The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Rushy on May 03, 2022, 01:43:26 PM

Title: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 03, 2022, 01:43:26 PM
No more murdering babies for you!

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/02/politics/roe-v-wade-supreme-court/index.html
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: honk on May 03, 2022, 03:16:22 PM
Obergefell will be next to be overturned, then Lawrence, then Griswold. We're racing back to the past. The majority of Americans support these rights and don't want to see them rolled back, but I don't expect it'll make a difference in any upcoming elections. Republicans have perfected the art of minority rule, and they're simply better at politics than Democrats.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: junker on May 03, 2022, 03:17:42 PM
The great replacement can finally make some real progress.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 03, 2022, 03:25:15 PM
The great replacement can finally make some real progress.

The great Reset!
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 03, 2022, 03:32:45 PM
The great replacement can finally make some real progress.

We need more Planned Parenthoods in poor and minority neighborhoods. For their health or whatever.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on May 03, 2022, 03:49:52 PM
Yeah.  Clearly the racists haven't thought this one through.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 03, 2022, 05:38:37 PM
Yeah.  Clearly the racists haven't thought this one through.

Nah.  Just have forced steralizations again.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Roundy on May 03, 2022, 08:53:28 PM
Checkmate, atheists
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 03, 2022, 10:06:19 PM
I raise you an Obama speech.


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02UKgnjvk2tS5AmDv43aQGRcUdbueZbeYEiveMBL2WXaE6iX8LRmBYMJdVRpjToiQCl&id=100044322825129
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Roundy on May 03, 2022, 11:09:39 PM
I raise you an Obama speech.


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02UKgnjvk2tS5AmDv43aQGRcUdbueZbeYEiveMBL2WXaE6iX8LRmBYMJdVRpjToiQCl&id=100044322825129

Stuff like this kind of glosses over the issue as it's seen by conservatives and might point to why they refuse to see it this way. Obama talks about intensely personal decisions, but to conservatives against it it's nothing less than murder, which no one would argue is something that shouldn't be against the law.

I'm not justifying it, I just think that a real dialogue about this issue needs to weigh both perspectives, otherwise it's just preaching to the respective choir.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on May 03, 2022, 11:47:14 PM
I raise you an Obama speech.


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02UKgnjvk2tS5AmDv43aQGRcUdbueZbeYEiveMBL2WXaE6iX8LRmBYMJdVRpjToiQCl&id=100044322825129

Stuff like this kind of glosses over the issue as it's seen by conservatives and might point to why they refuse to see it this way. Obama talks about intensely personal decisions, but to conservatives against it it's nothing less than murder, which no one would argue is something that shouldn't be against the law.

I'm not justifying it, I just think that a real dialogue about this issue needs to weigh both perspectives, otherwise it's just preaching to the respective choir.

Since when do you care about both perspectives? lol
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 04, 2022, 07:05:06 AM
I raise you an Obama speech.


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02UKgnjvk2tS5AmDv43aQGRcUdbueZbeYEiveMBL2WXaE6iX8LRmBYMJdVRpjToiQCl&id=100044322825129

Stuff like this kind of glosses over the issue as it's seen by conservatives and might point to why they refuse to see it this way. Obama talks about intensely personal decisions, but to conservatives against it it's nothing less than murder, which no one would argue is something that shouldn't be against the law.

I'm not justifying it, I just think that a real dialogue about this issue needs to weigh both perspectives, otherwise it's just preaching to the respective choir.

Unfortunately the perspectives don't have equal weight.

One has "its not murder" the other is "its murder even if its a single cell.". The divide is just too great. 
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: garygreen on May 04, 2022, 03:52:58 PM
i don't get why it matters if it's a person or not. no person has the right to force me to donate any or all of my body to sustain their life.

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: xasop on May 04, 2022, 03:54:12 PM
i don't get why it matters if it's a person or not. no person has the right to force me to donate any or all of my body to sustain their life.
Are you seriously suggesting that abortions after 8 months of pregnancy should be allowed?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 04, 2022, 05:58:31 PM
i don't get why it matters if it's a person or not. no person has the right to force me to donate any or all of my body to sustain their life.
Are you seriously suggesting that abortions after 8 months of pregnancy should be allowed?
If there’s some issue which means the mother will die if the baby is carried to full term then there is an argument to be made.
This is one of those issues which too many people (on both sides) pretend is very simple when it’s actually very complex
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 04, 2022, 06:02:37 PM
If there’s some issue which means the mother will die if the baby is carried to full term then there is an argument to be made.

So if a mother gets cold feet and wants to abort her baby the day before it is due to be born, that's fine?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: xasop on May 04, 2022, 06:05:40 PM
This is one of those issues which too many people (on both sides) pretend is very simple when it’s actually very complex
Yes, that was my point.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 04, 2022, 06:10:56 PM
If there’s some issue which means the mother will die if the baby is carried to full term then there is an argument to be made.

So if a mother gets cold feet and wants to abort her baby the day before it is due to be born, that's fine?
I’m sure one of us knows how you got that from my post, but it isn’t me.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 04, 2022, 06:11:25 PM
no person has the right to force me to donate any or all of my body to sustain their life.

This simply isn't true. The government forces you to sustain various individuals you are obligated towards with your body all the time (through the demand of your labor). For example: child support and alimony. There is no difference between being forced to take care of a child inside your body versus outside of it. The idealistic trope of "bodily autonomy" simply doesn't exist outside of a purely anarchical system (and even then, there'd likely be some non-government entity forcing your body to do all sorts of things in that system as well).
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 04, 2022, 06:38:18 PM
no person has the right to force me to donate any or all of my body to sustain their life.

This simply isn't true. The government forces you to sustain various individuals you are obligated towards with your body all the time (through the demand of your labor). For example: child support and alimony. There is no difference between being forced to take care of a child inside your body versus outside of it. The idealistic trope of "bodily autonomy" simply doesn't exist outside of a purely anarchical system (and even then, there'd likely be some non-government entity forcing your body to do all sorts of things in that system as well).

Except adoption is a thing.
So is child services taking away your right to be a parent.

So I disagree: the governemnt doesn't force you to care for your child so much as punishes you for harming it intentionally.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 04, 2022, 06:48:41 PM
So is child services taking away your right to be a parent.

So I disagree: the governemnt doesn't force you to care for your child so much as punishes you for harming it intentionally.
Eh. We once reported that some kids were staying inside a known drug house where someone had recently died and there was rotting food, dead rats, etc. CPS knocked on the door and when no one answered they just left and never came back. Not sure the government really cares unless a school or hospital reports it.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 04, 2022, 07:17:00 PM
So is child services taking away your right to be a parent.

So I disagree: the governemnt doesn't force you to care for your child so much as punishes you for harming it intentionally.
Eh. We once reported that some kids were staying inside a known drug house where someone had recently died and there was rotting food, dead rats, etc. CPS knocked on the door and when no one answered they just left and never came back. Not sure the government really cares unless a school or hospital reports it.
Or your CPS sucks?  I'm sure it varies by county.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 04, 2022, 07:27:01 PM
Or your CPS sucks?  I'm sure it varies by county.
Yeah, I'm sure somewhere they're known for spending lots of time and effort thoroughly investigating every call that comes in.  ::) This country doesn't care about kids. They only care about forcing people to be incubators. Punishing women for having sex or something, idk.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 04, 2022, 08:03:14 PM
Punishing women for having sex or something, idk.
You understand there are ways of having sex without getting pregnant?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 04, 2022, 08:18:32 PM
Punishing women for having sex or something, idk.
You understand there are ways of having sex without getting pregnant?
WHAT!? So you mean.. everyone who gets pregnant actually WANTS to get pregnant??
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 04, 2022, 08:20:53 PM
Punishing women for having sex or something, idk.
You understand there are ways of having sex without getting pregnant?
WHAT!? So you mean.. everyone who gets pregnant actually WANTS to get pregnant??
Is it national straw manning day or something?
Not as ridiculous as Tom’s, but still.
No, I mean exactly what I said.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 04, 2022, 08:38:41 PM
Is it national straw manning day or something?
Not as ridiculous as Tom’s, but still.
No, I mean exactly what I said.
I forget you're not in the USA so maybe some of this isn't common knowledge for you. Birth control in the form of medication or an IUD is only prescribed/performed through an OBGYN during yearly exams. These things need to be covered by insurance or are quite costly and there's been a big push here to not force employers to provide birth control in their insurance policies. Because women should only have sex for breeding purposes. I don't know how many employers are legally allowed not to cover contraceptives but regardless, a lot of people don't even have health insurance.

And outside of that, you get people like Thork who think condoms ruin the experience so simply don't use them. Guys also like to sometimes lie about whether or not they're wearing a condom. Or you're from a shit schooling district with no proper sex education and think pulling out works.

Anyway, whether or not there are ways to have sex without getting pregnant a lot of the arguments are "if you don't want a baby then close your legs." Mistakes, accidents, and rape happen and for some reason people like to force those people to carry those consequences to term. If it were truly for the angel bb fetus's sake then there would actually be better programs for taking care of children (and mothers) once they're born.

Just for fun: "The average price of having a baby through vaginal delivery is between $5,000 to $11,000 in most states, according to data collected by FAIR Health." https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/cost-of-having-a-baby
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on May 04, 2022, 09:04:17 PM
I bet that price is for the bare minimum of service as well. In and out of the hospital in 24-48 hrs, no private room, etc…
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 05, 2022, 12:05:34 AM
Punishing women for having sex or something, idk.
You understand there are ways of having sex without getting pregnant?

I'm pretty sure at least one woman has gotten pregnant while engaging in contraceptive sex.

Most of the hardcore anti-abortion laws I've seen make an exception for life-threatening scenarios. What's mind-blowing is a lot have zero provisions for rape and incest victims. As well, this probably opens the door to perhaps "verifying" miscarriages or something insane like that. E.g., check to see if abortion drugs were ordered online, etc.

A friend's Mom once told me a story that when she was pregnant pre-RvW, where she lived, abortion was illegal. She had some issues, potentially life-threatening. Could go either way. Her OB said, no prob, we can just perform a D&C, no questions asked. She, a well-heeled, affluent woman, essentially had access to abortion, whereas others, less well-off, did not have the option and would have to go 'back-alley'.

Lastly, this seems a tad bit contradictory when it comes to 50 years of settled law, Kavanaugh puts a fine point on it:

https://youtu.be/gJCGAA4VYT8?t=282
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on May 05, 2022, 12:41:33 AM
I bet that price is for the bare minimum of service as well. In and out of the hospital in 24-48 hrs, no private room, etc…

Sort of.  That price is if everything goes according to plan.  I've never had this go according to plan.  Kid #3 involved a C section and 30 days in the nicu.  That racked up a bill that went into 6 figures.  I'm insured but still...

That was standard "not according to plan".  No one was going to die.  I'm sure the babies that were in serious trouble, like needing heart surgery or something, would rack up a truly staggering hospital bill.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 05, 2022, 05:17:45 AM
Punishing women for having sex or something, idk.
You understand there are ways of having sex without getting pregnant?
WHAT!? So you mean.. everyone who gets pregnant actually WANTS to get pregnant??

Also:
Anal sex
Oral sex
Gay sex.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Allan S. on May 05, 2022, 09:12:31 AM
Punishing women for having sex or something, idk.
You understand there are ways of having sex without getting pregnant?
WHAT!? So you mean.. everyone who gets pregnant actually WANTS to get pregnant??

Also:
Anal sex
Oral sex
Gay sex.
You heard it here folks... Just be gay!
(I personally actually follow that tip, and have indeed not had any trouble with pregnancy!)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 05, 2022, 10:07:03 AM
I forget you're not in the USA so maybe some of this isn't common knowledge for you.
I was talking in the context of the UK where these things are easily available and free. Our government long ago realised that "Oi, keep your legs shut, you slags" wasn't working very well as a policy. And yeah, women don't pay to give birth here either - I cannot overemphasise how ridiculous that sounds to me. The US is great in many ways but holy shit stuff like that is crazy and needs sorting out.

Personally I think abortion should neither be too easy or too hard. But my main point is that this is a complex issue which too many people on both sides of the debate pretend is a simple black and white one. It's not just about "a woman's choice". There is a 3rd party involved. I'm not a "life begins at conception" kinda guy, but it is a potential life, the heart starts beating early and terminating a pregnancy shouldn't be done lightly. And on the other side, the "life begins at conception" people neglect to consider that there is a woman involved whose welfare should be considered.

I don't think the fact that Roe vs Wade exists is a good argument for keeping it by the way. Society's opinions have always changed over time. Some things once thought taboo are now accepted (gay marriage), other things once accepted are now taboo (slavery). The law has always changed to reflect that. I doubt there is a big shift back against abortion in the US though so I don't know what the basis for revoking it would be.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 05, 2022, 10:08:08 AM
You heard it here folks... Just be gay!
(I personally actually follow that tip, and have indeed not had any trouble with pregnancy!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vkF-k56b2g
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 05, 2022, 02:39:01 PM
I doubt there is a big shift back against abortion in the US though so I don't know what the basis for revoking it would be.
You would be correct, overall the majority of Americans are pro-choice. I think you need to learn about the GOP and the USA a little bit more before you say very ridiculous comments when I mention they're punishing women for having sex. I think you really don't understand just how much the GOP hates women and how corrupt they're growing. Simply saying there are ways to have sex without getting pregnant is pointlessly stupid. Our country's relationship with sex and healthcare is very different than the UK's.

A member of Congress: https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1521797001175834625?s=20&t=f_7yNs2TfeUIyTafD_ZEpw
This same dude also got in trouble for trafficking a minor https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/27/sex-trafficking-allegations-matt-gaetz/

You should watch stack's Stephen Colbert video at least.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 05, 2022, 02:43:27 PM
What's mind-blowing is a lot have zero provisions for rape and incest victims.

This isn't mind blowing once you follow the logical conclusion of rape exceptions: that there's nothing stopping every woman who wants an abortion from saying it was rape. We can't rely on the justice system to sort out a rape case while abortion is viable; saying they need to file a police report and wait on a rape conviction would be comical. The only good way to have a rape exception is to take the woman's word at face value which would make the law pointless.

Additionally, people aren't "less human" because they were the product of rape. We aren't allowed to murder toddlers because they were a product of rape. It makes perfect sense that we aren't allowed to murder a baby in the womb, either.

Punishing women for having sex or something, idk.

Well there has to be a man involved for the woman to get pregnant. It's quite simple: anti-abortion activism is a lesbian conspiracy to punish women who have sex with men.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on May 05, 2022, 03:02:48 PM
I don't think accusing your husband or boyfriend of raping you is as solid a plan to get away with abortion as you think it is.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 05, 2022, 03:22:09 PM
What's mind-blowing is a lot have zero provisions for rape and incest victims.

This isn't mind blowing
I agree with Rushy. If you make exceptions outside of medical emergencies then at that point we're just qualifying what we're comfortable with which is slippery. You're either okay with abortion or you're not. People fall back on the "what about rape" argument a lot with abortions and it seems a little weird. We shouldn't only allow them if the woman has first gone through some kind of trauma. Forcing anyone to carry to term when they don't want the baby is a pretty awful punishment imo. Being pregnant or giving birth is not easy or cheap.

For the record, I don't think abortion is complicated at all. Late term abortions are incredibly rare so I don't think we need to take those into heavy consideration when thinking about this. I think saying if it can survive outside the womb then it can't be aborted is reasonable, aside from medical emergencies considering those can happen at any time within the pregnancy. Or could even be a shorter time than that really, anything that would give someone enough time to make the consideration and appointment.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 05, 2022, 03:40:51 PM
Simply saying there are ways to have sex without getting pregnant is pointlessly stupid. Our country's relationship with sex and healthcare is very different than the UK's.
Your second sentence negates the first. My comment isn't "pointlessly stupid", I just have a different cultural context. In mine contraception is easy to access and free. Why do you have to be so rude and aggressive?

Quote
You should watch stack's Stephen Colbert video at least.
I did.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 05, 2022, 04:00:08 PM
I think saying if it can survive outside the womb then it can't be aborted is reasonable
OK, so according to Google a foetus is viable at about 24 weeks
But also according to Google the miscarriage rate is 1.7% at 12 weeks; and 0.5% at 16 weeks. So you're making a bit of an artificial distinction between a foetus that's viable and one which isn't. From a certain point the latter will turn into the former given time in almost all cases, unless you do something.
The reason I think it's complicated is that there are two lives involved.
Both side pretends it's simple by saying "the woman has a right to choose, the foetus is not a life and therefore irrelevant" or "The foetus is a life, the wellbeing of the woman carrying it is irrelevant". It's complicated because neither side is right. The foetus is a developing life. At some point it becomes viable - and that point has changed over time as medical advances have meant that a premature baby will survive now when they wouldn't have done 50 years ago. It's not as simple as "you're either okay with abortion or you're not". I'm not "ok" with it, but there are circumstances where I believe it's probably justifiable. It's what those circumstances are which is the debate, for me.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 05, 2022, 04:04:57 PM
Your second sentence negates the first. My comment isn't "pointlessly stupid", I just have a different cultural context. In mine contraception is easy to access and free. Why do you have to be so rude and aggressive?
I truly don't understand how you'd think this comment is not pointlessly stupid.
You understand there are ways of having sex without getting pregnant?
Cultural context aside, did you want me to say that I had no idea it was possible to have sex without getting pregnant? I don't know what kind of reaction you expect when you come out swinging with condescension.

OK, so according to Google a foetus is viable at about 24 weeks
But also according to Google the miscarriage rate is 1.7% at 12 weeks; and 0.5% at 16 weeks. So you're making a bit of an artificial distinction between a foetus that's viable and one which isn't. From a certain point the latter will turn into the former given time in almost all cases, unless you do something.
The reason I think it's complicated is that there are two lives involved.
Both side pretends it's simple by saying "the woman has a right to choose, the foetus is not a life and therefore irrelevant" or "The foetus is a life, the wellbeing of the woman carrying it is irrelevant". It's complicated because neither side is right. The foetus is a developing life. At some point it becomes viable - and that point has changed over time as medical advances have meant that a premature baby will survive now when they wouldn't have done 50 years ago. It's not as simple as "you're either okay with abortion or you're not". I'm not "ok" with it, but there are circumstances where I believe it's probably justifiable. It's what those circumstances are which is the debate, for me.
Something that will eventually develop into a life is splitting hairs and irrelevant. Until it is a life then it does not supersede the life of the person carrying it. Your opinions on what you're comfortable with are also irrelevant. You shouldn't force people you don't know to go through with life altering situations because you're not comfortable with the idea.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 05, 2022, 04:13:58 PM
I don't think accusing your husband or boyfriend of raping you is as solid a plan to get away with abortion as you think it is.

Why does it have to be a husband or boyfriend? "Some guy in the bushes raped me, I never saw his face and it was dead at night, there's no possible way to identify him in any meaningful way." Boom, it's a rape abortion and you'll never prove a false police report in court with such a vague statement to go on. All a rape exception would do is result in a court system with thousands of equally vague reports backlogged and wasting precious justice system resources.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on May 05, 2022, 04:36:16 PM
I don't think accusing your husband or boyfriend of raping you is as solid a plan to get away with abortion as you think it is.

Why does it have to be a husband or boyfriend? "Some guy in the bushes raped me, I never saw his face and it was dead at night, there's no possible way to identify him in any meaningful way." Boom, it's a rape abortion and you'll never prove a false police report in court with such a vague statement to go on. All a rape exception would do is result in a court system with thousands of equally vague reports backlogged and wasting precious justice system resources.

Alright.  That could work.  But if we're treating an abortion as seriously as we treat a murder then the next step would be collecting DNA evidence of the "victim".  And the justice system would naturally be curious if the SO matches this DNA.  In which case then "Hey good news, we've found your rapist and look out!  He's in the house with your now!"
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 05, 2022, 05:10:49 PM
What's mind-blowing is a lot have zero provisions for rape and incest victims.

This isn't mind blowing once you follow the logical conclusion of rape exceptions: that there's nothing stopping every woman who wants an abortion from saying it was rape. We can't rely on the justice system to sort out a rape case while abortion is viable; saying they need to file a police report and wait on a rape conviction would be comical. The only good way to have a rape exception is to take the woman's word at face value which would make the law pointless.

I guess the same would go for incest? It seems odd that we would have to put the onus on the woman to somehow prove rape or incest. Personally, if a woman claims she was raped or a victim of incest, I'm going to take her word for it. It's only because laws are created that are incentivising woman to lie and gum up the courts. If there was a rape/incest exception allowed, the courts shouldn't be involved in the first place.
Additionally, what do we do about miscarraiges? You can order drugs that induce a misscarriage. If that happens, will woman be demanded to prove her miscarriage was natural? She just said she had one, though it could have been illegal.

Additionally, people aren't "less human" because they were the product of rape. We aren't allowed to murder toddlers because they were a product of rape. It makes perfect sense that we aren't allowed to murder a baby in the womb, either.

Well we get into the whole slippery slope is when is a foetus viable to be a ahuman living outside the womb. It depends on where you draw that line, if it's even a line someone considers. I think there are lot of folks who pay no attention to it and just say at conception even though viability is 24 or so weeks away. If you do entertain the line, Texas is down to 16 weeks and lots of pro-life groups want to get it down to 6 weeks. (and then zero weeks, of course).
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 05, 2022, 05:18:46 PM
Alright.  That could work.  But if we're treating an abortion as seriously as we treat a murder then the next step would be collecting DNA evidence of the "victim".  And the justice system would naturally be curious if the SO matches this DNA.  In which case then "Hey good news, we've found your rapist and look out!  He's in the house with your now!"

Our justice system already has tens of thousands of queued rapekits that have yet to be properly tested. You'd just be piling "DNA evidence" into an already broken system.

I guess the same would go for incest? It seems odd that we would have to put the onus on the woman to somehow prove rape or incest. Personally, if a woman claims she was raped or a victim of incest, I'm going to take her word for it. It's only because laws are created that are incentivising woman to lie and gum up the courts. If there was a rape/incest exception allowed, the courts shouldn't be involved in the first place.
Additionally, what do we do about miscarraiges? You can order drugs that induce a misscarriage. If that happens, will woman be demanded to prove her miscarriage was natural? She just said she had one, though it could have been illegal.

Yes, you now understand why the rape and incest exceptions can't happen in an anti-abortion law.

Well we get into the whole slippery slope is when is a foetus viable to be a ahuman living outside the womb. It depends on where you draw that line, if it's even a line someone considers. I think there are lot of folks who pay no attention to it and just say at conception even though viability is 24 or so weeks away. If you do entertain the line, Texas is down to 16 weeks and lots of pro-life groups want to get it down to 6 weeks. (and then zero weeks, of course).

Adding "well that's just, like, your opinion, man" is not fantastic for the discussion. Obviously, this all boils down to a given person's opinion. If your opinion is that an abortion is murder, then it is. Convincing other people that your opinion is correct is how laws get changed.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on May 05, 2022, 05:26:15 PM
Alright.  That could work.  But if we're treating an abortion as seriously as we treat a murder then the next step would be collecting DNA evidence of the "victim".  And the justice system would naturally be curious if the SO matches this DNA.  In which case then "Hey good news, we've found your rapist and look out!  He's in the house with your now!"

Our justice system already has tens of thousands of queued rapekits that have yet to be properly tested. You'd just be piling "DNA evidence" into an already broken system.


So we have the resources to enforce a ban on abortion but not a ban on rapes.

I'm beginning to see why feminists call our society sexist.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 05, 2022, 05:33:40 PM
Alright.  That could work.  But if we're treating an abortion as seriously as we treat a murder then the next step would be collecting DNA evidence of the "victim".  And the justice system would naturally be curious if the SO matches this DNA.  In which case then "Hey good news, we've found your rapist and look out!  He's in the house with your now!"

Our justice system already has tens of thousands of queued rapekits that have yet to be properly tested. You'd just be piling "DNA evidence" into an already broken system.

I guess the same would go for incest? It seems odd that we would have to put the onus on the woman to somehow prove rape or incest. Personally, if a woman claims she was raped or a victim of incest, I'm going to take her word for it. It's only because laws are created that are incentivising woman to lie and gum up the courts. If there was a rape/incest exception allowed, the courts shouldn't be involved in the first place.
Additionally, what do we do about miscarraiges? You can order drugs that induce a misscarriage. If that happens, will woman be demanded to prove her miscarriage was natural? She just said she had one, though it could have been illegal.

Yes, you now understand why the rape and incest exceptions can't happen in an anti-abortion law.

I guess if you presuppose that women would use rape/incest as an excuse that is untrue. I'm assuming there are current laws on the books that have the rape/incest exemption. Are the courts backed up trying to prove the claims are true to allow an abortion to go through? Is that even the way it works? idk. Does a woman today have to prove she was a victim under those laws?

Well we get into the whole slippery slope is when is a foetus viable to be a ahuman living outside the womb. It depends on where you draw that line, if it's even a line someone considers. I think there are lot of folks who pay no attention to it and just say at conception even though viability is 24 or so weeks away. If you do entertain the line, Texas is down to 16 weeks and lots of pro-life groups want to get it down to 6 weeks. (and then zero weeks, of course).

Adding "well that's just, like, your opinion, man" is not fantastic for the discussion. Obviously, this all boils down to a given person's opinion. If your opinion is that an abortion is murder, then it is. Convincing other people that your opinion is correct is how laws get changed.

I apologize if it came across like that. I didn't mean, "well that's just, like, your opinion, man". All I'm saying is, or perhaps asking, what is your line? Conception (i.e. never), 6 weeks, 16, 24?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 05, 2022, 05:38:00 PM
Additionally, what do we do about miscarraiges? You can order drugs that induce a misscarriage. If that happens, will woman be demanded to prove her miscarriage was natural? She just said she had one, though it could have been illegal.
lol it's horrible
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/21/oklahoma-woman-convicted-of-manslaughter-miscarriage/6104281001/
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 05, 2022, 06:27:56 PM
Cultural context aside, did you want me to say that I had no idea it was possible to have sex without getting pregnant?

My comment was in response to:

Quote
This country doesn't care about kids. They only care about forcing people to be incubators. Punishing women for having sex or something

Note you said “this country”, not the GOP.
Your statement seemed ridiculous to me. As if an anti-abortion stance is necessarily some punishment for women who want to have sex and nothing to do with caring about kids. Yes I was writing in the context of a country where contraception is freely available, but even if you can cite misogynistic individuals that doesn’t mean every anti-abortion stance is based on that. It’s usually based on the idea that “life begins at conception” and therefore the decision to abort does not just affect the individual making that decision. The foetus gets no say so some law protecting them seems reasonable. Any law on abortion will obviously only directly affect women but that’s biology, not sexism or misogyny. As a man I feel I have a right to an opinion on this matter, but given I’ll never be in a position of being raped and then having to carry a baby to term as a result I don’t feel I have the right to compel a woman to do that. I think it’s fair to grumble that these laws always seem to be made by old white men. It’s not fair to say that they are “only” motivated by some hatred for women and just want to punish women for having sex.

And I don’t think acknowledging that a foetus is a developing life is splitting hairs. You’re making a distinction between “viable” and not but there is no clear line between those two things. From 16 weeks a foetus isn’t (currently) viable but will almost always become so given time unless you do something. And a foetus is viable far earlier than it used to be, that could become earlier still as medical techniques advance. What if we get to the point where artificial wombs mean that pretty much any foetus is viable. Then what? Unless you’re defining “viable” as “you don’t have to keep them alive with machines”, which I guess is reasonable but there’s no clear line there either.
You are making a distinction between when a foetus is a “life” and when it isn’t. That distinction doesn’t really exist or, at best, is a grey area which keeps changing as medicine does. I don’t think life begins at conception but I don’t think it’s clear when it becomes so.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 05, 2022, 06:33:42 PM
Here’s a solution with everyone can get behind.

https://newsthump.com/2022/05/04/if-you-dont-want-a-baby-wait-until-its-born-and-let-it-play-with-a-perfectly-legal-firearm-american-women-told/
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: xasop on May 05, 2022, 06:41:10 PM
Something that will eventually develop into a life is splitting hairs and irrelevant. Until it is a life then it does not supersede the life of the person carrying it.
You are making a distinction between when a foetus is a “life” and when it isn’t. That distinction doesn’t really exist or, at best, is a grey area which keeps changing as medicine does. I don’t think life begins at conception but I don’t think it’s clear when it becomes so.
Well, "life" began 4 billion years ago and has been around continuously since then. The question isn't when an embryo or fœtus becomes "alive", but when it qualifies as a human life.

To me, the important issue here isn't the definition of a "life", but rather the question of the mother-to-be's commitment. If the opportunity is presented to abort at, say, 5 weeks pregnancy, and the mother chooses to keep the baby, then it is unreasonable to say "I changed my mind" at 15 or 20 or 25 weeks, regardless of the state of the fœtus. Conversely, if the opportunity is not available (due to legal or circumstantial restrictions) at an early stage, then an abortion at 15 weeks may make more sense. But the decision to commit (or not) to pregnancy should be made as early as possible to avoid undue suffering on the part of the fœtus, and then once the commitment is made, it should be permanent (with obvious exceptions for life-threatening cases).

On the point about artificial wombs, I don't think that it makes sense to say that just because a zygote would eventually become a human baby, it is best to let it develop. Is bringing a child into an abusive family or an orphanage better than preventing it from ever existing? I know there are some who would say yes, but at the very least it should be clear that there are a variety of reasonable views on that question.

So, once again, we come to the issue being more complex than it first appears.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 05, 2022, 06:56:43 PM
As if an anti-abortion stance is necessarily some punishment for women who want to have sex and nothing to do with caring about kids.
It is. If I had an abortion 15 years ago are you going to bed crying every night about the potentially lost life? No. You had no idea it happened. Stop worrying about something that is not a human life yet and you're not even aware of.

Some complications that come with being pregnant/delivering a baby:
Morning sickness (sometimes incapacitating), itchy skin, gas and bloating, bleeding gums, yeast infections, swollen ankles, frequent urination, anemia, high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, fetal distress, perinatal asphyxia, shoulder dystocia, excessive bleeding, malposition, placenta previa, cephalopelvic disproportion, uterine/bladder prolapse, depression - in short, your body gets fucking wrecked. That sounds like punishment to me if the person does not want that child, particularly since healthcare is expensive as fuck and we basically leave people out to dry.

And I'll say it again, if people actually cared about the child then there would be better programs in place for mother and child. If healthcare, childcare, housing, and general support/education were readily available at low to no cost then there would be a lot less abortions that make you uncomfortable.

It is absolutely not complicated. Maybe adjusting the terms should be left to the states but only as long as it's a reasonable length of time for the woman to know, consider, and make the appointment. But it should not be up for debate what someone does with their body before there is a viable human life in question. Honestly, any wealthy white woman will still be able to get an abortion regardless of the legality so it's all horseshit anyway.

Solve the other problems and you greatly diminish abortion.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 05, 2022, 06:58:30 PM
Additionally, what do we do about miscarraiges? You can order drugs that induce a misscarriage. If that happens, will woman be demanded to prove her miscarriage was natural? She just said she had one, though it could have been illegal.
lol it's horrible
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/21/oklahoma-woman-convicted-of-manslaughter-miscarriage/6104281001/

Seems like kind of a fringe case. Meth use maybe caused a miscarriage according to the prosecution yet the Dr.s say it probably wasn't. Fringe also in that these cases don't seem to happen very often, from the article:

"They learned of about 57 cases in Oklahoma since 2006, including Poolaw's, and began reaching out to her to offer her assistance once they learned she was going to trial." That amounts to 3+ cases a year for being prosecuted for using a felony drug while pregnant and a miscarriage occurs. I wonder what the incidence of miscarriages is for all pregnant Meth users?

In short, I'm not seeing a gumming up of the court system if you exempt for rape and incest. Nor for miscarriages in general.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: xasop on May 05, 2022, 07:01:42 PM
Solve the other problems and you greatly diminish abortion.
I do agree with this. I can't understand how the anti-abortion crowd aren't campaigning for free birth control.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 05, 2022, 07:18:21 PM
Solve the other problems and you greatly diminish abortion.
I do agree with this. I can't understand how the anti-abortion crowd aren't campaigning for free birth control.
Because they don't want to pay for it either. 
And some of them feel its the individual's responsibility to either have protection they purchased themselves or not have sex.  Because none of them were horny teenagers, apparently, who'd have unprotected sex if the opportunity arose.  All of them were chase, well mannered, men who never had an erection unless they fully intended to impregnate a woman.



Something that will eventually develop into a life is splitting hairs and irrelevant. Until it is a life then it does not supersede the life of the person carrying it.
You are making a distinction between when a foetus is a “life” and when it isn’t. That distinction doesn’t really exist or, at best, is a grey area which keeps changing as medicine does. I don’t think life begins at conception but I don’t think it’s clear when it becomes so.
Well, "life" began 4 billion years ago and has been around continuously since then. The question isn't when an embryo or fœtus becomes "alive", but when it qualifies as a human life.

To me, the important issue here isn't the definition of a "life", but rather the question of the mother-to-be's commitment. If the opportunity is presented to abort at, say, 5 weeks pregnancy, and the mother chooses to keep the baby, then it is unreasonable to say "I changed my mind" at 15 or 20 or 25 weeks, regardless of the state of the fœtus. Conversely, if the opportunity is not available (due to legal or circumstantial restrictions) at an early stage, then an abortion at 15 weeks may make more sense. But the decision to commit (or not) to pregnancy should be made as early as possible to avoid undue suffering on the part of the fœtus, and then once the commitment is made, it should be permanent (with obvious exceptions for life-threatening cases).

On the point about artificial wombs, I don't think that it makes sense to say that just because a zygote would eventually become a human baby, it is best to let it develop. Is bringing a child into an abusive family or an orphanage better than preventing it from ever existing? I know there are some who would say yes, but at the very least it should be clear that there are a variety of reasonable views on that question.

So, once again, we come to the issue being more complex than it first appears.

This is where I am too.  (except 5 weeks.  5 weeks is basically "I might be late...")

For the christian crowd: Does it have a soul?
For the biology crowd: Does it have consciousness?

I think we all agree that a heart, is not a human.  If I remove your heart and keep it alive, its not a human life there, beating on and on.  Its a heart, a collection of cells that, aside from genetics, has no qualities that make us human.
Animals have no rights, because they aren't human, despite being alive.
So what, then, makes us human and when does that develop?  What separates a collection of cells from a human?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 05, 2022, 07:30:18 PM
Solve the other problems and you greatly diminish abortion.
I do agree with this. I can't understand how the anti-abortion crowd aren't campaigning for free birth control.
Because this country (the GOP and conservatives for clarity's sake) wants more white babies. We don't want to bring in immigrants to help our declining birth rate so the only fix is to force women to have babies. The boomers are getting older and there's not enough people to take care of them.

I promise you this about control and nothing else. If it were genuine concern for life then there are so many other fixes.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: xasop on May 05, 2022, 07:39:10 PM
Because this country (the GOP and conservatives for clarity's sake) wants more white babies. We don't want to bring in immigrants to help our declining birth rate so the only fix is to force women to have babies. The boomers are getting older and there's not enough people to take care of them.
Sounds like they should fix the housing crisis so people can afford to buy a family home, then.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 05, 2022, 07:47:41 PM
In short, I'm not seeing a gumming up of the court system if you exempt for rape and incest. Nor for miscarriages in general.
Not yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it went that way eventually. If people in TX can report anyone they believe had an abortion then you're going to at least have a lot of shitty investigations into people who may have had legitimate miscarriages, which I'm sure is a lot fun.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: WTF_Seriously on May 05, 2022, 08:01:05 PM
What's great is when you ask those who are so worried about life if they're signed up to be foster parents or are adoptive parents.

An overwhelming majority of the time it's crickets.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 05, 2022, 08:58:00 PM
In short, I'm not seeing a gumming up of the court system if you exempt for rape and incest. Nor for miscarriages in general.
Not yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it went that way eventually. If people in TX can report anyone they believe had an abortion then you're going to at least have a lot of shitty investigations into people who may have had legitimate miscarriages, which I'm sure is a lot fun.

Its a mental nightmare.  A misscarriage or hell, even an abortion, is an emotioally damaging experience.  Add on top of that some random people calling you a murdere while OTHER random people question what you did and ask you to relive it in detail.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 05, 2022, 09:19:37 PM
The Louisiana GOP just advanced a bill out of committee that says life begins at “the moment of fertilization.” That would criminalize contraception that prevents fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterus btw. I don't think Louisiana is the only state proposing a bill like this either lmao
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 05, 2022, 11:13:44 PM
Because this country (the GOP and conservatives for clarity's sake) wants more white babies.

If this were truly the case, the GOP would be taking exactly the same stance as the Democratic Party. That is, they would want cheaper or free abortions in minority neighborhoods for "their own health and welfare." Planned Parenthood has lead to a larger effective drop in the latino and black populations than any other organization, such as the KKK, could have possibly hoped to accomplish through any other means.

(https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/395-351.png)

Abortion alone has resulted in a multi-million population delta between the US white population versus other races. A hard right eugenicist would be the most passionate pro-abortion advocate you could hope for with numbers like these.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 06, 2022, 12:40:00 AM
Because this country (the GOP and conservatives for clarity's sake) wants more white babies.

If this were truly the case, the GOP would be taking exactly the same stance as the Democratic Party. That is, they would want cheaper or free abortions in minority neighborhoods for "their own health and welfare." Planned Parenthood has lead to a larger effective drop in the latino and black populations than any other organization, such as the KKK, could have possibly hoped to accomplish through any other means.

(https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/395-351.png)

Abortion alone has resulted in a multi-million population delta between the US white population versus other races. A hard right eugenicist would be the most passionate pro-abortion advocate you could hope for with numbers like these.
Yeah, I can see your argument. But maybe they have to try something because millennials aren't having babies. The other reason is they're only trying to keep their radically religious minority engaged enough to keep them in office.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 06, 2022, 12:43:35 PM
Yeah, I can see your argument. But maybe they have to try something because millennials aren't having babies. The other reason is they're only trying to keep their radically religious minority engaged enough to keep them in office.

"Millennials aren't having babies" doesn't ring true to me. Most millennials I know already have children. This could be a regional phenomenon. In general, rural areas have more children than urban areas. It's also up to how individuals perceive children. In my opinion, the more left a person is, the more often I've noticed the view that children are an inconvenience to oneself rather than being something desirable to nurture. I'm not entirely sure why that is the case, it could just be, again, a regional difference.

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 06, 2022, 03:23:04 PM
"Millennials aren't having babies" doesn't ring true to me. Most millennials I know already have children. This could be a regional phenomenon. In general, rural areas have more children than urban areas. It's also up to how individuals perceive children.

I also have a lot of friends with kids, but I'm basing this on all the articles about the declining birthrate with our generation, not my own personal experience.

Quote
In my opinion, the more left a person is, the more often I've noticed the view that children are an inconvenience to oneself rather than being something desirable to nurture. I'm not entirely sure why that is the case, it could just be, again, a regional difference.
I don't agree with this. People on the far left can have the nurturing urge just like anyone else. It's likely more correlation not causation. People on the left wouldn't feel the pressure to have children as someone on the right might. Even if you go back a few decades to earlier generations when having kids was just the "normal thing to do" you have a lot of people having kids who did not actually want them or shouldn't have had them. I think a lot of it is more what someone feels is the normal path of a life and people on the right would be more inclined to play the nuclear family role whether it's something they truly feel enriched from or not. Regardless, plenty of people on the left also still want and have families.

I mean, we could go into it where I give an example of a Trumper aunt who abandoned her kid when he was going through a rough time versus her nephew, whom she regularly calls a communist, who is completely devoted to his two daughters.

But this is irrelevant. The birth rate is declining. "As of 2020, the U.S. birth rate was 55.8 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44, a decline of almost 20 percent from the rate of 69.3 in 2007." I really doubt Gen Z is going to boost those numbers back up.
https://econofact.org/the-mystery-of-the-declining-u-s-birth-rate
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: xasop on May 06, 2022, 04:05:23 PM
I don't agree with this. People on the far left can have the nurturing urge just like anyone else. It's likely more correlation not causation.
Another factor is that people on the left tend to be more aware of the climate, housing and cost of living crises, which leads many to conclude that it is irresponsible to bring a child into today's world. Those who downplay climate change and believe that the market will fix the cost of living on its own tend to be more right-wing.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 06, 2022, 04:55:09 PM
I also have a lot of friends with kids, but I'm basing this on all the articles about the declining birthrate with our generation, not my own personal experience.

Then I suppose it's a good thing for baby murder to go away, then.

I don't agree with this. People on the far left can have the nurturing urge just like anyone else. It's likely more correlation not causation.
Another factor is that people on the left tend to be more aware of the climate, housing and cost of living crises, which leads many to conclude that it is irresponsible to bring a child into today's world. Those who downplay climate change and believe that the market will fix the cost of living on its own tend to be more right-wing.

Ironic that the side that's "more aware" of "crises" would prefer to castrate their own genealogical lines resulting in the "wrong" ideology proliferating over their own.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: xasop on May 06, 2022, 05:02:00 PM
Ironic that the side that's "more aware" of "crises" would prefer to castrate their own genealogical lines resulting in the "wrong" ideology proliferating over their own.
I wasn't aware political ideology was genetic.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 06, 2022, 05:09:21 PM
Ironic that the side that's "more aware" of "crises" would prefer to castrate their own genealogical lines resulting in the "wrong" ideology proliferating over their own.
I wasn't aware political ideology was genetic.

Then I'm glad to have enlightened you on the subject.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 06, 2022, 05:25:09 PM
Then I suppose it's a good thing for *abortion* to go away, then.
Good thing for who? We don't need more people.

Abortion won't go away, it'll only be illegal. It will be as successful as the war on drugs.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 06, 2022, 05:26:53 PM
We don't need more people.
Don't we? Who's gonna pay for your retirement? And, more importantly, who's gonna pay for mine?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 06, 2022, 05:32:10 PM
We don't need more people.
Don't we? Who's gonna pay for your retirement? And, more importantly, who's gonna pay for mine?
lol
Americans can't retire on Social Security alone if there's any money still around by the time our generation retires.
We need IRAs, personal savings, probably investment properties, etc. Or we can probably never retire tbh
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 06, 2022, 05:34:41 PM
Americans can't retire on Social Security alone
Do you think annihiliating Social Security will improve that situation?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 06, 2022, 05:50:57 PM
Americans can't retire on Social Security alone
Do you think annihiliating Social Security will improve that situation?
Ask me again in around 10 years when the reserve funds run out.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 06, 2022, 06:15:26 PM
Ask me again in around 10 years when the reserve funds run out.
OK, will do!
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 06, 2022, 07:23:35 PM
I assume the whole left vs right on family planning was more in line with farms vs cities.  Where having more kids in a big house that's in a small town (and thus cheap to buy) wasn't as big a deal as having more kids in a 2 bedroom apartment somewhere on the outskrits of the city. 

Its simply an environment thing.  And as we know well, those who are in cities are more often Left than Right.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: honk on May 07, 2022, 12:33:53 AM
This has nothing to do with stimulating birth rates. Republicans want to turn back the clock and remove all of the important rights relating to privacy and sexual freedom that courts have recognized over the past several decades. Removing the right to an abortion isn't a means to an end of having more babies, it is the end of simply removing the right to have an abortion. The same goes for their upcoming plans to remove protections for LGBT rights and contraceptive use. Their ideal society is one where LGBT people hide in the closet and sex is only something that happens between married people when they want to have a baby. It's hard to imagine many people being onboard for such a future, but that doesn't matter, because, you know, minority rule.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 07, 2022, 12:48:47 AM
Actually there is an even older law that supercedes those "established" "rights". The Constitution specifically says that anything not defined in it is left to the states. The Roe vs. Wade guarantee to abortion was always illegal. The states control health laws, not the federal government.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: honk on May 07, 2022, 01:34:22 AM
Yes, I'm sure that'll stop the GOP from passing the federal abortion ban they're already working on:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/02/abortion-ban-roe-supreme-court-mississippi/
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on May 07, 2022, 02:31:42 AM
Actually there is an even older law that supercedes those "established" "rights". The Constitution specifically says that anything not defined in it is left to the states. The Roe vs. Wayde guarantee to abortion was always illegal. The states control health laws, not the federal government.

The Supreme Court decision does what every decision that interprets the constitution does: clarifies what laws are constitutional and which aren’t. That isn’t an infringement anymore than ruling that free speech extends to television.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 07, 2022, 06:09:50 AM
Actually there is an even older law that supercedes those "established" "rights".
Do you even know what supercedes means?
An older law can’t supercede a newer one. Laws and constitutions aren’t one off documents that stand for all time, never to be changed. You understand your constitution has amendments, right?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 07, 2022, 07:41:42 AM
Laws and constitutions aren’t one off documents that stand for all time, never to be changed. You understand your constitution has amendments, right?

No one added an abortion amendment.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 07, 2022, 08:39:52 AM
Laws and constitutions aren’t one off documents that stand for all time, never to be changed. You understand your constitution has amendments, right?

No one added an abortion amendment.
The Roe vs Wade ruling was based in the constitution and the 14th amendment thereof.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 07, 2022, 08:51:39 AM
Here is the 14th Amendment - https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Let us know when you find anything about abortions.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 07, 2022, 08:58:33 AM
I mean, I could just repeat what I said above I guess? What part of “based on” is confusing you? You’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with the Supreme Court - y’know, the people whose job is to make and interpret law.
Now, subsequent Supreme Courts may take a different view and their rulings may supercede Roe vs Wade. But Roe vs Wade can’t be superceded by something which came before it which was your original claim.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 07, 2022, 09:17:48 AM
I mean, I could just repeat what I said above I guess? What part of “based on” is confusing you? You’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with the Supreme Court - y’know, the people whose job is to make and interpret law.
Now, subsequent Supreme Courts may take a different view and their rulings may supercede Roe vs Wade. But Roe vs Wade can’t be superceded by something which came before it which was your original claim.

The Supreme Court just said that a previous generation of the Supreme Court was wrong about this. I don't see how appealing to the authority of a Supreme Court is going to help you on this.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 07, 2022, 09:26:00 AM
But Tom, the ruling hasn't been made yet.  Only a draft that was leaked...

Surely you know the difference, yes?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 07, 2022, 10:18:54 AM
The Supreme Court just said that a previous generation of the Supreme Court was wrong about this. I don't see how appealing to the authority of a Supreme Court is going to help you on this.
They are literally the authority.
And I already said that this generation of Supreme Court may come to a different view to a previous generation.
Your original claim was that Roe vs Wade “supercedes” the Constitution. That’s simply wrong in 2 ways. Firstly, it was based on the Constitution. Secondly, that’s not what supercede means, it’s literally the opposite.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 07, 2022, 11:34:08 AM
But Tom, the ruling hasn't been made yet.  Only a draft that was leaked...

Surely you know the difference, yes?

I don't see how that doesn't qualify as "they said".

The Supreme Court just said that a previous generation of the Supreme Court was wrong about this. I don't see how appealing to the authority of a Supreme Court is going to help you on this.
They are literally the authority.
And I already said that this generation of Supreme Court may come to a different view to a previous generation.
Your original claim was that Roe vs Wade “supercedes” the Constitution. That’s simply wrong in 2 ways. Firstly, it was based on the Constitution. Secondly, that’s not what supercede means, it’s literally the opposite.

I said that the Constitution supersedes Roe vs Wade. It was only based on the Constitution in as much it was claimed that the word "liberty" in the 14th Amendment meant that killing babies in the womb was okay. The Constitution does not directly address abortion. The current Supreme Court has recently said that the Roe vs Wade decision was incorrect.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 07, 2022, 11:46:43 AM
I said that the Constitution supersedes Roe vs Wade.
Yes, apologies. I only just noticed my typo.
And you were incorrect for the reasons mentioned.

