Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15225398
Saeko wrote:Every form of property provides the owner with legal recourse for accidental property damage by another party. Except, for some reason, when the owner is the owner of a vagina

So now it's a property rights issue? :lol:

Because "my vagina" literally means "my property". If your body is your property, maybe you should have total control over it including all your cells one by one. You should be able to ban your eggs from fusing with any sperma without your consent. :lol:
#15225400
I think I should able to sue weed dispensaries if I get a bad trip. After all, I didn't consent to get a bad trip, I only consented to a good one.

I also didn't consent to munchies so the dispensary should reimburse me the food expenses.
#15225402
wat0n wrote:I think I should able to sue weed dispensaries if I get a bad trip. After all, I didn't consent to get a bad trip, I only consented to a good one.

I also didn't consent to munchies so the dispensary should reimburse me the food expenses.


Not an apt analogy. The weed shop merely sold you a product, they were not involved in its use.
#15225404
Pants-of-dog wrote:Canada should offer free abortions to any US residents who want one.

If its up to states now to make laws other states can offer that. Another country paying for procedures is a bit wacky. American problems are of their own design and they should solve them IMO.
#15225405
Unthinking Majority wrote:Well if Saeko wants to charge men with rape i think all men should sign forms and record it all lol.

She'd rather mean to charge the state with rape, since she was raped only if she's not allowed to have an abortion by the state. It's the state that's disrespectful to the fact that she didn't consent to getting pregnant by consensual heterosexual intercourse, so she was practically raped by the state when she got pregnant. The state also fails to respect her property rights to her body, namely her reproductive system.
Last edited by Beren on 04 May 2022 00:06, edited 1 time in total.
#15225407
Beren wrote:She'd rather mean to charge the state with rape, since she was raped only if she's not allowed to have an abortion by the state. It's the state that's disrespectful to the fact the she didn't consent to getting pregnant by consensual heterosexual intercourse, so she was practically raped by the state when she got pregnant. The state also fails to respect her property rights to her body, namely her reproductive system.


This is actually a good idea.
#15225410
Rancid wrote:We talked about doing it years ago after my second (and last was born). This new development in the news is making us think about doing this again. I think I'm going to bring it up with my wife later today.

Also congrats on having kids younger man. My wife and I are always the youngest parents in my kid's classes these days. you will experience the same. (had my first kid before the age of 30, and had my second just after 30).

I can still keep up with my kids unlike the other parents. Some are 15-20 years older than me, and we have kids in the same grade. :eek:

Yeah, a vas come quick enough at this point haha.

Well in my small town of a couple of thousand there’s plenty of high school or 20 something mommas. I just stand as the typical higher education type along with my wife. As soon we’ll both have masters.

While I agree that sex is an expected consequence of sex such that its not some crime should a woman get pregnant during consensual sex and not desired to be so. However what is to be more directly considered is access and the right to do so.
To which a lot of anger is the disingenuous nature of a lot of republican antiabortion stuff by framing the lack of support for the wel being of citizens as evident in the extremes of maternity fatalities in Texas due to poverty. The rhetoric about the unborn serves to consider it abstractly from the needs of the mother who would raise them and care for them.
#15225411
Saeko wrote:Not an apt analogy. The weed shop merely sold you a product, they were not involved in its use.


That depends on the shop. Plenty in e.g. Amsterdam have a whole cafe for you to get high there :)
#15225412
wat0n wrote:That depends on the shop. Plenty in e.g. Amsterdam have a whole cafe for you to get high there :)


As I understand it, even there, they aren't sticking tubes or joints in your mouth.
#15225413
Saeko wrote:@XogGyux

You are missing the point entirely. No, these things are not considered rape currently, but in a country where women do not have the right to seek medical treatment for unwanted pregnancy, men must also accept culpability for accidentally imposing such unwanted and legally unremediable medical conditions.

Manslaughter is not murder, but it is still a very serious crime involving the accidental imposition of an unwanted medical condition (death).

It is not considered rape because it is not rape. Accidentally causing harm to anyone (just to follow your logic) does not equate rape. This sort of verbose augmentation for the sake of making an emotional appeal is ridiculous, it is the same as when anti-abortion people try to claim a collection of cells/embryo or early fetus is a child and that an abortion is a murder. In both instances, the intent is to distract from the topic and appeal to the emotional blizzard brain.
Don't fall for that trap.

@Drlee
It is not punishment. I know of not a single mother who feels her baby, wanted or not, is a punishment.

You phrased it as a punishment. An imposed consequence for an action that you had (pregnancy to term for sex) is by definition a punishment.

Are we to see the end of personal responsibility?

