Roe vs Wade Overturned?

[Tomu]

your wording is the problem like dizzy pointed out, you sound very near deranged. I am pro choice but I don't go in here acting like it's just a lump of irrelevant cells

deranged because I am angry about the fact people are okay with sending people (women) to death but not okay with sending people (reaaaaaaallly stretching the definition of a person) to "death?

most of whom that share this view do not consider any consequences or implications. The problem doesn't end at abortion or not.

Prove to me an early stage pregnancy, for a woman who wants or requires an abortion (to live, perhaps) would not see it that way? I am sure a foetus is significant to many but this is not my point. I would very much appreciate it if all of you could learn to read or at the very least improve your comprehension to understand that my point is that if a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to have one. If a woman doesn't want an abortion, that is okay too. If a person who opposes abortions is in a situation where an abortion is valid; choosing not to have one is still okay - the latter does not require a banning of abortions for everyone. If people don't want others having abortions, the subsequent implications must also be addressed (child safety, health services, aid in poverty, housing, food, population problems, fostering/adoption/homelessness etc.) - the fact they have not been addressed (pretty much ever, in the US at least) means that banning abortions, if that's what you believe in, is simply running before you can walk.

People should have agency to choose. Whether it is moral or not is not even the question - if it is the question you have or center your arguments around to begin with then you are entirely misguided.

 

[Zenos7]

Yes I did. Do you eat eggs by any chance?

Care to respond to anything else I said or are we being selective so as to attempt to undermine a post you know you cannot rebut?

If killing a clump of cells is infanticide then so is IVF and wanking. Might as well stop eating while you're at it too - if you eat meat you kill animals directly through your demand - if you don't you still kill loads of cells in every item you consume. Might as well start floating too since your body can crush and kill cells

pro-lifers point is about a new unique human life thats growing inside a womans body. Nothing you say here has anything to do with that.

Don't people see how ridiculous the argument is? A foetus doesn't have any indications of sentience until the third trimester at around 6 months. Abortions before 6 months, if they 'kill' anything, kill an un-alive, un-sentient being.

Sentience is literally irrelevant to whether something is alive or not, at least biologically, and not everyone will care about any philosophical shit you might want to bring up.

If these American conservatives really cared about the kids they'd achieve more addressing the fatherlessness problem, the inequality against fathers in family courts, reform gun laws and advocate for universal healthcare and further support a centralised, codified and compulsory form of sex education which currently does not exist in the states and would further support more affirmative action over the fostering of the approx 400,000 kids in the foster/adoptive system in the US at any given time. But no, I bet we'll be hard pressed to find anyone who supports all of these things - and if you don't, it's likely not really about the 'babies' but about control or you're simply incredibly misinformed on abortions in general.

Mostly agree here, but @bolded is usually a talking point of the right, isnt it?

Furthermore, research from the Guttmacher institute has shown that in countries where abortions are illegal, the rate of abortions performed actually goes UP not down. So weirdly if you oppose abortions, supporting abortions actually helps reduce abortions. Accessibility to the help that precedes an abortion is a massive help.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-facts/#:~:text=According to the Guttmacher Institute,a difference that is not

Ok?

Nobody has the right to inhibit another persons choice. If abortions are legal, you can choose to not have one. It's not that hard. It's no skin off your nose and you aren't oppressing other people because 'muh 2000yo book says so'.

Pretty much agree here, but thats still missing the pro-life point. they argue your choice shouldnt be able to terminate the life of another human being, even if that human being is in the earliest developmental stages.

I haven't even begun to discuss the immorality of forcing women to live with children they cannot have - if a delivery is going to be lethal, you're sending a woman to death. If a woman was raped, she doesn't want the baby. Products of incest usually have severe deformities. Several medical procedures require abortions and can result in death if the abortion is not performed (e.g. stillbirth foetus that cannot exit the womb). Children forced to be born live horrific and severely disadvantaged lives most of the time.

It's a much bigger picture than 'killing' a clump of cells, you absolute fucking wingnuts.