Quote
The Constitution does not directly address abortion.
Right. So any ruling about it must necessarily be an interpretation. Roe vs Wade was one such interpretation. An appeal to authority about a point of law is hardly spurious when they are literally the authority whose job it is to make rulings on such matters.

Quote
The current Supreme Court has recently said that the Roe vs Wade decision was incorrect.
Right. And that could supersede Roe vs Wade. Which is what that word means. See?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on May 07, 2022, 03:42:57 PM
Here is the 14th Amendment - https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Let us know when you find anything about abortions.
In the Roe v Wade case, the right to an abortion was determined to be covered by the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment and is explained here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/right-to-an-abortion
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 07, 2022, 04:08:28 PM
Here is the 14th Amendment - https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Let us know when you find anything about abortions.

10 Supreme Court cases about the 14th Amendment (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-huge-supreme-court-cases-about-the-14th-amendment)

I didn't find anything in the 14th amendment about slaughterhouses, bakers, & train cars either. Bizarre. Let us know when you find anything about slaughterhouses, bakers, & train cars.
Do you have even a clue how the SCOTUS rules on issues deemed constitutionally related? Apparently not.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 07, 2022, 04:29:57 PM
Here is the 14th Amendment - https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Let us know when you find anything about abortions.
In the Roe v Wade case, the right to an abortion was determined to be covered by the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment and is explained here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/right-to-an-abortion

Here is a quote from that link:


The danger of this is that another court could interpret the word "person" and "liberty" to mean different things. Very vague.

It can be considered murder or manslaughter if you cause a woman to lose her baby. It is not just an assault charge. Yet many leftists want the woman to be able to do it without repercussion.

Do you have even a clue how the SCOTUS rules on issues deemed constitutionally related? Apparently not.

I do know how it works. One court wanted to give liberal interpretations to vague concepts and another one didn't. I don't see what the point of appealing to the authority of the SCOTUS is considering that the SCOTUS just said that the Row Vs. Wade ruling was incorrect. Kind of puts a contradictory damper on your narrative that the SCOTUS has been making correct decisions.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 07, 2022, 04:59:29 PM
I don't see what the point of appealing to the authority of the SCOTUS is considering that the SCOTUS just said that the Row Vs. Wade ruling was incorrect. Kind of puts a contradictory damper on your narrative that the SCOTUS has been making correct decisions.
Holy shit. How hard is this to understand?
The reason to appeal to the authority of the SCOTUS is that they literally are the authority.
And there is no objective measure of “correct”. People have been debating whether Roe vs Wade was “correct” since the ruling.

You surely understand that over time attitudes and opinions change some things which were once illegal and taboo are now legal (gay marriage), other things which were once legal are now illegal and taboo (slavery). And there’s not always a straight line of travel, sometimes laws or amendments are made but then later repealed. You may have heard of prohibition.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 07, 2022, 05:03:15 PM
I do know how it works.

Apparently, you don't. It's a draft decision. SCOTUS hasn't ruled yet.

One court wanted to give liberal interpretations to vague concepts and another one didn't. I don't see what the point of appealing to the authority of the SCOTUS is considering that the SCOTUS just said that the Row Vs. Wade ruling was incorrect. Kind of puts a contradictory damper on your narrative that the SCOTUS has been making correct decisions.

Where did I say SCOTUS makes correct or incorrect decisions? It's just bizarre that it's taken SCOTUS 50 years of hearing untold numbers of challenges to RvW to finally be like, "Oh yeah, that was some liberal non-constitutional shit way back then and ever since."

Not unprecedented, but I wonder why now?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 07, 2022, 05:09:26 PM
Then I suppose it's a good thing for *abortion* to go away, then.
Good thing for who? We don't need more people.

Abortion won't go away, it'll only be illegal. It will be as successful as the war on drugs.

Just like murdering adults, murdering babies won't go away because it's illegal. However, it would be insane to argue that we should make murdering adults legal just because some people do it anyway. I'm not sure why you would argue that murdering babies should be legal just because a few people do it regardless of its legal status. It's not at all like drugs.

That you would edit my post to "abortion" makes it that much darker. Imagine thinking that ending a potential human life is fine as long as you switch the wording up a bit. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before we reach the "noooo it's not a baby, use a more dehumanizing scientific term, like zygote or fetus!"

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on May 07, 2022, 05:17:43 PM
Just here to say that “potential human” is not a very useful term. Every ova and every sperm is a potential human. It’s been mentioned before, but there needs to be a good conversation that has nothing to do with politicians about how to classify this.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 07, 2022, 05:59:05 PM
Then I suppose it's a good thing for *abortion* to go away, then.
Good thing for who? We don't need more people.

Abortion won't go away, it'll only be illegal. It will be as successful as the war on drugs.

Just like murdering adults, murdering babies won't go away because it's illegal. However, it would be insane to argue that we should make murdering adults legal just because some people do it anyway. I'm not sure why you would argue that murdering babies should be legal just because a few people do it regardless of its legal status. It's not at all like drugs.

That you would edit my post to "abortion" makes it that much darker. Imagine thinking that ending a potential human life is fine as long as you switch the wording up a bit. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before we reach the "noooo it's not a baby, use a more dehumanizing scientific term, like zygote or fetus!"

Where do you draw the line, if you have one? That always seems to be the sticking point - When is terminating a pregnancy equivalent to murdering a baby?

Other things I don't know, in the case of life threatening the mother abortions, is it just the threat or does it have to be an absolute: "The mother will definitely die if she tries to carry the fetus to term..."
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 07, 2022, 10:47:23 PM
Holy shit. How hard is this to understand?
The reason to appeal to the authority of the SCOTUS is that they literally are the authority.

And the authority the SCOTUS indicated in their draft that they are going to get rid of Roe vs Wade because it was incorrect. Since you love the authority of the SCOTUS so much that you need to appeal to it, what are you complaining about?

Quote
And there is no objective measure of “correct”. People have been debating whether Roe vs Wade was “correct” since the ruling.

You surely understand that over time attitudes and opinions change some things which were once illegal and taboo are now legal (gay marriage), other things which were once legal are now illegal and taboo (slavery). And there’s not always a straight line of travel, sometimes laws or amendments are made but then later repealed. You may have heard of prohibition.

Cocaine was once legal and now it's illegal. Considering the repeal of Row vs Wade, the heartbeat bills, the 15 weeks bans, the existence of state laws criminalizing or limiting abortion, and a number of other abortion laws in individual states it looks like abortion is on its way towards becoming severely limited in the US. If you are arguing that abortion might make a comeback in the US, that is not the trend.

Where did I say SCOTUS makes correct or incorrect decisions? It's just bizarre that it's taken SCOTUS 50 years of hearing untold numbers of challenges to RvW to finally be like, "Oh yeah, that was some liberal non-constitutional shit way back then and ever since."

Not unprecedented, but I wonder why now?

It is pretty simple to understand why this occurred. No need to be confused. The US is a democratic republic. We elect politicians who represent our views, who appoint judges who represent their constituent's views. There has been a growing number of people in the US who don't like abortion, and therefore there has been a growing number of lawmakers and judges who don't like abortions. Therefore the SCOTUS reviewed the abortion precedent and has indicated in their draft that they disagree and are going to repeal Row vs. Wade. Any further questions?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on May 07, 2022, 11:12:53 PM
If you are arguing that abortion might make a comeback in the US, that is not the trend.
Then why do 60% of adults think that abortion should be legal?  Apparently SCOTUS does not reflect the opinions of the majority.
Quote from: https://www.axios.com/2022/05/06/polling-abortion-roe-wade-providers-scotus
Approximately six in 10 U.S. adults believe abortion should be legal in "all or most cases," according to a newly released Pew Research Center survey.

Driving the news: The poll was conducted before the leak of the draft opinion revealing the U.S. Supreme Court might overturn Roe v. Wade and shows how a wide swath of the public is supportive of abortion rights.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 07, 2022, 11:17:46 PM
Then why do 60% of adults think that abortion should be legal?  Apparently SCOTUS does not reflect the opinions of the majority.

That number actually seems pretty low for that question if it's supposed to support the leftists. The red states are pushing laws that make abortion legal in the earliest stages. That sounds like 40% of people want more restrictive laws than the reddest states, which is a surprising number to say the least.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on May 07, 2022, 11:55:59 PM
Then why do 60% of adults think that abortion should be legal?  Apparently SCOTUS does not reflect the opinions of the majority.

That number actually seems pretty low for that question if it's supposed to support the leftists. The red states are pushing laws that make abortion legal in the earliest stages. That sounds like 40% of people want more restrictive laws than the reddest states, which is a surprising number to say the least.

Some red states are. Other red states are classifying it as homicide.

Out of curiosity where do you stand on it? Any exceptions or is it murder as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 08, 2022, 06:47:07 AM
noooo it's not a baby, use a more dehumanizing scientific term, like zygote or fetus!
Hell yeah, you said it brother.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on May 08, 2022, 07:04:40 AM
I prefer to refer to all humans  born or unborn as the predeceased.

Much less baggage that way.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 08, 2022, 09:09:04 AM
Then why do 60% of adults think that abortion should be legal?  Apparently SCOTUS does not reflect the opinions of the majority.

That number actually seems pretty low for that question if it's supposed to support the leftists. The red states are pushing laws that make abortion legal in the earliest stages. That sounds like 40% of people want more restrictive laws than the reddest states, which is a surprising number to say the least.

Some red states are. Other red states are classifying it as homicide.

Out of curiosity where do you stand on it? Any exceptions or is it murder as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg?

My position is  that existing fetal homicide laws should apply to the mother as well. Existing state fetal homicide laws make termination of almost any stage of pregnancy illegal - https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

In the 1700's and 1800's when abortion was widely illegal and taboo society was built around it. Sex leads to pregnancy, so men and women were taught to carefully select their partners. Ideally it was best to wait until marriage, but usage of early contraceptives were permissible to some degree. If you did get someone pregnant while dating you were expected to marry the woman and raise the child, not abort it. Abortion was not even considered in the event of a pregnancy. Therefore, don't date someone you wouldn't marry. It's pretty simple. It also prevents young adults from wasting their time with incompatible partners. They should only be having sex with someone they are willing to marry in the event of pregnancy.

I would prefer society to return to that type of existence. If people just increased their standards in partner selection again they wouldn't have to kill innocent life.

In regards to rape, only about 1% of abortions occur as a result of rape (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/). This is hardly a factor for keeping mass abortion and allowing people to be so reckless with their lives.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tumeni on May 08, 2022, 11:12:35 AM
That sounds like 40% of people want more restrictive laws ...

... or they have no specific view on the matter.

And 40% (or less) is still a minority.


EDIT Only 37% specifically opine that abortion should be illegal. An even smaller minority than stated above. Of those, 27% opine it should be illegal "in most cases",  8% in "All cases, no exceptions", 2% "All cases, but with exceptions"  So 29% of that 37% would allow for some flexibility in circumstance, as opposed to a blanket ban.

61+37 = 98, so 2% either had no opinion or abstained.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tumeni on May 08, 2022, 11:16:08 AM
I would prefer society to return to that type of existence.

Are you any kin to SCOTUS Judge Barrett?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 08, 2022, 03:38:26 PM
In the 1700's and 1800's when abortion was widely illegal and taboo society was built around it.
This is not true. It was only around the late 1800s that multiple states started making abortion illegal. Before that it was generally good sense to do so if you didn't have the resources.

The main reason they became illegal in the first place is because they were dangerous and could often kill the woman as well. The radical right we deal with today is a fairly new breed of person not based in history or tradition.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on May 08, 2022, 03:52:10 PM
Then why do 60% of adults think that abortion should be legal?  Apparently SCOTUS does not reflect the opinions of the majority.

That number actually seems pretty low for that question if it's supposed to support the leftists. The red states are pushing laws that make abortion legal in the earliest stages. That sounds like 40% of people want more restrictive laws than the reddest states, which is a surprising number to say the least.

Some red states are. Other red states are classifying it as homicide.

Out of curiosity where do you stand on it? Any exceptions or is it murder as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg?

My position is  that existing fetal homicide laws should apply to the mother as well. Existing state fetal homicide laws make termination of almost any stage of pregnancy illegal - https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

In the 1700's and 1800's when abortion was widely illegal and taboo society was built around it. Sex leads to pregnancy, so men and women were taught to carefully select their partners. Ideally it was best to wait until marriage, but usage of early contraceptives were permissible to some degree. If you did get someone pregnant while dating you were expected to marry the woman and raise the child, not abort it. Abortion was not even considered in the event of a pregnancy. Therefore, don't date someone you wouldn't marry. It's pretty simple. It also prevents young adults from wasting their time with incompatible partners. They should only be having sex with someone they are willing to marry in the event of pregnancy.

I would prefer society to return to that type of existence. If people just increased their standards in partner selection again they wouldn't have to kill innocent life.

In regards to rape, only about 1% of abortions occur as a result of rape (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/). This is hardly a factor for keeping mass abortion and allowing people to be so reckless with their lives.

So... IUDs?  Murder or not?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 09, 2022, 01:46:16 PM
Every ova and every sperm is a potential human.

No, they aren't. The combination of the two is a potential human, the two alone is nothing. You'll never make a human being with only half a working genome.

When is terminating a pregnancy equivalent to murdering a baby?

Always. Sometimes it's okay to kill things. I only ask that people accept they're killing them. It's like eating meat without accepting you're killing an animal or sentencing a rapist to death without admitting you're killing him.

Abortion isn't good. It's death. It's killing something that is alive. You are ending its life. When I eat a burger, I understand that I killed a cow. When I go hunting, I understand I'm putting a bullet through the heart of a deer. It's amazing how difficult it is for "pro-choice" individuals to accept that they are killing a human. I get it if you're for it. Just own it. "I want to kill humans in the womb" It's not a big deal to just admit it.


Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: honk on May 09, 2022, 02:17:20 PM
https://www.thedailybeast.com/republicans-are-wasting-no-time-pushing-dystopian-post-roe-v-wade-laws

This is the future Republicans are envisioning for us. Ordinarily, it would be political suicide to push an incredibly unpopular agenda like this so aggressively, but Republicans will find a way to cling to power, and probably even expand it.

Also, whenever anyone pro-choice "just admits" or "just owns" that, yes, they totally support killing babies, the discussion immediately turns into "Aha! They admit it! How old does a child have to be before their parents lose the right to murder them at will, you sicko? Three? Four?" It's not a good-faith debate tactic. The distinction between terminating a pregnancy and killing a baby is there to establish scope. It's not simply something that pro-choice people frantically tell themselves to soothe their consciences.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 09, 2022, 04:01:02 PM
Every ova and every sperm is a potential human.

No, they aren't. The combination of the two is a potential human, the two alone is nothing. You'll never make a human being with only half a working genome.

When is terminating a pregnancy equivalent to murdering a baby?

Always. Sometimes it's okay to kill things. I only ask that people accept they're killing them. It's like eating meat without accepting you're killing an animal or sentencing a rapist to death without admitting you're killing him.

Abortion isn't good. It's death. It's killing something that is alive. You are ending its life. When I eat a burger, I understand that I killed a cow. When I go hunting, I understand I'm putting a bullet through the heart of a deer. It's amazing how difficult it is for "pro-choice" individuals to accept that they are killing a human. I get it if you're for it. Just own it. "I want to kill humans in the womb" It's not a big deal to just admit it.

But when does it become human?  What makes it human vs a lump of cells that have human dna?

My heart has my DNA and is alive.  If its removed but kept alive, is it human?
What about my arm?
Blood?
How much do we need to take away from a human before its not human?
What about a severed head.  Is that a human if its kept alive?


Basically: are we killing a human, or a bunch of cells that could become a human?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tumeni on May 09, 2022, 04:44:48 PM
In the 1700's and 1800's when abortion was widely illegal and taboo society was built around it. Sex leads to pregnancy, so men and women were taught to carefully select their partners. Ideally it was best to wait until marriage ... etc.

I would prefer society to return to that type of existence.

Why? What difference do the family planning choices of others make to your life?


In regards to rape, only about 1% of abortions occur as a result of rape (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/). This is hardly a factor for keeping mass abortion and allowing people to be so reckless with their lives.

So you're OK with abortion in that limited set of circumstances, where pregnancy has been forced upon the woman against her will? Limited abortion as opposed to mass?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 09, 2022, 04:52:10 PM
It's amazing how difficult it is for "pro-choice" individuals to accept that they are killing a human.
Because they aren’t. No one believes an embryo or foetus is equivalent to a human life. People say they do, but I call bullshit on that.

I heard a thought experiment which I thought was interesting. You’re in a fertility clinic which catches fire. You run for the exit but on the way out you pass two doors. On your left you see a baby. On your right there are test tubes with a thousand human embryos ready for implanting. You only have time to go into one of the rooms to save one or the other. I’ve yet to hear anyone say they’d save the test tubes because that’s a thousand human lives and the baby is only one. Because some people say they regard them as equivalent but in reality they really don't. I’ve known people who have had miscarriages and of course it’s sad, but it’s not the depth of grief that someone experiences if they have a stillborn baby or a baby born alive and then dying. Most staunch anti abortion people concede that if there is a threat to the mother’s life then that life is prioritised over the unborn baby. Because in reality no one really regards them as equivalent.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 09, 2022, 06:42:50 PM
When is terminating a pregnancy equivalent to murdering a baby?

Always. Sometimes it's okay to kill things. I only ask that people accept they're killing them. It's like eating meat without accepting you're killing an animal or sentencing a rapist to death without admitting you're killing him.

Abortion isn't good. It's death. It's killing something that is alive. You are ending its life. When I eat a burger, I understand that I killed a cow. When I go hunting, I understand I'm putting a bullet through the heart of a deer. It's amazing how difficult it is for "pro-choice" individuals to accept that they are killing a human. I get it if you're for it. Just own it. "I want to kill humans in the womb" It's not a big deal to just admit it.

Where's the exact line where something is considered "alive"?

Is it at fertilization? Are AATW's testube contents "alive"?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 09, 2022, 06:53:16 PM
When is terminating a pregnancy equivalent to murdering a baby?

Always. Sometimes it's okay to kill things. I only ask that people accept they're killing them. It's like eating meat without accepting you're killing an animal or sentencing a rapist to death without admitting you're killing him.

Abortion isn't good. It's death. It's killing something that is alive. You are ending its life. When I eat a burger, I understand that I killed a cow. When I go hunting, I understand I'm putting a bullet through the heart of a deer. It's amazing how difficult it is for "pro-choice" individuals to accept that they are killing a human. I get it if you're for it. Just own it. "I want to kill humans in the womb" It's not a big deal to just admit it.

Where's the exact line where something is considered "alive"?

Is it at fertilization? Are AATW's testube contents "alive"?

Alive is easy: alive is conception.  The egg and sperm become a living cell, in so far as the definition of alive is.
But your blood cells are alive so there's that.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 09, 2022, 09:48:24 PM
When is terminating a pregnancy equivalent to murdering a baby?

Always. Sometimes it's okay to kill things. I only ask that people accept they're killing them. It's like eating meat without accepting you're killing an animal or sentencing a rapist to death without admitting you're killing him.

Abortion isn't good. It's death. It's killing something that is alive. You are ending its life. When I eat a burger, I understand that I killed a cow. When I go hunting, I understand I'm putting a bullet through the heart of a deer. It's amazing how difficult it is for "pro-choice" individuals to accept that they are killing a human. I get it if you're for it. Just own it. "I want to kill humans in the womb" It's not a big deal to just admit it.

Where's the exact line where something is considered "alive"?

Is it at fertilization? Are AATW's testube contents "alive"?

Alive is easy: alive is conception.  The egg and sperm become a living cell, in so far as the definition of alive is.
But your blood cells are alive so there's that.

I guess we should probably get rid of contraception too, specifically IUD's:
Can IUDs be used as emergency contraception?
Yes! The Paragard, Mirena, and Liletta IUDs work super well as emergency contraception. If you get one of these IUDs put in within 120 hours (5 days) after unprotected sex, it’s more than 99% effective. It’s actually the most effective way to prevent pregnancy after sex.

Now that is a slippery slope.

Or maybe, more concisely, this is the point at which it's truly alive:

As the sperm approach the egg, they bind to the zona pellucida in a process known as sperm binding. This triggers the acrosome reaction, in which the enzymes of the acrosome are freed. These enzymes then begin to digest the zona pellucida and allow the sperm to tunnel toward the egg’s plasma membrane. When the sperm cell finally reaches the egg cell, the plasma membranes of the two cells fuse together and the sperm releases its genetic material into the egg. At this point, fertilization has occurred.

Experts say that the sperm can navigate the uterus and fallopian tubes to reach the egg as soon as 30 minutes after ejaculation. So maybe life begins, being alive, for the speedier spermatozoa, a 1/2 hour after sex. Doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room, so to speak.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 09, 2022, 11:43:55 PM
But when does it become human? 

Conception.

Also, whenever anyone pro-choice "just admits" or "just owns" that, yes, they totally support killing babies, the discussion immediately turns into "Aha! They admit it! How old does a child have to be before their parents lose the right to murder them at will, you sicko? Three? Four?" It's not a good-faith debate tactic. The distinction between terminating a pregnancy and killing a baby is there to establish scope. It's not simply something that pro-choice people frantically tell themselves to soothe their consciences.

How old does a child have to be before their parents lose the right to murder them at will, you sicko?

Where's the exact line where something is considered "alive"?

Is it at fertilization? Are AATW's testube contents "alive"?

See above.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 10, 2022, 12:32:03 AM
But when does it become human? 

Conception.

Also, whenever anyone pro-choice "just admits" or "just owns" that, yes, they totally support killing babies, the discussion immediately turns into "Aha! They admit it! How old does a child have to be before their parents lose the right to murder them at will, you sicko? Three? Four?" It's not a good-faith debate tactic. The distinction between terminating a pregnancy and killing a baby is there to establish scope. It's not simply something that pro-choice people frantically tell themselves to soothe their consciences.

How old does a child have to be before their parents lose the right to murder them at will, you sicko?

Where's the exact line where something is considered "alive"?

Is it at fertilization? Are AATW's testube contents "alive"?

See above.

Do you make exceptions for:

- Incest - Y/N
- Rape - Y/N
- Life threat to mother - Y/N

Would you ban:

- Morning-After Pills - Y/N
- IUDs - Y/N
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: honk on May 10, 2022, 01:58:55 AM
I don't know why you're even bothering to ask. Of course his answers are no to the first category and yes to the second. Rushy is deliberately arguing from the most extreme position he can. You're not actually having a heart-to-heart discussion with him.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on May 10, 2022, 02:05:59 AM
I wouldn't say that's the most extreme position. The most extreme position would probably be the act of conception. But that seems to be up for revision by the Supreme Court as well.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2022, 02:30:26 AM
Those "hard" questions mostly just trivialize the fact that people very overwhelmingly have abortions out of personal irresponsibility, not because they were put into a difficult moral situation involving family incest or rapists. The answers will be state-specific, after long discussion of the pros and cons by the state and state legislature.

For a man, the situation is already that if you bring a life into the world you are responsible for it. In many cases men are sentenced to 18 years of servitude when a pregnancy occurs, and feel that it is against their will. The society response is: "Your fault, pay up!"

This simply needs to apply to women as well. Instead of edge cases how about discussing the following:

- Why should women continue to be allowed to be personally irresponsible when a pregnancy occurs? Men are not allowed personal irresponsibility when pregnancy occurs.

- A father is legally responsible to use his body to support his children. Why shouldn't a mother be legally responsible?

- Why should it really matter at what week the pregnancy is terminated? In each case it is a human life who wants to live. You are physically stopping the life of an innocent being for selfish reasons, and are artificially justifying that you are morally okay because you executed it when it was young enough, as if age is a factor in human murder and there is a moral difference between killing a one month old infant and killing an elderly man and that one situation is more murderous than the other. Disturbing.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 10, 2022, 03:01:25 AM
Y'all are the disturbing ones. Forcing irresponsible horny people to be parents. Shameful.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on May 10, 2022, 03:05:23 AM
Y'all are the disturbing ones. Forcing irresponsible horny people to be parents. Shameful.
Children are nature's punishment for enjoying sex.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 10, 2022, 06:39:22 AM
Why should it really matter at what week the pregnancy is terminated? In each case it is a human life who wants to live.
A clump of cells doesn’t “want” anything and by no sensible definition would you declare it a human life.

The question for you is why do you think laws should be made which the majority of people do not support? Why should the minority dictate to the majority? Is it simply because on this occasion you agree with those laws? That isn’t democracy. When Brexit happened I was butthurt, as the kids are saying, but as woolly headed as I think the result was, I wouldn’t have supported just disregarding the vote. I would have supported a second vote if there was good evidence that public opinion had changed. It sounds like we are heading towards the SCOTUS making rulings that neither the current party in power nor the majority of the population agree with. You only think it’s a good thing because you agree with them on this issue. Do you not understand how dangerous this is? It means that any rights you have can be taken away by the minority.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2022, 08:31:26 AM
Why should it really matter at what week the pregnancy is terminated? In each case it is a human life who wants to live.
A clump of cells doesn’t “want” anything and by no sensible definition would you declare it a human life.

That is incorrect. Why is it building itself if it doesn't want to be born and to live?

Collins defines life as (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/life) "Life is the quality which people, animals, and plants have when they are not dead, and which objects and substances do not have." So you are incorrect there as well. It is not an object or a substance, it is a living organism.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
The question for you is why do you think laws should be made which the majority of people do not support? Why should the minority dictate to the majority? Is it simply because on this occasion you agree with those laws? That isn’t democracy.

It is democracy. The Supreme Court gave it to the states to democratically decide what to do with abortion. The majority in the states will decide what to do with abortion and what is best for them and their culture. Some states will decide to keep it, others will decide to limit it, and others may ban it.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
It sounds like we are heading towards the SCOTUS making rulings that neither the current party in power nor the majority of the population agree with.

The Constitution says that the US states control anything not defined in the Constitution. The SCOTUS determined that the Constitution was not speaking about abortion and that it should rightly go to the states like all other health issues.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
You only think it’s a good thing because you agree with them on this issue. Do you not understand how dangerous this is? It means that any rights you have can be taken away by the minority.

Actually it is the majority in the states who are deciding health issues for its populous. In the US the states are very independent and almost like countries, with the exception of certain powers defined in the Constitution like foreign relations. In fact, the population of the states are comparable to the population of various countries in the EU. In the EU its member states also have different laws regarding abortion.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tumeni on May 10, 2022, 09:31:27 AM
... the fact that people very overwhelmingly have abortions out of personal irresponsibility

Where is the data to support this fact?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 10, 2022, 09:39:48 AM
It is not an object or a substance, it is a living organism.
I didn't dispute the living part. I said that it wasn't by any sensible definition a human life. No-one regards a clump of cells as equivalent to human life which you could say "wants" anything. It has no consciousness.

The rest of your post is surprisingly sensible.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on May 10, 2022, 09:54:38 AM
ITT Tom ascribes will and intent to a clump of cells. I suppose if that is what you believe, then being pro-life is consistent, but it does require you to ascribe will and intent to a clump of cells.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: xasop on May 10, 2022, 10:53:04 AM
ITT Tom ascribes will and intent to a clump of cells. I suppose if that is what you believe, then being pro-life is consistent, but it does require you to ascribe will and intent to a clump of cells.
It also requires you to oppose cancer treatment.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 10, 2022, 10:57:56 AM
But when does it become human? 

Conception.

Why?
What makes it a human?  What criteria do you use to define a human being?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 10, 2022, 10:59:45 AM
ITT Tom ascribes will and intent to a clump of cells. I suppose if that is what you believe, then being pro-life is consistent, but it does require you to ascribe will and intent to a clump of cells.
It also requires you to oppose cancer treatment.

And bleeding.  All those red and white blood cells... Dying slowly, horribly outside of the body.  And all they want to do is transport oxygen, nutrients, and waste.  Like tiny truck drivers.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 10, 2022, 11:06:40 AM
ITT Tom ascribes will and intent to a clump of cells. I suppose if that is what you believe, then being pro-life is consistent, but it does require you to ascribe will and intent to a clump of cells.
It also requires you to oppose cancer treatment.
I think Tom et al will make a distinction between human life and non-human life.
My argument is the clump of cells which results from a fertilized human egg is the latter. And no-one really regards that clump of cells as equivalent to a human baby.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 10, 2022, 02:20:42 PM
Actually it is the majority in the states who are deciding health issues for its populous.
You know just like everyone else that the rural minority has a louder voice than the cities. That's true for every damn state in this country and Republicans push hard to keep that rural vote.  78% of Texans think abortion should be allowed in some form which doesn't reflect what's happening there. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/04/texas-abortion-ut-poll/

The rest of your post is surprisingly sensible.
No it's not, he's a troll who says lies and nonsense taking advantage of the fact that you don't know much about this country.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on May 10, 2022, 02:26:38 PM
But when does it become human? 

Conception.


Why do you think this is the most reasonable point at which it becomes a human life?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 10, 2022, 03:39:57 PM
This thread was a particularly fun read for what pregnancy can do to your body that you don't often hear about.
https://twitter.com/agenderfox/status/1523796690729259008
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2022, 04:20:31 PM
It is not an object or a substance, it is a living organism.
I didn't dispute the living part. I said that it wasn't by any sensible definition a human life. No-one regards a clump of cells as equivalent to human life which you could say "wants" anything. It has no consciousness.

The rest of your post is surprisingly sensible.

A ten day old baby is hardly conscious and can hardly form thoughts of its own. It's pretty helpless and can barely function. But killing a ten day old baby is still murder. The ten day old baby would have obviously grown up into a one year old baby and eventually a child and eventually a teenager and then into a young adult if you only refrained from murdering it at a young age.

Extinguishing human life is murder. Killing a ten day old baby is obviously as murderous killing an adult. It is perhaps even crueler since you are denying the baby a childhood, not just its adulthood.

Likewise, if you find a nest of turtle eggs in the wild and choose to stomp the developing eggs into oblivion, you have clearly just murdered a nest of turtles. In many cases there are stiff repercussions for killing turtle eggs:

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2015/7/14/stiff_penalty_for_di - "Under state law, destroying a sea turtle nest or eggs is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to a $5,000 fine and/or five years in prison."

Developing sea turtles are given more protections than developing humans.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 10, 2022, 04:30:12 PM
A ten day old baby is hardly conscious
Bullshit.
What a stupid comparison.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 10, 2022, 04:30:56 PM
This thread was a particularly fun read for what pregnancy can do to your body that you don't often hear about.
Are there unofficial Jews?

EDIT: My niece almost died giving birth, while we are here. She was pretty much bleeding out. They manage to stabilise her, thankfully. She has had a second child and the birth was quite traumatic then but because of the first time they knew what to look out for more and it wasn't as bad as the first one. She said to me she's not having more children - she might not have wanted more anyway but she doesn't actually think our body would cope with another pregnancy.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on May 10, 2022, 05:12:31 PM
This thread was a particularly fun read for what pregnancy can do to your body that you don't often hear about.
Are there unofficial Jews?

EDIT: My niece almost died giving birth, while we are here. She was pretty much bleeding out. They manage to stabilise her, thankfully. She has had a second child and the birth was quite traumatic then but because of the first time they knew what to look out for more and it wasn't as bad as the first one. She said to me she's not having more children - she might not have wanted more anyway but she doesn't actually think our body would cope with another pregnancy.

Yeah Mrs. Crutonius says that every time also but then someone brings around their newborn...

The new rule at my house is you can come in but you have to leave your newborn outside lest my wife gets any ideas.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2022, 05:23:00 PM
A ten day old baby is hardly conscious
Bullshit.
What a stupid comparison.

It actually illustrates your fallacy quite well. Newborn babies are not that developed, and can't pass the tests for consciousness.

https://healthland.time.com/2013/04/26/babys-first-consciousness/


It is obvious that if a ten day old infant is not conscious, killing it is still murder. Consciousness has nothing to do with it. If you kill a ten day old infant you are denying it a childhood and an adulthood and are are infringing on its path in life. It is plainly murder.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Iceman on May 10, 2022, 05:27:50 PM
Killing a ten old baby old baby is obviously murder. Good thing we don’t also refuse to give mothers and newborns the supports they need so that there aren’t unnecessarily high infant mortality rates! Oh wait, spongy old white dudes only care about the sanctity of every human life until it is ejected from a vagina, at which point each little bundle of joy is on its own.

Enjoy the upcoming state-to-state medical tourism, I guess 🤷🏼‍♂️
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 10, 2022, 06:07:40 PM
A ten day old baby is hardly conscious
Bullshit.
What a stupid comparison.
It IS bullshit.
As a parent of two, I can assure you that a 10 day old baby is very conscious, has moods and preferences.  At 10 days, however, the parents are still trying to figure out said child's patterns, what works to sooth, what doesn't, etc...
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 10, 2022, 07:39:07 PM
Looks like a bunch of those anti-abortion red States already have built-in abortion:

(https://cdn.mdedge.com/files/s3fs-public/141700_graphic_web.png)

Maybe someone should be looking at the health and care of kids after they are born, probably asking too much.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 10, 2022, 09:01:09 PM
It actually illustrates your fallacy quite well. Newborn babies are not that developed, and can't pass the tests for consciousness.

This started when you said:

Why should it really matter at what week the pregnancy is terminated? In each case it is a human life who wants to live.

Which is bullshit. A clump of cells is not a human life, it doesn't "want" anything. You don't believe a zygote is equivalent to a human life. No-one does when push comes to shove which is why even the harshest stances tend to prioritise the mother's life if there's the risk of them dying. And given that you've said elsewhere that kids who grow up to be gay or trans-gender should feel "unloved and ashamed" cut out the crap about how much you care about them.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 10, 2022, 09:10:07 PM
And given that you've said elsewhere that kids who grow up to be gay or trans-gender should feel "unloved and ashamed"
To be fair, he quite obviously misspoke there, which is why I chose not to bring it up in that conversation.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 10, 2022, 09:30:59 PM
And given that you've said elsewhere that kids who grow up to be gay or trans-gender should feel "unloved and ashamed"
To be fair, he quite obviously misspoke there, which is why I chose not to bring it up in that conversation.
What?
You specifically asked him to clarify if that’s what he meant and he said “yes, certainly”
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2022, 10:12:30 PM
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Which is bullshit. A clump of cells is not a human life, it doesn't "want" anything.

Actually, it does. It clearly wants to live and not die. This it why it absorbs nutrients, multiplies its cells, repairs itself, and seeks to not die.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
You don't believe a zygote is equivalent to a human life.

Purpously killing a zygote is no different than purposely stepping on nest of turtle eggs. You colloquially killed a bunch of turtles when you did that. It doesn't really matter how mature they were. The were developing to hatch at some near future point. They would have become amazing and majestic sea turtles, but you stopped that by killing them. There is no justification there.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
And given that you've said elsewhere that kids who grow up to be gay or trans-gender should feel "unloved and ashamed" cut out the crap about how much you care about them.

Wow, dishonest. It's not the teacher's job to comfort them and give advice. If you had quoted the full post you would have found that I said that it wasn't the teacher's job to correct a student's psychological problem or to impart comfort or advice about sexuality, as they are not licensed to do that. That's a matter for psychological services, not an unqualified teacher.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: garygreen on May 10, 2022, 11:13:20 PM
see y'all this is what i mean about centering the debate on "when does a fetus become a person." that debate cannot be resolved because there is no intrinsic discontinuity between fetus and person.

what matters is the biological relationship between the two. a fetus is literally a parasite. it is physically connected to the mother, and — unlike nearly all other mammalian fetuses — it is in virtually complete control of the mother's body. it takes whatever nutrients and biological resources it wants to from the mother, at will. lmao it's not like, a fucking roommate or something.

Purpously killing a zygote is no different than purposely stepping on nest of turtle eggs. You colloquially killed a bunch of turtles when you did that. It doesn't really matter how mature they are. The were developing to hatch at some near future point. They would have become amazing and majestic sea turtles, but you stopped that by killing them. There is no justification there.

my brother in christ, if a sea turtle connects itself to your blood vessels and starts leeching vitamins and minerals and shit from your blood, you are absolutely justified in disconnecting it.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on May 10, 2022, 11:49:48 PM
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Which is bullshit. A clump of cells is not a human life, it doesn't "want" anything.

Actually, it does. It clearly wants to live and not die. This it why it absorbs nutrients, multiplies its cells, repairs itself, and seeks to not die.
The same could be said of a tape worm.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 11, 2022, 01:13:03 AM
The same could be said of a tape worm.

Yes. And when someone kills a tapeworm they acknowledge that they killed a tapeworm and don't make 101 excuses about its age and status and stage of development to deny and justify what they did.

If you need a continuous line of excuses for why you are not a murderer... it's murder.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: honk on May 11, 2022, 02:04:36 AM
If you need a continuous line of excuses for why you are not a murderer... it's murder.

Evidence of not being a murderer is actually evidence of being a murderer. Very Kafkaesque.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 11, 2022, 02:43:52 AM
Do people murder tapeworms?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 11, 2022, 04:29:12 AM
Do people murder tapeworms?
Only when they lose enough weight.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 11, 2022, 06:48:50 AM
Purpously killing a zygote is no different than purposely stepping on nest of turtle eggs. You colloquially killed a bunch of turtles when you did that.
And yet many vegetarians eat eggs.
Because they recognise that there is a difference between an egg and a living breathing animal. As do you, for all your continued bullshit about what a clump of cells “wants”. I note you haven’t responded to my thought experiment. Oh, and:

Tom, for the avoidance of doubt: do you propose that some children should feel unloved or ashamed for who they are?

For super-duper-extra avoidance of doubt: this is a yes/no question. We can work out the details afterwards. An answer that doesn't include a clear "yes" or a "no" will be considered a cop-out. :)

Yes, certainly.

For all your subsequent squirming, Pete asked you a clear yes or no question and that was your response.

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 11, 2022, 09:19:18 AM
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
And yet many vegetarians eat eggs.

Actually, they have a problem with eating fertilized eggs -

https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/can-eat-eggs-vegetarian-9307.html


Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
As do you, for all your continued bullshit about what a clump of cells “wants”.

Your problem seems to be not understanding that a biological organism can want something without meeting the human standards of consciousness or sentience.

All stages of living organisms need to eat. A zygote wants food, a fetus wants food, an infant wants food, a child wants food, and a teenager wants food. At what point does it actually "want" food? The answer is that they all want food, obviously. Non-human animals as well, "want" food.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
For all your subsequent squirming, Pete asked you a clear yes or no question and that was your response.

The whole discussion was about teachers discussing sexuality with students. The answer is still yes to that, that it's not the teacher's job to to correct a student feeling unloved or ashamed for who they are. You shouldn't be talking to children about sexuality if you are unlicensed to help them with their psychological problem. The teacher can refer, but should avoid taking the role of a licensed counselor. I clearly said that in the post, but you can't just help yourself from REEEEEE'ing about UNLOVED STUDENTS.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 11, 2022, 10:37:40 AM
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
And yet many vegetarians eat eggs.

Actually, let me just cherry pick something which I think fits my agenda.
You do you dude. The TL;DR is people have different standards. In fact, the link you provided says that. Do you even read the stuff you cherry pick from? Your link says:

Quote
Whether or not you can eat eggs depends largely on the type of vegetarian diet that you follow. Semi-vegetarian and pescetarian diets allow for the consumption of eggs, as well as some animal or fish meats

Some people don't eat animals but do eat fish. Vegans don't eat any animal produce because they believe (rightly, I guess) that animals still have to suffer to produce those things. Even those of us who are meat eaters would mostly be a bit squeamish about eating, say, dog. There is no definitive clear line in all this. You keep pretending you believe that a clump of cells is equivalent to a human life but you don't. Again, you haven't answered my thought experiment because you know it would expose you.

Quote
All stages of living organisms need to eat.
And then you randomly switch the language to "want" :)

And yes, you said lots of other things in the post. But Pete's question was clear and he asked for a clear "yes or no". Your answer was "yes, certainly". I picked you up on it multiple times in the thread and you never backtracked or clarified. You believe that children who feel a way you don't approve of should feel unloved and ashamed. And yet here you are pretending to care about a clump of cells.
Bullshit. No-one is buying it dude.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 11, 2022, 01:30:54 PM
Do you make exceptions for:

- Incest - Y/N
- Rape - Y/N
- Life threat to mother - Y/N

No to the first two. Yes to the last one, as it's human life vs human life.


- Morning-After Pills - Y/N
- IUDs - Y/N

IUDs, no, they prevent conception. Morning-after pills, yes.

Do people murder tapeworms?

If we're going to start comparing humans to parasites then I've got a very long list of humans that we can start aborting. They're all quite a bit past the 3rd trimester.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Iceman on May 11, 2022, 01:41:01 PM
Just to be safe, let’s lock up anyone who has a miscarriage. They might have done it on purpose. It’s the only way to make sure everyone is putting enough value on human life.
/s
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 11, 2022, 02:21:42 PM
Do people murder tapeworms?

If we're going to start comparing humans to parasites then I've got a very long list of humans that we can start aborting.
I wasn't aware humans could resemble a heavy period and flush down the toilet.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 11, 2022, 03:04:48 PM
I wasn't aware humans could resemble a heavy period and flush down the toilet.

Humans can resemble much worse than that, I'm afraid.

Just to be safe, let’s lock up anyone who has a miscarriage. They might have done it on purpose. It’s the only way to make sure everyone is putting enough value on human life.
/s

This but unironically.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 11, 2022, 05:02:56 PM
Do you make exceptions for:

- Incest - Y/N
- Rape - Y/N
- Life threat to mother - Y/N

No to the first two. Yes to the last one, as it's human life vs human life.


- Morning-After Pills - Y/N
- IUDs - Y/N

IUDs, no, they prevent conception. Morning-after pills, yes.

Do people murder tapeworms?

If we're going to start comparing humans to parasites then I've got a very long list of humans that we can start aborting. They're all quite a bit past the 3rd trimester.

Thanks for your honest answers.

I didn't know this when I wrote the above, but Morning After Pills (ex., "Plan B") aren't abortion pills, they are simply contraceptives. RU-486, in contrast, is an "abortion" pill. It induces a miscarriage and the results are pretty much indistinguishable from a "natural" miscarriage. That being the case, in States that, let's say, ban abortions altogether, would you advocate that all reported miscarriages be vetted to make sure they weren't induced? And if somehow found to be induced, what sort of penalties would you levy against the woman?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 11, 2022, 05:13:39 PM
I didn't know this when I wrote the above, but Morning After Pills (ex., "Plan B") aren't abortion pills, they are simply contraceptives. RU-486, in contrast, is an "abortion" pill. It induces a miscarriage and the results are pretty much indistinguishable from a "natural" miscarriage.

So then "Plan B" is fine but RU-486 is not in that case.

And if somehow found to be induced, what sort of penalties would you levy against the woman?

Premeditated murder.

I don't see a difference between a woman purposefully ending her pregnancy because it inconveniences her versus a woman killing her toddler because it inconveniences her. Collectively, many have decided the former is fine while the latter is atrocious. I don't see how one can think of a toddler as independent (or, to put it to Roosroos' argument, not-a-parasite) versus a child still in the womb. They're all children, the only difference is age.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 11, 2022, 05:27:14 PM
(or, to put it to Roosroos' argument, not-a-parasite)
For the record, I never said anything about what was human versus what was parasitic.

Thanks for your honest answers.
lmao
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 11, 2022, 05:29:12 PM
I don't see a difference between a woman purposefully ending her pregnancy because it inconveniences her
On this line of thought though, where would you draw the line between inconvenience and genuine life changing harm?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 11, 2022, 05:31:16 PM
I don't see a difference between a woman purposefully ending her pregnancy because it inconveniences her versus a woman killing her toddler because it inconveniences her.
Yes you do.

Quote
They're all children, the only difference is age.
No they aren't.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 11, 2022, 05:31:47 PM
I don't see a difference between a woman purposefully ending her pregnancy because it inconveniences
On this line of thought though, where would you draw the line between inconvenience and genuine life changing harm?

I wouldn't, as there isn't any. What is mere inconvenience to one is "genuine life changing harm" to another. Maybe women should think more about how important the life of their children is versus drinking starbucks and eating avocado toast all day.

For the record, I never said anything about what was human versus what was parasitic.

Yes, you only mentioned tapeworms in a thread about abortion. I can imagine all the infinite lines of reasoning you were going down. Certainly not comparing abortion to killing parasites. Nope. That wasn't going to be it at all, obviously.

I don't see a difference between a woman purposefully ending her pregnancy because it inconveniences her versus a woman killing her toddler because it inconveniences her.
Yes you do.

Quote
They're all children, the only difference is age.
No they aren't.

Nice opinion.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 11, 2022, 05:40:52 PM
I don't see a difference between a woman purposefully ending her pregnancy because it inconveniences
On this line of thought though, where would you draw the line between inconvenience and genuine life changing harm?

I wouldn't, as there isn't any. What is mere inconvenience to one is "genuine life changing harm" to another. Maybe women should think more about how important the life of their children is versus drinking starbucks and eating avocado toast all day.
So anything less than death would just be an inconvenience?

For the record, I never said anything about what was human versus what was parasitic.

Yes, you only mentioned tapeworms in a thread about abortion. I can imagine all the infinite lines of reasoning you were going down. Certainly not comparing abortion to killing parasites. Nope. That wasn't going to be it at all, obviously.
Markjo made the tapeworm comparison. Tom Bishop then said people acknowledge killing a tapeworm so killing = murder. I was just being pedantic about how you literally can't murder a tapeworm.

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 11, 2022, 05:46:08 PM
So anything less than death would just be an inconvenience?

Correct.

Markjo made the tapeworm comparison. Tom Bishop then said people acknowledge killing a tapeworm so killing = murder. I was just being pedantic about how you literally can't murder a tapeworm.

I see.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 11, 2022, 05:55:42 PM
I didn't know this when I wrote the above, but Morning After Pills (ex., "Plan B") aren't abortion pills, they are simply contraceptives. RU-486, in contrast, is an "abortion" pill. It induces a miscarriage and the results are pretty much indistinguishable from a "natural" miscarriage.

So then "Plan B" is fine but RU-486 is not in that case.

And if somehow found to be induced, what sort of penalties would you levy against the woman?

Premeditated murder.

I don't see a difference between a woman purposefully ending her pregnancy because it inconveniences her versus a woman killing her toddler because it inconveniences her. Collectively, many have decided the former is fine while the latter is atrocious. I don't see how one can think of a toddler as independent (or, to put it to Roosroos' argument, not-a-parasite) versus a child still in the womb. They're all children, the only difference is age.

I'm struggling with rape & incest falling into the "inconvenience" bucket. But I see your point if you go down the path of anything after the point of conception is life, therefore, murder. I disagree, but that's why we have differences of opinion.

So therein lies the Premeditated murder as a charge and ensuing penalty - Murder 1, life in prison without parole or death penalty.
Back to the first part of my question, in States that, let's say, ban abortions altogether, would you advocate that all reported miscarriages be vetted by some authority to make sure they weren't induced, that they weren't murder?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 11, 2022, 06:00:34 PM
So therein lies the Premeditated murder as a charge and ensuing penalty - Murder 1, life in prison without parole or death penalty.
Back to the first part of my question, in States that, let's say, ban abortions altogether, would you advocate that all reported miscarriages be vetted by some authority to make sure they weren't induced, that they weren't murder?

It would be incredibly difficult to prove a miscarriage is intentional (the standard of evidence is likewise very high). Investigating every single one would be impossible, investigating a few suspicious ones would be warranted. It would work much the same way deaths do right now. Not all deaths receive the same amount of investigative vigor. Some are obviously accidental or anticipated and some are not. The primary reporting agent would probably be a woman's doctor who would be (in an ideal world) obligated to report wrongful termination of a pregnancy.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on May 11, 2022, 10:52:34 PM
So therein lies the Premeditated murder as a charge and ensuing penalty - Murder 1, life in prison without parole or death penalty.
Back to the first part of my question, in States that, let's say, ban abortions altogether, would you advocate that all reported miscarriages be vetted by some authority to make sure they weren't induced, that they weren't murder?

