Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 43 - 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

#15229649
wat0n wrote:So @Unthinking Majority what makes a fetus different from stem cells? Is it always a child or there's a developmental stage where it becomes one?


This is just getting soooooo tedious. The same old hackneyed argument that convinced not a soul who should be convinced. @wat0n please understand this if you understand nothing else. People who oppose abortion do not care about a lot of convoluted arguments about when a fetus becomes a person. It is a person from the start to them. Why is this so hard for you to understand.

@Unthinking Majority is absolutely correct when he asserts that this line of argument is just an excuse of pro abortion people to feel better about an emotional decision.
#15229655
Drlee wrote:This is just getting soooooo tedious. The same old hackneyed argument that convinced not a soul who should be convinced. @wat0n please understand this if you understand nothing else. People who oppose abortion do not care about a lot of convoluted arguments about when a fetus becomes a person. It is a person from the start to them. Why is this so hard for you to understand.

@Unthinking Majority is absolutely correct when he asserts that this line of argument is just an excuse of pro abortion people to feel better about an emotional decision.


You said it, for them. I want to understand why, though.

People who support abortion will often just say the fetus isn't a person, because reasons. And people who are against will say it is, also because reasons.

If we're just gonna dig in and refuse to put our beliefs to test here, then it's pretty much impossible to make any progress. At best, we can decide what to do about abortion with an election but saying something's good/bad just because most voted for/against it is hardly satisfactory, yet this is the type of topic where the losing side can refuse to accept the result.

Oh well, at least the US has a federal system so if Roe v Wade is overturned, the stakes are lower either way. Thankfully.
#15229670
@wat0n You said it, for them. I want to understand why, though.

Why what? I think this is an excuse to continue a fun argument.

People who support abortion will often just say the fetus isn't a person, because reasons. And people who are against will say it is, also because reasons.


And THAT my friend, is why the legality of abortion is solely a political decision AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN SAYING. You don't want to talk about that. You want to talk about when a fetus is a kid and nobody, but nobody in power gives one rat's ass about that. Understand?


If we're just gonna dig in and refuse to put our beliefs to test here, then it's pretty much impossible to make any progress.


All evidence to the contrary. The anti-abortion people have made very dramatic progress to fulfilling their goals. The pro-abortion people have just about lost the war in many states. Isn't that what this thread is about?

At best, we can decide what to do about abortion with an election but saying something's good/bad just because most voted for/against it is hardly satisfactory, yet this is the type of topic where the losing side can refuse to accept the result.


And this differs from other pitched political battles, how? And, of course the loosing side can whine and snivel about their political defeat. But what does "refuse to accept the result" even mean? They can disobey the law? That is always a possibility.

Not one of you who are pro-abortion has stopped your emotional tirades long enough to really consider what happened. The SCOTUS had decided in a way that ensures that abortion will be legal in the US. All of the states that allow abortion and want to continue to do that scores just as big a victory as the states who want to ban it. Both of them have equally been allowed to decide for themselves. What could have happened is that the new Republican congress with a Republican president in 2024 could have banned abortion completely throughout the US. Thing deeper @wat0n

Oh well, at least the US has a federal system so if Roe v Wade is overturned, the stakes are lower either way. Thankfully.


I don't understand this comment. Please tell me what you mean.
#15229672
Drlee wrote:Why what? I think this is an excuse to continue a fun argument.


But a good one :)

Drlee wrote:And THAT my friend, is why the legality of abortion is solely a political decision AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN SAYING. You don't want to talk about that. You want to talk about when a fetus is a kid and nobody, but nobody in power gives one rat's ass about that. Understand?


That's straightforward but should it be solely a political thing? Why wouldn't we want to have a principled argument for or against abortion?

Drlee wrote:All evidence to the contrary. The anti-abortion people have made very dramatic progress to fulfilling their goals. The pro-abortion people have just about lost the war in many states. Isn't that what this thread is about?


But that doesn't really end the controversy.

Drlee wrote:And this differs from other pitched political battles, how? And, of course the loosing side can whine and snivel about their political defeat. But what does "refuse to accept the result" even mean? They can disobey the law? That is always a possibility.