And abortions never have complications, right? spoiler: they do have complications.

and im pretty sure most pro-lifers are fine with exceptions in the case of rape or incest. The laws dont necessarily reflect on that tho.

Not sure you wanna go the route of children would be better off dead if they live in horrific and severely disadvantages circumstances. If that wasnt what you were trying to say, my bad, but it really does lowkey sound like that.

Post automatically merged: Jun 29, 2022

And you realise most politicians that actually argue against this use Aristotle to support their argument and consider him more credible than scientifically backed research, right? He GUESSED (over 2300 years ago) an embryo is alive at 40 days pregnancy for males and a foetus is alive at 90 days for females...

whats the point of this comment?

and scientific consensus is that life begins at fertilization btw.

 

[Roo]

deranged because I am angry about the fact people are okay with sending people (women) to death but not okay with sending people (reaaaaaaallly stretching the definition of a person) to "death?

Yeah we can tell by your post, which is why we're telling you to chill.

most of whom that share this view do not consider any consequences or implications. The problem doesn't end at abortion or not.

Prove to me an early stage pregnancy, for a woman who wants or requires an abortion (to live, perhaps) would not see it that way?

Talk to women in real life, I've said earlier in this thread but for most women abortion is a big deal. It's not as easy as eating as you literally alluded to.

I am sure a foetus is significant to many but this is not my point. I would very much appreciate it if all of you could learn to read or at the very least improve your comprehension to understand that my point is that if a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to have one. If a woman doesn't want an abortion, that is okay too. If a person who opposes abortions is in a situation where an abortion is valid; choosing not to have one is still okay - the latter does not require a banning of abortions for everyone.

People should have agency to choose. Whether it is moral or not is not even the question - if it is the question you have or center your arguments around to begin with then you are entirely misguided.

If you're making deranged arguments against deranged people you're not doing much.

 

[Zenos7]

She is terminating her pregnancy for her own reasons whatever they may be... it's certainly never a "convenience" for any women to go through the process of having an abortion

you are twisting my words here buddy. I didnt say it is a convenience to get an abortion, i said most abortions are for reasons of convenience.

 

[bennbeckman]

Forgot to add

Those same people also want to limit the access of contraceptives too. It's such a beautiful double edge sword.

 

[Zenos7]

(reaaaaaaallly stretching the definition of a person)

Person - definition of person by The Free Dictionary

"a living human" - "an individual human being" - "a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing"

a fetus fits plenty definitions of "person"

Post automatically merged: Jun 29, 2022

Forgot to add

Those same people also want to limit the access of contraceptives too. It's such a beautiful double edge sword.

you think they will manage to do that tho?

 

[bennbeckman]

you are twisting my words here buddy. I didnt say it is a convenience to get an abortion, i said most abortions are for reasons of convenience.

They're not for "reasons of convenience" it's a tough decision regardless of what their reason is and again why they made that decision is really none of our business.

For some reason "Pro Lifers" (Im referring to people in US congress who are pro lifers) are making it their business which most of them are crusty old men

Post automatically merged: Jun 29, 2022

Person - definition of person by The Free Dictionary

"a living human" - "an individual human being" - "a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing"

a fetus fits plenty definitions of "person"

Post automatically merged: Jun 29, 2022

you think they will manage to do that tho?

Red states will make it even worse and make it even tougher to access contraceptives

 

[Zenos7]

They're not for "reasons of convenience" it's a tough decision regardless of what their reason is and again why they made that decision is really none of our business.

For some reason "Pro Lifers" (Im referring to people in US congress who are pro lifers) are making it their business which most of them are crusty old men

i dont know what is so hard to get with my comment.

but im basically talking about this:

the special cases pro-choice people bring up constitute a very small minority in abortions. im talking about the reasons for the abortion.

Social and economic reasons -> getting the child would be inconvenient to the mother -> reasons of convenience are the majority regarding abortions.

im not talking about whether the decision to get an abortion is easy or not, not even close.
"it's a tough decision regardless of what their reason is" <- its a touch decision, despite the reason being convenience.