It would be incredibly difficult to prove a miscarriage is intentional (the standard of evidence is likewise very high). Investigating every single one would be impossible, investigating a few suspicious ones would be warranted. It would work much the same way deaths do right now. Not all deaths receive the same amount of investigative vigor. Some are obviously accidental or anticipated and some are not. The primary reporting agent would probably be a woman's doctor who would be (in an ideal world) obligated to report wrongful termination of a pregnancy.

That's a tough one.  But we are talking about the lives of innocent children.  Letting this go would effectively nullify any attempt to outlaw abortion as the vast majority of abortions are done with a pill.

I think the only sensible thing to do would be to forcibly collect urine samples of all women of child bearing age to detect any possible abortifacients.  Perhaps a less heavy handed way would be to analyze the sewage for traces of abortifacients and use massive public surveillance to narrow down these murderers.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 11, 2022, 11:54:38 PM
Banning abortion will be a benefit to women. Most women aren't baby-hating feminists who think that babies are parasites and who shun the idea of motherhood. They are just normal girls who would have the baby with their boyfriend if the situation was right. They were tricked by society into thinking that abortion was the easy way out, and often suffer a great deal as result of their mistake. Have a look at sites like https://abortiontestimonials.com -

https://abortiontestimonials.com/the-pain-never-goes-away-2


Wow, 39 years of torment. Tricked into doing something by people telling her that there was an easy way out.

https://abortiontestimonials.com/i-will-never-be-the-same


In an ideal world those people who pressured her would be in jail.

That site has one sad story after the next, from people who were pressured into it, or who thought that abortion was the easy way out but forgot that they had a conscience.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on May 12, 2022, 12:28:30 AM
Tom thinks “Leave It to Beaver” was reality TV.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Iceman on May 12, 2022, 02:17:23 AM
“Banning abortion will be a benefit to women”
               -an old conservative white guy
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 12, 2022, 04:51:01 AM
lol the majority of women do not have any regrets about their abortions and generally rarely think about them. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416421/five-years-after-abortion-nearly-all-women-say-it-was-right-decision-study
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/study-finds-99-of-women-say-they-do-not-regret-having-an-abortion
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 12, 2022, 06:30:14 AM
“Banning abortion will be a benefit to women”
               -an old conservative white guy
Women are happiest when they’re barefoot and pregnant. That’s just science

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ0jRuASVEQ
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 12, 2022, 06:48:15 AM
That site has one sad story after the next, from people who were pressured into it, or who thought that abortion was the easy way out but forgot that they had a conscience.

50 or so negative testimonials in 14 years?

From the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm) :
In 2019, 629,898 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. Among 48 reporting areas with data each year during 2010–2019, in 2019, a total of 625,346 abortions were reported, the abortion rate was 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 195 abortions per 1,000 live births.

From 2010 to 2019, the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 18%, 21%, and 13%, respectively. However, compared with 2018, in 2019, the total number increased 2%, the rate of reported abortions increased by 0.9%, and the abortion ratio increased by 3%.


With maybe 8.5 million abortions over the past 14 years, I would expect more negative testimonials than just 50. I guess only 50 people have a conscience.

I wonder if I submitted a non-negative story regarding an abortion would they post it? Something like, "Drs said I would die if I tried to carry to term..." or "My uncle raped me and I was suicidal at the thought of having to birth his child..."
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 12, 2022, 07:12:57 AM
lol the majority of women do not have any regrets about their abortions and generally rarely think about them. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416421/five-years-after-abortion-nearly-all-women-say-it-was-right-decision-study
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/study-finds-99-of-women-say-they-do-not-regret-having-an-abortion

Those are puff papers to deny the obvious. Look at the manipulative questions they are asking:


It is concluded that if they said it was the right decision it means that they did not suffer emotionally. Ridiculous.

Say something crazy happened in your life and your mother came at you with a knife and you had to kill her. You reflect later that it was the right decision for the situation. Does that mean you didn't suffer emotionally? Does it mean that you didn't wish things could be different? If you stated at some later point that killing your mother was the right decision and a 'researcher' concludes from that that you didn't suffer emotionally in an effort to debunk the people claiming that you did suffer emotionally then it is clearly bunk.

The NHS admits in its "information for patients" wellbeing guide on abortions that it is common for women to feel sad about their abortion:

https://sexualhealthsheffield.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Wellbeing-after-an-abortion.pdf


The guide says that 'common experiences' a women can feel are guilt, regret, anger, and post-traumatic stress effects from the procedure. It advises women that:


It is acknowledged that the process of having an abortion is not like killing a spider and going on your way. It is a tragedy that must be processed.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Fortuna on May 12, 2022, 08:17:35 AM
How many people would choose to be retroactively aborted? Probably about as many as the suicide rate, which is about 1 in 10,000 in the US. If there was a way to give the baby a choice, most would choose to be born. Still, I’m not entirely pro-life from a legal standpoint. I think it’s wrong, but probably shouldn’t be illegal. Maybe just let women decide on it.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 12, 2022, 10:01:15 AM
Those are puff papers to deny the obvious. Look at the manipulative the questions they are asking
And you think the site you posted from is neutral? It says:

Quote
After submitting your testimonial it will be reviewed and if approved posted to our website. You will not be contacted and your contact information will remain private. Thank you for sharing and helping other women and men know the true experiences of abortion.

Why are they only approving some? Where are all the positive stories, are you seriously saying those don't exist? You're cherry picking again, as are they. Your trouble - and you do this with everything - is you only consider evidence to be reliable if it backs up what you already believe. Pretty easy to "prove" yourself right if you do that. Until you consider evidence more honestly and objectively you're doomed to never seriously inspect your own opinions or change your mind about anything no matter how clearly you're shown to be wrong.

You then go on to make a ridiculous false equivalence between killing your mother - someone you've had a lifelong emotional connection with - and a clump of cells which you do not. If you can't see why that's a stupid comparison then I don't know how to help you.

I don't think anyone is arguing that abortion is something one should take lightly. Overall I think it's a "bad thing". But as a male, I don't feel I can pontificate too much about a decision I'll never have to make. And it's notable that it's pretty much always old, white men who are making the laws about stuff like this.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tumeni on May 12, 2022, 10:03:59 AM
I was almost 16 and did not want my parents to know  ...

"My parents told me I had one option, abortion or get kicked out of the house and go to a shelter in the city.

So your examples are simply examples of parental intolerance.

Give the choice, without abortion available, your second example would have been kicked out on the street. Is that what you want for the young female populace of the USA?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 12, 2022, 12:24:15 PM
I was almost 16 and did not want my parents to know  ...

"My parents told me I had one option, abortion or get kicked out of the house and go to a shelter in the city.

So your examples are simply examples of parental intolerance.

Give the choice, without abortion available, your second example would have been kicked out on the street. Is that what you want for the young female populace of the USA?

Parental intolerance exists, correct. People pressure and threaten young women into abortions. It was not right that she was threatened with homelessness. She didn't really have the capacity to choose like the pro-choice narrative says she is given.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
And you think the site you posted from is neutral?

The site successfully shows many examples of people who regret their abortions, and of many people who communicate feeling trauma. It is a fiction that it needs to be 'balanced out' with the opposite that you assume exists in abundance. You have yet to prove that women are not generally emotionally saddened and that they treat it as something akin to killing a spider or a meaningless 'clump of cells'. The NHS guide posted previously says that feeling sad is a common reaction to having an abortion.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Why are they only approving some? Where are all the positive stories, are you seriously saying those don't exist?

Where did I say that they didn't exist? Did I say that? No. Learn to read.

There are plenty of feminists on Reddit who will give positive abortion testimonials. However, their positive review will usually just say that it was the best situation for them, not that it was just a meaningless event like killing a spider. Even you know that it is not the same as killing a spider, despite your repeated use of "clump of cells".

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
You then go on to make a ridiculous false equivalence between killing your mother - someone you've had a lifelong emotional connection with - and a clump of cells which you do not

Where did I make that equivalency? I gave the example to show that just because you did something which you thought was the best thing to do in the situation that it doesn't mean that you did not suffer emotionally. The paper was claiming that if you say it was the right choice it means that you didn't suffer emotionally. That claim is wrong.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
I don't think anyone is arguing that abortion is something one should take lightly.

Actually, we can all see that you are being hypocritical here since you were attempting to do just that. You were repeatedly attempting to trivialize it by calling it a "clump of cells".

You have no good rebuttals and are running on empty, which is why you are contradicting yourself and are attempting to make up fictitious arguments.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 12, 2022, 01:00:04 PM
lol the majority of women do not have any regrets about their abortions and generally rarely think about them. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416421/five-years-after-abortion-nearly-all-women-say-it-was-right-decision-study
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/study-finds-99-of-women-say-they-do-not-regret-having-an-abortion

It is no surprise that women willing to murder their own children don't regret it. It's like asking if Jeffrey Dahmer regrets putting a drill through a man's head. The kind of woman who regrets such an act doesn't do it in the first place.

A much better study would be asking a sample of all women and men about abortion. After all, men can get pregnant too these days.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 12, 2022, 01:52:46 PM
It is no surprise that women willing to murder their own children don't regret it.
Because they don't regard it as such.
Nor do you.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 12, 2022, 02:03:04 PM
You were repeatedly attempting to trivialize it by calling it a "clump of cells".
I was simply dealing with the nonsense that abortion is the same as killing a living, breathing baby.
No-one believes that despite some of the trolls on here pretending to. It's notable that none of you have commented on the thought experiment, because you know it would expose you.
What point are you actually making here? That some women suffer trauma after an abortion? OK, granted. So?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 12, 2022, 03:54:40 PM
I've literally had an abortion and I never once regretted it and I rarely think about it. I did not suffer emotionally.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on May 12, 2022, 04:16:56 PM
I've literally had an abortion and I never once regretted it and I rarely think about it. I did not suffer emotionally.

By Rushy’s “rationale” you are literally a serial killer.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 12, 2022, 04:36:36 PM
It is no surprise that women willing to murder their own children don't regret it.
Because they don't regard it as such.
Nor do you.

You don't actually believe what you just said.

I've literally had an abortion and I never once regretted it and I rarely think about it. I did not suffer emotionally.

Decades of propaganda will do that to a mind. I'm sure plenty of killers do so without remorse. Our military has a lot of them.

I've literally had an abortion and I never once regretted it and I rarely think about it. I did not suffer emotionally.

By Rushy’s “rationale” you are literally a serial killer.

A serial killer would be more than once.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on May 12, 2022, 04:47:58 PM
A serial killer would be more than once.

So then a woman receiving an abortion can't be Jeffrey Dahmer.  I accept your retraction.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 12, 2022, 04:49:37 PM
A serial killer would be more than once.

So then a woman receiving an abortion can't be Jeffrey Dahmer.  I accept your retraction.

Yes, everyone gets one murder. After that, it's not okay anymore. I'm still undecided on mine.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on May 12, 2022, 04:50:54 PM
A serial killer would be more than once.

So then a woman receiving an abortion can't be Jeffrey Dahmer.  I accept your retraction.

Yes, everyone gets one murder. After that, it's not okay anymore. I'm still undecided on mine.

This is a shocking turn around by you.  I am glad you were open to having your mind changed.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 12, 2022, 04:51:34 PM
This is a shocking turn around by you.  I am glad you were open to having your mind changed.

What can I say, I'm an open minded individual. Dahmer's victims were pretty open minded as well, but I don't think I want to go that far just yet.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 12, 2022, 04:59:17 PM
Rushy is a sweetheart.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: WTF_Seriously on May 12, 2022, 05:08:32 PM
Maybe just let women decide on it.

There's no way in hell we can let that happen.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Fortuna on May 12, 2022, 05:15:54 PM
After all, men can get pregnant too these days.

I'd completely forgotten about this. Yeah, I guess it's not a women only issue anymore.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 12, 2022, 05:41:17 PM
It's honestly surprising the lack of imagination some men can have about going through a pregnancy. I was only 6 weeks in and I couldn't do or eat anything for about half the day every day because I was so floored by nausea. I'm even open to trying to have a kid in the near-ish future and everything about it is still terrifying. Talking to my friends/family who have had kids makes it even worse tbh because they don't have good stories to tell. Someone in my family recently had a hysterectomy because her bladder was prolapsed because her uterine walls were weaker since having kids, something that's fairly common but not talked about.

This country can't even mandate paid parental leave. Imagine going through an 18 hour labor, still needing an emergency c-section, and then having to go back to work asap because you can't afford not to but you also have to pay a ridiculous amount of money for child care. Oh but you're also going through horrible postpartum depression.

Quote
Overall, the average child care cost for one child in 2020 was $612/week for a nanny (up from $565/week in 2019), $340/week for a child care or day care center (up from $182/week) and $300/week for a family care center (up from $177/week).
https://www.care.com/c/how-much-does-child-care-cost/
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 12, 2022, 07:31:54 PM
Rushy is a sweetheart.

 >:(

Also lads and lassies, do not worry:

(https://i.redd.it/7y2u0r92zuy81.jpg)

Artificial wombs are the answer. Everyone wins.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2022, 02:59:57 PM
A woman gets pregnant and aborts her unborn child to "do what was best for herself". This is considered acceptable.

A man learns that his girlfriend is pregnant and immediately abandons her and his unborn child to "do what was best for himself". This is considered unacceptable.

Why?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 13, 2022, 03:10:37 PM
A man learns that his girlfriend is pregnant and immediately abandons her and his unborn child to "do what was best for himself". This is considered unacceptable.
Is the current legislation in the USA making it impossible for a boyfriend to abandon his pregnant girlfriend, or is there indication that SCOTUS plans to rule along those lines?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 13, 2022, 04:10:53 PM
Is the current legislation in the USA making it impossible for a boyfriend to abandon his pregnant girlfriend, or is there indication that SCOTUS plans to rule along those lines?

The legal system's response to a man abandoning his pregnant girlfriend is complex. In some cases, it is legal to fully abandon a child and recuse yourself from parental rights. In other cases, even if you do not want the child and legally state as such, you can be required to pay child support. It really depends on what state you are in and what judges are on your case as well as how good of a lawyer the mother of your child can afford.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tumeni on May 13, 2022, 04:54:22 PM
A woman gets pregnant and aborts her unborn child to "do what was best for herself". This is considered acceptable.

A man learns that his girlfriend is pregnant and immediately abandons her and his unborn child to "do what was best for himself". This is considered unacceptable.

Why?

There are no medical or social consequences for the man. She might have to suffer medical complications, she might be unable to work at some point over the 9 mth pregnancy and thereafter, and a whole host of other downsides that will not affect the man at all.

In simplistic terms, he's not walking away from the same things as she is. He's shirking support and financial issues only, far lesser issues than the mother.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 14, 2022, 06:16:58 AM
The legal system's response to a man abandoning his pregnant girlfriend is complex. In some cases, it is legal to fully abandon a child and recuse yourself from parental rights. In other cases, even if you do not want the child and legally state as such, you can be required to pay child support. It really depends on what state you are in and what judges are on your case as well as how good of a lawyer the mother of your child can afford.
Sounds like another case of a law that's only there if you're poor.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tumeni on May 14, 2022, 08:45:39 AM
Referring back to the "clump of cells" argument around page 8, there's a few other thoughts that may well need consideration ...

Does child support start at conception? If, so -
Can the foetus be considered eligible for life insurance?
If an immigrant or tourist gets pregnant while on US soil, does she then have to stay in the USA for 9 months, as she has a US citizen inside her?
If the foetus is now regarded as a person, how can pregnant woman be imprisoned? Surely the foetus is innocent, and it's immoral to imprison it as well as the mother carrying it?
If the mother dies in childbirth, but the foetus/baby does not, then does its new-found status make it guilty of involuntary manslaughter? 
Americans currently cannot claim a foetus as a dependent for tax purposes, as the IRS does not regard it as a person. Should this change?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2022, 03:22:43 PM
A woman gets pregnant and aborts her unborn child to "do what was best for herself". This is considered acceptable.

A man learns that his girlfriend is pregnant and immediately abandons her and his unborn child to "do what was best for himself". This is considered unacceptable.

Why?

There are no medical or social consequences for the man. She might have to suffer medical complications, she might be unable to work at some point over the 9 mth pregnancy and thereafter, and a whole host of other downsides that will not affect the man at all.

In simplistic terms, he's not walking away from the same things as she is. He's shirking support and financial issues only, far lesser issues than the mother.

There are social consequences for a man abandoning his unborn child, that is incorrect.

Sure, there is a difference, and a woman may suffer medical complications. But you are now arguing that abortion is only acceptable for medical reasons. Since we know that this is not what you believe, we can see that this is a disingenuous line of reasoning.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on May 14, 2022, 04:35:22 PM
Sure, there is a difference, and a woman may suffer medical complications. But you are now arguing that abortion is only acceptable for medical reasons.
Do you think that there are valid medical reasons for a woman to have an abortion?  There are, after all, a number of different medical conditions and developmental abnormalities that would cause the pregnancy to be nonviable and even life threatening to the woman.  Should those medically necessary abortions be outlawed as well?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tumeni on May 14, 2022, 05:06:53 PM
... you are now arguing that abortion is only acceptable for medical reasons.

Um, don't think I am...
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 14, 2022, 05:33:55 PM
A woman gets pregnant and aborts her unborn child to "do what was best for herself". This is considered acceptable.

A man learns that his girlfriend is pregnant and immediately abandons her and his unborn child to "do what was best for himself". This is considered unacceptable.

Why?

There are no medical or social consequences for the man. She might have to suffer medical complications, she might be unable to work at some point over the 9 mth pregnancy and thereafter, and a whole host of other downsides that will not affect the man at all.

In simplistic terms, he's not walking away from the same things as she is. He's shirking support and financial issues only, far lesser issues than the mother.

There are social consequences for a man abandoning his unborn child, that is incorrect.

Sure, there is a difference, and a woman may suffer medical complications. But you are now arguing that abortion is only acceptable for medical reasons. Since we know that this is not what you believe, we can see that this is a disingenuous line of reasoning.

I don't know what you mean by "social" ramifications. But I'm unclear if there are ramifications if a man abandons an unborn child. But there are certainly ramifications if a man abandons a born child.

What are the ramifications, "social" or otherwise, for abandoning an unborn child?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 15, 2022, 03:06:42 AM
... you are now arguing that abortion is only acceptable for medical reasons.

Um, don't think I am...

I asked why a man abandoning his unborn child was considered unacceptable and why a woman aborting her unborn child was considered acceptable. You answered that it was mainly because a woman faced possible medical complications.

Therefore you are arguing that abortion is only acceptable for medical reasons, as that is the main difference between acceptable and unacceptable according to you.

Granted that this makes no sense since you guys do not believe that, but this is only a consequence of having double standards and poor morals on this abortion subject overall.

I don't know what you mean by "social" ramifications. But I'm unclear if there are ramifications if a man abandons an unborn child. But there are certainly ramifications if a man abandons a born child.

What are the ramifications, "social" or otherwise, for abandoning an unborn child?

I am confident that you can figure that one out for yourself. Try telling your family that you abandoned your unborn child after learning that your partner was pregnant.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: honk on May 15, 2022, 04:11:57 AM
Nobody would care about a man abandoning an unborn child without the prior assumption that the child will be born, and therefore the man will be expected to be a father. That's why they're doing the abandoning in the first place, isn't it?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 15, 2022, 04:35:48 AM
It is considered unacceptable for a man to abandon his unborn child upon learning that his partner was pregnant regardless of whether the child is later born or killed by abortion.

Somehow it is acceptable for a woman to abandon responsibility to her unborn child, but it is unacceptable for a man to do it.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: honk on May 15, 2022, 05:27:39 AM
It is considered unacceptable for a man to abandon his unborn child upon learning that his partner was pregnant regardless of whether the child is later born or killed by abortion.

Yes, because of the assumption that the child will be born; hence his abandoning her in the first place. If it were clearly understood beforehand that she was getting an abortion, than any "abandonment" of her on his part would be entirely unnotable and no different to any other breakup. We don't hear about those cases precisely because of their lack of notability. This isn't any sort of tacit societal admission that fetuses are important whether they're born or not.

Quote
Somehow it is acceptable for a woman to abandon responsibility to her unborn child, but it is unacceptable for a man to do it.

Yes, it's the woman's body and therefore the woman's right to choose, not the man's.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 15, 2022, 05:50:21 AM
Somehow it is acceptable for a woman to abandon responsibility to her unborn child, but it is unacceptable for a man to do it.

You’re not making any sense.

How is it acceptable for a woman to abandon responsibility to her unborn child via abortion when people like you in society think that is an unacceptable act? As you’re screaming at her that she is baby killer as she’s walking into planned parenthood.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: xasop on May 15, 2022, 08:30:49 AM
Yes, it's the woman's body and therefore the woman's right to choose, not the man's.
No, Tom happens to be right on this particular issue. If the man wants the woman to get an abortion, and she declines, he should have no obligation (legal or social) to 18 years of financial support for a child he doesn't want.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: garygreen on May 15, 2022, 01:56:19 PM
"oh so you support the right to abortion, but you also support the right to dislike deadbeat dads??" is not exactly the brutal takedown y'all think it is.

If the man wants the woman to get an abortion, and she declines, he should have no obligation (legal or social) to 18 years of financial support for a child he doesn't want.

lol aside from the fact that this is absurdly illogical, you're just creating a legal loophole for literally every man to get out of having to pay any child support simply by saying he wanted to get an abortion.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 15, 2022, 03:34:01 PM
Yes, it's the woman's body and therefore the woman's right to choose, not the man's.

This is an argument that women have absolute right over their body. They do not. It is widely illegal in most areas to abort after a certain number of weeks, even in very liberal areas in the US. The woman is forced by the law to carry the baby and is forced to give birth, even if she doesn't want to. They do not have a choice. This shows that women do not have the right to do what they want with their bodies.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 15, 2022, 03:42:03 PM
Yes, it's the woman's body and therefore the woman's right to choose, not the man's.

This argument assumes that women have absolute right over their body. They do not. It is widely illegal in most areas to abort after a certain number of weeks, even in very liberal areas in the US. The woman is forced by the law to carry the baby and is forced to give birth, even if she doesn't want to. This shows that the consensus is that women do not have the right to do what they want with their bodies.

Not everywhere:

"States that allow for late-term abortions with no state-imposed thresholds are Alaska, Colorado, District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont."
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/what-states-allow-late-term-abortion

And if we were to examine the overall issue based on consensus, the national majority consensus is that RvW should remain in place.

U.S. Public Continues to Favor Legal Abortion, Oppose Overturning Roe v. Wade (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/08/29/u-s-public-continues-to-favor-legal-abortion-oppose-overturning-roe-v-wade/)
(https://i.imgur.com/o71CXPf.png)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 15, 2022, 03:54:08 PM
Not everywhere:

"States that allow for late-term abortions with no state-imposed thresholds are Alaska, Colorado, District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont."
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/what-states-allow-late-term-abortion

That's 8 out of 50, and DC is not a state. Even liberal cesspits like California and New York impose bans on abortion after a certain number of weeks. Most areas have decided that women do not have a right over their bodies.

Quote from: stack
And if we were to examine the overall issue based on consensus, the national majority consensus is that RvW should remain in place.

That might hold water if the US was founded to combine state health laws into a unified national laws, but it was decided that states would be largely independent entities with its own laws on a state level. The states decide on their own abortion laws, as illustrated by the xx week bans and other abortion laws already in place. The Supreme Court got rid of the errant national precedent from RvW and rightly turned it over to the states to decide for themselves democratically.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: xasop on May 15, 2022, 04:54:22 PM
lol aside from the fact that this is absurdly illogical, you're just creating a legal loophole for literally every man to get out of having to pay any child support simply by saying he wanted to get an abortion.
Not necessarily. There are ways of implementing that idea which do not have such consequences. Assuming the least generous possible implementation of someone else's stated principle is not a very honest way to debate.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on May 15, 2022, 04:59:55 PM
Yes, it's the woman's body and therefore the woman's right to choose, not the man's.

This is an argument that women have absolute right over their body. They do not.
Do women have the right to choose to not have children?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 15, 2022, 05:07:34 PM
Not everywhere:

"States that allow for late-term abortions with no state-imposed thresholds are Alaska, Colorado, District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont."
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/what-states-allow-late-term-abortion

That's 8 out of 50, and DC is not a state. Even liberal cesspits like California and New York impose bans on abortion after a certain number of weeks. Most areas have decided that women do not have a right over their bodies.

It's obviously murkier than that. In essence, they do have body autonomy up to a certain point, then they don't. And in some cases they have full body autonomy.

And it looks like all States currently allow autonomy under certain circumstances:

(https://i.imgur.com/otfViMH.png)


Quote from: stack
And if we were to examine the overall issue based on consensus, the national majority consensus is that RvW should remain in place.

That might hold water if the US was founded to combine state health laws into a unified national laws, but it was decided that states would be largely independent entities with its own laws on a state level. The states decide on their own abortion laws, as illustrated by the xx week bans and other abortion laws already in place.

In theory, you are incorrect:

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/when-does-federal-law-preempt-state-law)

Under the Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, both the Constitution and federal law supersede state laws. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution defines the powers of the U.S. Congress. It grants some powers exclusively to Congress, such as legislation regarding immigration, bankruptcy, and currency. States do not have the authority to create their own immigration or bankruptcy systems, or to mint their own currency.

The Supreme Court got rid of the errant national precedent from RvW and rightly turned it over to the states to decide for themselves democratically.

Not yet.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 15, 2022, 05:24:11 PM
Yes, it's the woman's body and therefore the woman's right to choose, not the man's.

This is an argument that women have absolute right over their body. They do not.
Do women have the right to choose to not have children?

Yes. If they are not ready for children they can choose not to engage in the actions that result in the creation of children. If they are truly adamant about not having children for some reason they can choose to get their tube tied. If they are unsure and do not want to follow that path, and still wish to be sexually active, then they should be aware of the consequences for that decision.

How hard is it to keep your legs shut until you are at a point that you are ready to be responsible for your actions? Plenty of women throughout history have been able to tell men "not until marriage" and not give in until she knew that she and her partner was ready. Plenty of people also go years without sex, as they focus on schooling, a career, and betterment of themselves. It's not impossible to view sex as a luxury that you can have when you are prepared to have it, like alcohol. It's called self control.

Men are universally told that if they didn't want to be held responsible they shouldn't have done it and that their actions have consequences. Women should likewise be held responsible. They should know that actions have consequences. There is no reason to impose a death penalty on a child in the womb out of selfish or petty reasons.

The law recognizes an unborn child enough to consider it homicide if it is killed by anyone other than the mother - it is not just an assault charge. That should apply to the mother as well. Perhaps the consequences of fetal homicide should not be the same as normal homicide, but there should definitely be consequences.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 15, 2022, 05:49:48 PM
I always love watching conservatives, who are very pro-personal liberties, defend the government telling people what they can or can't do with their bodies.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 15, 2022, 05:58:56 PM
I always love watching conservatives, who are very pro-personal liberties, defend the government telling people what they can or can't do with their bodies.

When a woman is pregnant it's not just her body though. There is another entity within her. Laws already tell women that they do not have right over their body, banning abortion after xx weeks in most areas. It is incorrect that a woman has absolute right over her body.

It is also considered homicide if someone causes a woman to lose her baby at any stage of gestation (https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx) in many areas. It is not merely assault.

There are laws banning you from killing bird eggs:

https://goldengateaudubon.org/conservation/make-the-city-safe-for-wildlife/tree-care-and-bird-safety/laws-protecting-birds

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 15, 2022, 06:14:43 PM
How hard is it to keep your legs shut until you are at a point that you are ready to be responsible for your actions?

Wow! Someone is living in the 1800's.

And what do bird eggs have to do with humans? Maybe there should be state laws charging birds with abandonment when they kick a chick out of the nest.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 15, 2022, 06:19:35 PM
I always love watching conservatives, who are very pro-personal liberties, defend the government telling people what they can or can't do with their bodies.

When a woman is pregnant it's not just her body though. There is another entity within her. Laws already tell women that they do not have right over their body, banning abortion after xx weeks in most areas. It is incorrect that a woman has absolute right over her body.

It is also considered homicide if someone causes a woman to lose her baby at any stage of gestation (https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx) in many areas. It is not merely assault.

There are laws banning you from killing bird eggs:

https://goldengateaudubon.org/conservation/make-the-city-safe-for-wildlife/tree-care-and-bird-safety/laws-protecting-birds

    FEDERAL MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT:
    703. Taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds unlawful.

    “…it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, offer to purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof…”

    ...

    CALIFORNIA STATE CODE:

    3503. It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.

    ...

    Title 14, Chapter 1, Section 251.1. Harassment of Animals

    Except as otherwise authorized in these regulations or in the Fish and Wildlife Code, no person shall harass, herd or drive any game or non-game bird or mammal or furbearing mammal. For the purposes of this section, harass is defined as an intentional act which disrupts an animal’s normal behavior patterns, which includes, but is not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. This section does not apply to a landowner or tenant who drives or herds birds or mammals for the purpose of preventing damage to private or public property, including aquaculture and agriculture crops.

    ...

    SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY MUNICIPAL CODE:
    Sec 5.08. It is unlawful to disturb birds.


So, to recap.
You are 100% in support of a government agency having legal say over a person's own body.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 15, 2022, 06:44:22 PM
And what do bird eggs have to do with humans?

That's a simple one. If we recognize the life of a developing bird egg at any stage of development and are banning their destruction, then by this level of the recognition of life the we should also recognize human life at any stage of development.

You do not have absolute right over your property, and you do not have absolute right over your body. The US is a system of states which democratically enact their own health and property laws. If the people of a state want to tell women that they need to be personally responsible and can't abort babies anymore, then that is simply democracy in action.

Quote from: Lord Dave
So, to recap.
You are 100% in support of a government agency having legal say over a person's own body.

I think you mean the people of each state democratically managing their own health affairs. The government agency isn't an outside entity.

And yes, we have largely decided as a society that you do not have ultimate authority over your body. We ban drinking and driving, for example. You do not have a right to drink whenever you want. Having bodily autonomy does not mean any person gets to undermine the health, rights or autonomy of others.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 15, 2022, 06:59:51 PM

And yes, we have largely decided as a society that you do not have ultimate authority over your body. We ban drinking and driving, for example. You do not have a right to drink whenever you want.
This is not due to putting something into your body but rather the driving while being unable to drive safely.  Kinda like driving with your eyes closed.


Quote
Having bodily autonomy does not mean any person gets to undermine the health, rights or autonomy of others.
...
Irony.

No wait, its not surprising.

Hypocracy.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on May 15, 2022, 08:28:17 PM
And what do bird eggs have to do with humans?

That's a simple one. If we recognize the life of a developing bird egg at any stage of development and are banning their destruction, then by this level of the recognition of life the we should also recognize human life at any stage of development.

I guess by that logic, State governments should mandate everyone should be a vegetarian. No more eggs over easy for anyone. No more hamburgers. Save the chickens! Meat is murder!

If you're gonna go all the way over to endangered animals, I might as well bring up more human "my body, my choice" issues. Ironically, are you against vaccine mandates? Or are you ok with States and municipalities determining vaccine mandate laws?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 15, 2022, 09:28:19 PM
Ah, yes. The very democratic process of letting the minority (rural counties) decide that women should have sex only for procreation. All super original points that are very logical, efficient, and have historically worked super well everywhere it was implemented. Thanks, Tom!
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: honk on May 15, 2022, 09:56:53 PM
Yes, it's the woman's body and therefore the woman's right to choose, not the man's.

This is an argument that women have absolute right over their body.They do not. It is widely illegal in most areas to abort after a certain number of weeks, even in very liberal areas in the US. The woman is forced by the law to carry the baby and is forced to give birth, even if she doesn't want to. They do not have a choice. This shows that women do not have the right to do what they want with their bodies.

This is a really bizarre argument. We are currently discussing abortions that happen, not hypothetical abortions that don't happen because it's too late in the pregnancy. I explained - correctly - that women are allowed to "abandon" their unborn children through abortions while men aren't because it's the woman's body and therefore her right to choose. That is the reason why abortion - legal abortions that happen, not hypothetical abortions that don't happen - is legal. A woman's right to an abortion doesn't need to be "absolute" for it to exist generally, no more than any other right or freedom does.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: garygreen on May 15, 2022, 11:56:39 PM
lol aside from the fact that this is absurdly illogical, you're just creating a legal loophole for literally every man to get out of having to pay any child support simply by saying he wanted to get an abortion.
Not necessarily. There are ways of implementing that idea which do not have such consequences. Assuming the least generous possible implementation of someone else's stated principle is not a very honest way to debate.

like what?

you stated that if the man wants to get an abortion and the woman declines, the man should be off the hook for his child support obligations. i fail to see how such a system could possibly avoid the consequence of "any man who doesn't want to pay child support to a woman he has impregnated can simply request that she get an abortion."
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on May 16, 2022, 12:36:29 AM
I always love watching conservatives, who are very pro-personal liberties, defend the government telling people what they can or can't do with their bodies.

Is murder a personal liberty, Dave?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: xasop on May 16, 2022, 10:35:51 AM
you stated that if the man wants to get an abortion and the woman declines, the man should be off the hook for his child support obligations. i fail to see how such a system could possibly avoid the consequence of "any man who doesn't want to pay child support to a woman he has impregnated can simply request that she get an abortion."
That's not a consequence, it is the intended goal, but that's not what you said before. This is a bit like saying that allowing abortion has the consequence of "any woman who doesn't want to have a child can simply have an abortion".
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 16, 2022, 12:25:45 PM
I always love watching conservatives, who are very pro-personal liberties, defend the government telling people what they can or can't do with their bodies.

Is murder a personal liberty, Dave?
*Points to Second Amendment*
According to American: yes.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2022, 01:30:42 AM
I don't see why this is so hard to figure out.

(https://i.imgur.com/OMem76n.png)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 19, 2022, 06:03:22 AM
I don't see why this is so hard to figure out.

(https://i.imgur.com/OMem76n.png)

What about men?  Could tell them not to have sex too.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on May 19, 2022, 11:17:41 AM
I don't see why this is so hard to figure out.

(https://i.imgur.com/OMem76n.png)

Ah yes, telling people to repress natural urges is surely the way to a healthy society. I expect nothing different from Madam Jewish Space Laser.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2022, 03:26:37 PM
Ah yes, telling people to repress natural urges is surely the way to a healthy society. I expect nothing different from Madam Jewish Space Laser.

You can't seriously be arguing that acting on your natural urges is the best way to a healthy society. Young adults can have a natural urge to steal things from stores, cheat in school, skip classes to hang out with friends, and watch TV entertainment instead of doing schoolwork. People might also have a natural urge to speed and drive recklessly through town to meet an appointment, strike their pets and children when angry, issue threats to get their way, and on and on.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on May 19, 2022, 03:28:15 PM
Ah yes, telling people to repress natural urges is surely the way to a healthy society. I expect nothing different from Madam Jewish Space Laser.

You can't seriously be arguing that acting on your natural urge is the best way to a healthy society. Young adults can have a natural urge to steal things from stores, cheat in school, skip classes to hang out with friends, and watch TV entertainment instead of doing schoolwork. People might also have a natural urge to drive recklessly through town to meet an appointment, strike their pets and children when angry, issue threats to get their way, and on and on.

No I’m not suggesting that in the slightest. If you are interested, ask a good faith question; one that doesn’t include strawmen or false dilemmas.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 19, 2022, 03:34:31 PM
I don't see why this is so hard to figure out.

(https://i.imgur.com/OMem76n.png)

What about men?  Could tell them not to have sex too.
Semen is always encouraged to flow freely and abundantly. Shame we still don't have male birth control.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on May 19, 2022, 03:45:09 PM
I don't see why this is so hard to figure out.

(https://i.imgur.com/OMem76n.png)

What about men?  Could tell them not to have sex too.
Semen is always encouraged to flow freely and abundantly. Shame we still don't have male birth control.

I saw an article talking about male birth control being tested. COMING SOONTM!
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: xasop on May 19, 2022, 03:51:01 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/OMem76n.png)
I can confirm this strategy works from a lifetime of experience with women who employ it.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 19, 2022, 03:52:41 PM
I saw an article talking about male birth control being tested. COMING SOONTM!
They've been working on them for awhile, but are slow going because of side effects which women already deal with when taking birth control. Which is good, but I wish they'd take this kind of care with female birth control.

Quote
Most compounds currently undergoing clinical trials target the male sex hormone testosterone, which could lead to side effects such as weight gain, depression and increased low-density lipoprotein (known as LDL) cholesterol levels. “We wanted to develop a non-hormonal male contraceptive to avoid these side effects,”
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2022/march/non-hormonal-pill-could-soon-expand-mens-birth-control-options.html
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 19, 2022, 05:11:01 PM
Male birth control exists.
Its called a condom.  Men just hate it.

Also, vasectamy. Totally reversable but ya know... Thats evil to suggest men get them until they want kids.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on May 19, 2022, 05:30:29 PM
I don't see why this is so hard to figure out.

(https://i.imgur.com/OMem76n.png)

What about men?  Could tell them not to have sex too.
Semen is always encouraged to flow freely and abundantly. Shame we still don't have male birth control.

I saw an article talking about male birth control being tested. COMING SOONTM!

There's a form of male birth control, it's called the backdoor option.

If Tom Bishop really cared about babies then he'd be preaching to the congregation the value of sodomy.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 19, 2022, 05:31:46 PM
Male birth control exists.
Its called a condom.  Men just hate it.

Also, vasectamy. Totally reversable but ya know... Thats evil to suggest men get them until they want kids.
Condoms are more prone to failure than other forms of birth control, but yeah are generally good sense to use for STDs. Vasectomy reversals can be pricey and there is about a 90-95% chance of success on top of it being a surgery which a lot of people aren't super comfortable with. Men tend to get vasectomies when they're done having kids rather than temporary birth control which is understandable.

So obviously I'm talking about medication - something that would help put the shared burden on guys instead of assuming all women are or should be on hormonal birth control.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 19, 2022, 06:31:45 PM
Male birth control exists.
Its called a condom.  Men just hate it.

Also, vasectamy. Totally reversable but ya know... Thats evil to suggest men get them until they want kids.
Condoms are more prone to failure than other forms of birth control, but yeah are generally good sense to use for STDs. Vasectomy reversals can be pricey and there is about a 90-95% chance of success on top of it being a surgery which a lot of people aren't super comfortable with. Men tend to get vasectomies when they're done having kids rather than temporary birth control which is understandable.

So obviously I'm talking about medication - something that would help put the shared burden on guys instead of assuming all women are or should be on hormonal birth control.

Condoms fail when people put then on wrong.  Or buy the wrong size.  Or wear two at once like an idiot.
Otherwise they work really well. I trust it over any medication.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on May 19, 2022, 07:25:47 PM
Condoms fail when people put then on wrong.  Or buy the wrong size.  Or wear two at once like an idiot.
Otherwise they work really well. I trust it over any medication.
Yes and my point is that women have birth control pills and they're more heavily relied upon than condoms so there's no reason men shouldn't also have birth control pills if the science allows it.

Obviously if everyone wore condoms correctly every time they had sex we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 19, 2022, 08:26:11 PM
Condoms fail when people put then on wrong.  Or buy the wrong size.
They only go up to XXL, what am I supposed to do?

Also, is Tom an Incel? Would explain a lot.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on May 19, 2022, 09:30:16 PM
Condoms fail when people put then on wrong.  Or buy the wrong size.  Or wear two at once like an idiot.
Otherwise they work really well. I trust it over any medication.
Yes and my point is that women have birth control pills and they're more heavily relied upon than condoms so there's no reason men shouldn't also have birth control pills if the science allows it.

Obviously if everyone wore condoms correctly every time they had sex we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Oh I agree.
But if a guy says "It's ok, I'm on the pill" would you really wanna trust him?  I sure as hell wouldn't. 
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Iceman on May 19, 2022, 09:59:58 PM
Condoms fail when people put then on wrong.  Or buy the wrong size.
They only go up to XXL, what am I supposed to do?

Also, is Tom an Incel? Would explain a lot.

Not me, I wrap up with a small, then medium, L, then wrap two XL magnums around those, makes my dong a little lotta bit girthier ferda
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Clyde Frog on May 19, 2022, 11:31:55 PM
Oh I agree.
But if a guy says "It's ok, I'm on the pill" would you really wanna trust him?  I sure as hell wouldn't.
Society has to get better at teaching guys not to sexually assault people. If you lie about being on birth control and subsequently impregnate someone, I'm pretty sure that checks the sexual assault boxes.

It also doesn't have to be an exclusionary choice. Condoms AND a pill for men AND a pill for women is a great way for everyone to stay safe, have fun, avoid diseases, and not make surprise babies. "And" is ok, maybe even great. "Or" leaves a lot of room for human error, malice, and in-the-moment selfishness to cause long lasting life changes.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 20, 2022, 02:32:22 AM
Dude, A woman can tell me that she's on the pill, that she's a virgin, or whatever. I wear a condom.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 14, 2022, 10:12:05 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/theliamnissan/status/1536779021010276355

If this is true, I wonder if Lauren will be contrite or pivot to whinging about MSM? This is being released by the same PAC that released info on Madison Cawthorn so it’s not something I will dismiss out of hand but I’m not getting out my pitchfork.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on June 15, 2022, 04:32:26 AM
That seems a bit much.  If there were any truth to it then the MSM would be all over it.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 15, 2022, 09:41:45 AM
That seems a bit much.  If there were any truth to it then the MSM would be all over it.

Does it?  Any weirder than the events with Madison Cawthorn? Women doing sex work in hard times isn’t that weird, and becoming pregnant in sex work also isn’t that weird. You’re right that the MSM would be all over it if they can corroborate the story and maybe that process is in place.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on June 15, 2022, 11:02:43 AM
I know nothing about this woman but if she did this in the distant past (10 years+) and changed her stance, thats fine.  I don't agree but we shouldn't shame people for changing their minds.

The other stuff?  Yeah, totally a target for criticism.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 15, 2022, 11:14:05 AM
I know nothing about this woman but if she did this in the distant past (10 years+) and changed her stance, thats fine.  I don't agree but we shouldn't shame people for changing their minds.

The other stuff?  Yeah, totally a target for criticism.

I think you’re right.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: WTF_Seriously on June 15, 2022, 10:16:21 PM
I know nothing about this woman but if she did this in the distant past (10 years+) and changed her stance, thats fine.  I don't agree but we shouldn't shame people for changing their minds.

The other stuff?  Yeah, totally a target for criticism.

The issue isn't whether or not she changed her mind.  It's the typical, "I got mine. Fuck you!" conservative Republican hypocrisy that's the issue.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on June 15, 2022, 10:40:08 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/theliamnissan/status/1536779021010276355

If this is true, I wonder if Lauren will be contrite or pivot to whinging about MSM? This is being released by the same PAC that released info on Madison Cawthorn so it’s not something I will dismiss out of hand but I’m not getting out my pitchfork.

She murdered babies and should be in jail, not in Congress.

I know nothing about this woman but if she did this in the distant past (10 years+) and changed her stance, thats fine.  I don't agree but we shouldn't shame people for changing their minds.

The other stuff?  Yeah, totally a target for criticism.

Murdering people and then later deciding "actually murder is not so bad" should absolutely still be criticized. A reformed murderer is still a dangerous felon.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 16, 2022, 10:32:27 AM
https://mobile.twitter.com/theliamnissan/status/1536779021010276355

If this is true, I wonder if Lauren will be contrite or pivot to whinging about MSM? This is being released by the same PAC that released info on Madison Cawthorn so it’s not something I will dismiss out of hand but I’m not getting out my pitchfork.

She murdered babies and should be in jail, not in Congress.

There are no States where abortion is murder, so technically incorrect.

Quote
I know nothing about this woman but if she did this in the distant past (10 years+) and changed her stance, thats fine.  I don't agree but we shouldn't shame people for changing their minds.

The other stuff?  Yeah, totally a target for criticism.

Murdering people and then later deciding "actually murder is not so bad" should absolutely still be criticized. A reformed murderer is still a dangerous felon.

She later decided abortion is murder. Maybe you thought she was someone else? Or maybe you typed the wrong turn of phrase?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on June 16, 2022, 12:57:48 PM
There are no States where abortion is murder, so technically incorrect.

I don't see the relevance. Maybe you let States [sic] decide what and how to think for you, but I don't.

She later decided abortion is murder. Maybe you thought she was someone else? Or maybe you typed the wrong turn of phrase?

She is a murderer and belongs in prison with the rest of them. I don't care whether or not the woman acknowledges it was murder. Prison already has plenty of murderers who "dindu nuffin", adding one that knows what they did is no big deal to me (but is to you, apparently).
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 16, 2022, 01:05:44 PM
There are no States where abortion is murder, so technically incorrect.

I don't see the relevance. Maybe you let States [sic] decide what and how to think for you, but I don't.
This is not about what to think or a matter of opinion. The States define laws - including what is an isn't murder.
A rabid vegetarian saying "Meat is Murder" doesn't make them correct, as defined by law.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on June 16, 2022, 01:12:01 PM
This is not about what to think or a matter of opinion. The States define laws - including what is an isn't murder.

The idea that States [sic] define what murder is would be your opinion.

A rabid vegetarian saying "Meat is Murder" doesn't make them correct, as defined by law.

A vegetarian saying "Meat is Murder" is correct in the sense that what murder is/isn't is a matter of personal opinion. It has nothing to do with armed gangs running around violently enforcing their opinions on the local population. Telling me that there's a Big Bad out there whose opinion is more important than mine simply because they'll imprison me or kill me is irrelevant. My opinion supersedes theirs by matter of being my opinion.

That you so gladly let someone else dictate to you what is and isn't murder is your problem, not mine.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 16, 2022, 01:44:16 PM
That you so gladly let someone else dictate to you what is and isn't murder is your problem, not mine.
It's not a problem at all, it's just reality.
I'm talking about the legal definition of murder. You said that "she should be in jail", so you are too.
That's a definition, defined by the State. Because that's how society works.
You don't get to decide what is legal, you vote for people who do that and if they're not making laws you like you can vote for different people.
So you might think that abortion should be considered murder if you like, but saying it "is" is simply incorrect by the current definition.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on June 16, 2022, 03:08:34 PM
It's not a problem at all, it's just reality.
I'm talking about the legal definition of murder. You said that "she should be in jail", so you are too.
That's a definition, defined by the State. Because that's how society works.
You don't get to decide what is legal, you vote for people who do that and if they're not making laws you like you can vote for different people.
So you might think that abortion should be considered murder if you like, but saying it "is" is simply incorrect by the current definition.

Your idea of who gets to define murder is simply wrong.

Let's say, for example, that suddenly I am the most powerful person on the planet (woe to many, I know). In this magical universe where I am in charge, I am now effectively the government, able to impose my will on anyone anywhere at any time. Therefore, I define the legal system. In this universe, is my opinion of what constitutes murder now the "objectively correct" definition of murder to you? If the answer is yes, then why bother pretending to have any opinions at all? You don't happen to the universe, the universe happens to you. Your life and its opinions are based entirely of whatever the most powerful force in your vicinity happens to be. Your concept of what is and isn't murder entirely depends on mine in that universe.

Instead, if you answer "no", (which would be mine, should the positions reverse), then obviously the government's opinion of what is or isn't murder is irrelevant. I do not think just because some large group can inflict violence on me that suddenly their definition of murder outweighs my own.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: WTF_Seriously on June 16, 2022, 03:31:09 PM
It's not a problem at all, it's just reality.
I'm talking about the legal definition of murder. You said that "she should be in jail", so you are too.
That's a definition, defined by the State. Because that's how society works.
You don't get to decide what is legal, you vote for people who do that and if they're not making laws you like you can vote for different people.
So you might think that abortion should be considered murder if you like, but saying it "is" is simply incorrect by the current definition.

