Roe V Wade has been repealed

[Lacius]

When I consider that you think that someone changing their mind after the fact qualifies as "not wanting to become pregnant" it seems that you are advocating for the existence of such people.

I didn't say it qualifies as "not wanting to become pregnant." I said "not wanting to be pregnant." Consent to have sex is not consent to become pregnant. Consent to become pregnant is not consent to remain pregnant.

But on the other point, should manslaughter be illegal?

Of course.

 

[smf]

You get to do what now?

Laugh at how pleased you are with yourself, when I know you didn't understand the post.

 

[smf]

Only leftists try to take rights away from people who cannot defend themselves.

Only rightists try to take rights away from people who cannot defend themselves.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62088103

 

[MicroNut99]

What details do you think I'm ignoring?

I merely pointed out that you can't expect to get a woman pregnant.

She might have reduced fertility, you might have reduced fertility, even fertile couples aren't able to get pregnant from a single intercourse.

Of course I'm picking holes in the troll post, but trolls should expect to have their posts dissected. They have become too used to slap dash inflammatory language getting an emotional response, I'm avoiding that. You need to use logic.

Oops. I was agreeing with you. Its folks like Tabzer that I was calling out.
I use both. Logic isn't a magical salve with these people.

 

[MicroNut99]

Laugh at how pleased you are with yourself, when I know you didn't understand the post.

Of course I am "confused" by the analogy. It's not consistent. The question is if the state should hold a parent responsible for their child's welfare. The mother forced the offspring into existence, not the other way around.

Tabzer is routinely "confused"
Do not waste your time.
There is literally nothing to be gained from a conversation with him.
Tabzer has no position on the subject.
Another troll whos only purpose is to sow confusion where this is none.

 

[AdamCatalyst]

In some states, it now is.

Name one.

 

[Lacius]

Name one.

Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Wisconsin, South Dakota, West Virginia, and more to follow.

 

[MicroNut99]

Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Wisconsin, South Dakota, West Virginia, and more to follow.

They are called trigger laws.
The republicans have been planning the take over of the Supreme Court for over 40 years.

 

[smf]

They are called trigger laws.
The republicans have been planning the take over of the Supreme Court for over 40 years.

The elite will always ignore the will of the common man.

Though USA got rid of Trump, so it is certainly possible to fight back.

 

[AleronIves]

Which is where the entire topic of abortion has gone off the rails in the past couple months. The supreme court has put the choice of abortion legality into the hands of some states which believe that any form of abortion is murder, no matter how early.

The topic of abortion hasn't gone off the rails, so much as Roe tried to stop the train from moving 50 years ago, and after 50 years of pushing and pulling, the anti-abortion camp is downright giddy to have achieved its goal after so long and is making stupid, vindictive decisions with its newfound power. Had Roe never happened, we could have had this debate 50 years ago, and maybe the US would have been able to put it to rest by now. Instead, Roe delayed the inevitable by half a century.

 

[AleronIves]

Sorry for making multiple posts, but it seems inelegant to address multiple points from multiple people in one post.

The bodily autonomy rights argument is different from the property rights argument.

As usual, you just state something as fact without backing it up. Please explain why they are different.

You're right that if you refused to give me one of your kidneys, you didn't kill me. My kidney failure killed me. It goes both ways, however. If someone has an abortion, it's the fact that the embryo/fetus cannot survive outside the woman's body that led to its death. I don't have a right to your kidney, and a fetus doesn't have a right to the resources of a woman's body.

It doesn't naturally follow that it goes both ways. I'm not responsible for your death by kidney failure, since I didn't cause your kidneys to fail. I only refused to give you one of mine. A woman holds half the responsibility for the creation of a fetus (with the man holding the other half), so she doesn't get to pretend that its life isn't her responsibility. This is the hole in your argument.

People aren't forced to give organs to strangers, because a stranger's problem isn't your problem. It's not really a matter of bodily autonomy. A woman bears half the responsibility for the fetus she created, and her right to bodily autonomy does not absolve her of this responsibility; therefore, she doesn't get to say that the fetus dying after an abortion isn't her fault. It absolutely is.

As I've said before, the abortion question is about pitting a woman's right to bodily autonomy against the right of a fetus to live. If abortion is legal, she may decide that her rights outweigh whatever rights the fetus may have, but that does not free her from the fact that she has to kill the fetus in order to exercise her right to not be pregnant.

Consent to have sex is not consent to be pregnant. Consent to become pregnant is not consent to stay pregnant.

In your view, this means a woman gives consent for pregnancy on an ongoing basis by choosing not to abort/kill the fetus day by day? Are there any scenarios where she lacks this right, or does she have the right to an abortion from week 1 - week 36?

This wasn't a Supreme Court case, so it isn't exactly settled.

It wasn't appealed to my knowledge, so... yes it is, until somebody brings another similar case to the courts. The same was true of Roe. It was "settled" until somebody brought a case before the SCOTUS that gave the SCOTUS the opportunity to pass a different ruling.

