5-4 incoming?

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by robayon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That isn't what I think you believe and that isn't what I believe. I have not engaged in the 'life begins at the moment of conception' argument because I don't think anyone can provide a definitive answer to that question either way. Or at least nobody that I take seriously.

I think it's just about choice. The state yields all kinds of death through a variety of means. We Americans make choices that support that, more or less, whether we want to or not. Just going to the goddamn grocery store can be causing children to die elsewhere in the world, indirectly. Certainly funding militaries and police, or various government departments. I don't get much choice in where my tax dollars go, but I could endeavor to minimize the amount I generate (living in the woods or something) ... which I don't do. I do work, and pay taxes. Another choice. Choosing which brands I purchase or don't purchase, assuming the market competition isn't an illusion and they're not all terrible. This is why we say "no ethical consumption under capitalism"

But for some reason, conservatives have decided that this particular choice - which JUUUUUST so happens to give a (conservative controlled) state a huge amount of power over women - needs to be regulated with the authority (and implied violence) of the state. This is the case whether it's a single actual state or the entire nation.

I find it all very hypocritical, for a party that's so often called itself "small government", "libertarian", "pro-freedom", et cetera. I also find the silence of the libertarian portion of the right wing pretty telling. None of the state's business.

Yeah I mean this all squares with utopian thinking. It's completely misrepresenting the argument to say that conservatives want to control women. MORE WOMEN are pro-life than men. It's not about the woman, it's about the unborn child being butchered and thrown in the garbage.

I mean I could dishonestly frame the argument too and say "You libs just want to CONTROL THE BODIES of unborn baby girls!"

[Jibartik]

That isn't what I think you believe and that isn't what I believe. I have not engaged in the 'life begins at the moment of conception' argument because I don't think anyone can provide a definitive answer to that question either way. Or at least nobody that I take seriously.

you're going to tell me that your unique and unreplicatable genetic code that is created within 24 hours after fertilization that does not change until it turns to dust with you of old age, is not enough for you?

[robayon]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah I mean this all squares with utopian thinking. It's completely misrepresenting the argument to say that conservatives want to control women. MORE WOMEN are pro-life than men. It's not about the woman, it's about the unborn child being butchered and thrown in the garbage.

I mean I could dishonestly frame the argument too and say "You libs just want to CONTROL THE BODIES of unborn baby girls!"

Can't help but notice that you've dodged the entire point here so I'll rephrase:

"A" is all babies killed by normal everyday events per year in America (or whatever country)
"B" is all babies killed by abortion per year in the same country

My understanding of your position, as a right-wing, pro-America, person is that you are advocating for increasing A but decreasing B.

I realize that it is not your intention to kill anyone at all, but it's an inevitable consequence of our death machine system, unfortunately, and that system has a lot of momentum behind it

[Botten]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

…You libs just want to CONTROL THE BODIES of unvaxxed!"

… and oh Jib you are right only American Jesus matters!

[Reiwa]

Reminder that this is all Texas' fault anyway.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's going to hinge on whether a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion, and quite frankly there is nothing in the constitution about it. They used in Roe vs Wade due process arguments.



I'm no lawyer but I can see how the right to an abortion is more a byproduct of a ruling on an entirely different matter. Right to privacy = right to abortion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

Originally Posted by Kaveh [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If someone is willing to claim they were raped to have an abortion, maybe you should consider how serious they consider that right ?

Polls will show you 60% of the US is pro choice. This isn’t the Handmaid’s Tale or Afghanistan. At least not yet

Originally Posted by Kaveh [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If someone is willing to claim they were raped to have an abortion, maybe you should consider how serious they consider that right ?

Polls will show you 60% of the US is pro choice. This isn’t the Handmaid’s Tale or Afghanistan. At least not yet

lmao my dude

During the years after Roe, although not immediately, McCorvey joined with and accompanied others in the abortion rights movement. During this time, McCorvey stated that she had publicly lied about being raped and apologized for making the false rape claim.

And the Hyde amendment already permits federal funding for rape, incest, etc abortions.

In 1976, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, barring the federal government from using Medicaid to fund abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother.

[Elizondo]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

…You libs just want to CONTROL THE BODIES of unvaxxed!"

… and oh Jib you are right only American Jesus matters!

Desperate Botten editing "quotes"

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by robayon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Can't help but notice that you've dodged the entire point here so I'll rephrase:

"A" is all babies killed by normal everyday events per year in America (or whatever country)
"B" is all babies killed by abortion per year in the same country

My understanding of your position, as a right-wing, pro-America, person is that you are advocating for increasing A but decreasing B.

I realize that it is not your intention to kill anyone at all, but it's an inevitable consequence of our death machine system, unfortunately, and that system has a lot of momentum behind it

Here's the thing, I didn't dodge it, but how can I possibly reason with you on abortion based on that? It's a completely unrelated issue.

Our "death machine system" would at least be *LESS* of a death machine system if we didn't kill babies in abortions, wouldn't it?

[Trexller]

I've brought it up before, but there's this attitude that is rather unique to the USA

it's as follows: DON'T FUCKING TELL ME WHAT TO DO

99% of the rest of the world just rolls over when the gov't says to roll over.

also, I find it hilarious that all the people screaming, "Keep your laws off my body!" are the same ones who were screaming, "The gov't said to get a vaccine so now you have to!"

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I still don't understand why you can't just oppose abortion and not be religious? I mean I totally get the religious argument against it, but isn't it unnecessary? Like, I don't need a religious reason not to kick a puppy in the head, I just don't cause I'd feel really horrible. I'd also feel horrible killing a baby and throwing it in the garbage.

I don't know, why don't you tell me why one hundred percent of the anti-abortion activists in this country are frothing Christian nutjobs?