Your idea of who gets to define murder is simply wrong.

Let's say, for example, that suddenly I am the most powerful person on the planet (woe to many, I know). In this magical universe where I am in charge, I am now effectively the government, able to impose my will on anyone anywhere at any time. Therefore, I define the legal system. In this universe, is my opinion of what constitutes murder now the "objectively correct" definition of murder to you? If the answer is yes, then why bother pretending to have any opinions at all? You don't happen to the universe, the universe happens to you. Your life and its opinions are based entirely of whatever the most powerful force in your vicinity happens to be. Your concept of what is and isn't murder entirely depends on mine in that universe.

Instead, if you answer "no", (which would be mine, should the positions reverse), then obviously the government's opinion of what is or isn't murder is irrelevant. I do not think just because some large group can inflict violence on me that suddenly their definition of murder outweighs my own.

Perhaps this has been stated or addressed.  Not going to read 14 pages of dialogue to catch up.

This issue with your assertion is that, in the US, a majority of the population feels abortion should be legal.  Hence, a majority feel it is not murder.  That is not an overwhelming majority, but significantly more than 51/49.  So, is it murder or isn't it?  Just because Rushy thinks so doesn't make it so.  It's a subjective opinion.  This leads to the fact that it will be the government that ultimately decides whether it is or not.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on June 16, 2022, 03:34:28 PM
Perhaps this has been stated or addressed.  Not going to read 14 pages of dialogue to catch up.

This issue with your assertion is that, in the US, a majority of the population feels abortion should be legal.  Hence, a majority feel it is not murder.  That is not an overwhelming majority, but significantly more than 51/49.  So, is it murder or isn't it?  Just because Rushy thinks so doesn't make it so.  It's a subjective opinion.  This leads to the fact that it will be the government that ultimately decides whether it is or not.

The point is that you can't say objectively that abortion is or isn't murder merely because the government may or may not say it is. It's like saying pushing a gay man off a roof in Afghanistan isn't murder because the government in that location happens to think that is the case.

When I say "abortion is murder" bringing up "the government doesn't think it is" isn't relevant when the basis for the discourse is morality and not the legal system's opinion on the matter at hand.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 16, 2022, 03:44:33 PM
Let's say, for example, that suddenly I am the most powerful person on the planet (woe to many, I know). In this magical universe where I am in charge, I am now effectively the government, able to impose my will on anyone anywhere at any time. Therefore, I define the legal system. In this universe, is my opinion of what constitutes murder now the "objectively correct" definition of murder to you?
In the legal sense, yes.

Quote
If the answer is yes, then why bother pretending to have any opinions at all?
You can have an opinion about what the laws should be, sure. But what the laws are is not a matter of opinion.

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on June 16, 2022, 06:29:27 PM
*wonders when they'll realize Rushy is using the factual definition, not legal*
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 16, 2022, 06:38:10 PM
*wonders when they'll realize Rushy is using the factual definition, not legal*

The dictionary definition is:

Quote from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on June 16, 2022, 08:44:24 PM
There are no States where abortion is murder, so technically incorrect.
Tell that to Texas.
Quote from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/09/abortion-texas-murder-charge/
A 26-year-old woman in Texas was arrested and charged with murder after what authorities claimed was a “self-induced abortion,” the Associated Press reported Saturday.

It seems that you can even be charged for having a miscarriage.
Quote from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/03/california-stillborn-prosecution-roe-v-wade
On 4 November 2019, TV stations across California blasted Chelsea Becker’s photo on their news editions. The “search was on” for a “troubled” 25-year-old woman wanted for the “murder of her unborn baby”, news anchors said, warning viewers not to approach if they spotted her but to call the authorities.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 16, 2022, 10:20:04 PM
A message for abortionists:


https://files.catbox.moe/x7cpsf.MP4
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on June 16, 2022, 11:36:08 PM
In the legal sense, yes.

Fortunately my morality is not so dependent on the local legal system as yours.

You can have an opinion about what the laws should be, sure. But what the laws are is not a matter of opinion.

That's simply incorrect. The act of abiding by a legal system itself is a matter of opinion. A legal system is only powerful in a situation in which the populace's personal opinion of morality closely matches that of the legal system. An additional factor is how the people themselves react to the legal system's presence. A tyranny prefers individuals who defer their opinion to the system itself (and now refer to that system as 'fact') while a more free system does not necessitate such a harsher philosophy.


*wonders when they'll realize Rushy is using the factual definition, not legal*

The dictionary definition is:

Quote from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

As I've attempted to explain, what one does and doesn't consider 'lawful' is simply a personal opinion.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 17, 2022, 01:06:50 AM
As I've attempted to explain, what one does and doesn't consider 'lawful' is simply a personal opinion.

I agree. My "opinion" on an act may be informed or not by governing laws. I think your point about the taliban throwing gays off cliffs or burning journalists alive in cages (murder in my eyes) is a solid one. The governing body, their laws, condoned such activity - In other words, it was "lawful" to the governance of the region. Yet my opinion/morality says it's murder.

The issue at hand is whether RvW is protected by I think it's the 4th amendment or not. Regardless of our opinions. Seems like the SCOTUS is going to come out and say it's not.

The rub in all this, the latest data which is from 2019, is that there were 690k-ish abortions in the US. Assuming 1 per woman, if your opinion were to be retroactively applied, almost 3/4 of a million women would be incarcerated, in just that year alone. And going forward, no matter the level of ban, more so than ever, abortions will still exist in the 100's of thousands due to the ubiquity and ease of getting pills and such. I'm not sure how we would ever manifest that level of incarceration with our system. And shipping masses of women, young and old, off to penitentiaries won't play well in public opinion when 61% of Americans are pro-choice.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 17, 2022, 05:55:04 AM
A message for abortionists:
I also like false equivalency logical fallacies
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 17, 2022, 09:54:09 AM
In the legal sense, yes.
Fortunately my morality is not so dependent on the local legal system as yours.
Well sure, your moral opinion of what constitutes murder may be different from the legal definition. But the latter is a definition.

You can have an opinion about what the laws should be, sure. But what the laws are is not a matter of opinion.
That's simply incorrect.

Cool. Well good luck with that next time you're in court.
I'm sure your opinion about what the laws should be will carry a lot of weight with the judge.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on June 17, 2022, 01:21:28 PM
Well sure, your moral opinion of what constitutes murder may be different from the legal definition. But the latter is a definition.

An opinion that, in my opinion, isn't relevant to my original post.

Cool. Well good luck with that next time you're in court.
I'm sure your opinion about what the laws should be will carry a lot of weight with the judge.

And that's not really relevant either. I'm not sure why everyone immediately brought this up. When I say "she belongs in jail", it's not very interesting to say "yes but the currently corrupt legal system says she'll never be in jail so you're wrong haha!"

Imagine, again, if I were in a Middle Eastern nation saying "this person shouldn't be stoned" and someone like you says "whatever, the current legal system says they should be so you're wrong!" Very salient point. Bravo.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 17, 2022, 01:31:23 PM
The legal system isn’t corrupt because it disagrees with you. There are plenty of good arguements for the legality of abortion and simply ascribing to those views doesn’t make them morally bankrupt. We allow humans to shoot other humans legally in certain cases, but all abortions are murder? It’s a shallow analysis that ignores the multitude of circumstances under which an abortion may be sought out. The question is complicated and unfortunately is being decided by people whose stock in trade is creating polarizing viewpoints for people to ascribe to.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on June 17, 2022, 02:09:31 PM
The legal system isn’t corrupt because it disagrees with you.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

There are plenty of good arguements for the legality of abortion and simply ascribing to those views doesn’t make them morally bankrupt.

What is and isn't "morally bankrupt" is very much up to debate. I'm sure there's more than one thing you think is morally bankrupt in your government and mine. I don't think the argument "they don't think it be like it is, but it do" would sway you. Why expect it to sway me?

We allow humans to shoot other humans legally in certain cases, but all abortions are murder? It’s a shallow analysis that ignores the multitude of circumstances under which an abortion may be sought out. The question is complicated and unfortunately is being decided by people whose stock in trade is creating polarizing viewpoints for people to ascribe to.

I don't think it's shallow at all. It's a completely valid moral stance (just the same as the one where someone might think abortion is allowable in all cases). What intrigues me the most is when people start making these odd exceptions or reduction attempts for abortion. For example, people who think abortion is bad unless it was rape or incest. It's as if they've accepted abortion as wrong and/or evil, but a 'necessary' evil.

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 17, 2022, 02:15:52 PM
So why do you come out of the gates with polarizing statements if you agree there is nuance?  I can agree that people who want to make an exception for rape and incest are barking up the wrong tree because it concedes the notion that abortion is always killing but with legal loopholes. By the same token, I think the camp that wants to criminalize abortions in cases of life threatening pregnancies are similarly fucked in the head. The answer to this conundrum is neither “always my choice because my body” and “all abortion is murder”. I think the sooner everyone can concede that, the sooner a productive, ethical and moral compromise can be reached. Also, people need to understand that this will be a compromise because society.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: WTF_Seriously on June 17, 2022, 02:54:08 PM
Also, people need to understand that this will be a compromise because society.

You think folks like Rushy care about society?  Their morality is right.  If they say it's murder, it's murder.  No further discussion is needed and the laws of this country should be made to match it.

What they fail to grasp is that his morality is also simply opinion.  All morality is.  Sometimes it's an overwhelmingly agreed upon opinion, sometimes it isn't.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 17, 2022, 02:54:58 PM
 :-\
Also, people need to understand that this will be a compromise because society.

You think folks like Rushy care about society?  Their morality is right.  If they say it's murder, it's murder.  No further discussion is needed and the laws of this country should be made to match it.

What they fail to grasp is that his morality is also simply opinion.  All morality is.  Sometimes it's an overwhelmingly agreed upon opinion, sometimes it isn't.

I’m not the biggest Rushy fan, but I don’t doubt he cares about society. That’s a silly thing to say.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: WTF_Seriously on June 17, 2022, 03:48:17 PM
:-\
Also, people need to understand that this will be a compromise because society.

You think folks like Rushy care about society?  Their morality is right.  If they say it's murder, it's murder.  No further discussion is needed and the laws of this country should be made to match it.

What they fail to grasp is that his morality is also simply opinion.  All morality is.  Sometimes it's an overwhelmingly agreed upon opinion, sometimes it isn't.

I’m not the biggest Rushy fan, but I don’t doubt he cares about society. That’s a silly thing to say.

I'd agree.  Perhaps I should have said the opinion of society.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 17, 2022, 04:19:26 PM
What they fail to grasp is that his morality is also simply opinion.  All morality is.
If Rushy is coming at it from the Christian angle, which I suspect he is, then I think he would argue (as would I) that the morality which comes from "muh holy book" is absolute.
Because if you believe it is a Holy Book inspired by 'im upstairs then that has an authority to it.
BUT, as you say we live in a society and an increasing number of people don't believe it is an authority, so that must be taken into account by any government claiming to represent the people they govern.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: WTF_Seriously on June 17, 2022, 04:20:37 PM
If Rushy is coming at it from the Christian angle, which I suspect he is, then I think he would argue (as would I) that the morality which comes from "muh holy book" is absolute.

That's still just an opinion.  In that case, it's an opinion that's indoctrinated into all Christians.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 20, 2022, 05:03:57 AM
What they fail to grasp is that his morality is also simply opinion.  All morality is.  Sometimes it's an overwhelmingly agreed upon opinion, sometimes it isn't.
Uh huh. And you got the idea that Rushy doesn't think morality is subjective from *checks notes* this post:

What is and isn't "morally bankrupt" is very much up to debate.

[...]

I don't think it's shallow at all. It's a completely valid moral stance (just the same as the one where someone might think abortion is allowable in all cases).

I know you said you didn't bother reading the thread before jumping in (sigh), but at least do us the courtesy of reading the posts made after you've joined.

BUT, as you say we live in a society and an increasing number of people don't believe it is an authority, so that must be taken into account by any government claiming to represent the people they govern.
Must it, really? The government is elected - that's where they get their mandate, and not from vague and largely impossible arguments about representing everyone.

Meanwhile, SC justices are not elected, because they're supposed to be above the electorate's random whims.

So, if SC decides that stopping states from banning abortion is unconstitutional, it will be down to individual states to decide what actually happens (or Congress could propose an amendment, but let's be serious now). The only thing they "must" do is not get voted out and have the opposite party reverse their decisions in their state.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 20, 2022, 08:29:42 AM
BUT, as you say we live in a society and an increasing number of people don't believe it is an authority, so that must be taken into account by any government claiming to represent the people they govern.
Must it, really? The government is elected - that's where they get their mandate, and not from vague and largely impossible arguments about representing everyone.
I certainly think they should. They are elected by "the people". What's the point in having a representative democracy if the government doesn't make laws which represent what "the people" want.
Now, of course in real life they can't keep everyone happy - you no doubt know that from your modding here. Whatever you do some people are going to moan. Usually me. But I'd suggest a government should try and represent and make laws which reflect the majority viewpoint. That viewpoint may change over time which is why we have regular elections, if the government aren't doing things the majority like then next time out they'll get voted out and a different lot can have a go.
(This is where the UK FPTP system is particularly poor, we always end up with a government which only a minority voted for. Last time out the Tories got 43.6% of the vote and ended up with a huge majority)

Quote
Meanwhile, SC justices are not elected, because they're supposed to be above the electorate's random whims.
This seems like a particularly poor system, they're placed by the incumbent president and are there till they die, right? So a president who happens to be in when a certain number of them die can back the SCOTUS with people who reflect his (or her!) own views and they're there till they die, or become incapacitated, no matter how public opinion shifts in the meantime.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 20, 2022, 09:00:24 AM
I certainly think they should.
I'll leave the "but that's just your opinion tho" quip open for our resident opinion-haver. ;)

They are elected by "the people". What's the point in having a representative democracy if the government doesn't make laws which represent what "the people" want.
Right. But we have the mechanism for this. It's voting. If the elected state governments do not represent what the people in these states want, they should get booted. I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to expect elected officials to create policy against their conscience - if they are as massively at odds with the electorate as you claim, they shouldn't be elected in the first place.

So, by my intuition, something in the picture you drew makes it fall apart. My guess would be that most state legislators don't actually thump Bibles on the table while incoherently babbling about Baby Jesus (I'm sure some do). It's probably more nuanced than that.

This seems like a particularly poor system, they're placed by the incumbent president and are there till they die, right? So a president who happens to be in when a certain number of them die can back the SCOTUS with people who reflect his (or her!) own views and they're there till they die, or become incapacitated, no matter how public opinion shifts in the meantime.
Not as bad as hereditary Lords, but yes. That said, in this case the decision is whether or not states should be prohibited from passing certain laws. Revoking this prohibition doesn't, by itself, impose anything on anyone. The reason people are twitchy about it is that they want to impose their own views onto everyone for much longer than anyone's lifetime.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 21, 2022, 11:42:47 AM
I certainly think they should. They are elected by "the people". What's the point in having a representative democracy if the government doesn't make laws which represent what "the people" want.
The United States is not a "representative democracy."
But I'd suggest a government should try and represent and make laws which reflect the majority viewpoint.
Do you really believe that? Or are you just stating that because it is your opinion that a majority of people worship Molech?
That viewpoint may change over time which is why we have regular elections, if the government aren't doing things the majority like then next time out they'll get voted out and a different lot can have a go.
Chuckle.
(This is where the UK FPTP system is particularly poor, we always end up with a government which only a minority voted for. Last time out the Tories got 43.6% of the vote and ended up with a huge majority) I didn't get my way, no one gave me a fair shake.
FTFY.
Quote
Meanwhile, SC justices are not elected, because they're supposed to be above the electorate's random whims.
This seems like a particularly poor system, they're placed by the incumbent president and are there till they die, right? So a president who happens to be in when a certain number of them die can back the SCOTUS with people who reflect his (or her!) own views and they're there till they die, or become incapacitated, no matter how public opinion shifts in the meantime.
Chuckle.

The SCOTUS does not write laws, they determine the constitutionality of written law and the acts of governmental agencies/institutions. The decision of Roe v Wade was not law.

If the US Congress attempted to pass a bill legalizing abortion, everyone would see precisely how the people of the US felt about abortion. It wouldn't survive any initial discussion, let alone committee.

Imagine the people coming to live in a neighborhood (let alone country) of your making...they'd all be dead in a week.

But, that is the goal of run o' the mill Malthusians such as you and others here.

You worship Margaret Sanger and cheer for eugenics and ethnocide, just as she did.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2022, 01:49:58 PM
The United States is not a "representative democracy."

Source?  The US Government disagrees with you (https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf).

Quote
The SCOTUS does not write laws, they determine the constitutionality of written law and the acts of governmental agencies/institutions. The decision of Roe v Wade was not law.

He never said they did.

Quote
If the US Congress attempted to pass a bill legalizing abortion, everyone would see precisely how the people of the US felt about abortion. It wouldn't survive any initial discussion, let alone committee.

Imagine the people coming to live in a neighborhood (let alone country) of your making...they'd all be dead in a week.

But, that is the goal of run o' the mill Malthusians such as you and others here.

You worship Margaret Sanger and cheer for eugenics and ethnocide, just as she did.

Never change, Lackey.  Welcome back.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 21, 2022, 02:14:03 PM
The United States is not a "representative democracy."

Source?  The US Government disagrees with you (https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf).
I do not care what the piece of toilet paper website crap you presented has written on it.

The United States is a constitutional republic.

That is the official form of government within the United States.

I know you and the other revolutionary Marxists are pushing very hard, with your gaslighting, and even to the point of unleashing biological weapons on the populace, killing some of your own, to get your way (and you will) but not yet and not without an even more heavy cost.
Quote
The SCOTUS does not write laws, they determine the constitutionality of written law and the acts of governmental agencies/institutions. The decision of Roe v Wade was not law.

He never said they did.
No, he wrote they did.

Again, your selective use and neglect of inference is apparent for all to see.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2022, 04:55:02 PM
The United States is not a "representative democracy."

Source?  The US Government disagrees with you (https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf).
I do not care what the piece of toilet paper website crap you presented has written on it.

The United States is a constitutional republic.

That is the official form of government within the United States.

That doesn’t conflict with it being a representative democracy.

Quote
I know you and the other revolutionary Marxists are pushing very hard, with your gaslighting, and even to the point of unleashing biological weapons on the populace, killing some of your own, to get your way (and you will) but not yet and not without an even more heavy cost.

Does anyone have any idea what he is talking about?


Quote
No, he wrote they did.

Again, your selective use and neglect of inference is apparent for all to see.

He didn’t write that either but please feel free to quote where he did and I will happily admit I am wrong.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on June 21, 2022, 05:28:39 PM
Quote
I know you and the other revolutionary Marxists are pushing very hard, with your gaslighting, and even to the point of unleashing biological weapons on the populace, killing some of your own, to get your way (and you will) but not yet and not without an even more heavy cost.

Does anyone have any idea what he is talking about?
He's saying that the ard working people want to overthrow the rich, fatcat politicians so the things the government owns is owned BY THE PEOPLE and not by the government and we are willing to use gaslighting and unleashing Covid 19 to kill as many as we need to to succeed, but we will not, not without open warfare.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2022, 06:24:27 PM
Quote
I know you and the other revolutionary Marxists are pushing very hard, with your gaslighting, and even to the point of unleashing biological weapons on the populace, killing some of your own, to get your way (and you will) but not yet and not without an even more heavy cost.

Does anyone have any idea what he is talking about?
He's saying that the ard working people want to overthrow the rich, fatcat politicians so the things the government owns is owned BY THE PEOPLE and not by the government and we are willing to use gaslighting and unleashing Covid 19 to kill as many as we need to to succeed, but we will not, not without open warfare.

Thanks, I don't speak disenfranchised right-wing American.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on June 21, 2022, 09:01:35 PM
If the US Congress attempted to pass a bill legalizing abortion, everyone would see precisely how the people of the US felt about abortion. It wouldn't survive any initial discussion, let alone committee.

What makes you think that the US Congress cares how the people of the US feel about much of anything, let alone abortion? ???
Quote from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/
Today, a 61% majority of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. These views are relatively unchanged in the past few years.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 24, 2022, 02:30:16 PM
Welp

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61928898
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2022, 02:45:25 PM
Yep.
A bunch of women just became murderers.  And god help any who have miscarriages.  Thats a prison sentence.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 24, 2022, 02:46:19 PM
Yep.
A bunch of women just became murderers.
They already were #Rushy
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on June 24, 2022, 02:48:38 PM
No more baby murder for you!

Regardless of what you think of the decision to reverse Roe v. Wade, legislatures saw this coming from miles away. If you want abortion to be a properly protected act, then you need to pass a law (state or federal) that treats it as such. Relying on a historically flimsy and controversial court case to legislate from the bench is a mistake.

If you don't like what's going on, then you should of course blame your local government and federal representatives for allowing it to happen.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2022, 02:49:51 PM
Yep.
A bunch of women just became murderers.
They already were #Rushy

Ok, let me rephrase:
They are murderers in the eye of the law.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on June 24, 2022, 04:16:25 PM
Regardless of what you think of the decision to reverse Roe v. Wade, legislatures saw this coming from miles away. If you want abortion to be a properly protected act, then you need to pass a law (state or federal) that treats it as such. Relying on a historically flimsy and controversial court case to legislate from the bench is a mistake.
100%
No one bothering to make it law has been a huge issue in this. We've known this was coming for quite some time and birth control is on shaky ground.

If you don't like what's going on, then you should of course blame your local government and federal representatives for allowing it to happen.
Yes. Unfortunately, politicians are mostly trash.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on June 24, 2022, 04:28:05 PM
Yep here we go -
https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 24, 2022, 04:37:01 PM
It is about damn time.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: honk on June 24, 2022, 05:30:39 PM
Yep here we go -
https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112

Gosh, it sounds a lot like that conservative bugbear, judicial activism! Just wait until all these cases just happen to fall before the court and just happen to end up on their docket, all so the GOP can ram their warped agenda through the system as quickly as possible. I hope everyone here is ready for the miserable new world on the horizon. You're not going to like it. Very, very few people outside of the Mike Pences of the world will like it.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 24, 2022, 05:46:23 PM
It’s good to see how much Americans care about their children.

Well…until they are born, go to school and get mown down in a mass shooting, or grow up and turn out gay or trans.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2022, 05:49:02 PM
It’s good to see how much Americans care about their children.

Well…until they are born, go to school and get mown down in a mass shooting, or grow up and turn out gay or trans.
Or get pregnant early, assuming they survive school.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on June 24, 2022, 06:07:07 PM
Practically speaking this doesn't do as much as it seems.  About 60% of abortions are done by a pill they can send in the mail.

The next struggle I'm sure will be to monitor people's mail and break into their medicine cabinets.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2022, 06:14:50 PM
Practically speaking this doesn't do as much as it seems.  About 60% of abortions are done by a pill they can send in the mail.

The next struggle I'm sure will be to monitor people's mail and break into their medicine cabinets.

Except that there are cases where women who had miscarriages come under criminal investigation, so that’s not great, as rare as those cases are. Also, Thomas literally saying that this opens the door for striking down rights connected to other groups the GOP hates is ominous.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on June 24, 2022, 06:17:59 PM
Practically speaking this doesn't do as much as it seems.  About 60% of abortions are done by a pill they can send in the mail.

The next struggle I'm sure will be to monitor people's mail and break into their medicine cabinets.

Except that there are cases where women who had miscarriages come under criminal investigation, so that’s not great, as rare as those cases are. Also, Thomas literally saying that this opens the door for striking down rights connected to other groups the GOP hates is ominous.

Yeah that is ominous.  I guess I shouldn't have expected them to just declare it "Mission Accomplished" and calm down.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2022, 06:19:14 PM
Practically speaking this doesn't do as much as it seems.  About 60% of abortions are done by a pill they can send in the mail.

The next struggle I'm sure will be to monitor people's mail and break into their medicine cabinets.
Which is great but thats illegal and any company sending such pills in those states will be held liable.  And any post office that delivers it could be held accountable as well for aiding an abortion.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 24, 2022, 06:21:34 PM
Practically speaking this doesn't do as much as it seems.  About 60% of abortions are done by a pill they can send in the mail.

The next struggle I'm sure will be to monitor people's mail and break into their medicine cabinets.

Except that there are cases where women who had miscarriages come under criminal investigation, so that’s not great, as rare as those cases are. Also, Thomas literally saying that this opens the door for striking down rights connected to other groups the GOP hates is ominous.

Yeah, it doesn't get more chilling than this:

"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote, referring to decisions on contraception, sodomy and same-sex marriage.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2022, 08:39:52 PM
Mission: Success

(https://i.imgur.com/APBqLhC.png)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2022, 09:19:25 PM
Mission: Success

(https://i.imgur.com/APBqLhC.png)

Sexual repression always works out in the end.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on June 24, 2022, 09:45:42 PM
Yep.
A bunch of women just became murderers.
They already were #Rushy
Not until they're convicted.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 25, 2022, 06:32:09 AM
Mission: Success

(https://i.imgur.com/APBqLhC.png)

How is never getting casually fucked again a successful mission? Have you gone full Gilead; that fucking is solely the realm of procreation?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on June 25, 2022, 02:35:27 PM
Mission: Success

(https://i.imgur.com/APBqLhC.png)

How is never getting casually fucked again a successful mission? Have you gone full Gilead; that fucking is solely the realm of procreation?

I doubt Tom had much prospects for that sort of activity regardless of the status of RwV.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Roundy on June 25, 2022, 03:13:15 PM
I feel like the timing of this might have been a  gift to the Democrats for the mid-term elections? I mean, it's true, the only way to fight this is by legislating; and the Democrats have five months to get that message across. This was a MASSIVELY unpopular decision; 70% of the country feels a woman has the right to choose what they do with their own bodies. The Supreme Court has given the Democrats just enough time to get the message out that only by maintaining (and building?) on their lead in Congress can voters have a hope of protecting that right, while ensuring that the decision will still be very fresh in voters' minds.

Between licking the leader of an insurrection's boots and allowing him to control their party and just continuing to make unpopular, backwards decisions, the Republicans almost seem like they're trying to sabotage themselves going forward.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 25, 2022, 03:38:25 PM
I feel like the timing of this might have been a  gift to the Democrats for the mid-term elections? I mean, it's true, the only way to fight this is by legislating; and the Democrats have five months to get that message across. This was a MASSIVELY unpopular decision; 70% of the country feels a woman has the right to choose what they do with their own bodies. The Supreme Court has given the Democrats just enough time to get the message out that only by maintaining (and building?) on their lead in Congress can voters have a hope of protecting that right, while ensuring that the decision will still be very fresh in voters' minds.

Between licking the leader of an insurrection's boots and allowing him to control their party and just continuing to make unpopular, backwards decisions, the Republicans almost seem like they're trying to sabotage themselves going forward.
70 percent, uh?

I am sure the polls you refer to are totally legitmate. ::)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Roundy on June 25, 2022, 03:43:42 PM
I feel like the timing of this might have been a  gift to the Democrats for the mid-term elections? I mean, it's true, the only way to fight this is by legislating; and the Democrats have five months to get that message across. This was a MASSIVELY unpopular decision; 70% of the country feels a woman has the right to choose what they do with their own bodies. The Supreme Court has given the Democrats just enough time to get the message out that only by maintaining (and building?) on their lead in Congress can voters have a hope of protecting that right, while ensuring that the decision will still be very fresh in voters' minds.

Between licking the leader of an insurrection's boots and allowing him to control their party and just continuing to make unpopular, backwards decisions, the Republicans almost seem like they're trying to sabotage themselves going forward.
70 percent, uh?

I am sure the polls you refer to are totally legitmate. ::)

It may be closer to 60%. It's a strong majority anyway.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Roundy on June 25, 2022, 03:50:58 PM
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/24/how-americans-really-feel-about-abortion-the-sometimes-surprising-poll-results-as-supreme-court-reportedly-set-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/amp/

This article gives a good overview of where people's opinions stand on abortion. Broadly speaking the number is around 60% favoring the legality of first-trimester abortion, but there's a lot of nuance. Close to 90% believe abortion should be legal if the woman's life is in danger, or the child is the product of incest, or if the child would be born malformed. And support drops sharply with age; old fogies like Action80 pretends to be are a lot more likely to be against it.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on June 25, 2022, 04:38:26 PM
I feel like the timing of this might have been a  gift to the Democrats for the mid-term elections? I mean, it's true, the only way to fight this is by legislating; and the Democrats have five months to get that message across. This was a MASSIVELY unpopular decision; 70% of the country feels a woman has the right to choose what they do with their own bodies. The Supreme Court has given the Democrats just enough time to get the message out that only by maintaining (and building?) on their lead in Congress can voters have a hope of protecting that right, while ensuring that the decision will still be very fresh in voters' minds.

Between licking the leader of an insurrection's boots and allowing him to control their party and just continuing to make unpopular, backwards decisions, the Republicans almost seem like they're trying to sabotage themselves going forward.
70 percent, uh?

I am sure the polls you refer to are totally legitmate. ::)

I think you're conflating supporting any right to abortion with an unlimited right to abortion.  Any poll I see shows the people opposing abortion for any reason are strongly in the minority.  Feel free to post your own though.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 25, 2022, 05:45:29 PM
70 percent, uh?

I am sure the polls you refer to are totally legitmate. ::)

Yeah, they are:

(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ft_2022.06.13_abortion_01.png?w=620)

(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ft_2022.06.13_abortion_02.png?w=620)

(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ft_2022.06.13_abortion_03.png?w=620)

(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ft_2022.06.13_abortion_04.png?w=400)

What do your "legitimate" polls have to say?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 25, 2022, 09:21:05 PM
My legitimate polls state that people who are against it will be living in places where it will not be legal.

People who are strongly for it will be living in places where it will be legal.

Thanks to the Supreme Court.

Your polls are invalid for they are limited to areas of the country where people tend to love to kill the unborn.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 25, 2022, 09:30:07 PM
My legitimate polls state that people who are against it will be living in places where it will not be legal.

What polls are those? Let's see them.

People who are strongly for it will be living in places where it will be legal.

So all people make their residence location decisions solely based upon whether abortion is legal or not in their area?

Your polls are invalid for they are limited to areas of the country where people tend to love to kill the unborn.

What's your basis for this? Source?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 25, 2022, 09:34:16 PM
People who are strongly for it will be living in places where it will be legal.
So all people make their residence location decisions solely based upon whether abortion is legal or not in their area?
Like-minded individuals congregate together.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 25, 2022, 09:54:10 PM
People who are strongly for it will be living in places where it will be legal.
So all people make their residence location decisions solely based upon whether abortion is legal or not in their area?
Like-minded individuals congregate together.

So only pro-choice folks live in, say, New York City? And everyone who lives there does so for the express reason that it's all pro-choice people?

My legitimate polls state that people who are against it will be living in places where it will not be legal.

What legitimate polls are those? Let's see them. A link(s) will do.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on June 25, 2022, 10:00:33 PM
People who are strongly for it will be living in places where it will be legal.
Except for the people who don't. of course.

I find it quite amusing that people who are strongly anti-abortion tend to be strongly anti-gun control.  Let's protect the fetus, but once born, they're on their own trying to avoid being killed in a mass shooting.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on June 25, 2022, 11:21:01 PM
People who are strongly for it will be living in places where it will be legal.
So all people make their residence location decisions solely based upon whether abortion is legal or not in their area?
Like-minded individuals congregate together.

So basically your feelings are your source on this.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2022, 01:16:38 AM
There is a reason the pendulum is swinging back to the right. Current abortion laws in several US States are barbaric compared to a number of European countries. Leftists keep pushing the envelope and have managed to enact laws for the right to saw up a baby at 40 weeks.

(https://i.imgur.com/uGa3B1k.jpg)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 26, 2022, 02:51:47 AM
Vermont, for example, hasn’t enacted any laws on abortion, they just affirm a woman’s right to choose. There are no elective third trimester abortions though as they contravene standard medical ethics. I do think it’s important not to permit elective abortions of viable fetuses (meaning they are capable of surviving outside the mother’s womb), the elective third trimester abortion is a right wing boogey man as far as I have read.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2022, 06:09:56 AM
That just means that a woman has to find a doctor who would be willing to perform it. There is no law forbidding abortions at 40 weeks or in the third trimester. Vermont does not impose legal restrictions on abortions.

The 2019 Vermont bill allows late term abortions for any reasons - https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/vermont-house-passes-bill-legalizing-all-abortion/


It is not a coincidence that Democrats were pushing a late term abortion bill. They were pushing late term abortion bills in many states. In 2019 Democrats were unsuccessful in pushing a similar bill in Virginia - https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/virginia-bill-would-legalize-abortion-up-to-birth/


According to the legislator under this bill a doctor in Virginia could decide to terminate the pregnancy in the third trimester if the doctor thinks it would "impair the mental health" of the woman. There is a video with a longer exchange:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMFzZ5I30dg&ab_channel=TheRepublicanStandard

@ 3.37-

"Q: The doctor wouldn't have to have any specialized training in mental health to make that decision?

A: Under this bill, no"

From the video description:

"Virginia could soon be joining New York in repealing restrictions on abortion, including terminations up until the moment of birth, under the provisions of a bill backed by Governor Ralph Northam and a substantial number of Democratic lawmakers.

The Repeal Act, introduced as HB2491 by Delegate Kathy Tran (D-Springfield), would repeal restrictions on third trimester abortions, allow abortion doctors to self-certify the necessity of late term procedures, eliminate informed consent requirements, repeal abortion clinic health and safety standards, permit late term abortions to be performed in outpatient clinics, remove ultrasound requirements, and eliminate Virginia's 24 hour waiting period."

Yeah, Democrats were pushing late term abortions and elimination of abortion restrictions in Virginia. They were doing this in other states as as well, hence the swing of the pendulum to the right on this issue.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2022, 05:38:31 PM
Yeah, they are:

(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ft_2022.06.13_abortion_01.png?w=620)

The general population of the country doesn't control the health laws in each state. The country was not set up that way. Even if it was, the majority of Americans generally only support early stage abortions.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-06-25/ap-norc-poll-most-say-restrict-abortion-after-1st-trimester


Many Democrat legislators are pushing for late term abortions, which places them on the wrong side of popular opinion.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on June 26, 2022, 06:24:24 PM

Many Democrat legislators are pushing for late term abortions, which places them on the wrong side of popular opinion.

Who?  How many?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2022, 06:56:42 PM

Many Democrat legislators are pushing for late term abortions, which places them on the wrong side of popular opinion.

Who?  How many?

It has been that way for a while. Democrats favor late term abortions.

On a national level in 1998 there was the HR 1122 - Partial-Birth/Late-Term Abortion bill which seeked to ban the practice of partial abortions where the fetus is partially delivered and aborted.

https://justfacts.votesmart.org/bill/2858/8202/156/partial-birthlate-term-abortion-bill

Vote Smart's Synopsis:
"Vote to pass a bill that prohibits any individual from knowingly performing a procedure, in which a fetus is partially delivered before it is aborted, unless the life of the woman is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury."

(https://i.imgur.com/aihfYhQ.png)

In 2015 Democrats again also voted against a bill to ban late term abortions:

https://twitter.com/AP/status/646345572962713600

Earlier this year in February 2022, Senate Majorty Leader Chuch Schumer introduced a bill into the Senate, that was passed by the House in Sept 2021, to codify abortion at all stages.

https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20220225/dems-abortion


Surprise, surprise, at the end of the previous year in September of 2021 House Democrats had voted in favor of it on a nearly party line vote.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/24/politics/house-vote-women-health-protection-act/index.html


Democrats love late term abortion. You can find a similar Democrat voting record on a state level by looking for late term abortion bills by state.

Democrats are always the ones who vote in favor of late term abortions.

Democrats are always the ones who introduce bills for late term abortions.

Democrats are always the ones who vote against bills banning late terms abortions.

That is just the way it is. Late term abortions are a Democrat staple item.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on June 26, 2022, 07:42:16 PM

Many Democrat legislators are pushing for late term abortions, which places them on the wrong side of popular opinion.

Who?  How many?

It has been that way for a while. Democrats favor late term abortions.

On a national level in 1998 there was the HR 1122 - Partial-Birth/Late-Term Abortion bill which seeked to ban the practice of partial abortions where the fetus is partially delivered and aborted.

https://justfacts.votesmart.org/bill/2858/8202/156/partial-birthlate-term-abortion-bill

Vote Smart's Synopsis:
"Vote to pass a bill that prohibits any individual from knowingly performing a procedure, in which a fetus is partially delivered before it is aborted, unless the life of the woman is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury."

(https://i.imgur.com/aihfYhQ.png)

In 2015 Democrats again also voted against a bill to ban late term abortions:

https://twitter.com/AP/status/646345572962713600

Earlier this year in February 2022, Senate Majorty Leader Chuch Schumer introduced a bill into the Senate, that was passed by the House in Sept 2021, to codify abortion at all stages.

https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20220225/dems-abortion

    "On February 28, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will bring the Abortion on Demand Until Birth Act, otherwise known as the Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA, S. 1975), to a vote. This legislation codifies Roe v. Wade's precedent of legal abortion through the entirety of pregnancy. The bill passed the House in September and needs 60 votes in order to pass the Senate. If the bill does pass and is signed into law, it will become the first-ever piece of federal legislation legalizing the killing of an unborn child."

Surprise, surprise, at the end of the previous year in September of 2021 House Democrats had voted in favor of it on a nearly party line vote.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/24/politics/house-vote-women-health-protection-act/index.html

    (CNN) The House on Friday passed the Women's Health Protection Act, a bill aimed at preserving access to an abortion nationwide, as abortion rights are being threatened across the country by Republican-led state legislatures.

    The House passed the measure on nearly a party-line vote, with Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas voting with Republicans against the measure. The vote was 218-211.

Democrats love late term abortion. You can find a similar Democrat voting record on a state level by looking for late term abortion bills by state.

Democrats are always the ones who vote in favor of late term abortions.

Democrats are always the ones who introduce bills for late term abortions.

Democrats are always the ones who vote against bills banning late terms abortions.

That is just the way it is. Late term abortions are a Democrat staple item.

1998?  Times have changed quite a bit.  The Democrats now resemble the Republicans then quite a bit more than the current Republican party.  Things have shifted to the right quite a bit.  I don't think it's relevant to dig into that one.

2015,  not sure if 20 weeks is late term.  That's a bit of a stretch.  Also it looks like several democrats did vote for it while a few republicans voted against it.  I think if they threw in some language legalizing abortions earlier than 20 weeks then they probably would have gotten a lot more support. 

2021 also 2022.  The link you provided seems to be, well, lies I think is the best way to put it.  I'm reading the actual text of the bill and I'm only seeing abortions past fetal viability allowed in the case of an extreme medical risk.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on June 26, 2022, 08:26:02 PM
Oh boy, not the late term abortion boogeyman.  ::) They are incredibly rare but might become less so if abortions are difficult to get in a timely manner.

https://theconversation.com/less-than-1-of-abortions-take-place-in-the-third-trimester-heres-why-people-get-them-182580
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2022, 08:47:48 PM
Quote from: crutonius
1998?  Times have changed quite a bit.  The Democrats now resemble the Republicans then quite a bit more than the current Republican party.  Things have shifted to the right quite a bit.  I don't think it's relevant to dig into that one.

So your argument is to concede that Democrats once voted in favor of late-term abortions, but claim that they don't hold that position any more? Do you have any voting records you can show us demonstrating that they have changed their mind, or are you just going to deny all present data? Democrats introduced and voted on the 2019 late term Vermont and Virginia bills discussed previously. Everything indicates that they still support late term abortions.

On the 2021/2022 Women's Health Protection Act bill the Town Hall characterizes the bill as a late term abortion bill:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2022/02/28/womens-health-protection-act-senate-vote-n2603913


National Review also characterizes the bill as a late term abortion bill:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/congressional-democrats-reintroduce-a-radical-abortion-bill/


This is identical to the 2019 Virginia late term abortion bill discussed above, which Democrats favored. All it would take is for an abortion doctor to think that the pregnancy would impact the mental health of the mother.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47066307


It is Democrats who sought to weaken the laws, removing language that it requires the risk to the mother's life to be "substantial and irremediable"

If a single abortion doctor thinks the mother's "mental safety" is at risk, late term abortion is permissible.

It is Democrats who are introducing these pro- late-term abortion bills and who seek to weaken the laws.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on June 26, 2022, 09:10:25 PM
I haven't seen this Vermont bill but seeing as you're misinformed about the recent bills in congress I'm going to guess you're misinformed about this one as well.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2022, 10:41:56 PM
Quote from: crutonius
I haven't seen this Vermont bill but seeing as you're misinformed about the recent bills in congress I'm going to guess you're misinformed about this one as well.

You are merely claiming that it is misinformed. You have provided zero demonstration that Democrats were voting in favor of late-term abortion bills in 1998 but have decided to change their mind. It should be easy to get voting records to demonstrate this if that were true.

Yet another example of Democrats supporting late term abortion bills:

Illinois House Declares Late-Term Abortion a ‘Right’ - https://freebeacon.com/issues/illinois-house-declares-late-term-abortion-a-right/


So this website claims that Illinois Democrats were voting to loosen abortion restrictions.

Did Democrats they really vote for this bill?

Does the bill really loosen abortion restrictions?

If Democrats are no longer voting in favor of late-term abortion bills why is it always Democrats who are accused of loosening of abortion laws?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: BillO on June 26, 2022, 10:56:58 PM
From my neck of the woods it looks like the land of the free just got a whole lot less so, and judging by Thomas' remarks it's only going to get worse.

Sad thing is that a lot of people here seem delighted that your rights are being stripped away.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2022, 11:23:17 PM
The Illinois law uses the same loopholes which allows for easy third trimester abortions with the same type of vague language seen in other laws.

https://www.chicagonow.com/dennis-byrnes-barbershop/2022/06/the-little-noticed-loophole-in-illinois-law-that-would-allow-abortions-up-to-the-moment-of-birth/


The text of the bill is here, and the above can be easily verified:

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=3987&ChapterID=64

(https://i.imgur.com/rd0VC69.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/35BFZvf.png)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on June 27, 2022, 12:15:51 AM
Tom, what is your actual point? You're happy RvW has been overturned because less than 1% of abortions are during the third trimester? Gr8 deb8 m8
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2022, 01:04:03 AM
It doesn't matter if it's one 40 week old baby who is sawed apart or 100 of them. Wrong is wrong. A disgruntled father slipping a pregnant ex-lover an abortion pill is also rare. But when it does happen, it's terrible and there should be a law against it, more than assault.

My point is simply that Democrats are clearly on the side of loosening late term abortion laws for whatever reason. They push and push for weakening all abortion laws. People see a group of extremists trying to loosen abortion laws and don't like it. Hence the cultural swing to the right against this and the other terrible things Democrats do.

Leftists have also been criticized for pushing pro-infanticide laws:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/now-a-california-bill-to-permit-infant-death-by-neglect/


Who are sponsoring these bills? The Democrats and the left are, clearly.

Why are they sponsoring these bills? Maybe they hate families, or they hate America; possibly because they are social societal outcasts who have formed a political movement and have a goal of attempting to trick the general public into thinking that they are the caring side and that the Republicans with traditional values are evil.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on June 27, 2022, 01:12:18 AM
It doesn't matter if it's one 40 week old baby who is sawed apart or 100 of them. Wrong is wrong. A disgruntled father slipping a pregnant ex-lover an abortion pill is also rare. But when it does happen, it's terrible and there should be a law against it, more than assault.
What if complications arise in the 3rd trimester that cause the fetus to become non-viable and/or threaten the life of the mother?  Should a woman be forced to risk her life just to give birth to a baby that won't survive anyway?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2022, 01:33:44 AM
It doesn't matter if it's one 40 week old baby who is sawed apart or 100 of them. Wrong is wrong. A disgruntled father slipping a pregnant ex-lover an abortion pill is also rare. But when it does happen, it's terrible and there should be a law against it, more than assault.

My point is simply that Democrats are clearly on the side of loosening late term abortion laws for whatever reason. They push and push for weakening all abortion laws. People see a group of extremists trying to loosen abortion laws and don't like it. Hence the cultural swing to the right against this and the other terrible things Democrats do.

Leftists have also been criticized for pushing pro-infanticide laws:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/now-a-california-bill-to-permit-infant-death-by-neglect/

    Now, a California Bill to Permit Infant Death by Neglect

    A little while ago I highlighted a shocking Maryland bill that would essentially decriminalize neglecting an infant to death in the “perinatal” period — i.e., through the first 28 days after birth — by preventing investigations and prosecution of such deaths that resulted from “a failure to act.”

    I was interviewed on several talk-radio programs and was asked what the sponsor was thinking. My most charitable thought was that he was unaware of the definition of “perinatal.”

    That “defense” is now inoperative. A bill was just filed in the California Legislature that is even worse than the Maryland legislation.

    ...

    One blue-state bill that would allow a born baby to be neglected to death might be an anomaly. A second that does that — and perhaps could be interpreted to allow infanticide, also — is a pattern. The cultural Left is blazing new grounds of depravity.

Who are sponsoring these bills? The Democrats and the left are, clearly.

Why are they sponsoring these bills? Maybe they hate families, or they hate America; possibly because they are social societal outcasts who have formed a political movement and have a goal of attempting to trick the general public into thinking that they are the caring side and that the Republicans with traditional values are evil.

Whatever the answer is, you’re not going to bother to find out!!

EDIT: I did about ten minutes of reading to predictably discover that the bill which that piece of “journalism” is referring to was amended long months ago to clarify the perianatal clause in order to avoid the confusion which Tom is so eager to subscribe to. The bill prevents, among other things, criminal investigation solely on the grounds of perianatal death, there must be evidence of foul play. So no, it doesn’t legalize infanticide. What a silly idea to promote based on one shitty article from the National Review. Read a primary source, Tom.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: honk on June 27, 2022, 01:41:46 AM
There is no "cultural swing to the right." The majority of Americans support at least some abortion rights, regardless of whatever extreme cases you can find and then argue shouldn't be allowed. Republicans know that their policies are broadly unpopular among the current American population - and not likely to become any more popular in the future - so they're doing everything they can to entrench their unpopular beliefs and policies into law as firmly as they can while they still have the power to do so. It's not a coincidence that this is happening at the same time as the deliberately coordinated attacks on LGBT people from the right. That's another subject Republicans want to lock their unpopular policies into place on, as the majority of Americans also support LGBT rights and gay marriage.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on June 27, 2022, 02:03:57 AM
Yeah, there's no cultural swing. And there's no reason to be focusing on late term abortions.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2022, 05:11:19 AM
Whatever the answer is, you’re not going to bother to find out!!

I see that you are finally implicitly admitting that leftists are doing these unethical late term abortion bills. I would call it an achievement, but you are a leftist and don't care that you are unethical.

Quote from: Rama Set
EDIT: I did about ten minutes of reading to predictably discover that the bill which that piece of “journalism” is referring to was amended long months ago to clarify the perianatal clause in order to avoid the confusion which Tom is so eager to subscribe to. The bill prevents, among other things, criminal investigation solely on the grounds of perianatal death, there must be evidence of foul play. So no, it doesn’t legalize infanticide. What a silly idea to promote based on one shitty article from the National Review. Read a primary source, Tom.

Actually I said that they were criticized for pushing it. I didn't say it was enacted. Their extremist material doesn't always survive. Are you claiming that it was a typo that would have happened to make infanticide legal? And it just happened to be authored by Democrats?

Quote from: honk
There is no "cultural swing to the right."