I agree. Repeal these laws.

I applaud you for your consistency on this front.

 

[AleronIves]

2. It is not reasonable to expect that pregnancy will result, there is a lot of anecdotal and scientific evidence that says it's kinda random.

That's not quite right. Yes, pregnancy is not a guaranteed outcome, but it is reasonable to expect that pregnancy could be the outcome. If you're not deliberately trying to achieve a pregnancy, then the responsible thing to do is to take steps to ensure that it doesn't happen.

1. What if you did take steps to prevent it?

This is the more interesting question. The anti-abortion camp tends to take the "you broke it, you bought it" philosophy with pregnancy, i.e. if you have unprotected sex, you knew pregnancy was a possible outcome, so you don't get feign surprise when it happens, and now that you created a new human, you're stuck with it. This argument falls apart when faced with the real possibility of contraceptive failure. If you're having recreational sex and using contraceptives in a good-faith attempt to prevent pregnancy, yet the woman gets pregnant anyway, what's the answer? The anti-abortion camp tends to say, "Well, you knew that contraceptives weren't 100% effective before you had sex, and you decided to take that risk. You lost the bet, and now you're stuck. Too bad!"

This argument doesn't work very well, because it negates the role of parental consent. Since having sex without contraceptives has a very real chance of resulting in pregnancy, this can potentially be considered as giving consent for pregnancy to occur. Having sex with contraceptives, however, can just as reasonably be considered as denying consent for pregnancy to occur. Since the "parents" acted responsibly by trying to prevent pregnancy to the best of their ability, do they still hold responsibility for the fetus? There are two ways to answer this question:

1. Yes, they are responsible, because they knew the contraceptive(s) might fail, and they chose to take that risk.
2. No, they are not responsible, because they took reasonable measures to prevent pregnancy from occurring.

The problem with the first option is that it gives people the following two choices:

1. You can have sex with contraception, but if the contraception fails, you're required to complete the resulting pregnancy.
2. If you're not comfortable with taking the risk of having unwanted kids, then you must never have sex.

This is not a practical solution, since a) sex is one of the most fundamental urges that humans experience, so you can't expect people to abstain from it their entire lives, and b) it's arguably unethical to force people to have children they don't want.

This leaves us with the conclusion that you cannot be held responsible for a pregnancy if you took reasonable measures to prevent it. Now the question becomes: can you allow abortions only in this circumstance? In other words, if abortion is ethically permissible only if the woman got pregnant due to contraceptive failure, then is it possible to prove that this is how she got pregnant?

For the sake of argument, one "solution" would be to force the man to take a video of himself putting on a condom to prove that he used contraception, but he could easily take it off during sex, so then you'd have to mandate the recording of the entire sexual process. Even if you did this, it doesn't help if the woman is the one using contraception, since you can't very well stick a camera inside her to prove that she has a Mirena coil in place.

As such, we are forced to conclude that you cannot prove a pregnancy resulted from contraceptive failure, as you can't prove that contraceptives were used in the first place. If we assume that forcing people to have children they didn't want is unethical and that using contraception constitutes denial of consent to have children, then we can only conclude that abortion must be legal, even though this will also allow people who had unprotected sex to obtain abortions. If the ideal regulatory framework can only exist in theory and not in practice, then you are forced to compromise based upon what is actually feasible in the real world.

 

[smf]

That's not quite right. Yes, pregnancy is not a guaranteed outcome, but it is reasonable to expect that pregnancy could be the outcome.

It's a possible outcome, I believe the likelihood is between %15 and %25 a month if you are trying.

That isn't what he said.

As such, we are forced to conclude that you cannot prove a pregnancy resulted from contraceptive failure, as you can't prove that contraceptives were used in the first place. If we assume that forcing people to have children they didn't want is unethical and that using contraception constitutes denial of consent to have children, then we can only conclude that abortion must be legal, even though this will also allow people who had unprotected sex to obtain abortions. If the ideal regulatory framework can only exist in theory and not in practice, then you are forced to compromise based upon what is actually feasible in the real world.

To be fair, I think they were trolling. I can't see them being happy with abortions even if you could prove that you did everything humanly possible to avoid pregnancy. The pregnancy would be "proof" that you should have tried harder and bad luck.

But abortions will be legalized again soon in america, so it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[AleronIves]

That isn't what he said.
[...]
To be fair, I think they were trolling. I can't see them being happy with abortions even if you could prove that you did everything humanly possible to avoid pregnancy. The pregnancy would be "proof" that you should have tried harder and bad luck.

Who are "he" and "they"? Did you leave out some quotes? You quoted me, and I was replying to you, not somebody else.

 

[titan_tim]

is making stupid, vindictive decisions with its newfound power

If that isn't going off the rails, then what else could be?