Post automatically merged: Jun 29, 2022

Red states will make it even worse and make it even tougher to access contraceptives

we'll see, but i guess lets hope not

 

[bennbeckman]

i dont know what is so hard to get with my comment.

but im basically talking about this:

the special cases pro-choice people bring up constitute a very small minority in abortions. im talking about the reasons for the abortion.

Social and economic reasons -> getting the child would be inconvenient to the mother -> reasons of convenience are the majority regarding abortions.

im not talking about whether the decision to get an abortion is easy or not, not even close.
"it's a tough decision regardless of what their reason is" <- its a touch decision, despite the reason being convenience.

gotcha your notion of "inconvinent to the mother" for economic or social reasons is really a reason of convinence.

Im well aware of the statistics, im always pro choice if a women has no idea and she finds out 6 weeks in she is pregnant and wants an abortion she should be able to do so.

 

[Tomu]

Strike one.

pro-lifers point is about a new unique human life thats growing inside a womans body. Nothing you say here has anything to do with that.

Again that is not my point to begin with. Strike two.

Sentience is literally irrelevant to whether something is alive or not, at least biologically, and not everyone will care about any philosophical shit you might want to bring up.

Sentience is the key distinguisher for many between what qualifies and does not qualify as a living human baby. I apologise for tailoring my points to the arguments that are often thrown around I guess?

Mostly agree here, but @bolded is usually a talking point of the right, isnt it?

This isn't about the right or left of up or down or north north west bla bla bla. You can be pro or anti abortion and sit anywhere on the political compass. Your limited understanding of how political views work lead me to say: strike three. But i'll dignify the rest with a response but I won't be discussing this further with you from then on.

Ok?

Point being banning abortions increases abortion rates as well as female mortality rate - coming from one of the worlds leading sexual health institutions that directly works with the W.H.O... Well done for missing the point yet again.

Pretty much agree here, but thats still missing the pro-life point. they argue your choice shouldnt be able to terminate the life of another human being, even if that human being is in the earliest developmental stages.

For the last time, I am not running a commentary on what generic arguments pro/anti abortionists are making. I was stating my own points. I'm sorry I don't fit whatever mold you're trying to shoehorn me into, but you're going to have to be more creative than such generic and tepid responses if you're going to get anything out of this or score points against anything I've been saying - not that you've even comprehended or truly understood what I've said to begin with.

And abortions never have complications, right? spoiler: they do have complications.

That goes without saying. Please raise points against things I actually said.

and im pretty sure most pro-lifers are fine with exceptions in the case of rape or incest. The laws dont necessarily reflect on that tho.

Which is why pro-lifers are disgusting if they are so rigid that nuance is alien to them. The implications are terrifying!

Not sure you wanna go the route of children would be better off dead if they live in horrific and severely disadvantages circumstances. If that wasnt what you were trying to say, my bad, but it really does lowkey sound like that.

I am trying to imply that if it is a question of morality, is it not also moral to spare an unborn child of incredible suffering that would be avoided altogether through very obvious means.

whats the point of this comment?

and scientific consensus is that life begins at fertilization btw.

My point is that the majority of people in power driving the dogma and indoctrination behind all arguments and ideologies (in the US) that are anti-abortion are incompetent, as are the people that eat every word they say.

Yeah we can tell by your post, which is why we're telling you to chill.

It's not something to "chill" about though, is it? Egregious.

Talk to women in real life, I've said earlier in this thread but for most women abortion is a big deal. It's not as easy as eating as you literally alluded to.

I have done. I never said it is not a big deal. I simply believe the morality argument put forth is redundant and reductive because:
1. Other such arguments exist (as I touch on above regarding suffering) strongly and effectively affront this
2. it keeps the issue of abortions stricty to one facet of the issue as a whole - it is a method of avoiding progress and discussions involving other socio-politico-economic factors that are just as importan to discuss, which you and others alike are clearly too afraid to discuss (this is the real reason you're telling me to 'chill', because you and others offer nothing else beyond the surface level)

If you're making deranged arguments against deranged people you're not doing much.