Incorrect. Party affiliation has shifted in recent months. Washington Post issued a warning just today:

https://archive.ph/yN7SR

(https://i.imgur.com/lM0NNOv.png)

The Hill issued another alert in October:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/575275-democrats-voter-registration-edge-shrinks-in-key-states/

(https://i.imgur.com/clXamhi.png)

Gallup has also suggested shifting of political preferences:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferences-shifted-greatly-during-2021.aspx

(https://i.imgur.com/TV4f37W.png)

The last time Republicans had near a five point lead was in 1991 when Gallup began polling a couple of years after the Regan era:

(https://i.imgur.com/GsbsBCU.png)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: honk on June 27, 2022, 05:53:25 AM
Americans being less likely to call themselves Democrats (which, like the article points out, is almost certainly in direct correlation to Biden's declining approval rating) is not evidence that Americans have grown more ideologically conservative. Whether they call themselves Republicans or Democrats, Americans largely support (limited) abortion rights, LGBT rights, and gay marriage, and they overwhelmingly support sexual freedom and contraceptive access. It's going to be absolutely nuts when Republicans come for those last two - which they have they every intention of doing, for the optimists out there who need a reality check. Republicans are not going to stop at abortion, nor at gay people. They will eventually be policing us all.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on June 27, 2022, 05:56:34 AM
I can't speak for everyone switching party affiliation but I've switched mine to Republican.  The reason for this is that the Democratic candidates seem harmless generally but the Republicans often scare the shit of me.  The primary offers me an extra chance to head off these maniacs.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 27, 2022, 08:42:39 AM
Incorrect. Party affiliation has shifted in recent months. Washington Post issued a warning just today:

Would you like to see a further swing to the right and have SCOTUS overturn: Griswold v. Connecticut (right to access contraceptive), Lawrence v. Texas (states could not outlaw consensual gay sex) Obergefell v. Hodges (established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage), and Loving v. Virginia (protects the right to interracial marriage)

They’re all predicated on the 14th amendment just like RvW. And Thomas seems to want to venture down that path, except for Love v Virginia, of course.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2022, 10:07:46 AM
Whatever the answer is, you’re not going to bother to find out!!

I see that you are finally implicitly admitting that leftists are doing these unethical late term abortion bills. I would call it an achievement, but you are a leftist and don't care that you are unethical.

As was pointed out, the bill isn’t anything nefarious but hey continue projecting.

Quote
Actually I said that they were criticized for pushing it. I didn't say it was enacted. Their extremist material doesn't always survive. Are you claiming that it was a typo that would have happened to make infanticide legal? And it just happened to be authored by Democrats?

No. What I’m saying is is that you are misinterpreting the bill to mean something it doesn’t and was never intended to mean you pizzagate loving weirdo.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2022, 05:00:37 PM
Incorrect. Party affiliation has shifted in recent months. Washington Post issued a warning just today:

Would you like to see a further swing to the right and have SCOTUS overturn: Griswold v. Connecticut (right to access contraceptive), Lawrence v. Texas (states could not outlaw consensual gay sex) Obergefell v. Hodges (established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage), and Loving v. Virginia (protects the right to interracial marriage)

They’re all predicated on the 14th amendment just like RvW. And Thomas seems to want to venture down that path, except for Love v Virginia, of course.

I would like to see it discussed in light of the RvW precedent, sure. It is possible that the Constitution was never intended to decide that, and should be a topic left to the states. Each state has its own culture, as different as a country, and each have populations as large as European countries. I don't see why a state should be forced to recognize or reject anyone's marriage. A state might want to recognize polygamous marriages like some countries do. Another state might reject those marriages. I don't see why they should be prohibited from doing that if it's what its people really want. The Constitution was originally intended as a loose unifying framework for these massive states, who already had their own laws. The bulk of health laws were always given to the states.

If your argument is... "But but but my state might make my sodomy illegal!!!", your state can already make a lot of the things you do illegal. But they generally don't. Anti-sodomy laws were a thing of the past due to unknowns and perceived societal harm. But there is data on that now, and is unlikely to regain societal support. Polygamy is currently thought to harm society and is illegal, also due to perceived unknowns. If there was enough polygamist support, a patchwork of states might start to legalize polygamy. A blanked ban on a national level would prevent that development and acceptance from naturally occurring.

If the European Union went into different countries and started enacting specific health and wellness laws at their own determination and pointed at a vague word in the EU Constitution like "liberty"  as their justification that would be a no-go, obviously. This is the current situation with the rulings you referenced. It is unjustifiable to take a vague word and use it to enact specific laws. The people must decide for themselves if they want their states to codify it, or if they want to rally their states together and meet the 3/4ths requirements to codify it into the US Constitution.

There is already a process to amend the Constitution, but you want to ignore that for some reason and rely on an extremely vague word.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 27, 2022, 08:45:31 PM
Incorrect. Party affiliation has shifted in recent months. Washington Post issued a warning just today:

Would you like to see a further swing to the right and have SCOTUS overturn: Griswold v. Connecticut (right to access contraceptive), Lawrence v. Texas (states could not outlaw consensual gay sex) Obergefell v. Hodges (established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage), and Loving v. Virginia (protects the right to interracial marriage)

They’re all predicated on the 14th amendment just like RvW. And Thomas seems to want to venture down that path, except for Love v Virginia, of course.

I would like to see it discussed in light of the RvW precedent, sure. It is possible that the Constitution was never intended to decide that, and should be a topic left to the states.

Why have a United States? I mean all men are created equal, right? Should it be a State's right to allow slavery? Should it be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal? Because that's what the people want?

Why have just about anything Federally mandated? Why not turn it all over to the States?

As for polygamy, Utah reduced it from a felony to a misdemeanor, basically a traffic ticket, in 2020. So you might be getting close to what you want.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 27, 2022, 09:01:28 PM
Why have just about anything Federally mandated? Why not turn it all over to the States?
You know, there once was a group of people who felt that way, and they got violently suppressed.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2022, 09:09:11 PM
Why have a United States? I mean all men are created equal, right? Should it be a State's right to allow slavery? Should it be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal? Because that's what the people want?

In the case of slavery, the states were able to garner the 3/4th requirement and amended the US Constitution in 1865:

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xiii

(https://i.imgur.com/aNgDkil.png)

This is NOT what you want to do, however. You don't want a proper amendment to the Constitution. You have certain rights which you are demanding and want to force it onto people without going through the proper procedure.

This is like demanding the moderators of this website to enforce a specific rule based on a vague word you found about 'liberty', imagining and demanding the 'liberties' you should have, even though you know full well that the rules are created specifically. You need go through the proper process to get that amended.

In 1920 there was another landmark amendment, Women's Right to Vote:

(https://i.imgur.com/mxlqGJ0.png)

Again, this went through the proper procedure and wasn't implicitly granted through vague words about liberty and freedom.

The Constitution is very specific and landmark rights are not granted on singular words like "liberty" or "freedom" or "privacy", which can mean almost anything. So tell us why you are refusing a proper Constitutional amendment.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tumeni on June 27, 2022, 09:24:05 PM
https://twitter.com/davidnhackney?lang=en

Quote
Abortion for *lethal* fetal anomalies is now *illegal* in Ohio
 
I’m a high-risk obstetrician here. I diagnose birth defects
 
So some point soon I may look someone in the eyes & say that they, against their will, will carry to term, undergo delivery & then have their child die
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on June 27, 2022, 09:57:47 PM
https://twitter.com/davidnhackney?lang=en

Quote
Abortion for *lethal* fetal anomalies is now *illegal* in Ohio
 
I’m a high-risk obstetrician here. I diagnose birth defects
 
So some point soon I may look someone in the eyes & say that they, against their will, will carry to term, undergo delivery & then have their child die
Makes sense.
Convervatives are big on ensuring they're born, less so if they die after.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 27, 2022, 10:24:28 PM
Why have a United States? I mean all men are created equal, right? Should it be a State's right to allow slavery? Should it be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal? Because that's what the people want?

This is NOT what you want to do, however. You don't want a proper amendment to the Constitution. You have certain rights which you are demanding and want to force it onto people without going through the proper procedure.

Is what you’re saying that it should be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal in the absence of a specific amendment protecting interracial marriage? Thereby potentially resulting in some States making interracial marriage illegal an punishable? And that’s ok with you?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2022, 11:01:50 PM
Why have a United States? I mean all men are created equal, right? Should it be a State's right to allow slavery? Should it be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal? Because that's what the people want?

This is NOT what you want to do, however. You don't want a proper amendment to the Constitution. You have certain rights which you are demanding and want to force it onto people without going through the proper procedure.

Is what you’re saying that it should be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal in the absence of a specific amendment protecting interracial marriage? Thereby potentially resulting in some States making interracial marriage illegal an punishable? And that’s ok with you?

The things you are bringing up are simply no longer applicable. Many years ago people did not like interracial marriage because it was an unknown, like sodomy, and thought that it would lead to the degradation of society. This is no longer the case, and now interracial marriage is widely supported by over 90% of the population.

Going by your fantasy, if the Supreme Court determined that it was one of those rulings that was improperly made, and several States then made interracial marriage illegal, which is extremely doubtful at this point, the States could simply band together simply make a proper Constitutional amendment on that subject. If by another stretch of fantasy they could not get a 3/4ths majority then it is not accepted well enough and society has not progressed enough that it should be a national blanket rule.

If the States failed to get the required agreement they would then treat each other like countries in the EU who have objectionable laws to each other: Peacefully, diplomatically, and under mutual understanding that they are part of a Constitution or Charter with an understood and agreed upon method for amendment.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2022, 11:13:13 PM
It’s funny how Tom makes this arguement comfortably but when the same arguement is made about late term
abortion, he is up in arms. Troll on you crazy diamond.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tumeni on June 27, 2022, 11:20:50 PM
Tom, Roe v Wade was decided in 1973.

Are you old enough to have been an adult at that point?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 28, 2022, 12:02:41 AM
Why have a United States? I mean all men are created equal, right? Should it be a State's right to allow slavery? Should it be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal? Because that's what the people want?

This is NOT what you want to do, however. You don't want a proper amendment to the Constitution. You have certain rights which you are demanding and want to force it onto people without going through the proper procedure.

Is what you’re saying that it should be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal in the absence of a specific amendment protecting interracial marriage? Thereby potentially resulting in some States making interracial marriage illegal and punishable? And that’s ok with you?

The things you are bringing up are simply no longer applicable. Many years ago people did not like interracial marriage because it was an unknown, like sodomy, and thought that it would lead to the degradation of society. This is no longer the case, and now interracial marriage is widely supported by over 90% of the population.

The majority of the American's did not want RvW axed. So what's the difference?

Going by your fantasy, if the Supreme Court determined that it was one of those rulings that was improperly made, and several States then made interracial marriage illegal, which is extremely doubtful at this point, the States could simply band together simply make a proper Constitutional amendment on that subject. If they can't get a 3/4ths majority then it's not accepted well enough and society has not progressed enough that it should be a national blanket rule.

So you're saying that there needs to be an amendment for every right that isn't specifically named in the constitution?

In this scenario, SCOTUS throws out Loving v Virginia on the same grounds as the current situation, the 14th doesn't cover it. 33% of the States make interracial marriage illegal and obviously won't sign off on any amendment. That would be ok with you? Having 1/3 of the States making interracial marriage illegal?

If the States failed to get the required agreement they would then treat each other like countries in the EU who have objectionable laws to each other: Peacefully, diplomatically, and under mutual understanding that they are part of a Constitution or Charter with an understood and agreed upon method for amendment.

I'm not sure why you bring up the EU. If a nation state doesn't want to play under EU rules, they can leave whenever they want. I.e., Brexit.

If a US State doesn't want to play under US Fed rules, they can't leave. Not at least without having to go to war over it. I.e., US Civil War.

Apples & Oranges
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 28, 2022, 12:15:46 AM
Quote from: stack
So you're saying that there needs to be an amendment for every right that isn't specifically named in the constitution?

Correct. The Constitution originally just gave men the right to vote. There was a successful Constitutional amendment for the right for women to vote, for which a super majority of States agreed. By this standard there should be something specific in the Constitution about abortion if you are insisting on the national right to abortion. If a super majority of the States can't agree on it then it is a subject that is still too controversial for a national blanket law.

Obviously, this topic is too controversial for such an amendment. The Constitution is clear: It is given to the States to decide. The same standard is given to all other "rights".

The argument you are making is that you know that there is an agreed upon procedure in place, but you simply don't care. This is a fault on your part.

Quote from: stack
I'm not sure why you bring up the EU. If a nation state doesn't want to play under EU rules, they can leave whenever they want. I.e., Brexit.

If a US State doesn't want to play under US Fed rules, they can't leave. Not at least without having to go to war over it. I.e., US Civil War.

Apples & Oranges

Actually the Constitution doesn't mention what happens when a State wants to leave the Constitution at all. Some say the lack of a procedure means that it is impossible to leave, but that has not been fully explored. The Constitution doesn't bring it up at all.

But the Constitution definitely does not say that if a State leaves the Constitution that people must start killing each other. That would clearly be a naked act of aggression, and the North was probably guilty of that when they started killing people for wanting to break away from the Constitution.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 28, 2022, 12:27:26 AM
Actually the Constitution doesn't mention what happens when a State wants to leave the Constitution at all. Some say the lack of provisions means that it is impossible to leave, but that has not been fully explored.

Any originality would have to conclude it was impossible, as idiotic as that is.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 28, 2022, 12:59:28 AM
Quote from: stack
So you're saying that there needs to be an amendment for every right that isn't specifically named in the constitution?

Correct. The Constitution originally just gave men the right to vote. There was a successful Constitutional amendment for the right for women to vote, for which a super majority of States agreed. By this standard there should be something specific in the Constitution about abortion if you are insisting on the national right to abortion. If a super majority of the States can't agree on it then it is a subject that is still too controversial for a national blanket law.

Obviously, this topic is too controversial for such an amendment. The Constitution is clear: It is given to the States to decide. The same standard is given to all other "rights".

The argument you are making is that you you know that there is an agreed upon procedure in place, but you simply don't care. This is a fault on your part.

So the bottom line is that you would be ok with some States making interracial marriage illegal if SCOTUS says it's not a constitutional right?

Quote from: stack
I'm not sure why you bring up the EU. If a nation state doesn't want to play under EU rules, they can leave whenever they want. I.e., Brexit.

If a US State doesn't want to play under US Fed rules, they can't leave. Not at least without having to go to war over it. I.e., US Civil War.

Apples & Oranges


Actually the Constitution doesn't mention what happens when a State wants to leave the Constitution at all. Some say the lack of a procedure means that it is impossible to leave, but that has not been fully explored. The Constitution doesn't bring it up at all.

The Constitution doesn't bring it up specifically. But I'm pretty sure it's been "explored", mostly between 1861 through 1865.

But the Constitution definitely does not say that if a State leaves the Constitution that people must start killing each other. That would clearly be a naked act of aggression, and the North was probably guilty of that when they started killing people for wanting to break away from the Constitution.

"George Sholter James, the commander of the mortar battery that fired the first shot of the American Civil War, was born in Laurens County, South Carolina in 1829. He was the second son of a prominent attorney and merchant and spent most of his young life in Columbia, the state capital. At the age of seventeen, James left his college studies for the adventure of fighting in the Mexican-American War."
https://www.nps.gov/people/george-s-james.htm

Looks like the South, not the North, started the killing.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 28, 2022, 01:42:01 AM
Quote from: stack
So the bottom line is that you would be ok with some States making interracial marriage illegal if SCOTUS says it's not a constitutional right?

Actually I wouldn't. But I would accept that different cultures have the right to govern themselves and make their own laws. The United States does not go around invading countries because of their marriage laws.

Quote from: stack
The Constitution doesn't bring it up specifically. But I'm pretty sure it's been "explored", mostly between 1861 through 1865.

According to this Georgia was readmitted into the Union in 1870, a full five years after the Civil War. How is that possible if it was impossible to leave?

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/georgia-civil-war-108886

(https://i.imgur.com/di7Kzzl.png)

Seems to say that it was established that it was possible to leave.

However, it's not so clear that there had to be murder involved.

Quote from: stack
"George Sholter James, the commander of the mortar battery that fired the first shot of the American Civil War, was born in Laurens County, South Carolina in 1829. He was the second son of a prominent attorney and merchant and spent most of his young life in Columbia, the state capital. At the age of seventeen, James left his college studies for the adventure of fighting in the Mexican-American War."
https://www.nps.gov/people/george-s-james.htm

Looks like the South, not the North, started the killing.

That occurred when the Union sent a military supply vessel into their harbor.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/fort-sumter


Read your link carefully:

"Captain George S. James ordered his battery to fire a 10-inch mortar shell, which soared over the harbor and exploded over Fort Sumter, announcing the start of the war."

It doesn't even say that it killed anyone or damaged any property. The first shot shell flew over the entire harbor and exploded in the air. It was a warning shot due to the entrance of the vessel. A shell that explodes in the air and which doesn't actually kill anyone is hardly a start of the "killing".
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 28, 2022, 02:10:20 AM
Lincoln sending a US vessel to a US port to result a US Fort isn’t an act of aggression. Firing a shell that signals they are beginning a war is indeed a start to killing though.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 28, 2022, 02:17:04 AM
It wasn't a US port anymore. South Carolina had already given their notice that they were leaving the Union peacefully, yet we can see below that at least at one point Lincoln attempted to send hundreds of troops via ship into South Carolina. When a foreign government sends troops into your country uninvited it's usually seen as an act of war.

In January of that year the Union was fired upon when trying to send a military vessel into the harbor:

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter


Lincoln later announced he was sending ships anyway, even though he was already fired upon, and was specifically warned by South Carolina that it would be an act of aggression:


From what stack had posted, the first shot from the Confederates had exploded in the air. It's possible that this was ineptitude, but this could have been interpreted as a warning shot to go away. Lincoln was clearly the aggressor in this situation.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 28, 2022, 02:30:21 AM
It wasn't a US port anymore. South Carolina had already given their notice that they were leaving the Union peacefully, yet we can see that at least at one point Lincoln attempted to send hundreds of troops into South Carolina. When a foreign government sends troops into your country uninvited it's usually seen as an act of war.

As you admitted the constitution doesn’t recognize self-declared independence as legal, so it was still US territory.

Quote
In January of that year the Union was fired upon when trying to send a military vessel into the harbor:

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter

    "A standoff ensued until January 9, 1861, when a ship called the Star of the West arrived in Charleston with over 200 U.S. troops and supplies intended for Fort Sumter. South Carolina militia batteries fired upon the vessel as it neared Charleston Harbor, forcing it to turn back to sea."

Lincoln later announced he was sending ships anyway, even though he was already fired upon, and was specifically warned by South Carolina that it would be an act of aggression:

    "Lincoln announced his intention to send three unarmed ships to relieve Fort Sumter. Having already declared that any attempt to resupply the fort would be seen as an act of aggression, South Carolina militia forces soon scrambled to respond."

From what Stack had posted, the first shot from the Confederates had exploded in the air. It's possible that this was ineptitude, but this could have been clearly be interpreted as a warning shot to go away. Lincoln was clearly the aggressor in this situation.

Ah yes, the unarmed ships were clearly the aggressors, sailing in to their port. Definitely not the ones firing munitions. 👍🏻
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 28, 2022, 02:36:00 AM
The link clearly says that Lincoln attempted to send hundreds of troops via ship into South Carolina on January 9, 1861. This is less than a month after South Carolina peacefully left the Union.

(https://i.imgur.com/RulMBQj.png)

So a State indicated that they were leaving, and then was met with Lincoln trying to send hundreds of troops into their State. Lincoln was warned that attempting to send further ships would be seen as an act of aggression. Lincoln decided to do so anyway. It doesn't matter if the ships were armed or not. The Chinese military can't send ships into the harbor of any country and expect it to be fine, especially if they kept doing it after being warned not to do so.

Quote from: Rama Set
As you admitted the constitution doesn’t recognize self-declared independence as legal, so it was still US territory.

The Constitution doesn't say anything at all about secession or the power to leave.

The Constitution does say this though:

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It says that if it's not in the Constitution it's up for the States to decide themselves. The tenth amendment was ratified in 1791 and is the source of the broad and expansive powers of the States.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 28, 2022, 03:48:45 AM
The link clearly says that Lincoln attempted to send hundreds of troops via ship into South Carolina on January 9, 1861. This is less than a month after South Carolina peacefully left the Union.

(https://i.imgur.com/RulMBQj.png)

So a State indicated that they were leaving, and then was met with Lincoln trying to send hundreds of troops into their State. Lincoln was warned that attempting to send further ships would be seen as an act of aggression. Lincoln decided to do so anyway. It doesn't matter if the ships were armed or not. The Chinese military can't send ships into the harbor of any country and expect it to be fine, especially if they kept doing it after being warned not to do so.

You keep acting as if South Carolina wasn't part of the USA.  You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Quote

The Constitution doesn't say anything at all about secession or the power to leave.

Please try and be consistent.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 28, 2022, 05:34:08 AM
Quote
You keep acting as if South Carolina wasn't part of the USA.

It wasn't. They weren't readmitted into the Union until July 9, 1868.

(https://i.imgur.com/7knqS5g.png)

United States = the Union

(https://i.imgur.com/U5HqqlB.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/YRW115N.png)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 28, 2022, 05:45:55 AM
Quote
You keep acting as if South Carolina wasn't part of the USA.

It wasn't. They weren't readmitted into the Union until July 9, 1868.

(https://i.imgur.com/7knqS5g.png)

United States = the Union

(https://i.imgur.com/U5HqqlB.png)

Please post the date when the federal government kicked them out of the union.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 28, 2022, 05:51:08 AM
They weren't kicked out. They left. It says right here on this "Today in History" Library of Congress page:

https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/november-06/

(https://i.imgur.com/byAwHKQ.png)

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 28, 2022, 05:59:03 AM
So.  Getting back on track.  Do you think it would be moral to rescind same sex marriage rights and contraception?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 28, 2022, 06:02:44 AM
Quote
You keep acting as if South Carolina wasn't part of the USA.

It wasn't. They weren't readmitted into the Union until July 9, 1868.

Actually, according to SCOTUS, succession states were still a part of the US and succeeding is actually forbidden:

Even before Texas formally rejoined the nation, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that secession had never been legal, and that, even during the rebellion, Texas continued to be a state.

In the 1869 case Texas v. White, the court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas Legislature — even if ratified by a majority of Texans — were “absolutely null.”

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase added: “The ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law.”

If there were any doubt remaining after this matter, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia set it to rest when he asked by a screenwriter in 2006 whether there was a legal basis for secession. In his response, he wrote: “The answer is clear,” Scalia wrote. “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, ‘one Nation, indivisible.’)”

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/29/texas-secession/
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 28, 2022, 07:25:11 AM
Yeah, the Supreme Court has made invalid interpretations in the past and its past rulings are regularly overruled. One was just overruled a few days ago.

When Texas left the Union it was stripped of its representation as a State:

https://tnm.me/news/political/texas-vs-white-why-the-supreme-court-is-dead-wrong-on-texas-independence/


A state denied representation and rights of a state as guaranteed by the Constitution, how does that work? If you think the Civil War decided the issue and not the Constitution, as you have argued previously, then by all intents Texas was not a State.

On what basis exactly, does Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase say that the states couldn't leave?

The Constitution doesn't say anything about leaving. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue of secession. It neither gives states the right to secede nor denies it. Where do these "rules" come from then? The Constitution is silent on the issue.

The tenth amendment gives powers not determined in the Constitution to the states to decide on their own:

https://medium.com/politicoid/constitutionality-of-secession-19ce11c3b671


What is the rebuttal to this? The Confederate states used the same argument:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legal-and-political-magazines/tenth-amendment


There has to be something more coherent than "nah-uh" and mumblings about how a perfect union is forever here.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 28, 2022, 08:02:59 AM
According to the Medium article posted the 1869 Supreme Court relied on the Articles of the Confederation in its constitutional argument, which is curious if true.

https://medium.com/politicoid/constitutionality-of-secession-19ce11c3b671


It doesn't really sound like that ruling was thought through. It defined the union from the Articles of Confederation as "perpetual" and then takes the "more perfect union" statement in the US Constitution to declare that it was a binding agreement that would last forever.

This site characterizes it in the same way:

https://encyclopedia.federalism.org/index.php/Texas_v._White_(1869) (https://encyclopedia.federalism.org/index.php/Texas_v._White_(1869))

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 28, 2022, 08:05:46 AM
Yeah, the Supreme Court has made invalid interpretations in the past and its past rulings are regularly overruled. One was just overruled a few days ago.

Well it’s valid until it isn’t, like what just happened a few days ago.

In the meantime, the 1869 case Texas v. White, the court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas Legislature — even if ratified by a majority of Texans — were “absolutely null.”

So Texas v White ruling is still valid until SCOTUS wipes it out. They haven’t yet.

When Texas left the Union it was stripped of its representation as a State:

https://tnm.me/news/political/texas-vs-white-why-the-supreme-court-is-dead-wrong-on-texas-independence/

    "This U.S. Supreme Court decision is full of contradictions. The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain “reconstruction” acts of the U.S. Congress."

A state denied representation and rights of a state as guaranteed by the Constitution, how does that work? If you think the Civil War decided the issue and not the Constitution, as you have argued previously, then by all intents Texas was not a State.

Yeah SCOTUS rulings can be filled with contradictions, like recently. So what? Doesn’t change the fact that a ruling was made and stands until it is dispensed with. Your argument is neither here nor there.

On what basis exactly, does Salmon P. Chase say that the states couldn't leave?

Don’t know, but that was the ruling in Texas v White some 150+ years ago. Still stands today.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about leaving. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue of secession. It neither gives states the right to secede nor denies it. Where do these "rules" come from then? The Constitution is silent on the issue.

Doesn’t matter. SCOTUS ruled that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas Legislature — even if ratified by a majority of Texans — were “absolutely null.”

SCOTUS decides what’s covered by the constitution and what’s not by interpreting the constitution and applying it where appropriate.

So as it stands, state succession is forbidden an states that did succeed were still apart of the union even though their rights were hampered as a punishment during reconstruction.

So there you have it in a nutshell.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 28, 2022, 08:34:07 AM
The Constitution doesn't say anything about leaving. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue of secession. It neither gives states the right to secede nor denies it. Where do these "rules" come from then? The Constitution is silent on the issue.

Doesn’t matter.

Actually, it kind of does. The current Supreme Court just made a determination that if it's not spelled out in the Constitution then it can be ruled unconstitutional. This is why you were worried about the reversal of other rulings based on loose concepts being ruled unconstitutional.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-overturned-roe-v-wade-what-s-next-abortion-n1296339

(https://i.imgur.com/fwfXMjD.png)

By this standard a lot of those old creative interpretations based on vague concepts are unconstitutional.

The 1869 Texas v. White ruling incredulously took the definition from the Articles of the Confederation declaring its union to be "perpetual" and also took the "more perfect union" phrase from the US Constitution to creatively and illogically declared that a state can't ever leave the US. Clearly reprehensible.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tumeni on June 28, 2022, 01:21:56 PM
Pertinent quotes, Pt. 1

Twitter @highroadsaloon

Quote
I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?" She instantly replied "yes." Then she added "there will also be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.


Twitter @DavidNHackney

Quote
Abortion for *lethal* fetal anomalies is now *illegal* in Ohio. I’m a high-risk obstetrician here. I diagnose birth defects. So at some point soon I may look someone in the eyes & say that they, against their will, will carry to term, undergo delivery & then have their child die


Imgur user 'zaboomafoo19'

Quote
At 29 years old, we found we were expecting our second child in TX. It was a surprise, but a welcome one. At 17 weeks, we found this child had no kidney, no liver, no legs, but still a heartbeat. I was referred to a clinic 2 hours away. I was told "This will be out of pocket". I was told "The insurance will cover it IF YOU WAIT FOR THE HEARTBEAT TO STOP". I was told "It's not 20 weeks old so it's not a real person". I was told a lot of things. Finally, I was told to say goodbye and move on. I was one of the fortunate ones. Women need real helathcare. Abortion is a right. Period.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 28, 2022, 03:17:24 PM
Pertinent quotes, Pt. 1

Twitter @highroadsaloon

Quote
I said to my wife "Do you think anyone will commit suicide because they could not get an abortion?" She instantly replied "yes." Then she added "there will also be all those boyfriends and husbands that murder them because they couldn't get one too" and that shook my fucking world.


Twitter @DavidNHackney

Quote
Abortion for *lethal* fetal anomalies is now *illegal* in Ohio. I’m a high-risk obstetrician here. I diagnose birth defects. So at some point soon I may look someone in the eyes & say that they, against their will, will carry to term, undergo delivery & then have their child die


Imgur user 'zaboomafoo19'

Quote
At 29 years old, we found we were expecting our second child in TX. It was a surprise, but a welcome one. At 17 weeks, we found this child had no kidney, no liver, no legs, but still a heartbeat. I was referred to a clinic 2 hours away. I was told "This will be out of pocket". I was told "The insurance will cover it IF YOU WAIT FOR THE HEARTBEAT TO STOP". I was told "It's not 20 weeks old so it's not a real person". I was told a lot of things. Finally, I was told to say goodbye and move on. I was one of the fortunate ones. Women need real helathcare. Abortion is a right. Period.
Yeah, I agree Tumeni...

People that think such thoughts should be neutered or spayed.

That way, they do not need to worry about the option of abortion.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tumeni on June 28, 2022, 03:19:34 PM
People that think such thoughts should be neutered or spayed.

Forcibly?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 28, 2022, 03:22:40 PM
People that think such thoughts should be neutered or spayed.

Forcibly?
Of course not.

There are many ways to avoid the possibility of procreation.

Essentially, you presented a bunch of fables decrying the removal of the carte blanche option of satisfying the bloodlust.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Iceman on June 28, 2022, 05:01:37 PM

There are many ways to avoid the possibility of procreation.

Yes, but the GOP only supports one of them, which is a huge part of the problem.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 28, 2022, 07:16:21 PM
The Constitution doesn't say anything about leaving. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue of secession. It neither gives states the right to secede nor denies it. Where do these "rules" come from then? The Constitution is silent on the issue.

Doesn’t matter.

Actually, it kind of does. The current Supreme Court just made a determination that if it's not spelled out in the Constitution then it can be ruled unconstitutional. This is why you were worried about the reversal of other rulings based on loose concepts being ruled unconstitutional.

The fact remains that the SCOTUS ruled that succession was (is) forbidden and that is the current law of the land. You said it wasn't. But it is.

That may change with a new ruling, but thus far no new ruling exists.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-overturned-roe-v-wade-what-s-next-abortion-n1296339

(https://i.imgur.com/fwfXMjD.png)

By this standard a lot of those old creative interpretations based on vague concepts are unconstitutional.

By whose standard? Jessica Levinson, MSNBC Opinion Columnist, standard? A lot of stuff is interpreted by SCOTUS. That's what SCOTUS is charged with. Your opinion on what's a "creative interpretation" or not has no bearing on the rulings from SCOTUS.

The 1869 Texas v. White ruling incredulously took the definition from the Articles of the Confederation declaring a union to be "perpetual" and also took the "more perfect union" phrase from the US Constitution to creatively and illogically declare that a state can't ever leave the US. Clearly reprehensible.

Again, your personal interpretation as to what the SCOTUS ruled on matters not. You're not a constitutional lawyer (neither am I) and have no sway as to what ruling is "incredulous" or "reprehensible".

The fact remains, SCOTUS forbids succession and you were wrong about that. Whether you agree with the ruling or not.

And the super odd fact is why Thomas recently called out revisiting, specifically Obergefell v. Hodges (established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage), and didn't call out Loving v. Virginia (protects the right to interracial marriage)?

Why Obergefell and not Love? What's the difference? There's nothing in the constitution about marriage. If Thomas has his way, both should be revisited and tossed.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on June 28, 2022, 07:44:03 PM
Hell yeah, can't wait for ectopic pregnancies to be a death sentence in the USofA.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 28, 2022, 07:52:44 PM
Hell yeah, can't wait for ectopic pregnancies to be a death sentence in the USofA.
That seems pretty unlikely.
The trouble with this debate is that both sides can't help themselves taking it to extremes.
If you're pro-life then the other side claim you're intent on enslaving and killing women.
If you're pro-choice then the other side claim you enjoy murdering babies for the lolz.

There's a lot of complexity and nuance here which too many people on both sides don't acknowledge.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 28, 2022, 08:05:06 PM
Here is liberal justice hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg explaining that she thought justices were legislating on the bench with the Roe vs. Wade ruling -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYNz8qcThJE

Quote from: stack
The fact remains that the SCOTUS ruled that succession was (is) forbidden and that is the current law of the land. You said it wasn't. But it is.

Incorrect. SCOTUS rulings are not laws. Rulings that do attempt act as new laws can be overturned as unconstitutional. SCOTUS merely acts to clarify an existing law. This is why Roe vs. Wade was thrown out. Justices were creating legislation from the bench. You have made no effort to show that the 1869 Texas v. White ruling is constitutional, or that there was an existing law on this at all.

You know that there was not an existing regulation. This is the exact sort of behavior this Supreme Court is ruling against.

Asking whether secession is legal is also a nonsensical question. When one political body secedes from another, the seceding body is rejecting the authority of the first. All laws in effect in the original nation are no longer applicable to the seceding nation, since it is no longer part of that original nation. This is what occurred when the United States peacefully seceded from Great Britain. It did not matter if it was legal in the British system of government for the US to do it or not. It was then the British government who acted as aggressors against the United States for walking away. The British government could have opted to let them go peacefully, but did not.

You are doing the equivalent of appealing to a British judge ruling that the US could not secede from Britain. It could and did, and that ruling would be irrelevant to the US. The British chose to become the aggressors. They could have simply chosen to let them leave, or perhaps have tried harder to negotiate their grievances before it got to that point. The US did make a good faith effort to negotiate with Britain at the time but were rebuffed on multiple occasions, leading to eventual secession.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on June 28, 2022, 08:47:24 PM
That seems pretty unlikely.
For now it might seem unlikely, but also seems pretty fucking dangerous to assume it will stay that way given the political climate here in the states and how SCOTUS has their eyes on rolling back other rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriages. We have extremists here and the conservatives are not afraid to pander to them.

There's a lot of complexity and nuance here which too many people on both sides don't acknowledge.
Ah yes, the GOP is well known for their nuance and delicate handling of complex issues.

I'm starting to sound like a broken record here but less than 1% of abortions happen in the third trimester and it's almost exclusively for medical emergencies. Women don't go around carrying fetuses for that long and then decide to get rid of it for fun. Meanwhile, states are jumping on this with their trigger laws. I don't know if you're aware, but states have been pushing things for awhile now - weird rules on forcing clinics to have hallways that are a specific width (for example) all as an excuse to close them down if they're not meeting these arbitrary codes. Women's health clinics don't need hallways to be that big btw because they're not pushing a bunch of patients around on gurneys. It doesn't take a huge leap to think they might eventually ban all abortion. I mean, it was only 2012 when an Irish woman died because she was having a miscarriage but doctors weren't allowed to intervene because the fetus still had a heartbeat. Kinda weird to assume the USA in 2022 won't also be that heinous.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2022-06-27/the-story-behind-irelands-abortion-ban-and-its-reversal

Also for a fun statistic, the number one cause of death for pregnant women is homicide. A lot of women don't know they're even pregnant by six weeks (which is the ban limit in TN now). Let's watch those homicides go up when women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 28, 2022, 10:48:48 PM
Here is liberal justice hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg explaining that she thought justices were legislating on the bench with the Roe vs. Wade ruling -

So what? As it stands, succession is deemed forbidden by the 150 year old ruling by the SCOTUS. Until some law is passed saying succession is federally allowed, and it passes through the courts and through SCOTUS, succession is still federally forbidden. Simple as that.

Ginsburg clarified her statement in the video you referenced during her confirmation:

When Sen. Hank Brown (R-CO) asked about her remarks during her confirmation hearing, she clarified her stance: “Abortion prohibition by the State, however, controls women and denies them full autonomy and full equality with men. That was the idea I tried to express in the lecture to which you referred.”

You not liking that fact is the same as me not liking the removal of RvW. As it is, just like the 150 year old succession ruling, it stands until challenged and defeated. Simple as that.

Quote from: stack
The fact remains that the SCOTUS ruled that succession was (is) forbidden and that is the current law of the land. You said it wasn't. But it is.

Incorrect. SCOTUS rulings are not laws. Rulings that do attempt act as new laws can be overturned as unconstitutional. SCOTUS merely acts to clarify an existing law. This is why Roe vs. Wade was thrown out. Justices were creating legislation from the bench. You have made no effort to show that the 1869 Texas v. White ruling is constitutional, or that there was an existing law on this at all.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer (neither are you). I don't have to make an argument why something is constitutional or not. That's up to SCOTUS. And the fact of the matter is that Texas v White still stands as succession is unconstitutional therefore forbidden. Same for RvW. So until those rulings are changed, States have the right to decide their abortion laws & States are forbidden from the succession.

You know that there was not an existing regulation. This is the exact sort of behavior this Supreme Court is ruling against.

Asking whether secession is legal is also a nonsensical question. When one political body secedes from another, the seceding body is rejecting the authority of the first. All laws in effect in the original nation are no longer applicable to the seceding nation, since it is no longer part of that original nation. This is what occurred when the United States peacefully seceded from Great Britain. It did not matter if it was legal in the British system of government for the US to do it or not. It was then the British government who acted as aggressors against the United States for walking away. The British government could have opted to let them go peacefully, but did not.

You are doing the equivalent of appealing to a British judge ruling that the US could not secede from Britain. It could and did, and that ruling would be irrelevant to the US. The British chose to become the aggressors. They could have simply chosen to let them leave, or perhaps have tried harder to negotiate their grievances before it got to that point. The US did make a good faith effort to negotiate with Britain at the time but were rebuffed on multiple occasions, leading to eventual secession.

None of this changes the fact that Texas v White still stands as succession is unconstitutional therefore forbidden. Same for RvW. So until those rulings are changed, States have the right to decide their abortion laws & States are forbidden from the succession.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 28, 2022, 11:53:39 PM
Quote from: stack
None of this changes the fact that Texas v White still stands as succession is unconstitutional therefore forbidden. Same for RvW. So until those rulings are changed, States have the right to decide their abortion laws & States are forbidden from the succession.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.

Actually, no. When the US Colonies seceded from Great Britain the Declaration of Independence derived its power of one political body to secede from another from Natural Law and the Law of Nations. It didn't matter what the courts of Great Britain said. They did not need to "take it up with the courts". What the British courts said in that case was irrelevant, as the Colonies no longer recognized the authority of Great Britain.

It was not an explicit declaration of war, but a declaration that the authority would no longer be recognized and that they had a right to self govern. The Declaration of Independence has been widely held as legitimate, and exists in a special extra-legal category which applied beyond the laws of any country.

So again, the issue has not been determined. The United States broke away from Great Britain, which has been seen as a natural right, and it simply did not matter what British judges had to say about it.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 29, 2022, 12:16:21 AM
So again, the issue has not been determined.

Sure it has been determined. Texas v White. State secession is considered unconstitutional.

Now would that stop Texas or California, or whatever State, from voting to secede from the Union? Of course not.

Just like if I want to discriminate based upon a person's disability, I certainly can. But that would be unconstitutional and unlawful therefore I would have to face the consequences of doing so.

If a State wants to secede, it is forbidden by the US Constitution as stated by SCOTUS, therefore, they would face the consequences, whatever they may be, of attempting to do so. Simple as that.

Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Your opinion doesn't matter. Just like my opinion doesn't currently matter against the SCOTUS recent ruling. Until such point I put forward a case to challenge that decision and the SCOTUS rules in my favor.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.

What I really want to know is why Thomas called out to revisit Obergefell and not Love? What's the difference? There's nothing in the constitution about marriage. If Thomas has his way, both should be revisited and tossed.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: WTF_Seriously on June 29, 2022, 03:07:30 AM

Actually, no. When the US Colonies seceded from Great Britain the Declaration of Independence derived its power of one political body to secede from another from Natural Law and the Law of Nations. It didn't matter what the courts of Great Britain said. They did not need to "take it up with the courts". What the British courts said in that case was irrelevant, as the Colonies no longer recognized the authority of Great Britain.


The Declaration of Independence was derived from a group of people saying, "Fuck off."  It had nothing to do with "Natural Law".  The result of that was the British government said, "Sorry, but no you don't."  It didn't matter what the colonies thought.  What it resulted in was a war.  It was only by might that the colonies were able to assert there final independence.  The British government didn't simply say, "My bad. You folks go about your business."  The rite to succession was no more a rite with Britain than it is now. 
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2022, 04:35:32 AM
So again, the issue has not been determined.

Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Your opinion doesn't matter. Just like my opinion doesn't currently matter against the SCOTUS recent ruling. Until such point I put forward a case to challenge that decision and the SCOTUS rules in my favor.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.

Simply wrong. The courts of a country do not "rule" on the topic of secession. If a territory of Algeria is feeling persecuted and wants to form its own country because of irreconcilable differences it is not for the persecutors to decide. That falls into an outside structure such as International Law. When you have a dispute with someone you appeal to an outside source or structure, not the person you are having a dispute with. In secession the US Colonies originally appealed to outside principles of Natural Law and the Law of Nations, under principles which are still used and cited by territories who have seceded from their countries.

In International Law the topic of secession is still a very much debated and controversial subject and is nowhere near settled:

E-International Relations - Is There a Right to Secession in International Law? (https://www.e-ir.info/2020/05/18/is-there-a-right-to-secession-in-international-law/)


According to you, if a country doesn't want its territories to secede, that's the end of the story and there is no need for any form of outside law to determine that. This would be a ridiculous position to hold and is clearly and blatantly wrong.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: clickbait on June 29, 2022, 04:48:40 AM
Also for a fun statistic, the number one cause of death for pregnant women is homicide. A lot of women don't know they're even pregnant by six weeks (which is the ban limit in TN now). Let's watch those homicides go up when women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies.
Unremarkably, the perp would face TWO counts of homicide. Are you arguing the charge for the second should be dropped because no human was killed?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on June 29, 2022, 06:36:44 AM
Also for a fun statistic, the number one cause of death for pregnant women is homicide. A lot of women don't know they're even pregnant by six weeks (which is the ban limit in TN now). Let's watch those homicides go up when women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies.
Unremarkably, the perp would face TWO counts of homicide. Are you arguing the charge for the second should be dropped because no human was killed?

Please state the name and birthdates of the humans killed.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 29, 2022, 09:09:30 AM
Unremarkably, the perp would face TWO counts of homicide. Are you arguing the charge for the second should be dropped because no human was killed?
No sockpuppet accounts, please. You can continue the discussion from your main account.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 29, 2022, 11:31:58 AM
So again, the issue has not been determined.

Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Your opinion doesn't matter. Just like my opinion doesn't currently matter against the SCOTUS recent ruling. Until such point I put forward a case to challenge that decision and the SCOTUS rules in my favor.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.

Simply wrong. The courts of a country do not "rule" on the topic of secession. If a territory of Algeria is feeling persecuted and wants to form its own country because of irreconcilable differences it is not for the persecutors to decide. That falls into an outside structure such as International Law. When you have a dispute with someone you appeal to an outside source or structure, not the person you are having a dispute with. In secession the US Colonies originally appealed to outside principles of Natural Law and the Law of Nations, under principles which are still used and cited by territories who have seceded from their countries.

In International Law the topic of secession is still a very much debated and controversial subject and is nowhere near settled:

E-International Relations - Is There a Right to Secession in International Law? (https://www.e-ir.info/2020/05/18/is-there-a-right-to-secession-in-international-law/)

    ...

    Conclusion

    The principle of self-determination, particularly the right to remedial secession, is still a much-debated topic in international law. Its development from a colonial to post-colonial doctrine has been highly controversial for many states, scholars and international lawyers alike. The lack of recent ICJ opinion and judgement on the matter has only served to add further confusion to the principle, and there is a pressing need for the Court to resolve this before its ambiguous interpretation impacts further on the international legal system.

According to you, if a country doesn't want its territories to secede, that's the end of the story and there is no need for any form of outside law to determine that. This would be a ridiculous position to hold and is clearly and blatantly wrong.

International law appears to disagree with the US law as interpreted by SCOTUS. It wouldn’t be the first time the US disregarded international law and international law is not held to be as binding as domestic law. It’s largely irrelevant though since in the case of a state declaring their secession, the choice for the federal government would be to either let them go peacefully or not.

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on June 29, 2022, 04:34:39 PM
Also for a fun statistic, the number one cause of death for pregnant women is homicide. A lot of women don't know they're even pregnant by six weeks (which is the ban limit in TN now). Let's watch those homicides go up when women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies.
Unremarkably, the perp would face TWO counts of homicide. Are you arguing the charge for the second should be dropped because no human was killed?
Can't believe someone made a throw away just to say that smh
The consent of the pregnant woman makes the entire difference.

Quote
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.
*Note that is says legal victim, not legal person

Quote
Bars prosecution under this Act: (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman (or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf) has been obtained or is implied by law or for conduct relating to any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (2) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
This is also called the Laci and Connor's (Peterson) Law where Laci was 8 months pregnant. Looking around some legal sites, some have a prerequisite on how far along the fetus needs to be and specify death must be the result of a malicious and violent criminal act.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 29, 2022, 07:06:02 PM
So again, the issue has not been determined.

Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Your opinion doesn't matter. Just like my opinion doesn't currently matter against the SCOTUS recent ruling. Until such point I put forward a case to challenge that decision and the SCOTUS rules in my favor.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.
According to you, if a country doesn't want its territories to secede, that's the end of the story and there is no need for any form of outside law to determine that. This would be a ridiculous position to hold and is clearly and blatantly wrong.

Wrong, not according to me. According to the SCOTUS.

If you have an issue with it, put forth a case to the SCOTUS to reverse Texas v White. Or, take the issue to the ICJ and see if they will back you up.

In the meantime, the SCOTUS ruling on Texas v White interprets that State succession is forbidden by the constitution, whether you like it or not. Simple as that.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on June 29, 2022, 07:56:05 PM
https://twitter.com/acrowandthedead/status/1541602157492948994
Quote
I take methotrexate to control my Rhumatoid. I was told today I could not be prescribed it any longer as I am viably fertile and it is a medication that can be used for abortion.

I'm sure that's fine, yeah?  Who cares if SOME medications are banned.  There's still freedom... right?  Next y'all will ban Coat Hangers, I bet.



Seriously, this is exactly the same as the damn gun debate.

One side: "We need to stop the senseless killing"
The other side: "If you ban (Guns/Abortions) only criminals will have (Guns/Abortions)!"
One side: "We'll ban everything related to (gun/abortions)"
The other side: "You can't stop it all so its pointless!  Give us OUR FREEDOM!"
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 29, 2022, 08:49:12 PM
Also for a fun statistic, the number one cause of death for pregnant women is homicide. A lot of women don't know they're even pregnant by six weeks (which is the ban limit in TN now). Let's watch those homicides go up when women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies.
Unremarkably, the perp would face TWO counts of homicide. Are you arguing the charge for the second should be dropped because no human was killed?
Can't believe someone made a throwaway just to say that smh
The consent of the pregnant woman makes the entire difference.
So anyone can determine the legal definition of a person at any given moment?

Yeah, that seems totally cool. ::)

Quote
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.
*Note that is says legal victim, not legal person.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102

Seems a crime victim is a person

You are just flat-out wrong.

So, there you have it.

An unborn fetus is a person.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on June 29, 2022, 09:15:11 PM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102

Seems a crime victim is a person

You are just flat-out wrong.

So, there you have it.

An unborn fetus is a person.
This is just so lazy. You're telling me I'm wrong for pasting a literal law that explicitly excludes abortions and pretending like you understand legal terms better than people who write the laws.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 29, 2022, 09:22:40 PM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102

Seems a crime victim is a person

You are just flat-out wrong.