You tell me. What does "personal responsibility" mean to you?
Should we legislate against a former smoker ever getting a lung transplant? Isen't that personal responsibility? Isen't it a slap in the face for a cystic fibrosis patient is skipped over for a donor lung to give it to someone that was not responsible during his or her youth? At least half, but probably far more, of what we do in medicine is to address something that occurred as a result of "poor" personal responsibility. Most heart attacks and strokes happen to people that don't have a healthy lifestyle, that don't exercise, that eat poor diets, that smoke, that are overweight. The vast majority of lung cancers are due to smoking and lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death.
It is hard to justify this hardline "personal responsibility" excuse to justify imposing this burden on the body of women without having to take rather obtuse positions when it comes to other medical conditions. Personal responsibility is not a good argument at all. It is merely a way to disguise a punishment for a perceived "lifestyle", and of course, even this is a distorted view of reality because not all abortions occur as a consequence of an inmature woman casually having unprotected sex.

Does this apply if someone gets drunk and buys a car? Should they have the right to bring the car back three months later?

This is another way by which your argument fails. I have no problem if the drunk guy is "punished" by "totalling his car" (assuming that is the extent of the accident and nobody else got injured). I would not lose sleep over it.

And who governs the people of a state? (Hint. It is not the government of the US.) It is the people of that state. If they want to alibi bad behavior, careless behavior, dangerous behavior, whatever, they can pass laws to do that. The beef should not be with the SCOTUS but rather with the individual states which wish to ban abortion.

This is just a scapegoat. Ultimately it does not matter who makes the ban, the hospital, the city, the county, the state or the country. A ban is a ban no matter where it comes from.

We will get much better welfare after this.

eh? :?:
#15225415
Saeko wrote:No, you agreed to have sex. You did not necessarily agree to get pregnant.

When you go buy a ticket to a baseball game you agree to watch a game, but on the ticket you are given informed consent that a ball may come into the stands and hit you. If you get hit nobody "agrees" to get hit nor does anyone sign a waiver, but they do consent to the risk that it may happen and they can't sue.

You are incapable of understanding this because you are sexist and do not take women's rights at all seriously.

You are a babyist and do not take fetus rights seriously at all. Or at least this is what your childish insults sound like. Tantrums and ad hominems will not win this argument, and reflect more on you than I.

Every form of property provides the owner with legal recourse for accidental property damage by another party. Except, for some reason, when the owner is the owner of a vagina.

Ok great, make men legally liable for damage. We can also allow men or the DA to sue the mother on behalf of the child when they murder the child. The child didn't even consent to its own creation, and now parents wish to play God again and kill it without its consent. We all know who is really the victim here.

What you don't seem to understand is that there's more than one party involved here, and that they also have rights. All pro-choice people do is talk endlessly about the rights of women. What about the rights of the human life inside her that her (and her beau's) willful actions created ? Conveniently ignored. What's in this for me? ME ME ME ME. I can only assume that if you were a baby inside a womb your opinions about rights would be very different, and so would everybody's. ME ME ME. Unfortunately fetuses don't have anyone to advocate for them as they are voiceless, except for "dumb sexists". Literally the most vulnerable people among the entire population. Fuck them.

The reasoning could not be simpler, but sexists are either too dumb or too hypocritical to understand it.

Childish insult. Ad hominems. Tantrums will not win this argument.
#15225416
XogGyux wrote:It is not considered rape because it is not rape. Accidentally causing harm to anyone (just to follow your logic) does not equate rape. This sort of verbose augmentation for the sake of making an emotional appeal is ridiculous, it is the same as when anti-abortion people try to claim a collection of cells/embryo or early fetus is a child and that an abortion is a murder. In both instances, the intent is to distract from the topic and appeal to the emotional blizzard brain.
Don't fall for that trap.


The resulting discussion did demonstrate that there are many people who truly believe that property rights end where vaginas begin to the extent that they cannot even imagine any alternative.
#15225419
Saeko wrote:The resulting discussion did demonstrate that there are many people who truly believe that property rights end where vaginas begin to the extent that they cannot even imagine any alternative.

I cannot follow your argument.
#15225420
Saeko wrote:This is actually a good idea.

I could actually make a case for you. However, the problem is that it's not you owning your body, it's your body owning you. Your basic human right is to have a child if you want, not to abort it if you don't. It's just a possibility if society approves of it.
#15225422
Saeko wrote:No, you agreed to have sex. You did not necessarily agree to get pregnant. You are incapable of understanding this because you are sexist and do not take women's rights at all seriously.

Every form of property provides the owner with legal recourse for accidental property damage by another party. Except, for some reason, when the owner is the owner of a vagina. The reasoning could not be simpler, but sexists are either too dumb or too hypocritical to understand it.

Life is full of chaos and you can't control everything. If you don't want kids then take precautions but as great many things in life, there can be alterations to what you want and what happens. This doesn't mean that we need to make nonsensical laws or suggestions just because something that you don't want has a low chance of happening.
#15225423
Saeko wrote:They can still be held liable for the house burning down. Similarly, whenever you drive, you are giving full and informed consent to the act of driving knowing that a car crash is a possible risk of driving. People who accidentally crash into you can still be held liable for damages.

And what if you invite someone to crash into you on a test track where its all legal?

If you crash into someone on the street you're breaking the law. You're not following the agreed upon rules. If you have sex with a woman without a condom on and she consents to the activity its consensual activity, nobody is breaking the law. If a guy forces condom-less sex without the woman's consent then the man is liable and has broken the law and its rape.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 93

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]