Do you even know what deranged means? My arguments had initially been evidence based ffs - what's the fucking point honestly

Post automatically merged: Jun 29, 2022

Forgot to add

Those same people also want to limit the access of contraceptives too. It's such a beautiful double edge sword.

Which will only make everything 1000 x worse

Post automatically merged: Jun 29, 2022

i dont know what is so hard to get with my comment.

but im basically talking about this:

the special cases pro-choice people bring up constitute a very small minority in abortions. im talking about the reasons for the abortion.

Social and economic reasons -> getting the child would be inconvenient to the mother -> reasons of convenience are the majority regarding abortions.

im not talking about whether the decision to get an abortion is easy or not, not even close.
"it's a tough decision regardless of what their reason is" <- its a touch decision, despite the reason being convenience.

Post automatically merged: Jun 29, 2022

we'll see, but i guess lets hope not

Your entire argument falls in line with mine. So what the fuck is your problem and why are you even arguing with me?

 

[bennbeckman]

@Zenos7

my response to your other comment

"we'll see, but I guess lets hope not"

Not even a bit surprised of the ignorance in that statement

 

[Zenos7]

Strike one.

You ok bro?

Again that is not my point to begin with. Strike two.

So you are not arguing against the pro-life point? then its just random rambling?

Sentience is the key distinguisher for many between what qualifies and does not qualify as a living human baby. I apologise for tailoring my points to the arguments that are often thrown around I guess?

key word "many" and im not even sure whether that is true. So yeah, i definitely dont care about the sentience, and pro-lifers clearly dont either. Plants are also living beings btw.

This isn't about the right or left of up or down or north north west bla bla bla. You can be pro or anti abortion and sit anywhere on the political compass. Your limited understanding of how political views work lead me to say: strike three. But i'll dignify the rest with a response but I won't be discussing this further with you from then on.

You are awfully full of yourself. I never implied that you have to be on the right to make that argument, i just noted that its usually a talking point of the right, which are usually the pro-life people, and therefore the crowd you were adressing!?

Maybe dont jump to conclusions buddy

Point being banning abortions increases abortion rates as well as female mortality rate - coming from one of the worlds leading sexual health institutions that directly works with the W.H.O... Well done for missing the point yet again.

Oh boy. Missing the point or not (again full of yourself and jumping to conclusions), illegal abortion rates going up when you ban abortion has nothing to do with pro-lifers contentions about abortion itself.

For the last time, I am not running a commentary on what generic arguments pro/anti abortionists are making. I was stating my own points. I'm sorry I don't fit whatever mold you're trying to shoehorn me into, but you're going to have to be more creative than such generic and tepid responses if you're going to get anything out of this or score points against anything I've been saying - not that you've even comprehended or truly understood what I've said to begin with.

I must say, your arrogance amazes me.

Yes, you stated your points. and i mentioned how they are not really adressing the pro-life chance. thats it. Not even close to @bolded above.

Which is why pro-lifers are disgusting if they are so rigid that nuance is alien to them. The implications are terrifying!

Its not necessarily the pro-lifers fault though that there are shitty lawmakers not inluding exceptions for cases of rape and shit.

also generalization much

I am trying to imply that if it is a question of morality, is it not also moral to spare an unborn child of incredible suffering that would be avoided altogether through very obvious means.

Guess a pro-lifer would be better fit to answer this. @T-Pein™ ?

My point is that the majority of people in power driving the dogma and indoctrination behind all arguments and ideologies (in the US) that are anti-abortion are incompetent, as are the people that eat every word they say.

Sure.

Your entire argument falls in line with mine. So what the fuck is your problem and why are you even arguing with me?

"Care to respond to anything else I said or are we being selective so as to attempt to undermine a post you know you cannot rebut?"

this comment you posted in response to dizzy was interesting to me, so i took a look at your long ass post and responded to it.