So, there you have it.

An unborn fetus is a person.

In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court asserted that corporations are people. Seems like a lot of things can be a person. Until such time that States out-and-out ban all abortions with no exceptions, all abortions are crimes against victims/persons?

If the mother dies and her death could have been prevented if she aborted, yet a law states that abortion under any circumstances is a crime, is the mother not a person, a victim? Who deserves to live, the Mother or the fetus?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on June 29, 2022, 09:32:55 PM
Legally speaking, there is a difference between person and natural person.

Quote
legal person
Primary tabs
Overview
Legal person refers to a human or non-human entity that is treated as a person for limited legal purposes.

Quote
In law, a human person is called a natural person (sometimes also a physical person), and a non-human person is called a juridical person (sometimes also a juridic, juristic, artificial, legal, or fictitious person, Latin: persona ficta).

I should have specified "natural" not "legal" but I'm not a lawyer and so got it mixed up.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2022, 11:56:49 PM
Wrong, not according to me. According to the SCOTUS.

If you have an issue with it, put forth a case to the SCOTUS to reverse Texas v White. Or, take the issue to the ICJ and see if they will back you up.

In the meantime, the SCOTUS ruling on Texas v White interprets that State succession is forbidden by the constitution, whether you like it or not. Simple as that.

You have been wrong in so many ways, and you are fundamentally wrong on this too. The ruling did not determine that secession is forbidden. It ruled that unilateral secession is forbidden.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/


Even according to this botched ruling that you cannot seem to defend the validity of if your life depended on it, secession is not forbidden.

Your original argument was that states should not have differing laws because it wasn't like the EU to where states could leave. You are incorrect. According to the ruling you are unable to defend it is possible for secession to occur. The majority states do have an option if they don't like that some states have different laws that they don't like; they could secede, or try to force those states to secede, or potentially accept their secession.

(https://i.imgur.com/mV2Xtj9.png)

So, you're wrong. You have been wrong on every level, and are wrong about what you think this ruling determined.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 30, 2022, 12:33:34 AM
Interesting interpretation of constitutional law you're making. I'll stick with lawyers making the actual interpretation, not you.

In the meantime, according to lawyers, you are wrong:

1.1 The distinction between a (mere) justification and having a claim-right
We begin with a distinction between unilateral and consensual secession. The former is secession without the consent of the state from which a portion of territory is taken by the seceding group or without constitutional sanction.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/secession/

From Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law re Texas v White 1869:

Conclusion
In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit. The Court held that Texas had remained a state, despite joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision. The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/74us700
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2022, 12:37:16 AM
Interesting interpretation of constitutional law you're making. I'll stick with lawyers making the actual interpretation, not you.

In the meantime, according to lawyers, you are wrong:

1.1 The distinction between a (mere) justification and having a claim-right
We begin with a distinction between unilateral and consensual secession. The former is secession without the consent of the state from which a portion of territory is taken by the seceding group or without constitutional sanction.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/secession/

From Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law re Texas v White 1869:

Conclusion
In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit. The Court held that Texas had remained a state, despite joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision. The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/74us700

Wow. You did not even read your own posted text you pasted from "the lawyers" -

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union"
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 30, 2022, 03:05:15 AM
Interesting interpretation of constitutional law you're making. I'll stick with lawyers making the actual interpretation, not you.

In the meantime, according to lawyers, you are wrong:

1.1 The distinction between a (mere) justification and having a claim-right
We begin with a distinction between unilateral and consensual secession. The former is secession without the consent of the state from which a portion of territory is taken by the seceding group or without constitutional sanction.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/secession/

From Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law re Texas v White 1869:

Conclusion
In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit. The Court held that Texas had remained a state, despite joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision. The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/74us700

Wow. You did not even read your own posted text you pasted from "the lawyers" -

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union"

Law Definition:

Unilaterally means that the Declarant may take the authorized action without the consent, approval, vote, or joinder of any other person, such as Owners, mortgagees, and the Association.
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/unilaterally

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature..."
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2022, 03:32:49 AM
Yes, the definition of unilateral was posted already. It means that if the blue and red states don't like each other's laws and would rather govern themselves, secession is possible.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 30, 2022, 04:02:26 AM
Yes, the definition of unilateral was posted already. It means that if the blue and red states don't like each other's laws and would rather govern themselves, secession is possible.

How do you get that from this:

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature..."

Essentially, they (Texas) could not unilaterally (may NOT take the authorized action to secede without the consent, approval, vote, or joinder of any other person, such as Owners, mortgagees, and the Association (The US Governmment).

It's pretty clear. What laws or rulings are you looking at that say the SCOTUS' interpretation of the Constitution was wrong?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2022, 04:30:37 AM
Yes, the definition of unilateral was posted already. It means that if the blue and red states don't like each other's laws and would rather govern themselves, secession is possible.

How do you get that from this:

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature..."

Essentially, they (Texas) could not unilaterally (may NOT take the authorized action to secede without the consent, approval, vote, or joinder of any other person, such as Owners, mortgagees, and the Association (The US Governmment).

It's pretty clear. What laws or rulings are you looking at that say the SCOTUS' interpretation of the Constitution was wrong?

As bad as the constiutional argument was to get there in that case, the feeling Justices wanted to express about secession had at least a little logic.

They are saying that single state could not do it alone. If the Nortern states decided that they did not want to tolerate slavery in the Union they could have decided with the Southern states to split apart in secession. There was a secessionist solution there. They could have mutually split apart from each other if they wanted to, without resorting to violence.

You were simply incorrect about it being impossible to leave and about it necessitating war. If the states do not like each other's laws they are free to split up, even by the opinion of that court.

As an alternate to secession, it was also possible for the states to simply decide that slavery was prohibited with the proper process of a Constitutional amendment and could have simply accepted the loss with sportsmanship and understanding if the country was not ready for it. Waiting for a super majority of states to agree on slavery would have solved the issue. A number of other countries largely came to reject slavery, so there is no excuse for calling for violence or workarounds when you are unable to pass a law in your own. Britain was able to pass legislation properly and end slavery without bloodshed. France managed to do it. Spain did it. Germany did it. All did it by their established and accepted process of abridging their national laws.

In this case when you are told that you need a Constitutional amendment for abortion and to follow the rules the liberal response is "Noooo" and an insistance that everyone must accept an unwritten law about abortion. It is pretty sad that you can't seem to accept rules and the proper process of amending the Constitution to your liking.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 30, 2022, 06:56:07 AM
Yes, the definition of unilateral was posted already. It means that if the blue and red states don't like each other's laws and would rather govern themselves, secession is possible.

How do you get that from this:

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature..."

Essentially, they (Texas) could not unilaterally (may NOT take the authorized action to secede without the consent, approval, vote, or joinder of any other person, such as Owners, mortgagees, and the Association (The US Governmment).

It's pretty clear. What laws or rulings are you looking at that say the SCOTUS' interpretation of the Constitution was wrong?

As bad as the constiutional argument was to get there in that case, the feeling Justices wanted to express about secession had at least a little logic.

They are saying that single state could not do it alone. If the Nortern states decided that they did not want to tolerate slavery in the Union they could have decided to split apart from the Southern states in secession. There was a secessionist solution there. They could have mutually split apart from each other if they wanted to, without resorting to violence.

They could of, but didn't. Hence a little thing called the 'Civil War'.

Your argument seems to be that they could have done something different. Whatever. They chose not to take the path you outlined. And that is that.

You were simply incorrect about it being impossible to leave and about it necessitating war. If the states do not like each other's laws they are free to split up, even by the opinion of that court.

Who said something was "impossible"? Anything is possible, but the fact remains that SCOTUS ruled secession unconstitutional. Period.
States are allowed to split themselves. There have been attempts to do so in at least California and Texas. But as evidenced by the Texas vs White decision, States are not allowed to wholly secede even if their people vote for it. Simple as that. And, even though those States did secede, the SCOTUS said that's all fine and good, but under our Constitutional eye, the secession was not recognized and the Feds determined they were still part of the union, even during Reconstruction. It's all right there in the decision.

As an alternate to secession, it was also possible for the states to simply decide that slavery was prohibited with the proper process of a Constitutional amendment and could have simply accepted the loss with sportsmanship and understanding if the country was not ready for it. This would have solved the issue. A number of countries largely came to reject slavery, so there is no excuse for calling for violence or workarounds when you are unable to pass a law in your own. Britain was able to pass legislation properly and end slavery without bloodshed. France managed to do it. Spain did it. Germany did it. All did it by their established and accepted process of abridging their national laws.

We're not talking about "could of's" because the fact of the matter is the actual history that occurred. Not what you would have preferred as an option.

In this case when you are told that you need a Constitutional amendment for abortion and to follow the rules the liberal response is "Noooo" and an insistance that everyone must accept an unwritten law about abortion. It is pretty sad that you can't seem to accept rules and the proper process of amending the Constitution to your liking.

It's sad they I can't accept the rules? Talk about talking out both sides of your mouth. As has already been shown, SCOTUS deemed secession unconstitutional. There's your rule to follow which you don't seem to want to accept.
As for abortion, the SCOTUS ruled that RvW is out and States can make their own rules. I'm not happy about it, find fault with it, but SCOTUS has ruled. So I must abide by the rule and work toward getting it changed.

Same for you. If you don't like the secession ruling from SCOTUS, work to have it changed. I'm not sure why you're getting all hypocritical and not grasping these simple facts.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 30, 2022, 07:06:29 AM
Your argument seems to be that they could have done something different. Whatever. They chose not to take the path you outlined. And that is that.
And how, exactly, does that affect the legality of that path?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 30, 2022, 07:24:34 AM
Your argument seems to be that they could have done something different. Whatever. They chose not to take the path you outlined. And that is that.
And how, exactly, does that affect the legality of that path?

I'm not sure I understand the question. But Tom's point is that if the Southern States wanted to keep slavery and leave the Union and the North was like, "Ok cool, let's draw up the paperwork" - That would be legal. I agree. If everyone agrees, great, off we go. No harm, no foul, legal or otherwise. But that's not what happened, obvi. Why the North didn't just let the South bail out of the Union, I don't know. But they obviously didn't.

The legal issue we're discussing is around the post-Civil War decision handed down by SCOTUS in Texas v White. Nothing to do with the legality of the North deciding to not let the South secede back in 1861. The ruling in question was made a few years after the war ended and a year or so before Reconstruction basically ended. Though I suppose retroactively, it basically said it was unconstitutional for the South to secede prior to the war and the Feds didn't recognize secession States as a separate entity from the Union throughout the war - It was considered a rebellion instead.

Probably similar to how Jan 6th is classified, was it a protest, a demonstration, a rebellion, an insurrection, or a coup. Depends on who you ask.

Not sure if I addressed your question.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 30, 2022, 07:37:42 AM
It sounds to me like you're completely misunderstanding Tom's argument. You claim that secession in the USA is illegal. He presented a route which would lead to secession, and which is not covered by your argument. Whether or not it happened is utterly irrelevant to what you're trying to propose.

To be blunt: Tom is right and you are wrong about the legality of states' secession in the USA. It is possible to establish a process for secession that isn't unconstitutional (within SCOTUS's current implementation).

Similarly, it is perfectly possible to create legislation to protect abortion rights at a federal level. It is difficult to accomplish, and that's by design. Roe v Wade was an attempt at circumventing that design.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 30, 2022, 08:15:58 AM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102

Seems a crime victim is a person

You are just flat-out wrong.

So, there you have it.

An unborn fetus is a person.
This is just so lazy. You're telling me I'm wrong for pasting a literal law that explicitly excludes abortions and pretending like you understand legal terms better than people who write the laws.
Lazy?

The source I posted is a legal source, defining what a victim is.

A victim is a person, period, end of sentence.

That means when an abortion happens, a person is killed.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 30, 2022, 08:43:45 AM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102

Seems a crime victim is a person

You are just flat-out wrong.

So, there you have it.

An unborn fetus is a person.
This is just so lazy. You're telling me I'm wrong for pasting a literal law that explicitly excludes abortions and pretending like you understand legal terms better than people who write the laws.
Lazy?

The source I posted is a legal source, defining what a victim is.

A victim is a person, period, end of sentence.

That means when an abortion happens, a person is killed.

You have to define first whether a fetus is a ‘person’ or not. Then you can make the claim that when an abortion happens, a person is killed. That’s pretty much the crux of the whole issue; is a fetus a person at 6 weeks gestation? 12 weeks? 24 weeks? At conception?

Once you’ve defined that, then comes the sticky wicket around exceptions for the mothers health & rape and incest. And perhaps even viability of the fetus.

The easy out is a person exists at conception and there are no exceptions, all abortions under any circumstances are forbidden. Is that where you are?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 30, 2022, 09:31:39 AM
That seems pretty unlikely.
For now it might seem unlikely, but also seems pretty fucking dangerous to assume it will stay that way given the political climate here in the states and how SCOTUS has their eyes on rolling back other rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriages. We have extremists here and the conservatives are not afraid to pander to them.

I have to say when I saw the recent SCOTUS decision I didn't know about the trigger laws.
I don't know if you watch Last Week Tonight with John Oliver but he did a whole piece on this and mentioned those. I hadn't realised that this ruling would have such an immediate and devastating effect. Things are getting dangerously regressive in the US.

The two extreme positions which really annoy me though are the one from the Republicans which implies they think pro-choice people are just itching to rip full term babies from their mother's womb and strangle them while we all watch and laugh. And the "my body, my choice" argument which implies that it is entirely the mother's prerogative what to do and no consideration should be given to the fetus. In real life no-one actually believes a 12 week old fetus is equivalent to a baby, but after 12 weeks almost all pregnancies will progress to term, I don't think that is completely irrelevant in the discussion. TL;DR This is a complex issue which too many people pretend is a simple black and white one on both sides.

And as much of a shit show as things are over here, it does seem like things are even worse in the US. So...well done, I guess?

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 30, 2022, 10:36:26 AM
As we admit that it is a complicated issue it’s also important to remember that the vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester before viability and that the small percentage that are done after, the vast majority are for medically necessary reasons and the tiny percentage of those that aren’t could likely be greatly reduced by access to abortion, contraception and better sex education.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 30, 2022, 11:17:43 AM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102

Seems a crime victim is a person

You are just flat-out wrong.

So, there you have it.

An unborn fetus is a person.
This is just so lazy. You're telling me I'm wrong for pasting a literal law that explicitly excludes abortions and pretending like you understand legal terms better than people who write the laws.
Lazy?

The source I posted is a legal source, defining what a victim is.

A victim is a person, period, end of sentence.

That means when an abortion happens, a person is killed.

You have to define first whether a fetus is a ‘person’ or not. Then you can make the claim that when an abortion happens, a person is killed. That’s pretty much the crux of the whole issue; is a fetus a person at 6 weeks gestation? 12 weeks? 24 weeks? At conception?
The law already defines it.

If you murder women who are pregnant, you are guilty of two counts of murder.

Pretty clear cut.

It is only philosophical and intellectual dishonesty that allows for the mental reservation and equivocation evident in your written gymnastics.
Once you’ve defined that, then comes the sticky wicket around exceptions for the mothers health & rape and incest. And perhaps even viability of the fetus.

The easy out is a person exists at conception and there are no exceptions, all abortions under any circumstances are forbidden. Is that where you are?
I understand some people's need to have their bloodlust satisfied, regardless of what others know to be just and moral.

That is where I am.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 30, 2022, 11:23:28 AM
As we admit that it is a complicated issue it’s also important to remember that the vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester before viability and that the small percentage that are done after, the vast majority are for medically necessary reasons and the tiny percentage of those that aren’t could likely be greatly reduced by access to abortion, contraception and better sex education.
If what you write is the actual case (all are done for medically necessary reasons) then we wouldn't have all the other BS trotted out, such as rape or incest (less than .05 could EVER possibly be for this reason.

No, a vast majority of abortions performed are simply because the woman and often the man does not want to bear the responsibility of raising a child.

Reproductive rights...HA...what a freaking joke!
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 30, 2022, 11:55:49 AM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102

Seems a crime victim is a person

You are just flat-out wrong.

So, there you have it.

An unborn fetus is a person.

In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court asserted that corporations are people. Seems like a lot of things can be a person. Until such time that States out-and-out ban all abortions with no exceptions, all abortions are crimes against victims/persons?

If the mother dies and her death could have been prevented if she aborted, yet a law states that abortion under any circumstances is a crime, is the mother not a person, a victim? Who deserves to live, the Mother or the fetus?
Yeah, if a woman is found to be giving birth to a corporation, you (and I) would find it okay to kill it.

You, probably due to your far-left political view.

Yes, corporations can also be victims of physical harm.

You have no point in bringing this up.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 30, 2022, 12:44:34 PM
As we admit that it is a complicated issue it’s also important to remember that the vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester before viability and that the small percentage that are done after, the vast majority are for medically necessary reasons and the tiny percentage of those that aren’t could likely be greatly reduced by access to abortion, contraception and better sex education.
If what you write is the actual case (all are done for medically necessary reasons) then we wouldn't have all the other BS trotted out, such as rape or incest (less than .05 could EVER possibly be for this reason.

Breathe. That’s not what I wrote.

Quote
No, a vast majority of abortions performed are simply because the woman and often the man does not want to bear the responsibility of raising a child.

Indeed. And those happen almost entirely in the first trimester. You are making our concordance seem like a disagreement.

Quote
Reproductive rights...HA...what a freaking joke!

Well that’s a non sequitur.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 30, 2022, 12:59:57 PM
As we admit that it is a complicated issue it’s also important to remember that the vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester before viability and that the small percentage that are done after, the vast majority are for medically necessary reasons and the tiny percentage of those that aren’t could likely be greatly reduced by access to abortion, contraception and better sex education.
If what you write is the actual case (all are done for medically necessary reasons) then we wouldn't have all the other BS trotted out, such as rape or incest (less than .05 could EVER possibly be for this reason.

Breathe. That’s not what I wrote.
A. - I am breathing.

2.  "a vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester before viability" (which is exactly what you wrote) and, " the vast majority are for medically necessary reasons," (also exactly what you wrote.) 
Quote
No, a vast majority of abortions performed are simply because the woman and often the man does not want to bear the responsibility of raising a child.

Indeed. And those happen almost entirely in the first trimester. You are making our concordance seem like a disagreement.
This ought to be interesting, but I'll bite - How does refusing to accept responsibility for the consequence of action somehow qualify for the adjectives "medically necessary"?



Quote
Reproductive rights...HA...what a freaking joke!

Well that’s a non sequitur.
Yeah, the non-sequitur commenced by those labeling the act of murder as a "reproductive right." Typical BS trotted out by bots, and other gaslighting scumbags, found in or emanating from, your typical DARPA-funded server farms, primarily located in Ukraine.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 30, 2022, 01:24:14 PM
A. - I am breathing.

2.  "a vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester before viability" (which is exactly what you wrote) and, " the vast majority are for medically necessary reasons," (also exactly what you wrote.) 
Agreed, but you left out exactly what I wrote between those, and that makes all the difference in the world.  So if you are calm and breathing why did this mistake happen?

Quote
This ought to be interesting, but I'll bite - How does refusing to accept responsibility for the consequence of action somehow qualify for the adjectives "medically necessary"?

It doesn't ??? See above where you are either misunderstanding of misrepresenting what I've written.


Quote
Yeah, the non-sequitur commenced by those labeling the act of murder as a "reproductive right." Typical BS trotted out by bots, and other gaslighting scumbags, found in or emanating from, your typical DARPA-funded server farms, primarily located in Ukraine.

Even more non-sequiturs.  This is getting really interesting.  More please.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 30, 2022, 01:49:05 PM
Imagine using the adjectives "medically necessary," when describing the act of murder.

Yet, here, directly above this post, Rama does exactly just that.

Remarkable.

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 30, 2022, 01:52:43 PM
Imagine using the adjectives "medically necessary," when describing the act of murder.

Yet, here, directly above this post, Rama does exactly just that.

Remarkable.

I see, your attempt to misrepresent what I wrote failed comepletely so now you are pivoting.  If you aren't interested in having an honest conversation, you should just avoid me instead of looking lying to try and make me look bad.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 30, 2022, 02:50:09 PM
Imagine using the adjectives "medically necessary," when describing the act of murder.

Yet, here, directly above this post, Rama does exactly just that.

Remarkable.

I see, your attempt to misrepresent what I wrote failed comepletely so now you are pivoting.  If you aren't interested in having an honest conversation, you should just avoid me instead of looking lying to try and make me look bad.
Not at all. I have remained completely consistent and on target.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with my characterization of your post.

I do not consider you to be an expert on others committing acts of misrepresentation.

But take heart, as you are an expert at such acts, having had so much practice.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on June 30, 2022, 02:54:01 PM
If you aren't interested in having an honest conversation, you should just avoid me instead of looking lying to try and make me look bad.
He never is. We bypassed homicide being the number one cause of death to pregnant women and are back on first trimester abortion is murder that apparently matters more than the woman. There's no point.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 30, 2022, 03:25:17 PM
If you aren't interested in having an honest conversation, you should just avoid me instead of looking lying to try and make me look bad.
He never is. We bypassed homicide being the number one cause of death to pregnant women and are back on first trimester abortion is murder that apparently matters more than the woman. There's no point.

True enough.  He is always 100% more cordial after returning from his bans and I get duped.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 30, 2022, 03:34:00 PM
If you aren't interested in having an honest conversation, you should just avoid me instead of looking lying to try and make me look bad.
He never is. We bypassed homicide being the number one cause of death to pregnant women
No, we didn't.

I pointed out an additional charge of homicide is also leveled, something you very much wanted to keep out of the discussion as it renders your reasoning in support of abortion to actually be reasoning in support of wanton murder.
and are back on first trimester abortion is murder that apparently matters more than the woman. There's no point.
No one stated any murder of any one person matters more than the murder of any other person except for abortion advocates like you.

I do not want to see anyone murdered except bad actors.

A fetus cannot be a bad actor.

People who are irresponsible, engage in coitus without exercising proper birth control, all while thinking "Gee, I hope our act does not result in a pregnancy..." are actually the bad actors.

In addition, it would be good to see the equivocation so evident in posts like yours meet its justified demise.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on June 30, 2022, 03:36:59 PM
True enough.  He is always 100% more cordial
I consider it cordial to point out obvious crap so others do not step into it.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on June 30, 2022, 04:44:28 PM
No, we didn't.

I pointed out an additional charge of homicide is also leveled, something you very much wanted to keep out of the discussion as it renders your reasoning in support of abortion to actually be reasoning in support of wanton murder.
I did not care if it was brought into the discussion or not. The law explicitly excludes abortion and as I said before, consent makes all the difference. This is not my opinion, it was literally written into law. If someone decided to violently cut off a woman's breasts that would be a crime. If a woman and her doctor decide on a mastectomy to treat cancer that would not be a crime.

Fetal homicide hinges on the violent act against a pregnant woman. Not a medical decision the woman makes for herself.
As pointed out, "person" in legal terms means whatever fuck all the laws want it to mean. It does not mean a naturalized person with rights. If you have problems with that then, well just wait longer and I'm sure it will all be pushed aside when we become a christian taliban state.

I don't know why I bother. You say obvious troll shit like
A. - I am breathing.

2. 
So just go back to ranting and telling me my copy/pasta is wrong.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on June 30, 2022, 05:11:00 PM
True enough.  He is always 100% more cordial
I consider it cordial to point out obvious crap so others do not step into it.

So for the benefit of future readers I will point out that I never wrote that all first trimester abortions are medically necessary. Lackey is either too stupid or too dishonest to take that on. What I wrote was the following, in bullet point form, so the stupid can better understand and the dishonest can not twist:
• Approx. 90% of abortions are first trimester
• Of the remaining abortions, taking place after the first trimester, the vast majority are medically necessary
• Of the minuscule percentage of abortions that are after the first trimester and are elective, a bunch of them could be avoided by improving access to abortion, contraception and improving reproductive health education. Indeed, females under 18 are over represented in this last category because of access and education.

Baked in to this is that I don’t think a fetus that is not viable should be considered a person. If you want to accuse me or some moral failing for that, go ahead, better yet, make a good argument in good faith to change my mind or plant a seed.

Now, inb4 Total Lackey misrepresents me again and accuses me of spearheading DARPA’s great replacement on behalf of Ukraine or some dumb shit.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: WTF_Seriously on June 30, 2022, 05:52:55 PM
......Things are getting dangerously regressive in the US.

......

And as much of a shit show as things are over here, it does seem like things are even worse in the US. So...well done, I guess?

This is just getting started.  Clarence Thomas has had a giant boner ever since the Trump nominations.  He's been waiting for this moment to progress the U.S. back 50 years from his first day on the bench.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on June 30, 2022, 07:25:15 PM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102

Seems a crime victim is a person

You are just flat-out wrong.

So, there you have it.

An unborn fetus is a person.
This is just so lazy. You're telling me I'm wrong for pasting a literal law that explicitly excludes abortions and pretending like you understand legal terms better than people who write the laws.
Lazy?

The source I posted is a legal source, defining what a victim is.

A victim is a person, period, end of sentence.

That means when an abortion happens, a person is killed.

You have to define first whether a fetus is a ‘person’ or not. Then you can make the claim that when an abortion happens, a person is killed. That’s pretty much the crux of the whole issue; is a fetus a person at 6 weeks gestation? 12 weeks? 24 weeks? At conception?
The law already defines it.

If you murder women who are pregnant, you are guilty of two counts of murder.

Pretty clear cut.

Not really that clear cut:

Some of the state-specific feticide laws considered the fetus to be a person if it is viable, meaning it can survive out of the womb independently.

Some States, the ones you would expect, consider a fetus a "person" at any stage of pregnancy, hence the double homicide. Other States say a fetus is a "person" at viability, not before.
And even some States have no laws on the books regarding this at all.

So no, the blanket statement of "murder women who are pregnant, you are guilty of two counts of murder," is not true in all cases.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 04:54:27 PM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102

Seems a crime victim is a person

You are just flat-out wrong.

So, there you have it.

An unborn fetus is a person.
This is just so lazy. You're telling me I'm wrong for pasting a literal law that explicitly excludes abortions and pretending like you understand legal terms better than people who write the laws.
Lazy?

The source I posted is a legal source, defining what a victim is.

A victim is a person, period, end of sentence.

That means when an abortion happens, a person is killed.

You have to define first whether a fetus is a ‘person’ or not. Then you can make the claim that when an abortion happens, a person is killed. That’s pretty much the crux of the whole issue; is a fetus a person at 6 weeks gestation? 12 weeks? 24 weeks? At conception?
The law already defines it.

If you murder women who are pregnant, you are guilty of two counts of murder.

Pretty clear cut.

Not really that clear cut:

Some of the state-specific feticide laws considered the fetus to be a person if it is viable, meaning it can survive out of the womb independently.

Some States, the ones you would expect, consider a fetus a "person" at any stage of pregnancy, hence the double homicide. Other States say a fetus is a "person" at viability, not before.
And even some States have no laws on the books regarding this at all.

So no, the blanket statement of "murder women who are pregnant, you are guilty of two counts of murder," is not true in all cases.
Of course, it isn't true in all cases due to the fact there are people who want to substitute their own reality for actual reality so they can kill a person via abortion without fear of external consequence.

People who do this are no better than John Wayne Gacy or Jeffery Dahmer or Ted Bundy.

The reality is that a victim = a person.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on July 01, 2022, 05:39:46 PM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102

Seems a crime victim is a person

You are just flat-out wrong.

So, there you have it.

An unborn fetus is a person.
This is just so lazy. You're telling me I'm wrong for pasting a literal law that explicitly excludes abortions and pretending like you understand legal terms better than people who write the laws.
Lazy?

The source I posted is a legal source, defining what a victim is.

A victim is a person, period, end of sentence.

That means when an abortion happens, a person is killed.

You have to define first whether a fetus is a ‘person’ or not. Then you can make the claim that when an abortion happens, a person is killed. That’s pretty much the crux of the whole issue; is a fetus a person at 6 weeks gestation? 12 weeks? 24 weeks? At conception?
The law already defines it.

If you murder women who are pregnant, you are guilty of two counts of murder.

Pretty clear cut.

Not really that clear cut:

Some of the state-specific feticide laws considered the fetus to be a person if it is viable, meaning it can survive out of the womb independently.

Some States, the ones you would expect, consider a fetus a "person" at any stage of pregnancy, hence the double homicide. Other States say a fetus is a "person" at viability, not before.
And even some States have no laws on the books regarding this at all.

So no, the blanket statement of "murder women who are pregnant, you are guilty of two counts of murder," is not true in all cases.
Of course, it isn't true in all cases due to the fact there are people who want to substitute their own reality for actual reality so they can kill a person via abortion without fear of external consequence.

People who do this are no better than John Wayne Gacy or Jeffery Dahmer or Ted Bundy.

The reality is that a victim = a person.

And you believe that conception immediately equals personhood?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 07:49:20 PM
And you believe that conception immediately equals personhood?
I refer you back to the topic of abortion.

Abortion takes place at a time after conception.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on July 01, 2022, 08:59:14 PM
And you believe that conception immediately equals personhood?
I refer you back to the topic of abortion.

Abortion takes place at a time after conception.

When does a pregnancy start? (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth)

The start of pregnancy is actually the first day of your last menstrual period. This is called the gestational age, or menstrual age. It’s about two weeks ahead of when conception actually occurs. Though it may seem strange, the date of the first day of your last period will be an important date when determining your due date. Your healthcare provider will ask you about this date and will use it to figure out how far along you are in your pregnancy.

What happens right after conception?

Within 24 hours after fertilization, the egg begins rapidly dividing into many cells. It remains in the fallopian tube for about three days after conception. Then the fertilized egg (now called a blastocyte) continues to divide as it passes slowly through the fallopian tube to the uterus. Once there, its next job is to attach to the endometrium. This is called implantation.
Within three weeks, the blastocyte cells ultimately form a little ball, or an embryo. By this time, the first nerve cells have formed.


So do you believe a blastocyte is a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on July 01, 2022, 09:19:38 PM
What happens right after conception?

Within 24 hours after fertilization, the egg begins rapidly dividing into many cells. It remains in the fallopian tube for about three days after conception. Then the fertilized egg (now called a blastocyte) continues to divide as it passes slowly through the fallopian tube to the uterus. Once there, its next job is to attach to the endometrium. This is called implantation.

What about blastocytes that don't implant or otherwise become non-viable due to natural reasons?  Is the woman liable the loss of pregnancy for natural reasons if she doesn't even know that she might have been (at least briefly) pregnant?
Quote from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340/
How many human embryos die between fertilisation and birth under natural conditions? It is widely accepted that natural human embryo mortality is high, particularly during the first weeks after fertilisation, with total prenatal losses of 70% and higher frequently claimed.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 09:24:51 PM
And you believe that conception immediately equals personhood?
I refer you back to the topic of abortion.

Abortion takes place at a time after conception.

When does a pregnancy start? (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth)

The start of pregnancy is actually the first day of your last menstrual period. This is called the gestational age, or menstrual age. It’s about two weeks ahead of when conception actually occurs. Though it may seem strange, the date of the first day of your last period will be an important date when determining your due date. Your healthcare provider will ask you about this date and will use it to figure out how far along you are in your pregnancy.

What happens right after conception?

Within 24 hours after fertilization, the egg begins rapidly dividing into many cells. It remains in the fallopian tube for about three days after conception. Then the fertilized egg (now called a blastocyte) continues to divide as it passes slowly through the fallopian tube to the uterus. Once there, its next job is to attach to the endometrium. This is called implantation.
Within three weeks, the blastocyte cells ultimately form a little ball, or an embryo. By this time, the first nerve cells have formed.


So do you believe a blastocyte is a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?
Again, the topic is abortion, not conception.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 09:25:51 PM
What happens right after conception?

Within 24 hours after fertilization, the egg begins rapidly dividing into many cells. It remains in the fallopian tube for about three days after conception. Then the fertilized egg (now called a blastocyte) continues to divide as it passes slowly through the fallopian tube to the uterus. Once there, its next job is to attach to the endometrium. This is called implantation.

What about blastocytes that don't implant or otherwise become non-viable due to natural reasons?  Is the woman liable the loss of pregnancy for natural reasons if she doesn't even know that she might have been (at least briefly) pregnant?
Quote from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340/
How many human embryos die between fertilisation and birth under natural conditions? It is widely accepted that natural human embryo mortality is high, particularly during the first weeks after fertilisation, with total prenatal losses of 70% and higher frequently claimed.
The topic is abortion, not miscarriage.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on July 01, 2022, 09:34:54 PM
The topic is abortion, not miscarriage.
But women are being arrested for miscarriages too.
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/national/miscarriages-are-already-criminalized-roe-v-wade/85-7e78facf-b673-4775-8a09-9a45e3a794b2
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on July 01, 2022, 10:16:15 PM
I vote for changing the term "miscarriage" to "died of natural causes." To call it miscarriage is to pretend like they weren't a fully realized human with hopes and dreams and I just think that's sick. We don't say Jane Doe died of miscarriage at the age of 95!  >o<
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on July 01, 2022, 10:43:05 PM
And you believe that conception immediately equals personhood?
I refer you back to the topic of abortion.

Abortion takes place at a time after conception.

When does a pregnancy start? (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth)

The start of pregnancy is actually the first day of your last menstrual period. This is called the gestational age, or menstrual age. It’s about two weeks ahead of when conception actually occurs. Though it may seem strange, the date of the first day of your last period will be an important date when determining your due date. Your healthcare provider will ask you about this date and will use it to figure out how far along you are in your pregnancy.

What happens right after conception?

Within 24 hours after fertilization, the egg begins rapidly dividing into many cells. It remains in the fallopian tube for about three days after conception. Then the fertilized egg (now called a blastocyte) continues to divide as it passes slowly through the fallopian tube to the uterus. Once there, its next job is to attach to the endometrium. This is called implantation.
Within three weeks, the blastocyte cells ultimately form a little ball, or an embryo. By this time, the first nerve cells have formed.


So do you believe a blastocyte is a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?
Again, the topic is abortion, not conception.

Correct. And here's a question about abortion, the topic: Do you believe a blastocyte is a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tumeni on July 01, 2022, 11:01:35 PM
The topic is abortion, not miscarriage.

Do you think those in the state legislatures can reliably tell the difference? Have they all accounted for it in their lawmaking?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 04:34:32 AM
The topic is abortion, not miscarriage.
But women are being arrested for miscarriages too.
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/national/miscarriages-are-already-criminalized-roe-v-wade/85-7e78facf-b673-4775-8a09-9a45e3a794b2
I find it interesting you provide a source that fails to support your claim in any way whatsoever.

Scratch that, it's hilarious.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 04:36:35 AM
And you believe that conception immediately equals personhood?
I refer you back to the topic of abortion.

Abortion takes place at a time after conception.

When does a pregnancy start? (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth)

The start of pregnancy is actually the first day of your last menstrual period. This is called the gestational age, or menstrual age. It’s about two weeks ahead of when conception actually occurs. Though it may seem strange, the date of the first day of your last period will be an important date when determining your due date. Your healthcare provider will ask you about this date and will use it to figure out how far along you are in your pregnancy.

What happens right after conception?

Within 24 hours after fertilization, the egg begins rapidly dividing into many cells. It remains in the fallopian tube for about three days after conception. Then the fertilized egg (now called a blastocyte) continues to divide as it passes slowly through the fallopian tube to the uterus. Once there, its next job is to attach to the endometrium. This is called implantation.
Within three weeks, the blastocyte cells ultimately form a little ball, or an embryo. By this time, the first nerve cells have formed.


So do you believe a blastocyte is a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?
Again, the topic is abortion, not conception.

Correct. And here's a question about abortion, the topic: Do you believe a blastocyte is a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?
It doesn't matter what I believe about your post.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on July 02, 2022, 07:41:18 AM
I vote for changing the term "miscarriage" to "died of natural causes." To call it miscarriage is to pretend like they weren't a fully realized human with hopes and dreams and I just think that's sick. We don't say Jane Doe died of miscarriage at the age of 95!  >o<

>_> not sure if serious....

But we can say she dies of a miscarriage if a miscarriage causes internal hemmroging and she dies of blood loss.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 11:20:18 AM
The topic is abortion, not miscarriage.

Do you think those in the state legislatures can reliably tell the difference? Have they all accounted for it in their lawmaking?
Maybe, but I am sure they would be more capable than you.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on July 02, 2022, 03:39:59 PM
>_> not sure if serious....
ffs Dave
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on July 02, 2022, 05:08:34 PM
>_> not sure if serious....
ffs Dave

Yes. For the love of fucks.


But seriously, I haven't been paying enough attention to the thread.  Figured it was not serious but i'm far too jaded by reality.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on July 02, 2022, 05:41:42 PM
And you believe that conception immediately equals personhood?
I refer you back to the topic of abortion.

Abortion takes place at a time after conception.

When does a pregnancy start? (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth)

The start of pregnancy is actually the first day of your last menstrual period. This is called the gestational age, or menstrual age. It’s about two weeks ahead of when conception actually occurs. Though it may seem strange, the date of the first day of your last period will be an important date when determining your due date. Your healthcare provider will ask you about this date and will use it to figure out how far along you are in your pregnancy.

What happens right after conception?

Within 24 hours after fertilization, the egg begins rapidly dividing into many cells. It remains in the fallopian tube for about three days after conception. Then the fertilized egg (now called a blastocyte) continues to divide as it passes slowly through the fallopian tube to the uterus. Once there, its next job is to attach to the endometrium. This is called implantation.
Within three weeks, the blastocyte cells ultimately form a little ball, or an embryo. By this time, the first nerve cells have formed.


So do you believe a blastocyte is a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?
Again, the topic is abortion, not conception.

Correct. And here's a question about abortion, the topic: Do you believe a blastocyte is a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?
It doesn't matter what I believe about your post.

Of course it doesn't matter what you believe. I'm just curious as to where someone like you with your post history stands on the topic at hand.

You were talking a lot about personhood, victims, etc. So a natural clarifying question, which is kinda at the root of the entire debate on the topic, is when is something considered a "person"?

So, from a person with your POV, it's a curiosity to see where you stand. As in is a blastocyte a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?

Or is it only a person when the blastocyte becomes an embryo 3 weeks after conception?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 08:21:13 PM
It doesn't matter what I believe about your post.

Of course it doesn't matter what you believe. I'm just curious as to where someone like you with your post history stands on the topic at hand.

You were talking a lot about personhood, victims, etc. So a natural clarifying question, which is kinda at the root of the entire debate on the topic, is when is something considered a "person"?

So, from a person with your POV, it's a curiosity to see where you stand. As in is a blastocyte a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?

Or is it only a person when the blastocyte becomes an embryo 3 weeks after conception?
[/quote]
Now that you finally agree, we can put this to rest.

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on July 02, 2022, 08:48:51 PM
It doesn't matter what I believe about your post.

Of course it doesn't matter what you believe. I'm just curious as to where someone like you with your post history stands on the topic at hand.

You were talking a lot about personhood, victims, etc. So a natural clarifying question, which is kinda at the root of the entire debate on the topic, is when is something considered a "person"?

So, from a person with your POV, it's a curiosity to see where you stand. As in is a blastocyte a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?

Or is it only a person when the blastocyte becomes an embryo 3 weeks after conception?
Now that you finally agree, we can put this to rest.
[/quote]

I would say no, a blastocyte is not a person. So since you said we agree, I'm thinking that you too agree a blastocyte is not a person, therefore, if aborted, it is not a victim and is not murder and is not a crime. Thanks for clarifying & agreeing.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 02, 2022, 09:50:46 PM
I vote for changing the term "miscarriage" to "died of natural causes." To call it miscarriage is to pretend like they weren't a fully realized human with hopes and dreams and I just think that's sick. We don't say Jane Doe died of miscarriage at the age of 95!  >o<

https://newsthump.com/2022/05/28/republicans-finally-back-gun-control-after-school-shootings-repositioned-as-560-week-abortions/
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 10:07:04 PM
^ITT thread, AATW posts a source claiming abortion = murder.

Thanks, AATW!
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on July 02, 2022, 10:34:36 PM
^ITT. A80 thinks that NewsThump is a serious news source.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on July 03, 2022, 01:14:36 AM
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/

I guess she should have kept her legs closed? Right, GOP?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on July 03, 2022, 08:17:32 PM
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/

I guess she should have kept her legs closed? Right, GOP?
Obviously the 10 year old should have realized she was pregnant sooner so as not to miss the 6 week cutoff. /s tag just in case anyone can't tell again
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on July 04, 2022, 09:55:15 AM
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/

I guess she should have kept her legs closed? Right, GOP?

O.o
How the hell did that even happen?  Forgive me but I didn't think ovulation happened until age 12-13?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tumeni on July 04, 2022, 02:58:09 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/p5zuIYI.jpeg)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: BillO on July 04, 2022, 06:17:56 PM
How the hell did that even happen?  Forgive me but I didn't think ovulation happened until age 12-13?

Most girls start their periods when they're about 12, but they can start as early as 8, so it's important to talk to girls from an early age to make sure they're prepared. (https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/periods/starting-periods/#:~:text=Most%20girls%20start%20their%20periods,Periods%20are%20natural.)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 06, 2022, 12:59:04 PM
Liberal Nurses' Union has the solution to the abortion debacle.

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/largest-nurses-union-calls-on-congress-to-legalize-abortion-up-until-birth/

(https://i.imgur.com/J64TttS.png)

Democrat Candidate for Arizona Governor also has the solution.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/11/democrat-candidate-for-arizona-governor-supports-abortion-until-birth/

(https://i.imgur.com/711DM5y.png)

A Richochet writer explains that the abortion ruling was a response to Democrat's extreme abotion-until-birth position:

https://ricochet.com/1280524/sometimes-its-better-to-leave-things-alone/

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2022, 01:18:00 PM
Liberal Nurses' Union has the solution to the abortion debacle.

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/largest-nurses-union-calls-on-congress-to-legalize-abortion-up-until-birth/

(https://i.imgur.com/J64TttS.png)

Yes, because there are healthcare situations where abortions will save a mother's life.  You really struggle with this concept.

EDIT: Here is the letter from the NNU. (https://www.nationalnursesunited.org/sites/default/files/nnu/documents/2022_0705_Letter_to_the_US_Senate_on_WHPA.pdf)  They are claiming that "The basic tenets of ethical health care dictate that patients should enjoy autonomy, self-determination, and dignity over their bodies, their lives, and the health care they receive. " and that "The Women’s Health Protection Act establishes a statutory right for health professionals to provide abortion care without any medically unnecessary restrictions or limitations, and a statutory right of patients to receive that care." (emphasis my own).
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 06, 2022, 01:26:53 PM
Incorrect. Democrats want to remove that late term save-the-life-of-the mother abortion restriction and replace it with something vague like allowing abortions if the abortionist thinks the mother's "mental safety" is at risk. See what they were pushing in Virginia -

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47066307


The law originally said that abortions were only permitted if the risk to the mother's life is "substantial and irremediable". The Democrats wanted to remove this, not add it, as you have erroneously stated.

The same type of vague laws were made in Illinois -

The Illinois law uses the same loopholes which allows for easy third trimester abortions with the same type of vague language seen in other laws.

https://www.chicagonow.com/dennis-byrnes-barbershop/2022/06/the-little-noticed-loophole-in-illinois-law-that-would-allow-abortions-up-to-the-moment-of-birth/

    Abortion in Illinois now is governed by The Reproductive Health Act that proclaims that the procedure is a “fundamental” right. Some reports note that the law supposedly bans abortion after the fetus reaches “viability.”

    Generally overlooked, however, is a provision in the law that says that some exceptions are allowed after viability. For example, the State Journal Register reported, “One can have an abortion in Illinois up to viability, considered to be 24 weeks after conception. After that period of time, an abortion can only be performed if the mother is in medical distress.”

    Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? So, how does one define “medical distress?” When does the law allow an exception after viability?

    The Illinois law specifically lays out the exception:

    "If the health care professional determines that there is fetal viability, the health care professional may provide abortion care only if, in the professional judgment of the health care professional, the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the patient."

    Okay, so how does the law define “health?” Here’s the loophole:

    "'Health of the patient' means all factors that are relevant to the patient’s health and well-being, including, but not limited to, physical, emotional, psychological, and familial health and age."

    In other words, any abortion, even late-term ones, is legal in Illinois if the abortionist simply approves it. He can in his “judgment” conclude that an abortion is necessary for any poorly defined reason. “Health of the patient” includes not just physical health, but also “emotional, psychological and familial health and age.” What is the chance that abortionist would not grant that exception? How emotional does the patient have to be? What is “familial health?” All of these reasons are so subjective that they’re, in effect, an open door.

The text of the bill is here, and the above can be easily verified:

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=3987&ChapterID=64

(https://i.imgur.com/rd0VC69.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/35BFZvf.png)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2022, 01:33:11 PM
Incorrect.

Responding to what the NNU wants with what you think the Democrat legistlation implies legally is pretty dumb, Tom.  You will notice that the law does not absolve medical professionals from the responsibility of their medical ethics.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 06, 2022, 01:38:54 PM
Incorrect.

Responding to what the NNU wants with what you think the Democrat legistlation implies legally is pretty dumb, Tom.  You will notice that the law does not absolve medical professionals from the responsibility of their medical ethics.

The BBC article clearly explained that the Democrats wanted the law to allow an abortion doctor to provide a late term abortion if they thought the mother's mental safety was at risk. The law originally only allowed for life-saving procedures. The Democrats sought to weaken, and not strengthen, the law. So you were blatantly wrong in what the Democrats wanted.

In fact, you have given no example showing that they only want late term abortions for life-saving situations. You have done nothing except spam falsities on this subject.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: garygreen on July 06, 2022, 01:48:12 PM
tom am i correct that you think the left supports late-term abortions because we just viscerally enjoy killing? are you of the opinion that we support it because we want the baby to develop as much as possible before we kill it because we take pleasure from the idea of killing a child?

be real with me here.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2022, 01:53:19 PM
In fact, you have given no example showing that they only want late term abortions for life-saving situations.

I bolded the part where the NNU called for the right to abortions free of medically unnecessary restrictions, did you fail to read?

Quote
You have done nothing except spam falsities on this subject.

Nice try.  You actually sound exactly like Action69.  Maybe you two are alts or separated at birth?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 06, 2022, 02:05:18 PM
Quote from: Rama Set
I bolded the part where the NNU called for the right to abortions free of medically unnecessary restrictions, did you fail to read?

Wrong again. Lifting unnecessary restrictions means lifting restrictions. The NNU letter issues support for the Woman's Health Protection Act. It says "We urge you to suspend the filibuster in order to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act"

https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20220225/dems-abortion

"On February 28, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will bring the Abortion on Demand Until Birth Act, otherwise known as the Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA, S. 1975), to a vote. This legislation codifies Roe v. Wade's precedent of legal abortion through the entirety of pregnancy. The bill passed the House in September and needs 60 votes in order to pass the Senate. If the bill does pass and is signed into law, it will become the first-ever piece of federal legislation legalizing the killing of an unborn child."

The bill was recently reintroduced. See this National Review article from June 15th - https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/congressional-democrats-reintroduce-a-radical-abortion-bill/

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2022, 03:16:24 PM
Quote from: Rama Set
I bolded the part where the NNU called for the right to abortions free of medically unnecessary restrictions, did you fail to read?

Wrong again. Lifting unnecessary restrictions means lifting restrictions.

I never said differently, you are really struggling here.

Quote
   The NNU letter issues support for the Woman's Health Protection Act. It says "We urge you to suspend the filibuster in order to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act"

Yes, because there are elements in the GOP who would have women carry potentially fatal pregnancies to term because they "care about life".  When you understand that elective third trimester aren't something that happen, then you are comfortable passing this law.  When you are solely concerned with politicizing a wedge issue, then you raise alarm bells about an infant genocide or some dumb shit.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 06, 2022, 05:19:41 PM
So your tactic is now to defend late-term abortions by claiming that they rarely happen.

