Roe vs Wade Overturned?
- Thread starter TheAncientCenturion
- Start date
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"
[automerge]1656521519[/automerge]
you think they will manage to do that tho?
"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"
[automerge]1656521519[/automerge]
you think they will manage to do that tho?
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
[automerge]1656521736[/automerge]
Red states will make it even worse and make it even tougher to access contraceptives
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
[automerge]1656521736[/automerge]
Red states will make it even worse and make it even tougher to access contraceptives
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.
[automerge]1656521968[/automerge]
we'll see, but i guess lets hope not
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.
[automerge]1656521968[/automerge]
we'll see, but i guess lets hope not
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Strike one.
Again that is not my point to begin with. Strike two.
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?
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.
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.
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.
That goes without saying. Please raise points against things I actually said.
Which is why pro-lifers are disgusting if they are so rigid that nuance is alien to them. The implications are terrifying!
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.
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.
It's not something to "chill" about though, is it? Egregious.
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)
Do you even know what deranged means? My arguments had initially been evidence based ffs - what's the fucking point honestly
[automerge]1656522290[/automerge]
Which will only make everything 1000 x worse
[automerge]1656522382[/automerge]
Your entire argument falls in line with mine. So what the fuck is your problem and why are you even arguing with me?
Again that is not my point to begin with. Strike two.
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?
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.
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.
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.
That goes without saying. Please raise points against things I actually said.
Which is why pro-lifers are disgusting if they are so rigid that nuance is alien to them. The implications are terrifying!
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.
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.
It's not something to "chill" about though, is it? Egregious.
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)
Do you even know what deranged means? My arguments had initially been evidence based ffs - what's the fucking point honestly
[automerge]1656522290[/automerge]
Which will only make everything 1000 x worse
[automerge]1656522382[/automerge]
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.
[automerge]1656521968[/automerge]
we'll see, but i guess lets hope not
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.
[automerge]1656521968[/automerge]
we'll see, but i guess lets hope not
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
[automerge]1656523918[/automerge]
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?
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
[automerge]1656523918[/automerge]
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?
The crux of liberalism is thinking that women are helpless and have no agency.
[automerge]1656524418[/automerge]
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%
[automerge]1656524495[/automerge]
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
[automerge]1656524418[/automerge]
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%
[automerge]1656524495[/automerge]
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
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
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
I see these people crying, My body my choice, What of the Childs' Choice? In most cases People are not getting an abortion because of Rape or Incent or whatever other Buzzword the idiotic Gaslighting Left wants to claim. We have already said there should be at times, Exceptions, But that still gets ignored because Virtue Signalling is more important to them.
Most reasons for getting an abortion are valid. Over 96% are because the mother does not want a child/cannot afford to raise a child - consequences for the child are enormous if forced to be born, which is in and of itself immoral to force a child to endure suffering.
Do you at the very least understand this?
Do you at the very least understand this?
I don't see "not wanting it" as a good enough Reason. Life is Hard no matter what. Unless you're born into Privilege and the Social Elite's nowadays. There are programs if the baby has a Disability etc. Everybody has Consequences, It's just running away from Responsibility as I see it. If you cannot Afford to raise a child, Why did you have Sex? Did you not seek some sort of Contraceptive?
Several things to unpack here:
1. 'Not wanting it' is ultimately, in summary, 100% of abortions. There is far more nuance to it than that.
2. Life is hard no matter what - even elites have their trials and tribulations, correct, but not everybody spends their childhood in poverty, or with abusive parents, or without parents, or in households where substance abuse is common, or in and out of foster care. The likelihood of this occurring in a child where the mother preferred to abort but didn't is magnitudes higher. It impacts not only the child but the mother. Abortions are about two lives, not one.
3. Are there? Which programs are these? Do they actually do their job well? Most disabilities aren't even apparent until birth or very close to birth; abortions are rarely if ever because of a recognised disability during scans. If you're so willing to dismiss concerns for babies of rape etc. (which are valid concerns), why are you raising equally if not less common contributors to abortions?
4. Yes, and that includes consequences to forcing a woman to term through banning abortion - yet weirdly you aren't considering this side of the coin at all.
5. Probably because the vast majority of people enjoy having sex. Contraception is not perfect. Not everyone has access to contraception either and that problem will only get worse in the US if Justice Clarence Thomas gets his way.
Thoughts?
Sorry for asking my 'deranged' questions
@Roo over here thinks he's a psychiatrist so I guess I must be deranged
1. 'Not wanting it' is ultimately, in summary, 100% of abortions. There is far more nuance to it than that.
2. Life is hard no matter what - even elites have their trials and tribulations, correct, but not everybody spends their childhood in poverty, or with abusive parents, or without parents, or in households where substance abuse is common, or in and out of foster care. The likelihood of this occurring in a child where the mother preferred to abort but didn't is magnitudes higher. It impacts not only the child but the mother. Abortions are about two lives, not one.
3. Are there? Which programs are these? Do they actually do their job well? Most disabilities aren't even apparent until birth or very close to birth; abortions are rarely if ever because of a recognised disability during scans. If you're so willing to dismiss concerns for babies of rape etc. (which are valid concerns), why are you raising equally if not less common contributors to abortions?
4. Yes, and that includes consequences to forcing a woman to term through banning abortion - yet weirdly you aren't considering this side of the coin at all.
5. Probably because the vast majority of people enjoy having sex. Contraception is not perfect. Not everyone has access to contraception either and that problem will only get worse in the US if Justice Clarence Thomas gets his way.
Thoughts?
Sorry for asking my 'deranged' questions
@Roo over here thinks he's a psychiatrist so I guess I must be deranged