Also im pretty much a fence-sitter on this topic and simply enjoy discussions like these. No hard feelings

Post automatically merged: Jun 29, 2022

@Zenos7

my response to your other comment

"we'll see, but I guess lets hope not"

Not even a bit surprised of the ignorance in that statement

what ignorance? is it ignorence that i cant see into the future where they may or may not pass laws that outlaw contraceptives?

are you ok bro?

 

[T-Pein™]

Women use abortion as contraception.
Abortion is free.
Plan b pills are 50 bux.
Rubber feels not as good.

Risk it.
If preggo then abort.

This is the reality

 

[Roo]

It's not something to "chill" about though, is it? Egregious.

it is. The fuck do you gain by melting down in an online forum?

and I'm sorry, the moment you equate having an abortion with sitting down i's when you lose your plot. Yes that shit is deranged

 

[T-Pein™]

The crux of liberalism is thinking that women are helpless and have no agency.

Post automatically merged: Jun 29, 2022

Which is why pro-lifers are disgusting

You are under the wrong assumption that we want people that do not want babies to make babies in the first place.
Kek.

If they have to "deal with it" they will be more careful.
100%

Post automatically merged: Jun 29, 2022

Also abortions should be ok up to a specific number of weeks.
I think 10 weeks is enough time for the woman to know if they want to end a potential life me thinks

 

[bennbeckman]

You ok bro?

So you are not arguing against the pro-life point? then its just random rambling?


key word "many" and im not even sure whether that is true. So yeah, i definitely dont care about the sentience, and pro-lifers clearly dont either. Plants are also living beings btw.


You are awfully full of yourself. I never implied that you have to be on the right to make that argument, i just noted that its usually a talking point of the right, which are usually the pro-life people, and therefore the crowd you were adressing!?

Maybe dont jump to conclusions buddy


Oh boy. Missing the point or not (again full of yourself and jumping to conclusions), illegal abortion rates going up when you ban abortion has nothing to do with pro-lifers contentions about abortion itself.


I must say, your arrogance amazes me.

Yes, you stated your points. and i mentioned how they are not really adressing the pro-life chance. thats it. Not even close to @bolded above.



Its not necessarily the pro-lifers fault though that there are shitty lawmakers not inluding exceptions for cases of rape and shit.

also generalization much


Guess a pro-lifer would be better fit to answer this. @T-Pein™ ?



Sure.


"Care to respond to anything else I said or are we being selective so as to attempt to undermine a post you know you cannot rebut?"

this comment you posted in response to dizzy was interesting to me, so i took a look at your long ass post and responded to it.

Also im pretty much a fence-sitter on this topic and simply enjoy discussions like these. No hard feelings

Post automatically merged: Jun 29, 2022

what ignorance? is it ignorence that i cant see into the future where they may or may not pass laws that outlaw contraceptives?

are you ok bro?

Having any remote thought of thinking Red States wont do everything in their power to try make it tougher for women to have access to contraceptives

Im the one who should be asking if you are ok

 

[Tomu]

it is. The fuck do you gain by melting down in an online forum?

and I'm sorry, the moment you equate having an abortion with sitting down i's when you lose your plot. Yes that shit is deranged

Information dump does not equate to meltdown. These false equivalences you keep deriving are really frustrating and asinine.

When did I equate abortion to sitting down? You referring to the floating thing? Au contraire - this was, as i already explained (and shouldn't have to explain in the first place) an application of the same logic, that killing even small and cellular organisms is murder and immoral. You have to draw a line somewhere, and drawing it at the very early stages of pregnancy is incredibly unreasonable.

Again if being deranged means having a well-informed, data-informed opinion then I'm happy with that. Ad hominem ain't a good luck sweetie x

 

[Uncle Van]

Griffy strikes again lol

 

[Tomu]

Griffy strikes again lol

Thing is if most pro-lifers were like that and respected freedom of choice we wouldn't be seeing these kinds of discussions going on over 47 pages...

was funny though!

 

[Adam 🍎]

Griffy strikes again lol

I only had the plessure of metting one person like that

And i then on purpose missgendered her to piss her off even more