Murder is generally rare, but the rareness is irrelevant to whether murder should be illegal. Murder is murder. Wrong is wrong. The National Review article references an abortion provider who was arrested for giving late-term abortions, in violation of his state laws on late-term abortions.

"In 2013, notorious abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted under Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act for killing 21 infants in utero later than 24 weeks into pregnancy. (Gosnell was also convicted on three counts of murder for killing infants after they had been born.)"

So, it does happen. Whether is it one third trimester baby who is sawed apart, or thousands, wrong is wrong. There are people who want to terminate their late term baby for petty reasons, such as their relationship ending. Laws should be made against murder, no matter how rare. The fact is that Democrats continuously seek to loosen abortion laws and are in favor of legalizing late-term abortion.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tumeni on July 06, 2022, 05:30:57 PM
Tom, you don't find any .... contradiction, say, between the FRC's mission statement and vision?

Vision Statement:
Family Research Council's vision is a prevailing culture in which all human life is valued, families flourish, and religious liberty thrives.
 
Mission of Organization:
Family Research Council's mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2022, 06:26:57 PM
So your tactic is now to defend late-term abortions by claiming that they rarely happen.

No, I am saying that it is a moral panic you are creating.

Quote
So, it does happen. Whether is it one third trimester baby who is sawed apart, or thousands, wrong is wrong.

I think I have already said that I would prefer legislation that differentiates between medically necessary and elective abortions, that seems a reasonable provision to put in.  It is proposterous to say that the NNU endorses elective third trimester abortions considering they specifically call out unnecessary medical restrictions and have a code of ethics.  You aren't willing to have a serious conversation on the topic and solely wish to deal with extreme situations, so we are done until the next time you post something idiotic (see you tomorrow).
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: BillO on July 06, 2022, 07:06:37 PM
.. freedom in public policy ..
Hilarious!

As in .. NO freedom to teach evolution and NO freedom to provide the right for women to access abortion.

Right-wing religious groups are a constant source of comedy.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Clyde Frog on July 06, 2022, 10:12:41 PM
Imagine identifying as Republican in the US and alsonchampioming having the government make decisions on what kind of healthcare a person should be eligible to receive. What about personal liberty, coupled with personal responsibility, without a bunch of government oversight?

Some people really think federal, state, and local governments should be involved in decisions between a doctor and patient. The people best equipped, and the people with the strongest vested interest of the wellbeing of all parties involved in that interaction, are in the exam room. Maybe we should let doctors just do their job? It's not like they don't have years and years of very specialized training.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: BillO on July 07, 2022, 01:04:31 AM
Maybe we should let doctors just do their job? It's not like they don't have years and years of very specialized training.
That would make sense and put no money in a Republican politician's pocket.  Until the SC get's a little balance I feel this reasonable concept hasn't a gnat's change in a bug zapper.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2022, 10:29:18 AM
If this should be a lawless and unregulated matter that is "up to women" then it should be shown that young women are independently capable of making completely correct choices on this subject that they would not come to regret and would not deeply affect them psychologically in long-term trauma. A number of women claim that they were naive about the ramifications of the procedure and that abortion affected them profoundly and was too easy to get. They trusted the process because it was legal. If it's legal then a common person would logically expect that it is properly regulated and pre-determined that it would not harm them. Why don't they deserve to be protected as they expect to be protected?

A number of states have rightfully implemented laws regarding waiting periods and mandatory counseling for abortion. The purpose of the law is to protect people, sometimes from themselves.

See the statements in this supreme court docket - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/148153/20200720161158567_39927%20pdf%20Parker%20app.pdf

APPENDIX A – 375 Other Women Injured By Late Term Abortion


Many more can be found in the document and elsewhere.

This is why states have imposed laws regarding waiting periods and counseling for abortions. The position that there should be no laws on waiting periods and counseling, based on gut feeling and no coherent evidence at all, is contradictory to the evidence showing that women say that they were harmed. It doesn't matter exactly how many women were harmed, just like it doesn't matter how rare murder is to be illegal. If women are being harmed then the state has a responsibility to them, like it has a responsibility to women who are murdered. It is completely reasonable that a woman might be sensitive enough that an abortion would affect them emotionally and psychologically.

The position that it should be "up to the doctor" is also erroneous, since there are numerous examples where women claimed that they were psychologically harmed by the doctor's procedure. The abortion doctors did not require counseling and treated it as a business service.

Why shouldn't women be made aware that this procedure can cause long term trauma?

Why shouldn't these women be made aware of previous comments made by women who have undergone abortion, as to be more completely informed in their decision?

Why shouldn't these women be protected by the law as they expect to be?

Clearly, a reasonable audience would agree with the idea that young women should be completely informed. Any other position is repugnant. Therefore, there should be laws on this.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 07, 2022, 12:22:24 PM
tom am i correct that you think the left supports late-term abortions because we just viscerally enjoy killing? are you of the opinion that we support it because we want the baby to develop as much as possible before we kill it because we take pleasure from the idea of killing a child?

be real with me here.
I will be real, even though you didn't ask me.

I have no doubt you enjoy killing, especially if there is no chance for you to experience consequence.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 07, 2022, 12:25:22 PM
Some people really think federal, state, and local governments should be involved in decisions between a doctor and patient.
Yeah, mostly democrats.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on July 07, 2022, 05:29:31 PM
APPENDIX A – 375 Other Women Injured By Late Term Abortion

This data is from some group called "Operation Outcry". Operation Outcry is a ministry of The Justice Foundation that seeks to end the pain of abortion in America and around the world by mobilizing women and men hurt by abortion who share their true stories of the devastating effects of abortion.

Rather than anecdotal quotes from a religious organization, here's an actual study:

Psychological Responses of Women After First-Trimester Abortion (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/481643)

ResultsTwo years postabortion, 301 (72%) of 418 women were satisfied with their decision; 306 (69%) of 441 said they would have the abortion again; 315 (72%) of 440 reported more benefit than harm from their abortion; and 308 (80%) of 386 were not depressed. Six (1%) of 442 reported posttraumatic stress disorder. Depression decreased and self-esteem increased from preabortion to postabortion, but negative emotions increased and decision satisfaction decreased over time. Prepregnancy history of depression was a risk factor for depression, lower self-esteem, and more negative abortion-specific outcomes 2 years postabortion. Younger age and having more children preabortion also predicted more negative abortion evaluations.

ConclusionsMost women do not experience psychological problems or regret their abortion 2 years postabortion, but some do. Those who do tend to be women with a prior history of depression.


Later Abortions and Mental Health: Psychological Experiences of Women Having Later Abortions—A Critical Review of Research (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1049386711000144)

Conclusion
Policies based on the notion that later abortions (because of fetal anomaly) harm women's mental health are unwarranted. Because research suggests that most women who have later abortions do so for reasons other than fetal anomaly, future investigations should examine women’s psychological experiences around later abortions.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2022, 07:53:11 PM
That's pretty terrible, actually.

"306 (69%) of 441 said they would have the abortion again" means that 31% said that they would not have the abortion if they could choose again. This represents millions of women. The fact that they have almost a 1 in 3 chance of regretting their decision two years later is something young women should know, to provide them with complete information.

"(72%) of 440 reported more benefit than harm from their abortion" means that 28% reported more harm than benefit from their abortion.

"(80%) of 386 were not depressed" means that 20% were still depressed from their abortion two years later.

"Depression decreased and self-esteem increased from preabortion to postabortion, but negative emotions increased and decision satisfaction decreased over time." means that the longer the time passes the more and more women regret their abortion. This study was for a mere two years after abortion. Many of the testimonials in the previous document were of women looking back ten years later or more and regretting their abortion, wishing that they had not done it.

There may be some women who suspect that they might regret their abortion but go through with it anyway, and later find that their inner suspicion was correct. It is a disservice to expect that women are experts in things they are not familiar with. Therefore abolishing all laws and allowing "women to decide" is a bunk argument. Young women considering an abortion are simply inexperienced in this to be capable of making the best decision.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: xasop on July 07, 2022, 10:25:30 PM
Meanwhile in Europe...

Quote from: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/07/07/european-lawmakers-condemn-us-supreme-court-ruling-that-ended-constitutional-right-to-abor
The European Parliament has asked for the right to "safe and legal abortion" be added to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and stressed denying the procedure amounted to a form of violence against women and girls.

"Women’s rights are inalienable, and they cannot be removed or watered down," they wrote.

Amending the charter would require a revision of the EU treaties.

The non-binding resolution, which passes with 324 votes in favour and 155 against, was a symbolic gesture of support for the millions of American women who stand to lose access to abortion after the recent ruling of the US Supreme Court that overturned the landmark Roe v Wade case and put an end to 50 years of a constitutional right to abortion there.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on July 07, 2022, 11:03:48 PM
That's pretty terrible, actually.

"306 (69%) of 441 said they would have the abortion again" means that 31% said that they would not have the abortion if they could choose again. This represents millions of women. The fact that they have almost a 1 in 3 chance of regretting their decision two years later is something young women should know, to provide them with complete information.

"(72%) of 440 reported more benefit than harm from their abortion" means that 28% reported more harm than benefit from their abortion.

"(80%) of 386 were not depressed" means that 20% were still depressed from their abortion two years later.

"Depression decreased and self-esteem increased from preabortion to postabortion, but negative emotions increased and decision satisfaction decreased over time." means that the longer the time passes the more and more women regret their abortion. This study was for a mere two years after abortion. Many of the testimonials in the previous document were of women looking back ten years later or more and regretting their abortion, wishing that they had not done it.

There may be some women who suspect that they might regret their abortion but go through with it anyway, and later find that their inner suspicion was correct. It is a disservice to expect that women are experts in things they are not familiar with. Therefore allowing "women to decide" is a bunk argument. Young women considering an abortion are simply inexperienced in this to be capable of making the best decision.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Let's ban everything that a tiny minority (it was already established your stats are inaccurate trash and I'm pretty sure you've tried this argument already earlier in this topic) might regret. Tattoos, piercings, sex, marriage, shopping in general (buyer's remorse), taking risks/not taking risks, etc. Might as well put everyone in a safe little box because people are incapable of making their own decisions.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on July 08, 2022, 12:13:50 AM
That's pretty terrible, actually.

"(80%) of 386 were not depressed" means that 20% were still depressed from their abortion two years later.

ConclusionsMost women do not experience psychological problems or regret their abortion 2 years postabortion, but some do. Those who do tend to be women with a prior history of depression.

Looks like about the same results for relationships. We should probably try and tackle this alarming issue as well...

(https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/639747/eharmony_relationship_happiness_Infographic.jpg?p=publish)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 10, 2022, 05:11:46 AM
Quote
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Let's ban everything that a tiny minority (it was already established your stats are inaccurate trash and I'm pretty sure you've tried this argument already earlier in this topic) might regret. Tattoos, piercings, sex, marriage, shopping in general (buyer's remorse), taking risks/not taking risks, etc. Might as well put everyone in a safe little box because people are incapable of making their own decisions.

33 out of 100 reporting long term regret, 28 out  and 100 reporting more harm than benefit, and 20 out of 100 reporting long term depression is not a tiny minority. Long term regret or depression isn't trivial. These women should have been fully informed before they made such a choice, and should have seen a psychiatrist for counseling over such a consequential life changing decision. Yet we see comments from the previous document that abortion was too easy to get and it caused long term emotional and psychological issues. They clearly must have thought that they killed their baby, and not just a clump of cells or 'tissue', to have such issues.

They should have been shown the data and the risks at length, seen the testimonials of women who suffered many years after the event, as well as testimonials of women who claim not to have suffered. They should have had the options explained to them - that there is adoption, welfare, child support - with examples of such. It should have been explained that they cannot be coerced by another person into getting an abortion, and asked a number of times by doctors and counselors along the way if they were sure.

Such state mandated counseling requirements would be a better situation than treating abortion as a business service.

Looks like about the same results for relationships. We should probably try and tackle this alarming issue as well...

(https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/639747/eharmony_relationship_happiness_Infographic.jpg?p=publish)

And there are a whole plethora of laws and processes aimed at remediating the problems in relationships.

Alimony

Common Law Marriage

Cohabitation Laws

Child Support

Child Custody Laws

Paternity Laws

Age of Consent

Divorce Laws

Prenup Limitations

Family Court

Restraining Orders

Orders of Protection

Domestic Abuse Laws

Etc.

Looks like your example thoroughly debunks the notion that there should be no or few laws in relation to abortion.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on July 10, 2022, 06:22:01 AM
Quote
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Let's ban everything that a tiny minority (it was already established your stats are inaccurate trash and I'm pretty sure you've tried this argument already earlier in this topic) might regret. Tattoos, piercings, sex, marriage, shopping in general (buyer's remorse), taking risks/not taking risks, etc. Might as well put everyone in a safe little box because people are incapable of making their own decisions.

33 out of 100 reporting long term regret, 28 out  and 100 reporting more harm than benefit, and 20 out of 100 reporting long term depression is not a tiny minority. Long term regret or depression isn't trivial. These women should have been fully informed before they made such a choice, and should have seen a psychiatrist for counseling over such a consequential life changing decision. Yet we see comments from the previous document that abortion was too easy to get and it caused long term emotional and psychological issues. They clearly must have thought that they killed their baby, and not just a clump of cells or 'tissue', to have such issues.

They should have been shown the data and the risks at length, seen the testimonials of women who suffered many years after the event, as well as testimonials of women who claim not to have suffered, should have had the options explained to them - that there is adoption, welfare, child support. It should have explained that they cannot be coerced by another person into getting an abortion, and asked a number of times by doctors and counselors along the way if they were sure.

Such state mandated counseling requirements would be a better situation than treating abortion as a business service.

Looks like about the same results for relationships. We should probably try and tackle this alarming issue as well...

(https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/639747/eharmony_relationship_happiness_Infographic.jpg?p=publish)

And there are a whole plethora of laws and processes aimed at remediating the problems in relationships.

Alimony

Common Law Marriage

Cohabitation Laws

Child Support

Child Custody Laws

Paternity Laws

Age of Consent

Divorce Laws

Prenup Limitations

Family Court

Restraining Orders

Orders of Protection

Domestic Abuse Laws

Etc.

Looks like your example thoroughly debunks the notion that there should be no or few laws in relation to abortion.

And there are a whole plethora of laws and processes aimed at regulating abortions:

Physician and Hospital Requirements: 33 states require an abortion to be performed by a licensed physician. 19 states require an abortion to be performed in a hospital after a specified point in the pregnancy, and 17 states require the involvement of a second physician after a specified point.

Gestational Limits: 43 states prohibit abortions after a specified point in pregnancy, with some exceptions provided. The allowable circumstances are generally when an abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.
“Partial-Birth” Abortion: 21 states have laws in effect that prohibit “partial-birth” abortion. 3 of these laws apply only to postviability abortions.

Public Funding: 16 states use their own funds to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions for Medicaid enrollees in the state. 33 states and the District of Columbia prohibit the use of state funds except in those cases when federal funds are available: where the patient's life is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. In defiance of federal requirements, South Dakota limits funding to cases of life endangerment only.

Coverage by Private Insurance: 12 states restrict coverage of abortion in private insurance plans, most often limiting coverage only to when the patient's life would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term. Most states allow the purchase of additional abortion coverage at an additional cost.

Refusal: 45 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to participate in an abortion. 42 states allow institutions to refuse to perform abortions, 16 of which limit refusal to private or religious institutions.

State-Mandated Counseling: 18 states mandate that individuals be given counseling before an abortion that includes information on at least one of the following: the purported link between abortion and breast cancer (5 states), the ability of a fetus to feel pain (13 states) or long-term mental health consequences for the patient (8 states).

Waiting Periods: 25 states require a person seeking an abortion to wait a specified period of time, usually 24 hours, between when they receive counseling and the procedure is performed. 12 of these states have laws that effectively require the patient make two separate trips to the clinic to obtain the procedure.

Parental Involvement: 37 states require some type of parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion. 27 states require one or both parents to consent to the procedure, while 10 require that one or both parents be notified.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on July 10, 2022, 06:27:26 AM
This is kinda funny. I guess 'personhood' doesn't apply to a fetus just trying to ease up their commute:

Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/07/09/texas-abortion-pregnant-woman-hov-bottone/)

Brandy Bottone was recently driving down Central Expressway in Dallas when she was stopped by a sheriff’s deputy at an HOV checkpoint to see whether there were at least two occupants per vehicle as mandated. When the sheriff looked around her car last month, she recounted to The Washington Post that he asked, “Is it just you or is someone else riding with you?”

“I said, ‘Oh, there’s two of us,’” Bottone said. “And he said, ‘Where?’”

Bottone, who was 34 weeks pregnant at the time, pointed to her stomach. Even though she said her “baby girl is right here,” Bottone said one of the deputies she encountered on June 29 told her it had to be “two bodies outside of the body.” While the state’s penal code recognizes a fetus as a person, the Texas Transportation Code does not.


From the Texas Transpo code (TRANSP § 452.0613):

(2) operating a vehicle in or entering a high occupancy vehicle lane operated, managed, or maintained by an authority with fewer than the required number of occupants. (My bold)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2022, 12:36:29 AM
Quote from: stack
And there are a whole plethora of laws and processes aimed at regulating abortions

Correct, but we are assessing the position that abortion should be a matter between a woman and her doctor and the state should not be involved. If abortion is harmful to women then the state does have a responsibility to step in.

What you posted shows that multiple states have acknowledged that abortion does need to be regulated.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on July 11, 2022, 12:47:44 AM
Quote from: stack
And there are a whole plethora of laws and processes aimed at regulating abortions

Correct, but we are assessing the position that abortion should be a matter between a woman and her doctor and the state should not be involved. If abortion is harmful to women then the state does have a responsibility to step in.

What you posted shows that multiple states have acknowledged that abortion does need to be regulated.
Regulated?  Sure, within reason.  Should the state have the right to forbid abortion with no exception?  No.  If a doctor says that it's medically necessary to save the mother's life, then what right does the state have to sentence the mother to death?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on July 11, 2022, 12:48:38 AM
Quote from: stack
And there are a whole plethora of laws and processes aimed at regulating abortions

Correct, but we are assessing the position that abortion should be a matter between a woman and her doctor and the state should not be involved. If abortion is harmful to women then the state does have a responsibility to step in.

What you posted shows that multiple states have acknowledged that abortion does need to be regulated.
Honestly, the state should always step in to make sure everyone makes the best decision possible in every situation. No one knows better than the state and women are too delicate to have regrets.

I posted this link before, so if you keep trolling can you at least pick a new angle? This is beneath you; lazier than usual.
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416421/five-years-after-abortion-nearly-all-women-say-it-was-right-decision-study
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on July 11, 2022, 12:50:37 AM
Not to mention the fact that it's still possible to have regrets for making the right decision.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on July 11, 2022, 07:59:29 AM
Quote
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Let's ban everything that a tiny minority (it was already established your stats are inaccurate trash and I'm pretty sure you've tried this argument already earlier in this topic) might regret. Tattoos, piercings, sex, marriage, shopping in general (buyer's remorse), taking risks/not taking risks, etc. Might as well put everyone in a safe little box because people are incapable of making their own decisions.

33 out of 100 reporting long term regret, 28 out  and 100 reporting more harm than benefit, and 20 out of 100 reporting long term depression is not a tiny minority. Long term regret or depression isn't trivial. These women should have been fully informed before they made such a choice, and should have seen a psychiatrist for counseling over such a consequential life changing decision. Yet we see comments from the previous document that abortion was too easy to get and it caused long term emotional and psychological issues. They clearly must have thought that they killed their baby, and not just a clump of cells or 'tissue', to have such issues.

They should have been shown the data and the risks at length, seen the testimonials of women who suffered many years after the event, as well as testimonials of women who claim not to have suffered. They should have had the options explained to them - that there is adoption, welfare, child support - with examples of such. It should have been explained that they cannot be coerced by another person into getting an abortion, and asked a number of times by doctors and counselors along the way if they were sure.

Such state mandated counseling requirements would be a better situation than treating abortion as a business service.

How do you know that they weren't shown data, testimonials, received some sort of counseling prior to the procedure? A bunch of States mandate exactly that:

State-Mandated Counseling: 18 states mandate that individuals be given counseling before an abortion that includes information on at least one of the following: the purported link between abortion and breast cancer (5 states), the ability of a fetus to feel pain (13 states) or long-term mental health consequences for the patient (8 states).

Waiting Periods: 25 states require a person seeking an abortion to wait a specified period of time, usually 24 hours, between when they receive counseling and the procedure is performed. 12 of these states have laws that effectively require the patient make two separate trips to the clinic to obtain the procedure.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 12, 2022, 10:24:13 AM
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/

I guess she should have kept her legs closed? Right, GOP?
Looks like no one can actually track down the rapist...wonder why that is?

So, not only the "child abuse doctor," but also looks like the doctor in Indiana actually never filed a police report, per Ohio and Indiana law, respectively.

Abortionists and pro-abortionists don't give a shit about laws or humans.

They love to protect child rapists and take actions to keep them on the street in order to keep a steady flow of potential customers.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on July 12, 2022, 10:52:40 AM
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/

I guess she should have kept her legs closed? Right, GOP?
Looks like no one can actually track down the rapist...wonder why that is?

So, not only the "child abuse doctor," but also looks like the doctor in Indiana actually never filed a police report, per Ohio and Indiana law, respectively.

Abortionists and pro-abortionists don't give a shit about laws or humans.

They love to protect child rapists and take actions to keep them on the street in order to keep a steady flow of potential customers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/09/one-source-story-about-10-year-old-an-abortion-goes-viral/

Just curious: how do you know a police report wasn't filed?  Seems like the system prevents people from easily finding such a report and only if a police department makes it public, would it actually come to light.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 12, 2022, 10:58:52 AM
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/

I guess she should have kept her legs closed? Right, GOP?
Looks like no one can actually track down the rapist...wonder why that is?

So, not only the "child abuse doctor," but also looks like the doctor in Indiana actually never filed a police report, per Ohio and Indiana law, respectively.

Abortionists and pro-abortionists don't give a shit about laws or humans.

They love to protect child rapists and take actions to keep them on the street in order to keep a steady flow of potential customers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/09/one-source-story-about-10-year-old-an-abortion-goes-viral/

Just curious: how do you know a police report wasn't filed?  Seems like the system prevents people from easily finding such a report and only if a police department makes it public, would it actually come to light.
The system does not make such reports hidden.

Anyone who wants to know where known child rapists live can find it on the internet.

Quit covering for the bs story.

We have a child rapist roaming free in Ohio and abortionists and pro-abortionists are celebrating!

Even child abuse doctors are providing these fiends shelter.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on July 12, 2022, 11:07:16 AM
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/

I guess she should have kept her legs closed? Right, GOP?
Looks like no one can actually track down the rapist...wonder why that is?

So, not only the "child abuse doctor," but also looks like the doctor in Indiana actually never filed a police report, per Ohio and Indiana law, respectively.

Abortionists and pro-abortionists don't give a shit about laws or humans.

They love to protect child rapists and take actions to keep them on the street in order to keep a steady flow of potential customers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/09/one-source-story-about-10-year-old-an-abortion-goes-viral/

Just curious: how do you know a police report wasn't filed?  Seems like the system prevents people from easily finding such a report and only if a police department makes it public, would it actually come to light.
The system does not make such reports hidden.

Per the article, the records are not centralized, so while not hidden, they might not be easy to find.

Quote
Anyone who wants to know where known child rapists live can find it on the internet.

If they’ve been convicted, yes.

Quote
Quit covering for the bs story.

We have a child rapist roaming free in Ohio and abortionists and pro-abortionists are celebrating!

No.

Quote
Even child abuse doctors are prividing these fiends shelter.

You’ve lost the plot, my friend.

Also:

Quote
prividing
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 12, 2022, 11:31:50 AM
Funny, the same passion and energy devoted to keeping abortion seems to be exerted toward keeping this rapist/predator free in Ohio.

The 10-year-old girl and her mother surely shared the identity of the abuser/rapist.

There is surely an APB/MANHUNT out for this asshole!

Why didn't the article actually use the word "rapist," to describe this piece of shit?

Did the writer believe the 10-year-old was a willing, consensual partner in the act of coitus?

So, why can't the Washington Post/CNN/ABC/NBC/MSNBC/ or anyone else in MSM track this down?

Why aren't federal, state, and local governments, sharing the information provided by the child abuse doctor (is there such a specific delineation or is this label just lazy, fake journalism)with the community in an effort to locate and apprehend this fiend!?!?

Press conferences would have been held, surely!

Why are the abortionists and pro-abortionists celebrating a misspelling in a flat earth forum thread instead of trying to track down this Aqualung?

One possible reason is there is no fiend.

More than likely, it is a made-up story.

Which shows the depths abortionists and pro-abortionists will sink to.

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on July 12, 2022, 01:12:52 PM
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/

I guess she should have kept her legs closed? Right, GOP?
Looks like no one can actually track down the rapist...wonder why that is?

So, not only the "child abuse doctor," but also looks like the doctor in Indiana actually never filed a police report, per Ohio and Indiana law, respectively.

Abortionists and pro-abortionists don't give a shit about laws or humans.

They love to protect child rapists and take actions to keep them on the street in order to keep a steady flow of potential customers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/09/one-source-story-about-10-year-old-an-abortion-goes-viral/

Just curious: how do you know a police report wasn't filed?  Seems like the system prevents people from easily finding such a report and only if a police department makes it public, would it actually come to light.
The system does not make such reports hidden.

Anyone who wants to know where known child rapists live can find it on the internet.

Quit covering for the bs story.

We have a child rapist roaming free in Ohio and abortionists and pro-abortionists are celebrating!

Even child abuse doctors are providing these fiends shelter.

Then you can tell me the twon/city this rape happened in.  Since that would indicate it.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 12, 2022, 03:20:19 PM
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/

I guess she should have kept her legs closed? Right, GOP?
Looks like no one can actually track down the rapist...wonder why that is?

So, not only the "child abuse doctor," but also looks like the doctor in Indiana actually never filed a police report, per Ohio and Indiana law, respectively.

Abortionists and pro-abortionists don't give a shit about laws or humans.

They love to protect child rapists and take actions to keep them on the street in order to keep a steady flow of potential customers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/09/one-source-story-about-10-year-old-an-abortion-goes-viral/

Just curious: how do you know a police report wasn't filed?  Seems like the system prevents people from easily finding such a report and only if a police department makes it public, would it actually come to light.
The system does not make such reports hidden.

Anyone who wants to know where known child rapists live can find it on the internet.

Quit covering for the bs story.

We have a child rapist roaming free in Ohio and abortionists and pro-abortionists are celebrating!

Even child abuse doctors are providing these fiends shelter.

Then you can tell me the twon/city this rape happened in.  Since that would indicate it.
Yeah, I could tell you, except the "child abuse," doctor made no report, as required by law.

Had the report been made, no doubt a press conference would have been held, notifying local residents to be on the lookout for a baby raper on the loose.

Like I wrote, abortionists and the pro-abortion lobby are keeping quiet about child rape because they support it.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on July 12, 2022, 04:33:57 PM
Had the report been made, no doubt a press conference would have been held, notifying local residents to be on the lookout for a baby raper on the loose.
This is not factual in the slightest. The police are not obligated to give press conferences ever, they only do so when there is a major public event like a shooting or search. Child rapists are typically friends of the family so they may have already arrested the person and no, again, there is no obligation to make that public either. Not until they're convicted and added to a registry and then you wouldn't know which specific case they're linked to anyway.

It is possible they are keeping everything confidential for various reasons. The rapist could have been her own father for example. If it is a false story, I'm not sure how that changes things? A young victim of rape would still need to travel for an abortion if they lived in Ohio.
Quote
An Ohio state law went into effect July 2019 which makes abortion illegal after the fetus heartbeat can be detected, which usually develops between five or six weeks after conception. No exceptions are made for "hard cases" such as rape, incest, or a fetus determined to possibly have down syndrome.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on July 12, 2022, 06:11:24 PM
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/

I guess she should have kept her legs closed? Right, GOP?
Looks like no one can actually track down the rapist...wonder why that is?

So, not only the "child abuse doctor," but also looks like the doctor in Indiana actually never filed a police report, per Ohio and Indiana law, respectively.

Abortionists and pro-abortionists don't give a shit about laws or humans.

They love to protect child rapists and take actions to keep them on the street in order to keep a steady flow of potential customers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/09/one-source-story-about-10-year-old-an-abortion-goes-viral/

Just curious: how do you know a police report wasn't filed?  Seems like the system prevents people from easily finding such a report and only if a police department makes it public, would it actually come to light.
The system does not make such reports hidden.

Anyone who wants to know where known child rapists live can find it on the internet.

Quit covering for the bs story.

We have a child rapist roaming free in Ohio and abortionists and pro-abortionists are celebrating!

Even child abuse doctors are providing these fiends shelter.

Then you can tell me the twon/city this rape happened in.  Since that would indicate it.
Yeah, I could tell you, except the "child abuse," doctor made no report, as required by law.

Had the report been made, no doubt a press conference would have been held, notifying local residents to be on the lookout for a baby raper on the loose.

Like I wrote, abortionists and the pro-abortion lobby are keeping quiet about child rape because they support it.

So your only evidence that no report was filed is that you couldn't find a media report from google?
Is every rapist report in the papers?  Do police send out a press release for every single child rapist they arrest?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 12, 2022, 07:51:25 PM
Had the report been made, no doubt a press conference would have been held, notifying local residents to be on the lookout for a baby raper on the loose.
This is not factual in the slightest. The police are not obligated to give press conferences ever, they only do so when there is a major public event like a shooting or search.
BWHAHAHA!!!

Did you just make this up on the fly, like the reporting on the 10-year-old girl?

It is possible they are keeping everything confidential for various reasons. The rapist could have been her own father for example.
Why would they keep the identity of the reported rapist confidential?

Do you read the words you write before you type them?

Purely rhetorical, as the answer is quite evident.
If it is a false story, I'm not sure how that changes things? A young victim of rape would still need to travel for an abortion if they lived in Ohio.
Quote
An Ohio state law went into effect July 2019 which makes abortion illegal after the fetus heartbeat can be detected, which usually develops between five or six weeks after conception. No exceptions are made for "hard cases" such as rape, incest, or a fetus determined to possibly have down syndrome.
Glad to see the thumbs up given to protecting child rapists.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on July 12, 2022, 08:23:05 PM
This is not factual in the slightest. The police are not obligated to give press conferences ever, they only do so when there is a major public event like a shooting or search.
Did you just make this up on the fly, like the reporting on the 10-year-old girl?
No, I did not. They are encouraged to do so in certain circumstances for positive public relations or cooperation but are not legally obligated.

It is possible they are keeping everything confidential for various reasons. The rapist could have been her own father for example.
Why would they keep the identity of the reported rapist confidential?

Do you read the words you write before you type them?

Purely rhetorical, as the answer is quite evident.
It's possible that releasing the identity of the rapist might identify the child. Underage victims are not disclosed for very obvious reasons.

If it is a false story, I'm not sure how that changes things? A young victim of rape would still need to travel for an abortion if they lived in Ohio.
Quote
An Ohio state law went into effect July 2019 which makes abortion illegal after the fetus heartbeat can be detected, which usually develops between five or six weeks after conception. No exceptions are made for "hard cases" such as rape, incest, or a fetus determined to possibly have down syndrome.
Glad to see the thumbs up given to protecting child rapists.
Hi, please don't make up really horrible statements out of nowhere. Even when trolling you should stay on topic rather than spinning a harmful fantasy. Saying that Ohio laws would forbid a 10 year old rape victim from getting an abortion if she missed the heartbeat cutoff does not in any way allude to me wanting to protect a child rapist.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on July 12, 2022, 11:46:53 PM
Glad to see the thumbs up given to protecting child rapists.
Glad to see the thumbs up given to wanting to force a 10 year old to give birth to a child rapist's baby.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on July 13, 2022, 08:51:08 AM
Glad to see the thumbs up given to protecting child rapists.
Glad to see the thumbs up given to wanting to force a 10 year old to give birth to a child rapist's baby.
You seem to misunderstand.  He knows bith the 10 year old and the baby will die if the birth goes to term. 
He's giving the thumbs up to murder of a child rape victim and a child rapist's baby.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 13, 2022, 11:36:01 AM
This is not factual in the slightest. The police are not obligated to give press conferences ever, they only do so when there is a major public event like a shooting or search.
Did you just make this up on the fly, like the reporting on the 10-year-old girl?
No, I did not. They are encouraged to do so in certain circumstances for positive public relations or cooperation but are not legally obligated.
As if working with the community to bring a child rapist to justice would not count as a positive.

Jesus, get a clue.
It is possible they are keeping everything confidential for various reasons. The rapist could have been her own father for example.
Why would they keep the identity of the reported rapist confidential?

Do you read the words you write before you type them?

Purely rhetorical, as the answer is quite evident.
It's possible that releasing the identity of the rapist might identify the child. Underage victims are not disclosed for very obvious reasons.
Holy crap, you are writing like you are clueless. Underage victims are identified ALL THE TIME, when it comes to investigating child abuse and further prosecutorial efforts.

Underage perps are the ones that are not.
If it is a false story, I'm not sure how that changes things? A young victim of rape would still need to travel for an abortion if they lived in Ohio.
Quote
An Ohio state law went into effect July 2019 which makes abortion illegal after the fetus heartbeat can be detected, which usually develops between five or six weeks after conception. No exceptions are made for "hard cases" such as rape, incest, or a fetus determined to possibly have down syndrome.
Glad to see the thumbs up given to protecting child rapists.
Hi, please don't make up really horrible statements out of nowhere. Even when trolling you should stay on topic rather than spinning a harmful fantasy. Saying that Ohio laws would forbid a 10 year old rape victim from getting an abortion if she missed the heartbeat cutoff does not in any way allude to me wanting to protect a child rapist.
Heartbeat cutoff...LOL!!!

First, you can claim what you want, but your main concern is obviously NOT the issue of what kind of sick perv did this to a 10 -year-old...it is whether or not people can get abortions. So, my statement wasn't horrible.

2nd, the story states SIX WEEKS AND 3 DAYS!!!

Yeah, that kind of accuracy isn't possible.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on July 13, 2022, 04:42:01 PM
Do you know how they decide the age of a pregnancy? If you did you would understand how shitty abortion laws are.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on July 13, 2022, 04:50:54 PM
As if working with the community to bring a child rapist to justice would not count as a positive.

Jesus, get a clue.
lol are you high again? The point was you said this has to be a fake report because there was no press release. I said there doesn't have to be a press release.

Holy crap, you are writing like you are clueless. Underage victims are identified ALL THE TIME, when it comes to investigating child abuse and further prosecutorial efforts.

Underage perps are the ones that are not.
Sure, Jan.

Heartbeat cutoff...LOL!!!

First, you can claim what you want, but your main concern is obviously NOT the issue of what kind of sick perv did this to a 10 -year-old...it is whether or not people can get abortions. So, my statement wasn't horrible.
We're not here as an internet sleuthing team to uncover rapists. We're talking about the child's right to abort her rapist's fetus. If you want to find her rapist then travel to Ohio and link up with the police or at least make your own true crime thread.

2nd, the story states SIX WEEKS AND 3 DAYS!!!

Yeah, that kind of accuracy isn't possible.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I assume they detected a heartbeat through an ultrasound, thus she was unable to have an abortion in Ohio.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: WTF_Seriously on July 13, 2022, 06:18:06 PM
And look what we have here.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/arrest-made-in-rape-of-ohio-10-year-old-who-had-to-travel-out-of-state-for-abortion/ar-AAZxBx7?li=BBnb7Kz
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on July 13, 2022, 06:37:54 PM
And look what we have here.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/arrest-made-in-rape-of-ohio-10-year-old-who-had-to-travel-out-of-state-for-abortion/ar-AAZxBx7?li=BBnb7Kz
Wow, how shocking they didn't have a press conference manhunt in order to catch him and they didn't identify the 10 year old victim. /s
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on July 13, 2022, 06:40:59 PM
And look what we have here.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/arrest-made-in-rape-of-ohio-10-year-old-who-had-to-travel-out-of-state-for-abortion/ar-AAZxBx7?li=BBnb7Kz
Wow, how shocking they didn't have a press conference manhunt in order to catch him and they didn't identify the 10 year old victim. /s

I bet that report that was never filed, that Lackey assured us didn't exist, is what allowed police to arrest him.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on July 13, 2022, 10:02:38 PM
I like this bit at the end of the story:
Quote
Fuentes’ arrest comes as conservative media claimed the girl’s story was made up for political theater, something parroted by Fox News presenters as recently as Tuesday night—while Fuentes was already in custody.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Roundy on July 14, 2022, 01:40:14 AM
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/

I guess she should have kept her legs closed? Right, GOP?
Looks like no one can actually track down the rapist...wonder why that is?

What are you suggesting here? You do understand that sex with a ten year old girl is rape by default, right?

Should she have kept her legs closed? Not worn such revealing clothing because she was asking for it?  ::)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: honk on July 14, 2022, 02:19:55 AM
What he was suggesting was that the story was fake news, a take that looks especially silly now that we have confirmation that it wasn't.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on July 14, 2022, 05:55:48 AM
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/

I guess she should have kept her legs closed? Right, GOP?
Looks like no one can actually track down the rapist...wonder why that is?

What are you suggesting here? You do understand that sex with a ten year old girl is rape by default, right?

Should she have kept her legs closed? Not worn such revealing clothing because she was asking for it?  ::)

I'm not sure Lackey was suggesting that. But Tom sure was:

How hard is it to keep your legs shut until you are at a point that you are ready to be responsible for your actions?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 14, 2022, 06:50:55 AM
I clearly was not talking about ten year old girls there. What is clear, however, is that the use of an extreme example of underage rape to justify the personal irresponsibility of adult women shows that you guys have lost the argument.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on July 14, 2022, 10:38:45 AM
I clearly was not talking about ten year old girls there. What is clear, however, is that the use of an extreme example of underage rape to justify the personal irresponsibility of adult women shows that you guys have lost the argument.

That’s not what is being argued in the slightest. The arguement is that the line is too black and white.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: WTF_Seriously on July 14, 2022, 02:09:52 PM
I clearly was not talking about ten year old girls there. What is clear, however, is that the use of an extreme example of underage rape to justify the personal irresponsibility of adult women shows that you guys have lost the argument.

You mean personal irresponsibility of adult men, right?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on July 14, 2022, 04:44:41 PM
I clearly was not talking about ten year old girls there. What is clear, however, is that the use of an extreme example of underage rape to justify the personal irresponsibility of adult women shows that you guys have lost the argument.
I don't really get why some people only allow abortions in cases of rape/incest and not in other situations. If you do see it as murdering a child then it makes sense why it would be illegal in all hard cases, but if you allow the hard cases to be aborted and nothing else, then at that point you have to admit you just want the "irresponsible" women to be punished.

I imagine people who are raped then are forced to make a police statement as well in order to get the abortion when the victim might not be comfortable actually reporting the rape.

It's kind of annoying whenever this discussion comes up and pro-choice people fall back on using rape cases as a default argument. Everyone should have the choice regardless of what happened and without having to explain why they want one before the third trimester.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on July 14, 2022, 04:47:50 PM
I will weigh in as the person who posted the story of the 10 year old girl. I totally agree with you: abortion is right or it’s not regardless of rape or incest. I brought this up to highlight the instantly disastrous consequences of banning abortion, as pretty much anyone who understands the social impact of abortion access predicted. It’s only going to get worse, especially if GOP puritans reduce access to contraception as well.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on July 15, 2022, 06:56:07 PM
I will change my stance to supporting baby murder only if you promise to make abortion free for low income and minority parents while making it $20,000 for everyone else.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on July 15, 2022, 07:36:35 PM
Deal!
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on July 15, 2022, 08:51:32 PM
I clearly was not talking about ten year old girls there. What is clear, however, is that the use of an extreme example of underage rape to justify the personal irresponsibility of adult women shows that you guys have lost the argument.
I don't really get why some people only allow abortions in cases of rape/incest and not in other situations. If you do see it as murdering a child then it makes sense why it would be illegal in all hard cases, but if you allow the hard cases to be aborted and nothing else, then at that point you have to admit you just want the "irresponsible" women to be punished.

I imagine people who are raped then are forced to make a police statement as well in order to get the abortion when the victim might not be comfortable actually reporting the rape.

It's kind of annoying whenever this discussion comes up and pro-choice people fall back on using rape cases as a default argument. Everyone should have the choice regardless of what happened and without having to explain why they want one before the third trimester.

As someone who used to be strongly on the pro life side of this I can add some insight.

Prolifers, and fundamentalists in general, really like absolutes. Nice clear delineations between right and wrong. It makes life easier to parse. It's very comforting. If there's a situation that isn't black and white then they like to find the best place to draw a line and then pretend it's black and white.

Abortion is one such issue. The easiest place to draw the line is at conception. But in real life when they see the evil in forcing a 10 year old girl to birth her rapist's baby then they have some serious cognitive dissonance.

Hence this rape or incest patch to their view on the matter that contradicts their own logic but it's easier to tolerate than a world that's sometimes gray.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2022, 03:04:15 PM
The Idaho GOP hopes to remove any abortion exceptions to save the Mother's life.

https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/07/16/no-exception-for-life-of-mother-included-in-idaho-gops-abortion-platform-language/

Not surprised.  Still sad.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Iceman on July 18, 2022, 04:34:16 PM
Yeah but now they’ve got even more freedom! Right? That’s how this works?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on July 18, 2022, 04:36:48 PM
Yeah but now they’ve got even more freedom! Right? That’s how this works?

The freedom to die.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Iceman on July 18, 2022, 04:54:50 PM
Yeah but now they’ve got even more freedom! Right? That’s how this works?

The freedom to die.

Unless you want medical assistance in death, which is still totally illegal because the gov doesn’t want to get involved in medical decisions, or some other form of mental gymnastics, I’ve lost track.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on July 19, 2022, 01:39:26 AM
That is so terrifying.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: WTF_Seriously on July 22, 2022, 04:26:37 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/LLdy1aF.jpg)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Roundy on July 26, 2022, 01:16:25 PM
"Gavin Newsom’s plan to save the Constitution by trolling the Supreme Court with a new gun law - Vox" https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2022/7/25/23277211/supreme-court-gavin-newsom-sb-8-abortion-guns-california-assault-rifle-law

Go Gavin lol. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court manages to get around this without admitting they were wrong to allow states to ignore the Constitution. I'm sure they will find a way. But boy does this make them look ridiculous. Hopefully other blue states enact similar laws, and maybe this disgusting absurdity that mocks the basis of our very society can end.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on July 26, 2022, 04:01:48 PM
With a 6-3 majority I think the supreme court will quickly get over impediments such as shame and apparent hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on July 26, 2022, 06:27:58 PM
With a 6-3 majority I think the supreme court will quickly get have gotten over impediments such as shame and apparent hypocrisy.

Fix'd.

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 26, 2022, 06:53:00 PM
"Gavin Newsom’s plan to save the Constitution by trolling the Supreme Court with a new gun law - Vox" https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2022/7/25/23277211/supreme-court-gavin-newsom-sb-8-abortion-guns-california-assault-rifle-law

Go Gavin lol. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court manages to get around this without admitting they were wrong to allow states to ignore the Constitution. I'm sure they will find a way. But boy does this make them look ridiculous. Hopefully other blue states enact similar laws, and maybe this disgusting absurdity that mocks the basis of our very society can end.
LOL!

As if there are gun dealers who currently sell weapons without serial numbers.

This sounds exactly like something any stupid Democrat would believe is a "gotcha!"

No one wants gun dealers to sell weapons without serial numbers on them.

When can we expect you to go on Shark Tank to pitch the new event planning company offering specialized abortion showers, pre-occasion?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on July 26, 2022, 08:39:41 PM
As if there are gun dealers who currently sell weapons without serial numbers.
As if ghost guns are hard to come by.
https://ghostguns.com/
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on July 26, 2022, 11:45:27 PM
https://gizmodo.com/abortion-google-crisis-pregnancy-centers-1849333088

The GOP totally upholding their values of freedom of speech and small government. Not hypocrites at all.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 12:18:26 PM
As if there are gun dealers who currently sell weapons without serial numbers.
As if ghost guns are hard to come by.
https://ghostguns.com/
Every single item for sale on this website has a serial number attached to it.

As a matter of fact, every single item for sale in the US by any licensed retailer has a serial number associated with it.

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 01:03:55 PM
As if there are gun dealers who currently sell weapons without serial numbers.
As if ghost guns are hard to come by.
https://ghostguns.com/
Every single item for sale on this website has a serial number attached to it.

As a matter of fact, every single item for sale in the US by any licensed retailer has a serial number associated with it.

Like Bananas.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 02:08:43 PM
As if there are gun dealers who currently sell weapons without serial numbers.
As if ghost guns are hard to come by.
https://ghostguns.com/
Every single item for sale on this website has a serial number attached to it.

As a matter of fact, every single item for sale in the US by any licensed retailer has a serial number associated with it.

Like Bananas.
How do you think bananas are checked out at grocers? There is a serial number or scan scode attached to the item.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 03:31:52 PM
How do you think bananas are checked out at grocers? There is a serial number or scan scode attached to the item.

My bananas are not scanned, they are priced by weight.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on July 27, 2022, 03:52:38 PM
How do you think bananas are checked out at grocers? There is a serial number or scan scode attached to the item.
There is a general code for bananas. The cashier manually enters that code and weighs the bananas or enters how many bananas there are depending on the system.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 27, 2022, 03:55:58 PM
Bananas don't kill people.
People kill people.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 03:57:36 PM
Bananas don't kill people.
People kill people.
Abortionists who just ate a banana kill people.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 06:46:04 PM
Bananas don't kill people.
People kill people.
Abortionists who just ate a banana kill people.

Really good that you edited your comment, it is now super hilarious.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/26/1111280165/because-of-texas-abortion-law-her-wanted-pregnancy-became-a-medical-nightmare

Even before Roe v Wade being struck down, TXs abortion bounty law had terrible consequences.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 07:04:29 PM
Bananas don't kill people.
People kill people.
Abortionists who just ate a banana kill people.

Really good that you edited your comment, it is now super hilarious.
Always seeking improvement in all areas.

Thanks for the compliment!

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/26/1111280165/because-of-texas-abortion-law-her-wanted-pregnancy-became-a-medical-nightmare

Even before Roe v Wade being struck down, TXs abortion bounty law had terrible consequences.
That incident has more to do with malpractice than Roe v. Wade.

Similar to when the time my son was born, there was huge hoopla in the media over the issue of unnecessary C-Sections being performed.

As a result, my son, who was going through obvious stress during the delivery (heart rate ranging from 40 all the way up to 220) was not delivered via C-Section and ended up with severe mental retardation due to the lack of adequate oxygen for over an hour of labor.

The obstetrician even had the gall to come in, asking me if I thought a C-Section was in order. I am not a doctor.

Another gift of democratic legislators promoting such laws during the time of the mid to late 80's.

And you can spare the spiel about Republicans being in charge then, as nearly all the Republicans at the time were in fact former Democrats: aka, RINO's.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 07:15:47 PM
Bananas don't kill people.
People kill people.
Abortionists who just ate a banana kill people.

Really good that you edited your comment, it is now super hilarious.
Always seeking improvement in all areas.

Thanks for the compliment!

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/26/1111280165/because-of-texas-abortion-law-her-wanted-pregnancy-became-a-medical-nightmare

Even before Roe v Wade being struck down, TXs abortion bounty law had terrible consequences.
That incident has more to do with malpractice than Roe v. Wade.

So you think they should have aborted the fetus?

