From a purely legal standpoint, don’t most legal minds agree that it was bad law?
Yes, they do. All these shrill minds yelling about it are illegal, or at least illegitimate. It doesn’t even take much legal expertise or either a liberal or conservative bias to see the flawed reasoning in Roe to which the SCOTUS itself admitted.
No, they don't. And as you are a self-declared "scientist" you don't have any "legal expertise."
1. A zygote or an early stage fetus is a long way from a fully fledged person. Half of all zygotes just never attach and are ejected, but we’re not sifting through every fertile women’s menses to see if a child has died.
2. Most people agree with the above, which is why they’re ok with an early stage abortion. Find me someone who’s just as upset about a zygote that doesn’t implant as they are about the kids who were killed in that school in Texas last month.
3. All the people who are okay with abortions only in cases of rape are telling me that this isn’t about not killing children but instead it’s about sticking it to women who have sex when they weren’t supposed to.
4. If you’re going to say that it’s ok to force women to give birth children they don’t want to because the children will die otherwise, then it must also be okay for the State to force you to give up a kidney or lung to someone who will die without it.
Yep, it's all a conspiracy against women. Great analysis. Or, you know, most people sympathize with victims of rape and thus might feel conflicted on their views on abortion in that situation since getting pregnant wasn't their fault they got pregnant and the severe emotions and trauma involved.
Point me to the person who’s conflicted on whether or not to kill a child. I’ve never met such a person.
So you're a scientist? Is that a bit like Dr Mengele was a doctor?
The left has “scientist” who don’t follow science. I don’t put much stock in anyone’s online credentials but when a “scientist” supports abortion or is pro experimental vaccine, then we know who is probably lying about their credentials.
These accusations are all intellectually dishonest and vacuous. You have no idea of my views and are attributing your prejudices against people who are different from you to me, so I won’t engage on that front further.
What you have admitted is that you will use any pretext to construct the argument you like: overturning Roe is bad because something that could happen with or without Roe happened. Your intellectual inconsistency has been laid bare.
Like every other pro-lifer embarrassed to admit they have no issue punishing women for political team sports (for various unsavory reasons), you don't actually spell out your positions. You claim to take main issue with late-term abortions and don't mind commonsense laws, but you openly cheer Roe being overturnedbasically because you think the legal reasoning was poor 50 years ago. So you expressly avoid having to make any statements about what you actually think about abortion, instead operating on some more abstract claims about legal doctrine, etc.
This is all fine and academic and reasonably thoughtful if we lived in fantasy land. Except, you ignore and then nonchalantly dismiss any women-specific concerns across this whole arc. You dismiss the risks and burdens of pregnancy, you ignore or discard the already-present radical changes to abortion laws far in excess of what most of America deems reasonable, you downplay disenfranchised women already being prosecuted for innocent pregnancy complications.
You basically do everything you can to avoid acknowledging that women are going to suffer immediately in the post-Roe world. It's possible to agree that Roe was bad legal reasoning but that the immediate effects to women and the general idea of overruling precedent to remove rights from people is very, very bad. You can't bring yourself to do that. You have to dismiss or downplay every negative argument against Roe being repealed.
That's a sure sign of someone who has a much more radically conservative view about abortion, trending into 'actively hostile to women' but is embarrassed to admit. My accusations are not dishonest or vacuous. I'm just disappointed in posters who try to hide their embrace of radical, harmful positions behind distractions and abstractions. Just own it.
Dude, you’ve totally gone off the rails now. Saying random things about me for which you have no basis and contradict what I’ve written. Can’t help your ilk coz you seem mentally ill.
I’ve plentifully and very clearly spelled out both my position and the philosophical justifications underpinning them, and they are internally consistent. I have also acknowledged the suffering of women post-Roe and quantified the limited extent of it in practice.
Don’t come after me if you don’t care to read what I’ve written and engage in an honest discussion. Don’t talk generics and virtue signaling blabber. Be specific in challenging any position of mine, and first take the time to ascertain the position itself.
You are the quintessential example of what conservatives blame liberals for, why I long stopped identifying with the liberal label. Too shrill, not oriented in pragmatics, and caricaturing people with morally and intellectually honestly held belief systems.
I don't know why but I have the feeling you and I aren't in agreement. But you must be used to that as everyone is wrong except you. I would block me if I was you - being humiliated can't be much fun.
One of the most humorous parts of this thread is an American pointing the finger at others over racism and flaws in their democracy. You keep forgetting - in this also, you lead the world.