Not one of you who are pro-abortion has stopped your emotional tirades long enough to really consider what happened. The SCOTUS had decided in a way that ensures that abortion will be legal in the US. All of the states that allow abortion and want to continue to do that scores just as big a victory as the states who want to ban it. Both of them have equally been allowed to decide for themselves. What could have happened is that the new Republican congress with a Republican president in 2024 could have banned abortion completely throughout the US. Thing deeper @wat0n


That's not what happened with this leak, if you ask me. I think its main purpose was to galvanize the Democratic base, given the party seems to be heading to a disaster later this year. And it worked, if anything.

And this ruling doesn't really stop Congress from banning abortion federally nor it stops it from banning states from proscribing abortion. The only thing it does is to say the SCOTUS will keep out of it.

Drlee wrote:I don't understand this comment. Please tell me what you mean.


If you don't like your state's law, you can always move.
#15229676
Unthinking Majority wrote:
None of my arguments about abortion are religious, because I'm not religious.

The next time a pregnant woman says "Omg I'm pregnant with Michael's fetus! I can feel the fetus kicking! The fetus is X weeks along." let me know.



Don't look too close..

So now sentiment is to replace science, and logic?
#15229681
Anyone who thinks it should be legal for a couple to have sex with no contraception whatsoever and then abort the baby if a pregnancy occurs is evil and a murderer. True or false?

Anyone who has sex without using at least 2 methods of contraception because in the back of their mind they know they can use abortion as a method of birth control is evil and a murderer. True or false?
#15229686
Unthinking Majority wrote:
So what does science say about a fetus not being a child or a baby or a human?

A fetus at 8 months is a child and a baby, so what changed?



You know what it says.

A fetus at 8 months is a fetus.. The decision on when to confer legal rights is arbitrary. Used to be you got them when you became an adult, but only if you were male, and White.

So what you are seeing is a crude tug of war. Even Alito's draft is crude, despite his desperate attempt to make it look otherwise.

But it shouldn't be that way. Ethically, you have to balance a wide variety of concerns. One of those is what limits are we going to place on women.. Because you can easily make them second class citizens here.

There's a lot more, and since I am not trained in medicine or formal ethics, I am not able to do the entire thing. I doubt you would read it if I did..

But it's hardly as easy as you seem to think it is.
#15229699
late wrote:You know what it says.

A fetus at 8 months is a fetus.. The decision on when to confer legal rights is arbitrary. Used to be you got them when you became an adult, but only if you were male, and White.

So what you are seeing is a crude tug of war. Even Alito's draft is crude, despite his desperate attempt to make it look otherwise.

But it shouldn't be that way. Ethically, you have to balance a wide variety of concerns. One of those is what limits are we going to place on women.. Because you can easily make them second class citizens here.

There's a lot more, and since I am not trained in medicine or formal ethics, I am not able to do the entire thing. I doubt you would read it if I did..

But it's hardly as easy as you seem to think it is.

It's not easy at all. I've thought about this a lot. It seems pretty clear that fetuses are treated like second class citizens. Women can speak and advocate for themselves. Who will do the same for fetuses? It is in neither a woman nor man's self- interests to defend their rights when their rights are so inconvenient when we consider most adults of all genders are having sex.
#15229714
Unthinking Majority wrote:If you make a wilful decision to go to some shady pseudo doctor because you want to kill your fetus because you're too scared to tell your parents or your bf that you're pregnant instead of growing some balls and then giving it up for adoption that's your own decision. I feel bad for women in that spot but they aren't really a victim, they brought it all in themselves. I feel a lot worse for the real victim which is an innocent child the mother is trying to murder.

I don't understand why most people seem to feel more sympathy for the mother than the child.


So you support abortion bans even though they cause an increase in deaths because you think the pregnant person should be punished for making choices like having sex and wanting an abortion, and you are okay with that even if the punishment is death.

The right to life argument is therefore not the most important one to you.

It is more important to hold these young sexual people accountable.
#15229722
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you support abortion bans even though they cause an increase in deaths because you think the pregnant person should be punished for making choices like having sex and wanting an abortion, and you are okay with that even if the punishment is death.

The right to life argument is therefore not the most important one to you.

It is more important to hold these young sexual people accountable.

Right to life is the only thing that matters. Banning abortion has nothing to do with punishment, it has everything to do with not allowing people to murder babies.