Also at least with Roe, things were uniform across the country (Even though people were constantly trying to undermine it the entire time). Now it's going to be fragment the country even more into left and right camps.

 

[tabzer]

Laugh at how pleased you are with yourself, when I know you didn't understand the post.

How am I pleased with myself? Have you considered the idea that you might be a troll?

"is it not valid to show someone they are wrong by doing the same thing they are but in a way that you know they will disagree with?"

Tabzer is routinely "confused"
Do not waste your time.
There is literally nothing to be gained from a conversation with him.
Tabzer has no position on the subject.
Another troll whos only purpose is to sow confusion where this is none.

I think sex leading to pregnancy is not an unreasonable outcome. I also think that the people who would argue that "unprotected sex leading to pregnancy is not a reasonable expectation" are idiots that would dip out the moment they force someone to depend on them.

Not to conflate two different points. "Confused" was code for "disagree", as in I disagree with Lacius's metaphor. Hope that cleared it up for you.

 

[TraderPatTX]

And yet here you are again, responding and taking active part. Laugh all you want, you're caught up in this as much as any "leftie".

You sure about that? If you recall, your Republican party is the one that continually gets shut down and forgotten about. What happennnnned to the KKK? The Proud Boys? Trump's reelection? Putting Hilary in jail? The January 6th insurrection? The Confederacy? The American Mexican wall? Aren't these all viable examples of how alt rights cry and then accept their eventual defeat and departure? When's the last time Republicans won anything compared to Democrats?

In fact, when's the last time you highlighted a party that isn't red or blue? You're getting awfully caught up in this red v blue concept for someone who is supposedly anti bipartisan and anti big government.

Tell you what. You keep drinking whatever leftist tears you think are in this thread and on this platform, I'll keep drinking your hypocrite tears. Sound like a deal?

When is the last time we won?

1. Roe v Wade given back to the states and the people
2. EPA can't implement climate change rules without Congress
3. 2nd Amendment upheld
4. J6 committee falling apart
5. Biolabs and Nazis exposed in Ukraine
6. Twitter's lies about their bots are exposed
7. Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled drop boxes are illegal now and were illegal in 2020
8. Georgia Guidestones got demolished
9. Farmers in the Netherlands standing up to globalists
10. Dems don't have the votes to pass abortion law
11. Ghislaine Maxwell got sentenced, and her customers are being investigated
12. Joe Biden voicemail to Hunter exposed proving he was involved in the business deals
13. Missouri passes voter ID and eliminates drop boxes
14. One of the ballot mules in AZ just got 1 year in prison
15. Macron lost his majority
16. Judge in Uruguay suspends vaccinations for kids under 13
17. Mayra Flores flipped a House seat
18. Biden's job approval is lower than Trump's
19. NY Supreme Court shot down law allowing illegal aliens to vote in local elections
20. NY Supreme Court dismissed the Dems gerrymandered district map and drew their own
21. 130 people accused of human trafficking arrested in Europe

And that's just in the last couple weeks. Also, when I say we, I don't mean the Republican Party. I'm talking about Patriots.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Only rightists try to take rights away from people who cannot defend themselves.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62088103

George Floyd couldn't defend himself because he was dying from a fentanyl overdose. C'mon man, you can do better than this.

 

[dpad_5678]

George Floyd couldn't defend himself because he was dying from a fentanyl overdose. C'mon man, you can do better than this.

Proven to not be true. Amazing how this excuse/lie is still being used.

 

[dpad_5678]

And yet here you are again, responding and taking active part. Laugh all you want, you're caught up in this as much as any "leftie".

You sure about that? If you recall, your Republican party is the one that continually gets shut down and forgotten about. What happennnnned to the KKK? The Proud Boys? Trump's reelection? Putting Hilary in jail? The January 6th insurrection? The Confederacy? The American Mexican wall? Aren't these all viable examples of how alt rights cry and then accept their eventual defeat and departure? When's the last time Republicans won anything compared to Democrats?

In fact, when's the last time you highlighted a party that isn't red or blue? You're getting awfully caught up in this red v blue concept for someone who is supposedly anti bipartisan and anti big government.

Tell you what. You keep drinking whatever leftist tears you think are in this thread and on this platform, I'll keep drinking your hypocrite tears. Sound like a deal?

History is not kind to those who oppress. Radical Southern religious freaks have been trying to push their Anti-LGBT agenda on the entire country and world for as long as anyone can remember, and now look what's happening. The LGBT community is widely accepted by a vast majority of people while the number of idiots that are afraid of two dudes kissing are slowly dying off and fading away. Even in their safe spaces, aka the states where gay marriage was not legal until Obergefell v. Hodges, was taken away in 2015.

Remember, the people that cry about other people having rights aren't actual victims, they're just weak victims in their own pathetic minds. They're thrown away by society, as they should be. Remember the jackass that assaulted a minor working at a smoothie shop and called her a racial slur? He was fired from his job and charged within a weak of the incident.