Quote
Similar to when the time my son was born, there was huge hoopla in the media over the issue of unnecessary C-Sections being performed.

As a result, my son, who was going through obvious stress during the delivery (heart rate ranging from 40 all the way up to 220) was not delivered via C-Section and ended up with severe mental retardation due to the lack of adequate oxygen for over an hour of labor.

The obstetrician even had the gall to come in, asking me if I thought a C-Section was in order. I am not a doctor.

Another gift of democratic legislators promoting such laws during the time of the mid to late 80's.

And you can spare the spiel about Republicans being in charge then, as nearly all the Republicans at the time were in fact former Democrats: aka, RINO's.

Only RINOs when they do something you disagree with, I guess. The Party is perfect.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 07:35:20 PM
Bananas don't kill people.
People kill people.
Abortionists who just ate a banana kill people.

Really good that you edited your comment, it is now super hilarious.
Always seeking improvement in all areas.

Thanks for the compliment!

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/26/1111280165/because-of-texas-abortion-law-her-wanted-pregnancy-became-a-medical-nightmare

Even before Roe v Wade being struck down, TXs abortion bounty law had terrible consequences.
That incident has more to do with malpractice than Roe v. Wade.

So you think they should have aborted the fetus?
No.

I do not believe in abortion.

Quote
Similar to when the time my son was born, there was huge hoopla in the media over the issue of unnecessary C-Sections being performed.

As a result, my son, who was going through obvious stress during the delivery (heart rate ranging from 40 all the way up to 220) was not delivered via C-Section and ended up with severe mental retardation due to the lack of adequate oxygen for over an hour of labor.

The obstetrician even had the gall to come in, asking me if I thought a C-Section was in order. I am not a doctor.

Another gift of democratic legislators promoting such laws during the time of the mid to late 80's.

And you can spare the spiel about Republicans being in charge then, as nearly all the Republicans at the time were in fact former Democrats: aka, RINO's.

Only RINOs when they do something you disagree with, I guess. The Party is perfect.
Why write "I guess."

Of course.

You, as well I, know there is no Republican party anymore.

Hasn't been since Goldwater.

You just like typing the word cause you think its cool and it's part of your job.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on July 27, 2022, 08:05:12 PM
You, as well I, know there is no Republican party anymore.

Hasn't been since Goldwater.

Reagan was a RINO? Nixon too?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 03:43:14 AM
Reagan was a converted Democrat, but in the vein of JFK, and was subsequently shot for trying to make things right in the country. Courtesy of Czar Bush the I.

Nixon was a career criminal fraudster who didn't care about such things as supposed party affiliation.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 03, 2022, 05:57:35 AM
Yes! More baby murder!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62402625
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 03, 2022, 10:21:58 AM
Yes! More baby murder!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62402625
The BBC has a definite problem with maintaining syllogism throughout this article.

"For Democrats and pro-choice groups, this is a sign that Americans are deeply unhappy with abortion rights being overturned - and see the Supreme Court's decision as out of step with the public."

It certainly is a sign that Kansans tend to believe the women in that state should be able to kill babies. And the Supreme Court decision put the question back into the hands of the public where it belonged, so that is certainly "in step," with the public.

"Mr Biden said the result showed "the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion". - Evidently, the BBC thinks like Biden (for shame), that Kansans represent all of citizens of the US.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on August 03, 2022, 01:59:02 PM
Obviously Kansas doesn't represent America.  It's much worse than that.  Kansas represents the part of America that would theoretically be all for repealing anything that would keep abortion legal.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 03, 2022, 03:05:57 PM
Obviously Kansas doesn't represent America.  It's much worse than that.  Kansas represents the part of America that would theoretically be all for repealing anything that would keep abortion legal.
Would you care to elucidate?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on August 03, 2022, 03:20:52 PM
I never would have guessed Kansas would vote No considering how red the state is...It's like the inverse of 2020...

(https://i.imgur.com/QjGYoSV.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/GoaPa79.png)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on August 03, 2022, 03:53:16 PM
Obviously Kansas doesn't represent America.  It's much worse than that.  Kansas represents the part of America that would theoretically be all for repealing anything that would keep abortion legal.
Would you care to elucidate?

Sure.  But I think Stack probably beat me to it.

The GOP has made the eradication of abortion one of their main long term goals for decades.  They assumed that the majority of Americans would be behind this.  But if Kansas is any indication then really only Sharia Republicans support this.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: xasop on August 03, 2022, 03:56:16 PM
I never would have guessed Kansas would vote No considering how red the state is...It's like the inverse of 2020...
It's almost like a two-candidate election is an atrocious way to represent nuance in political beliefs.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on August 03, 2022, 04:16:31 PM
I never would have guessed Kansas would vote No considering how red the state is...It's like the inverse of 2020...
It's almost like a two-candidate election is an atrocious way to represent nuance in political beliefs.

I kind of agree. But I wouldn't consider abortion rights, or the removal of, to be a nuance in political beliefs. It seems to be a major part of the GOP platform (Abortion falls under the GOP platform 5th Amendment - Out of 10 - titled "Protecting Human Life").
And Kansas seems to be a predominantly red state - The Kansas 2020 House and Senate races were very GOP leaning as well as the Presidential race.

I think the point is that a very Red state doesn't appear to be entirely aligned with the GOP platform.

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: xasop on August 03, 2022, 04:21:15 PM
I think the point is that a very Red state doesn't appear to be entirely aligned with the GOP platform.
Indeed — in a two-party system, it only needs to find the GOP's platform very slightly less abhorrent than the Democrats'.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on August 03, 2022, 04:30:03 PM
I think the point is that a very Red state doesn't appear to be entirely aligned with the GOP platform.
Indeed — in a two-party system, it only needs to find the GOP's platform very slightly less abhorrent than the Democrats'.

Agreed, the difference is wafer thin on some issues.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on August 03, 2022, 04:50:49 PM
I never would have guessed Kansas would vote No considering how red the state is...It's like the inverse of 2020...

(https://i.imgur.com/QjGYoSV.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/GoaPa79.png)

It looks like alot but most of that red is farmland.  Low population density.
Example.  Rice county (a random county I picked) has a population of like 9,500 people over 1,884 kmsq.


For contrast, I grew up in Orange Couny, New York.
Area: 2,100 kmsq
Population: 404,500.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on August 03, 2022, 05:50:42 PM
True, especially in western Kansas. Kansas City pop is about 500k and it looks like that area is decidedly Blue. What's interesting is that Wichita, pop approx 400k is decidedly Red along with basically the entirety of the rest of the State.

One would probably have to look at the make-up of all the red counties, get the No's versus Yes's votes cast, to really see if it was a Kansas City thing or a Kansas thing.

Considering a 59% to 41% count, that large of a spread leads me to believe it was not just a Kansas City thing, but a Kansas thing.

Edit - From 538:

(https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/drrZc-latest-results-on-kansas-s-constitutional-amendment-on-abortion.png?w=1424)

Definitely more of an urban thing, though interesting to see a sort of mix out in the hinterlands.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on August 03, 2022, 06:02:29 PM
Most of the nation would probably end up voting similarly to Kansas if given the direct-democratic option of doing it. There simply aren't that many people in any given state that strongly oppose abortion rights.

Pew Research says there's only 8% of the country that want to flat-out make abortion illegal in all cases, only another 29% want it to be illegal with a few exceptions. That's 37% "net illegal" abortion opinions. Considering the Kansas vote was during the Republican primary, I'd imagine the majority of US states would have the same outcome.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 03, 2022, 06:15:40 PM
"Mr Biden said the result showed "the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion". - Evidently, the BBC thinks like Biden (for shame), that Kansans represent all of citizens of the US.
Doesn’t basically every poll show that Americans are largely pro choice?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 03, 2022, 07:14:59 PM
"Mr Biden said the result showed "the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion". - Evidently, the BBC thinks like Biden (for shame), that Kansans represent all of citizens of the US.
Doesn’t basically every poll show that Americans are largely pro choice?
Basically, every poll is taken from areas where the population is most dense.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on August 03, 2022, 07:40:35 PM
"Mr Biden said the result showed "the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion". - Evidently, the BBC thinks like Biden (for shame), that Kansans represent all of citizens of the US.
Doesn’t basically every poll show that Americans are largely pro choice?
Basically, every poll is taken from areas where the population is most dense.

I don't think that is entirely true. From Pew:

Most of our U.S. surveys are conducted on the American Trends Panel (ATP), the Center’s national survey panel of over 10,000 randomly selected U.S. adults. ATP participants are recruited offline using random sampling from the U.S. Postal Service’s residential address file. Respondents complete the surveys online using smartphones, tablets or desktop devices. We provide tablets and data plans to adults without home internet.

Our surveys are representative of the entire adult population of the United States and accurately account for the full population’s diversity by age, gender, race and ethnicity, region, and socioeconomic factors such as education levels, household income and employment status.

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: junker on August 03, 2022, 07:49:38 PM
kansas republican voters were probably just confused by the wording of the ballot measure
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: crutonius on August 03, 2022, 09:02:07 PM
There was a story about confusing wording but I don't think it was about the ballot measure.  I think it was some marketing firm in Nevada that was pushing some PR blitz where they misrepresented what the amendment was intended to do.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 03, 2022, 09:11:47 PM
Basically, every poll is taken from areas where the population is most dense.
That’s a yes, isn’t it?

The areas where the population is less dense are often the areas where the population is most dense…
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on August 03, 2022, 09:34:18 PM
"Mr Biden said the result showed "the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion". - Evidently, the BBC thinks like Biden (for shame), that Kansans represent all of citizens of the US.
Doesn’t basically every poll show that Americans are largely pro choice?
Basically, every poll is taken from areas where the population is most dense.

In fairness, he's not entirely wromg.
Random sampling means there is a higher chance of getting someone from a high dense area vs a low one.  Tho you can adjust polls so they do random sampling of target regions to minimize that problem.  But only so many people you should poll per area and if the area has like 1,000 people, well... No need to poll more than one or two.
But a city with a few million?  Need to poll a several hundred.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on August 03, 2022, 10:56:26 PM
"Mr Biden said the result showed "the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion". - Evidently, the BBC thinks like Biden (for shame), that Kansans represent all of citizens of the US.
Doesn’t basically every poll show that Americans are largely pro choice?
Basically, every poll is taken from areas where the population is most dense.

In fairness, he's not entirely wromg.
Random sampling means there is a higher chance of getting someone from a high dense area vs a low one.  Tho you can adjust polls so they do random sampling of target regions to minimize that problem.  But only so many people you should poll per area and if the area has like 1,000 people, well... No need to poll more than one or two.
But a city with a few million?  Need to poll a several hundred.

I’m not sure Lackey’s point is fair because he is asserting that polls over sample people living in cities without any evidence.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on August 04, 2022, 12:49:48 AM
I think that it's pretty well accepted by now that it's pretty hard to find a poll or survey that isn't biased in one way or another depending on the agenda of whoever is sponsoring, conducting and analyzing said poll.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/bias-in-polls-and-surveys.html
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 04, 2022, 07:24:46 AM
"Mr Biden said the result showed "the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion". - Evidently, the BBC thinks like Biden (for shame), that Kansans represent all of citizens of the US.
Doesn’t basically every poll show that Americans are largely pro choice?
Basically, every poll is taken from areas where the population is most dense.

I don't think that is entirely true. From Pew:

Most of our U.S. surveys are conducted on the American Trends Panel (ATP), the Center’s national survey panel of over 10,000 randomly selected U.S. adults. ATP participants are recruited offline using random sampling from the U.S. Postal Service’s residential address file. Respondents complete the surveys online using smartphones, tablets or desktop devices. We provide tablets and data plans to adults without home internet.

Our surveys are representative of the entire adult population of the United States and accurately account for the full population’s diversity by age, gender, race and ethnicity, region, and socioeconomic factors such as education levels, household income and employment status.
Congratulations on affirming my use of the word, "basically."
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 04, 2022, 07:27:47 AM
"Mr Biden said the result showed "the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion". - Evidently, the BBC thinks like Biden (for shame), that Kansans represent all of citizens of the US.
Doesn’t basically every poll show that Americans are largely pro choice?
Basically, every poll is taken from areas where the population is most dense.

In fairness, he's not entirely wromg.
Random sampling means there is a higher chance of getting someone from a high dense area vs a low one.  Tho you can adjust polls so they do random sampling of target regions to minimize that problem.  But only so many people you should poll per area and if the area has like 1,000 people, well... No need to poll more than one or two.
But a city with a few million?  Need to poll a several hundred.

I’m not sure Lackey’s point is fair because he is asserting that polls over sample people living in cities without any evidence.
Polls cannot help but oversample populations with higher population density.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 04, 2022, 07:29:56 AM
Basically, every poll is taken from areas where the population is most dense.
That’s a yes, isn’t it?

The areas where the population is less dense are often the areas where the population is most dense…
It seems double speak has struck again?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 04, 2022, 01:44:20 PM
QED… :)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rushy on August 04, 2022, 01:52:02 PM
I'm noticing a distinct Action80 motivated devolution of discussion. Do not post low effort nonsense in upper threads (looking at you, Action80) and do not reply to his low effort nonsense with more of it (looking at you, AllAroundTheWorld).

This isn't a 2016 presidential election debate. Do better.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on August 04, 2022, 02:12:24 PM
"Mr Biden said the result showed "the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion". - Evidently, the BBC thinks like Biden (for shame), that Kansans represent all of citizens of the US.
Doesn’t basically every poll show that Americans are largely pro choice?
Basically, every poll is taken from areas where the population is most dense.

In fairness, he's not entirely wromg.
Random sampling means there is a higher chance of getting someone from a high dense area vs a low one.  Tho you can adjust polls so they do random sampling of target regions to minimize that problem.  But only so many people you should poll per area and if the area has like 1,000 people, well... No need to poll more than one or two.
But a city with a few million?  Need to poll a several hundred.

I’m not sure Lackey’s point is fair because he is asserting that polls over sample people living in cities without any evidence.
Polls cannot help but oversample populations with higher population density.

Just curious, what sample should they take?
Like lets say a county has 9,000 people.  What sample of them, of a state with a population of 3 million, should be taken to be fairly sampled?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on August 04, 2022, 05:20:23 PM
Even Fox polls seem to agree with all of those high-population density biased polls from everywhere else:

(https://i.imgur.com/kc6cczL.png)

Seems to still be true 10 months later:

(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2022/07/1862/1046/1A.png?ve=1&tl=1)
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 04, 2022, 07:31:34 PM
"Mr Biden said the result showed "the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion". - Evidently, the BBC thinks like Biden (for shame), that Kansans represent all of citizens of the US.
Doesn’t basically every poll show that Americans are largely pro choice?
Basically, every poll is taken from areas where the population is most dense.

In fairness, he's not entirely wromg.
Random sampling means there is a higher chance of getting someone from a high dense area vs a low one.  Tho you can adjust polls so they do random sampling of target regions to minimize that problem.  But only so many people you should poll per area and if the area has like 1,000 people, well... No need to poll more than one or two.
But a city with a few million?  Need to poll a several hundred.

I’m not sure Lackey’s point is fair because he is asserting that polls over sample people living in cities without any evidence.
Polls cannot help but oversample populations with higher population density.

Just curious, what sample should they take?
Like lets say a county has 9,000 people.  What sample of them, of a state with a population of 3 million, should be taken to be fairly sampled?
I don't care what samples they take.

I am fairly convinced you have the same feeling.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on August 04, 2022, 09:20:25 PM
"Mr Biden said the result showed "the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion". - Evidently, the BBC thinks like Biden (for shame), that Kansans represent all of citizens of the US.
Doesn’t basically every poll show that Americans are largely pro choice?
Basically, every poll is taken from areas where the population is most dense.

In fairness, he's not entirely wromg.
Random sampling means there is a higher chance of getting someone from a high dense area vs a low one.  Tho you can adjust polls so they do random sampling of target regions to minimize that problem.  But only so many people you should poll per area and if the area has like 1,000 people, well... No need to poll more than one or two.
But a city with a few million?  Need to poll a several hundred.

I’m not sure Lackey’s point is fair because he is asserting that polls over sample people living in cities without any evidence.
Polls cannot help but oversample populations with higher population density.

Just curious, what sample should they take?
Like lets say a county has 9,000 people.  What sample of them, of a state with a population of 3 million, should be taken to be fairly sampled?
I don't care what samples they take.

I am fairly convinced you have the same feeling.

You clearly do.  You said you think they're undersampling low density areas.  So just want to know what you consider to be accurate sampling.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 05, 2022, 10:27:04 AM
You clearly do.  You said you think they're undersampling low density areas.  So just want to know what you consider to be accurate sampling.
I wrote no such thing.

To me, an adequate sampling would be none at all.

Polls, and the reports thereof, are an example of "tail wagging the dog," thus falling within the realm of unnatural events.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on August 05, 2022, 03:02:41 PM
You clearly do.  You said you think they're undersampling low density areas.  So just want to know what you consider to be accurate sampling.
I wrote no such thing.

Wouldn't this mean the converse:

Polls cannot help but oversample populations with higher population density.
(my bold)

Meaning, Polls cannot help but undersample populations with lower population density?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 06, 2022, 11:38:27 AM
https://youtu.be/F8pLu6inAuI
One wonders why a 10-year old girl had to travel to Indiana from Ohio to have an abortion, if Indiana is the first state to ban abortion after Roe v Wade...

Segue to more defense of the obvious media spin...
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 06, 2022, 11:44:44 AM
Oh my god!!!

https://youtu.be/7aS-E0hqmig

Even the media cannot keep track of its narrative...
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on August 06, 2022, 11:49:38 AM
https://youtu.be/F8pLu6inAuI
One wonders why a 10-year old girl had to travel to Indiana from Ohio to have an abortion, if Indiana is the first state to ban abortion after Roe v Wade...

Segue to more defense of the obvious media spin...

Are you saying you don’t understand how time works?  Have you noticed the weeks separating her abortion and the passing of the law? Or did your YouTube overlord not tell you of the time-like separation of these events in space-time?

Just so you can’t deflect here is a brief timeline:

• an abortion performed on a ten year girl, victim of an alleged rape, was reported by the doctor on July 2nd, 2022
• For the next few weeks you made a series of poorly reasoned assertions attempting to poke holes in the story and failed
• August 6th, 2022 the Indiana legislature passed a law banning nearly all abortions.
• August 6th, 2022 the Indiana governor signs the law but even still, it does not come in to effect until September 15th, 2022.

So in short, what the fuck are you talking about?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 06, 2022, 11:58:16 AM
https://youtu.be/F8pLu6inAuI
One wonders why a 10-year old girl had to travel to Indiana from Ohio to have an abortion, if Indiana is the first state to ban abortion after Roe v Wade...

Segue to more defense of the obvious media spin...

Are you saying you don’t understand how time works?  Have you noticed the weeks separating her abortion and the passing of the law? Or did your YouTube overlord not tell you of the time-like separation of these events in space-time?

Just so you can’t deflect here is a brief timeline:

• an abortion performed on a ten year girl, victim of an alleged rape, was reported by the doctor on July 2nd, 2022
• For the next few weeks you made a series of poorly reasoned assertions attempting to poke holes in the story and failed
• August 6th, 2022 the Indiana legislature passed a law banning nearly all abortions.
• August 15th, 2022 the Indiana governor signs the law but even still, it does not come in to effect until September 15th, 2022.

So in short, what the fuck are you talking about?
Refraining from profanity (unlike you) and referring back to the post I made, dealing with how the media is treating and reporting on this topic.

Care to examine and comment, or not?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on August 06, 2022, 12:23:13 PM
Aww did da bad word hurt your feelings?

I did watch your video by the way. It begs the question if you understand how time works or not. Please let us know. 
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 06, 2022, 02:39:30 PM
Aww did da bad word hurt your feelings?

I did watch your video by the way. It begs the question if you understand how time works or not. Please let us know.
Not at all.

Still refraining from profanity, the video actually begs the question as to whether or not you know how time works...

So, please, let us know.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on August 06, 2022, 02:55:20 PM
Aww did da bad word hurt your feelings?

I did watch your video by the way. It begs the question if you understand how time works or not. Please let us know.
Not at all.

Still refraining from profanity, the video actually begs the question as to whether or not you know how time works...

So, please, let us know.

Yeah. I gave you a timeline. Feel free to discuss it in detail. This law passing has no effect on the abortion done over a month before.

I take it back, maybe it’s entropy and not time that is giving you fits. So, just so you know, events in the present or future can not affect events in the past.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 06, 2022, 03:18:34 PM
Aww did da bad word hurt your feelings?

I did watch your video by the way. It begs the question if you understand how time works or not. Please let us know.
Not at all.

Still refraining from profanity, the video actually begs the question as to whether or not you know how time works...

So, please, let us know.

Yeah. I gave you a timeline. Feel free to discuss it in detail. This law passing has no effect on the abortion done over a month before.

I take it back, maybe it’s entropy and not time that is giving you fits. So, just so you know, events in the present or future can not affect events in the past.
Now that you have posted the timeline, you can elucidate on how a person would or should travel from a state where, according to the media, abortion was not banned.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on August 06, 2022, 03:40:14 PM
Aww did da bad word hurt your feelings?

I did watch your video by the way. It begs the question if you understand how time works or not. Please let us know.
Not at all.

Still refraining from profanity, the video actually begs the question as to whether or not you know how time works...

So, please, let us know.

Yeah. I gave you a timeline. Feel free to discuss it in detail. This law passing has no effect on the abortion done over a month before.

I take it back, maybe it’s entropy and not time that is giving you fits. So, just so you know, events in the present or future can not affect events in the past.
Now that you have posted the timeline, you can elucidate on how a person would or should travel from a state where, according to the media, abortion was not banned.

She travelled from Ohio to have an abortion in Indiana. You know that right?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 06, 2022, 03:56:54 PM
Aww did da bad word hurt your feelings?

I did watch your video by the way. It begs the question if you understand how time works or not. Please let us know.
Not at all.

Still refraining from profanity, the video actually begs the question as to whether or not you know how time works...

So, please, let us know.

Yeah. I gave you a timeline. Feel free to discuss it in detail. This law passing has no effect on the abortion done over a month before.

I take it back, maybe it’s entropy and not time that is giving you fits. So, just so you know, events in the present or future can not affect events in the past.
Now that you have posted the timeline, you can elucidate on how a person would or should travel from a state where, according to the media, abortion was not banned.

She travelled from Ohio to have an abortion in Indiana. You know that right?
According to the media, yes she did.

The question is why?

According to the media, Indiana is the first state to ban abortion, as of yesterday.

Meaning abortion wasn't banned in Ohio.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on August 06, 2022, 04:16:36 PM
According to the media, Indiana is the first state to ban abortion, as of yesterday.

Meaning abortion wasn't banned in Ohio.
Because the Ohio heartbeat abortion law is vague enough that it was hard to know if the 10 year old would qualify for an exception.  The fact that Ohio looked at charging the Indiana doctor with a crime suggests that she probably would not have.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/14/what-ohio-law-says-about-10-year-old-rape-victim-abortion/
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on August 06, 2022, 04:18:37 PM
Aww did da bad word hurt your feelings?

I did watch your video by the way. It begs the question if you understand how time works or not. Please let us know.
Not at all.

Still refraining from profanity, the video actually begs the question as to whether or not you know how time works...

So, please, let us know.

Yeah. I gave you a timeline. Feel free to discuss it in detail. This law passing has no effect on the abortion done over a month before.

I take it back, maybe it’s entropy and not time that is giving you fits. So, just so you know, events in the present or future can not affect events in the past.
Now that you have posted the timeline, you can elucidate on how a person would or should travel from a state where, according to the media, abortion was not banned.

She travelled from Ohio to have an abortion in Indiana. You know that right?
According to the media, yes she did.

The question is why?

According to the media, Indiana is the first state to ban abortion, as of yesterday.

Meaning abortion wasn't banned in Ohio.
And once again, you're wrong.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/06/1116132623/indiana-becomes-1st-state-to-approve-abortion-ban-post-roe?t=1659802505593

To approve, post roe.  This means trigger laws put on the books prior as well as other restrictions, don't count.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 06, 2022, 04:31:13 PM
According to the media, Indiana is the first state to ban abortion, as of yesterday.

Meaning abortion wasn't banned in Ohio.
Because the Ohio heartbeat abortion law is vague enough that it was hard to know if the 10 year old would qualify for an exception.  The fact that Ohio looked at charging the Indiana doctor with a crime suggests that she probably would not have.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/14/what-ohio-law-says-about-10-year-old-rape-victim-abortion/
Posting an article that happens to quote the AG of Ohio stating the law is exactly the opposite of what you claim it to be really doesn't support your post.

In fact, it just lends further credence to the notion the whole story, to begin with, is just a pile of bull cookies, highlighting the fact there is no limit as to what the CIA/military/media/industrial complex will spew in an effort to achieve their idea of utopia.

But thanks anyway.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 06, 2022, 04:33:58 PM

And once again, you're wrong.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/06/1116132623/indiana-becomes-1st-state-to-approve-abortion-ban-post-roe?t=1659802505593

To approve, post roe.  This means trigger laws put on the books prior as well as other restrictions, don't count.
Actually, I am right.
Oh my god!!!

https://youtu.be/7aS-E0hqmig

Even the media cannot keep track of its narrative...
So, here the media was applying the word - BAN.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on August 06, 2022, 05:11:58 PM
According to the media, Indiana is the first state to ban abortion, as of yesterday.

Meaning abortion wasn't banned in Ohio.
Because the Ohio heartbeat abortion law is vague enough that it was hard to know if the 10 year old would qualify for an exception.  The fact that Ohio looked at charging the Indiana doctor with a crime suggests that she probably would not have.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/14/what-ohio-law-says-about-10-year-old-rape-victim-abortion/
Posting an article that happens to quote the AG of Ohio stating the law is exactly the opposite of what you claim it to be really doesn't support your post.

In fact, it just lends further credence to the notion the whole story, to begin with, is just a pile of bull cookies, highlighting the fact there is no limit as to what the CIA/military/media/industrial complex will spew in an effort to achieve their idea of utopia.

But thanks anyway.
Even if it would have been legal in Ohio, what's the big deal about going to another state where abortion is still legal?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on August 06, 2022, 05:19:44 PM

And once again, you're wrong.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/06/1116132623/indiana-becomes-1st-state-to-approve-abortion-ban-post-roe?t=1659802505593

To approve, post roe.  This means trigger laws put on the books prior as well as other restrictions, don't count.
Actually, I am right.
Oh my god!!!

https://youtu.be/7aS-E0hqmig

Even the media cannot keep track of its narrative...
So, here the media was applying the word - BAN.

Yes.  It was a ban, passed as a trigger law in 2019.

https://www.ualrpublicradio.org/local-regional-news/2022-06-24/arkansans-one-of-13-states-with-abortion-trigger-laws-local-officials-react
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 06, 2022, 06:50:55 PM
According to the media, Indiana is the first state to ban abortion, as of yesterday.

Meaning abortion wasn't banned in Ohio.
Because the Ohio heartbeat abortion law is vague enough that it was hard to know if the 10 year old would qualify for an exception.  The fact that Ohio looked at charging the Indiana doctor with a crime suggests that she probably would not have.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/14/what-ohio-law-says-about-10-year-old-rape-victim-abortion/
Posting an article that happens to quote the AG of Ohio stating the law is exactly the opposite of what you claim it to be really doesn't support your post.

In fact, it just lends further credence to the notion the whole story, to begin with, is just a pile of bull cookies, highlighting the fact there is no limit as to what the CIA/military/media/industrial complex will spew in an effort to achieve their idea of utopia.

But thanks anyway.
Even if it would have been legal in Ohio, what's the big deal about going to another state where abortion is still legal?
Yeah, what is the big deal?

Why did the media even put this report out if it is not that big of a deal?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 06, 2022, 06:52:18 PM

And once again, you're wrong.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/06/1116132623/indiana-becomes-1st-state-to-approve-abortion-ban-post-roe?t=1659802505593

To approve, post roe.  This means trigger laws put on the books prior as well as other restrictions, don't count.
Actually, I am right.
Oh my god!!!

https://youtu.be/7aS-E0hqmig

Even the media cannot keep track of its narrative...
So, here the media was applying the word - BAN.

Yes.  It was a ban, passed as a trigger law in 2019.
Okay, thanks for confirming the media cannot get their story straight.

Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on August 06, 2022, 08:03:55 PM
Lackey has gone from this being the deep state reprogramming sheeple to complaining that the first ban passed after Roe v Wade was called the first ban after Roe v Wade. It’s a display of incompetence that may never be rivaled.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 06, 2022, 08:18:32 PM
Lackey has gone from this being the deep state reprogramming sheeple to complaining that the first ban passed after Roe v Wade was called the first ban after Roe v Wade. It’s a display of incompetence that may never be rivaled.
Labeling the obvious facts I share as incompetence is mildly humorous. Thanks for the chuckle.

You can only have one first.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on August 06, 2022, 08:32:54 PM
Lackey has gone from this being the deep state reprogramming sheeple to complaining that the first ban passed after Roe v Wade was called the first ban after Roe v Wade. It’s a display of incompetence that may never be rivaled.
Labeling the obvious facts I share as incompetence is mildly humorous. Thanks for the chuckle.

I’m not labeling the facts you share as incompetence because that is nonsensical. I wonder what the next set of mental gymnastics you will attempt to perform to try and minimize the story of this girl, though. You’ve done a whole tumbling routine and fallen at every attempt.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 07, 2022, 04:59:19 AM
Lackey has gone from this being the deep state reprogramming sheeple to complaining that the first ban passed after Roe v Wade was called the first ban after Roe v Wade. It’s a display of incompetence that may never be rivaled.
Labeling the obvious facts I share as incompetence is mildly humorous. Thanks for the chuckle.

I’m not labeling the facts you share as incompetence because that is nonsensical. I wonder what the next set of mental gymnastics you will attempt to perform to try and minimize the story of this girl, though. You’ve done a whole tumbling routine and fallen at every attempt.
Given the details of how the media has portrayed the issue, using hyperbole at every turn, it seems the tumbling routine comment is misdirected.

I am neither falling or failing here.

Abortion isn't even banned yet, is it?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on August 07, 2022, 07:10:59 AM

And once again, you're wrong.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/06/1116132623/indiana-becomes-1st-state-to-approve-abortion-ban-post-roe?t=1659802505593

To approve, post roe.  This means trigger laws put on the books prior as well as other restrictions, don't count.
Actually, I am right.
Oh my god!!!

https://youtu.be/7aS-E0hqmig

Even the media cannot keep track of its narrative...
So, here the media was applying the word - BAN.

Yes.  It was a ban, passed as a trigger law in 2019.
Okay, thanks for confirming the media cannot get their story straight.

Its straight.
Laws were passed to ban abortion before and after the Roe reversal.  How is that hard to understand?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on August 07, 2022, 08:57:57 AM
Abortion isn't even banned yet, is it?

Will be in Tennessee in a couple of weeks:

Abortion in Tennessee will be illegal from fertilization beginning August 25, 2022, thirty days after the Tennessee Attorney General notified the Tennessee Code Commission that Roe v. Wade was overturned on June 24, 2022,[1][2][3][4] a notification that occurred on July 26, 2022.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 07, 2022, 09:03:50 AM

And once again, you're wrong.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/06/1116132623/indiana-becomes-1st-state-to-approve-abortion-ban-post-roe?t=1659802505593

To approve, post roe.  This means trigger laws put on the books prior as well as other restrictions, don't count.
Actually, I am right.
Oh my god!!!

https://youtu.be/7aS-E0hqmig

Even the media cannot keep track of its narrative...
So, here the media was applying the word - BAN.

Yes.  It was a ban, passed as a trigger law in 2019.
Okay, thanks for confirming the media cannot get their story straight.

Its straight.
Laws were passed to ban abortion before and after the Roe reversal.  How is that hard to understand?
The word first is used when reporting.

And abortion is not banned.

So, it isn't straight.

How is that hard to understand?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 07, 2022, 09:05:04 AM
Abortion isn't even banned yet, is it?

Will be in Tennessee in a couple of weeks:

Abortion in Tennessee will be illegal from fertilization beginning August 25, 2022, thirty days after the Tennessee Attorney General notified the Tennessee Code Commission that Roe v. Wade was overturned on June 24, 2022,[1][2][3][4] a notification that occurred on July 26, 2022.
Oh, so the Indiana thing is just fake news, right?

And even then, abortion will not be banned or even illegal in Tennessee.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on August 07, 2022, 03:36:57 PM
Abortion isn't even banned yet, is it?
It has been in Ohio since 2019.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Ohio
Abortion in Ohio is illegal after embryonic cardiac activity can be detected, which typically occurs around six weeks of pregnancy. On April 11, 2019, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed the Human Rights and Heartbeat Protection Act, which bans abortion in the state after an embryonic cardiac activity is detectable. On June 24, 2022, after the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v. Wade, judge Michael R. Barrett lifted a preliminary injunction that had blocked state officials from enforcing the law against certain abortion providers, allowing the Human Rights and Heartbeat Protection Act to take full effect
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 07, 2022, 04:02:32 PM
Abortion isn't even banned yet, is it?
It has been in Ohio since 2019.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Ohio
Abortion in Ohio is illegal after embryonic cardiac activity can be detected, which typically occurs around six weeks of pregnancy. On April 11, 2019, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed the Human Rights and Heartbeat Protection Act, which bans abortion in the state after an embryonic cardiac activity is detectable. On June 24, 2022, after the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v. Wade, judge Michael R. Barrett lifted a preliminary injunction that had blocked state officials from enforcing the law against certain abortion providers, allowing the Human Rights and Heartbeat Protection Act to take full effect
I refer you back to the following:

The article you posted here in this post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=post;quote=269181;topic=19337.580;last_msg=269223  (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=post;quote=269181;topic=19337.580;last_msg=269223)

The definition of ban found here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ban

Abortion is not banned in the US, at all, period, end of sentence.

Also, if your claim was true, media is demonstrated to have no credibility, not worthy of respect.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Lord Dave on August 07, 2022, 04:34:16 PM

And once again, you're wrong.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/06/1116132623/indiana-becomes-1st-state-to-approve-abortion-ban-post-roe?t=1659802505593

To approve, post roe.  This means trigger laws put on the books prior as well as other restrictions, don't count.
Actually, I am right.
Oh my god!!!

https://youtu.be/7aS-E0hqmig

Even the media cannot keep track of its narrative...
So, here the media was applying the word - BAN.

Yes.  It was a ban, passed as a trigger law in 2019.
Okay, thanks for confirming the media cannot get their story straight.

Its straight.
Laws were passed to ban abortion before and after the Roe reversal.  How is that hard to understand?
The word first is used when reporting.
Yes.  First after roe.
To put in simply... You can take a shit on Saturday, then on Monday say "this is my first shit since the new week began" while shitting in the morning.

Quote
And abortion is not banned.
Is in some places, yes.


Quote
So, it isn't straight.

How is that hard to understand?
With the amount of mental gymnastics you do, I'm shocked you can't do a simple tumble.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 07, 2022, 04:54:04 PM
Yes.  First after roe.
To put in simply... You can take a shit on Saturday, then on Monday say "this is my first shit since the new week began" while shitting in the morning.
The first is the first.

But thanks for confirming that Roe v Wade certainly did not deserve the "worship and adoration," it received from those "outraged," by its removal.
Quote
And abortion is not banned.
Is in some places, yes.
Nah, not in the US.
Quote
So, it isn't straight.

How is that hard to understand?
With the amount of mental gymnastics you do, I'm shocked you can't do a simple tumble.
No mental gymnastics here, just pointing out hyperbolic reporting and commentary.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on August 07, 2022, 05:05:29 PM
Lackey is doing a real God of the Gaps arguement here.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on August 07, 2022, 05:25:00 PM
Abortion is not banned in the US, at all, period, end of sentence.
*sigh* Abortion is not banned at a federal level.  However, a number of states within the US do ban (legally forbid) abortion, with certain limited exceptions.  I'm not sure how you're unable (or, more likely, unwilling) to understand that.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 07, 2022, 05:48:22 PM
Abortion is not banned in the US, at all, period, end of sentence.
*sigh* Abortion is not banned at a federal level.  However, a number of states within the US do ban (legally forbid) abortion, with certain limited exceptions.  I'm not sure how you're unable (or, more likely, unwilling) to understand that.
The word ban does not = the term, "limited exceptions," does it?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on August 07, 2022, 07:14:03 PM
The word ban does not = the term, "limited exceptions," does it?
Are you being pedantic or just trolling?  Either way, you aren't adding anything to the discussion (whatever it is by now).

BTW, I said abortion is banned with limited exceptions.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on August 07, 2022, 08:13:05 PM
Abortion isn't even banned yet, is it?

Will be in Tennessee in a couple of weeks:

Abortion in Tennessee will be illegal from fertilization beginning August 25, 2022, thirty days after the Tennessee Attorney General notified the Tennessee Code Commission that Roe v. Wade was overturned on June 24, 2022,[1][2][3][4] a notification that occurred on July 26, 2022.
Oh, so the Indiana thing is just fake news, right?

And even then, abortion will not be banned or even illegal in Tennessee.

When does fertilization occur?

The Tennessee trigger law bans all abortions (Including rape and incest) with the exception of Dr. proven threat to life of the mother.

SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 15, Part 2, is amended by adding the following as a new section:
(2) "Fertilization" means that point in time when a male human sperm penetrates the zona pellucida of a female human ovum;


If you want to play semantics...

ban /ban/
noun
1: an official or legal prohibition.

prohibition /ˌprō(h)əˈbiSH(ə)n/
noun
1: the act of prohibiting by authority. 2 : an order to restrain or stop. 3 often capitalized : the forbidding by law of the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic liquors except for medicinal and sacramental purposes.


"Bans" can include "exceptions".
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 07, 2022, 08:40:18 PM
The word ban does not = the term, "limited exceptions," does it?
Are you being pedantic or just trolling?  Either way, you aren't adding anything to the discussion (whatever it is by now).

BTW, I said abortion is banned with limited exceptions.
I am not being pedantic.

If one states, "There are limited exceptions allowing for abortions," that statement is clear and meaningful.

Adding the word "banned" is actually pedantic.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 07, 2022, 08:44:24 PM
Abortion isn't even banned yet, is it?

Will be in Tennessee in a couple of weeks:

Abortion in Tennessee will be illegal from fertilization beginning August 25, 2022, thirty days after the Tennessee Attorney General notified the Tennessee Code Commission that Roe v. Wade was overturned on June 24, 2022,[1][2][3][4] a notification that occurred on July 26, 2022.
Oh, so the Indiana thing is just fake news, right?

And even then, abortion will not be banned or even illegal in Tennessee.

When does fertilization occur?

The Tennessee trigger law bans all abortions (Including rape and incest) with the exception of Dr. proven threat to life of the mother.

SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 15, Part 2, is amended by adding the following as a new section:
(2) "Fertilization" means that point in time when a male human sperm penetrates the zona pellucida of a female human ovum;


If you want to play semantics...

ban /ban/
noun
1: an official or legal prohibition.

prohibition /ˌprō(h)əˈbiSH(ə)n/
noun
1: the act of prohibiting by authority. 2 : an order to restrain or stop. 3 often capitalized : the forbidding by law of the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic liquors except for medicinal and sacramental purposes.


"Bans" can include "exceptions".
Abortion is not banned, however.

Neither is the sale of alcohol.

Performance of either is restricted, not banned.

Both have been and will continue to be.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Rama Set on August 08, 2022, 12:31:35 AM
So yes, pedantry. Exactly pedantry.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: markjo on August 08, 2022, 12:36:38 AM
So yes, pedantry. Exactly pedantry.
I don't know about that.  I'm leaning towards trolling.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on August 08, 2022, 01:31:40 AM
I guess we can go with this in Tennessee then:

- Abortions in the case of rape or incest are banned
- Abortions after fertilization (point in time when a male human sperm penetrates the zona pellucida of a female human ovum) are banned
- Abortions, if a Dr can convince a court that the woman's life is in danger, are not banned*

*(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under subsection (b), which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, that:
(1) The abortion was performed or attempted by a licensed physician;
(2) The physician determined, in the physician's good faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. No abortion shall be deemed authorized under this subdivision (c)(2) if performed on the basis of a claim or a diagnosis that the woman will engage in conduct that would result in her death or substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function or for any reason relating to her mental health


The bolded bit of SB 1257 is interesting. Example, if a physician determines that a woman is suicidal because of her rape or incest derived pregnancy and believes she will attempt suicide because of the pregnancy and s/he performs an abortion based upon that, that physician will be charged with a Class C felony.
Title: Re: Buy Illegal Abortion
Post by: BillO on August 08, 2022, 02:08:06 AM
Fixed the title for U guyzzzz.

I do understand this is, at first sight, a low value post.  But upon further reflection I am sure you all know this is where things are heading in many places in the US.  It can't be anything but obvious that things will return to the way they were.  Even died in the wool fanatics of misogyny and religious mansplainin' (Tom and Achtung80. talking to you guys here) will have to admit that if it is not available legally it will promote a criminal source just like it did in the past.

I guess some intense assholes believe that women should die horribly from infection due to badly implemented illegal procedures rather than live their life after having a humanely justifiable professional abortion.

It's not Like Tom Turkey or Achtung80 will ever need personally to face this.  So what's it to them?
Title: Re: Buy Illegal Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2022, 03:00:18 AM
Even died in the wool fanatics of misogyny and religious mansplainin' (Tom and Achtung80. talking to you guys here) will have to admit that if it is not available legally it will promote a criminal source

Alternatively:

https://twitter.com/crushmarxismnow/status/1544847645574701056
Title: Re: Buy Illegal Abortion
Post by: BillO on August 08, 2022, 03:08:21 AM
Alternatively:

Holy confirmation bias Batman!  No surprise really.  Tom you have an unique way for dragging up the most incredible trash to support your mental state.  This was far more than likely posted in jest.  The fact you don't see that is kind of sad.  Keep them blinders on Tommy boy.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: ohplease on August 08, 2022, 03:41:45 AM
Neither Tom nor Action80 are here to actually debate the merits of anything but merely to argue.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2022, 03:46:46 AM
If you guys have nothing to post except a low content post, I would suggest not posting.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: BillO on August 08, 2022, 04:29:38 AM
If you guys have nothing to post except a low content post, I would suggest not posting.
I disagree. The 2nd part of my last post was pertinent to the discussion.  The link you posted contained content that was an obvious exaggerated reaction to the change in law.  Do I really have to explain this to you?
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2022, 04:33:34 AM
If you guys have nothing to post except a low content post, I would suggest not posting.
I disagree. The 2nd part of my last post was pertinent to the discussion.  The link you posted contained content that was an obvious exaggerated reaction to the change in law.  Do I really have to explain this to you?

Remarks like "That might be a joke" is a fairly low content response. Was I supposed to respond that it might not be, where you again respond that it might be?

I will hold out until you have something legitimate to argue.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on August 08, 2022, 04:40:47 AM
If you guys have nothing to post except a low content post, I would suggest not posting.

It doesn't get more low content than posting some random non-attributable tweet from one individual on the planet talking about a girls-night-out conversation. It literally means nothing and is completely irrelevant.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2022, 04:43:17 AM
If you guys have nothing to post except a low content post, I would suggest not posting.

It doesn't get more low content than posting some random non-attributable tweet from one individual on the planet talking about a girls-night-out conversation. It literally means nothing and is completely irrelevant.

Wrong. It does not need to be attributable, or have even occurred, to convey the idea that women could just opt for higher standards and marriage.

An argument was expressed there, and it was not directly addressed.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: BillO on August 08, 2022, 04:44:55 AM
Remarks like "That might be a joke" is a fairly low content response. Was I supposed to respond that it might not be, where you again respond that it might be?

I will hold out until you have something legitimate to argue.
Tom, your inability to recognize sarcasm is not my responsibility.  I can't help you with that in any reasonable way here.  The link you posted was as sarcastic as sarcasm can get.  Sorry you don't get it. Don't pout, try again.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2022, 05:21:56 AM
It does not matter if it occurred or not. The point is clearly that women can just get higher standards or opt for marriage.

If you don't actually have an argument against that I would suggest you refrain from ranting irrelevance and how bad you think your opponent is.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: BillO on August 08, 2022, 05:43:24 AM
Tom, I'm convinced it did occur. I'm not accusing you of makin it up.  I'm not arguing that point.  However, it was astonishingly obviously SARCASM!!!!.  It seems you don't know what that means.  Go look it up.  There are 327 Million explanations on the internet.  Many of those must be from Fake Earthers.

Research like Fake Earther's do.

Enjoy.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on August 08, 2022, 07:01:54 AM
If you guys have nothing to post except a low content post, I would suggest not posting.

It doesn't get more low content than posting some random non-attributable tweet from one individual on the planet talking about a girls-night-out conversation. It literally means nothing and is completely irrelevant.

Wrong. It does not need to be attributable, or have even occurred, to convey the idea that women could just opt for higher standards and marriage.

An argument was expressed there, and it was not directly addressed.

How does one opt for higher standards and marriage in the case of rape or incest?
Title: Re: Buy Illegal Abortion
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 08, 2022, 07:12:27 AM
Fixed the title for U guyzzzz.
SARCASM!!!!
If you post like this once more in PR&S or other upper fora, it's off to the shadow realm with you.
Title: Re: Buy Illegal Abortion
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 08, 2022, 07:37:00 AM
Even died in the wool fanatics of misogyny and religious mansplainin' (Tom and Achtung80. talking to you guys here) will have to admit that if it is not available legally it will promote a criminal source

Alternatively
I also think that cherry picking anecdotes which fit your worldview is a better way of forming opinions than looking at data.

BillO is right of course, although I never feel that's a good argument for legalisation - you could apply the "it'll happen anyway, it'll just go underground" to anything.
But of course the consequences of that in this case are potentially quite serious.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Action80 on August 08, 2022, 12:33:28 PM
The bolded bit of SB 1257 is interesting. Example, if a physician determines that a woman is suicidal because of her rape or incest derived pregnancy and believes she will attempt suicide because of the pregnancy and s/he performs an abortion based upon that, that physician will be charged with a Class C felony.
It seems to delineate the authority and duties of a physician and a psychiatrist.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: rooster on August 08, 2022, 03:58:52 PM
It does not matter if it occurred or not. The point is clearly that women can just get higher standards or opt for marriage.
One is not a connoisseur at birth. Only with a solid knowledge base and experience can one develop impeccable taste.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2022, 05:51:26 PM
It does not matter if it occurred or not. The point is clearly that women can just get higher standards or opt for marriage.
One is not a connoisseur at birth. Only with a solid knowledge base and experience can one develop impeccable taste.

Yes, because no woman has ever, in the history of humanity, told her suitors that she was waiting until marriage.

How does one opt for higher standards and marriage in the case of rape or incest?

Parents can and do teach their children not to engage in incest.

Less than 1% of abortions occur to rape; you are attempting to use an extreme example to justify the personal irresponsibility of women.
Title: Re: Bye Bye Abortion
Post by: stack on August 08, 2022, 06:02:15 PM
The bolded bit of SB 1257 is interesting. Example, if a physician determines that a woman is suicidal because of her rape or incest derived pregnancy and believes she will attempt suicide because of the pregnancy and s/he performs an abortion based upon that, that physician will be charged with a Class C felony.
It seems to delineate the authority and duties of a physician and a psychiatrist.

To an extent. Though a regular old physician can make a case for a patient being suicidal. You don't necessarily have to be a psychiatrist.

I think it simply removes the mental assessment and leaves the physical one only. In essence, one can no longer say "I'm going to kill myself if I have to carry my rapist's-fertilized egg to term," and get an abortion.

It just seems inhumane to me to force a woman to carry even just a fertilized egg (not even a heartbeat) to term even if it was