If a pregnant person chooses to engage in an illegal activity that could kill themselves that's up to them, nobody is forcing them to do that, this is their choice and they will bear the consequences. A fetus has no choice when it is killed. Allowing a person to kill another human just so they won't do something stupid doesn't make any sense. The victim here is the fetus, not the pregnant person who wishes to kill another human.

We should not legalize rape and publicly fund rape hotels with medical staff on-site just because it would be safer for the victims. Making it easier to rape is not a good idea. It should be as hard as possible to get an abortion, unless you've been raped or your life is in danger.
#15229725
@wat0n
That's straightforward but should it be solely a political thing? Why wouldn't we want to have a principled argument for or against abortion?


I seriously give up. It is like talking to a turtle. OK. Have your "principled debate". Just know this. The only people who can change the law one way or the other are generally not very "principled" nor to they care about the debate one way or the other EXCEPT to the extent it gets or looses votes for them. That's it.

You guys go ahead and pound each other in the head. While you are being totally ineffectual and the vast majority of people only hear the argument with which they already agree. Because you agree with them they will call your arguments "evidence". But it does not matter.

Republicans:

Guy is pro choice but a strong gun owner. Got him.

Guy is staunchly pro life but hates guns. Got him.

Guy is pro choice and hates guns almost as much as he hates immigrants. Got him.

Guy thinks homosexuality is a mortal sin but favors gun control and is pro choice. Got him.

Some day you will see. All these despots care about is the power that comes from elected office. They will do anything to get votes so they can have the power and sex that comes along with them.

Now. Tell me again about when a fetus becomes a baby. I need a nap.
#15229728
Drlee wrote:@wat0n


I seriously give up. It is like talking to a turtle. OK. Have your "principled debate". Just know this. The only people who can change the law one way or the other are generally not very "principled" nor to they care about the debate one way or the other EXCEPT to the extent it gets or looses votes for them. That's it.

You guys go ahead and pound each other in the head. While you are being totally ineffectual and the vast majority of people only hear the argument with which they already agree. Because you agree with them they will call your arguments "evidence". But it does not matter.

Republicans:

Guy is pro choice but a strong gun owner. Got him.

Guy is staunchly pro life but hates guns. Got him.

Guy is pro choice and hates guns almost as much as he hates immigrants. Got him.

Guy thinks homosexuality is a mortal sin but favors gun control and is pro choice. Got him.

Some day you will see. All these despots care about is the power that comes from elected office. They will do anything to get votes so they can have the power and sex that comes along with them.

Now. Tell me again about when a fetus becomes a baby. I need a nap.


Yes, the GOP appeals to a certain public, just as the Democrats do. I'm pretty damn sure you can find pro-life Dems who hate guns, too. Or those who are pro-choice and wanna keep their guns. Or those who are pro-life, love their guns yet don't want to restrict immigration.

You forgot another big segment for the GOP while we're at it, those who don't like paying taxes, even if they are pro-choice, don't hate immigrants and don't like guns.

And you're perhaps forgetting the most important electorate, those who are willing to change parties depending on the election and now want to punish Biden and the Democrats over high inflation just as they punished Trump over his handling of the pandemic. Possibly the most important one for the midterm as of today.

But I don't see why this means the discussion about the ethics of abortion, personhood of fetuses and so on isn't valuable.
#15229753
Unthinking Majority wrote:
It's not easy at all. I've thought about this a lot.



Then why do you keep jumping to an absurd conclusion?

The answer is you aren't actually doing anything. A lot of life requires work for it to be done properly.
#15229767
Unthinking Majority wrote:Right to life is the only thing that matters.


Not according to you.

You are perfectly happy with having pregnant people die, as you just pointed out.

Banning abortion has nothing to do with punishment, it has everything to do with not allowing people to murder babies.


You literally just said that a pregnant person deserves to die if they try and abort the child.

If a pregnant person chooses to engage in an illegal activity that could kill themselves that's up to them, nobody is forcing them to do that, this is their choice and they will bear the consequences.


Yes, you said this was the deserved punishment for their bad choices.

A fetus has no choice when it is killed. Allowing a person to kill another human just so they won't do something stupid doesn't make any sense. The victim here is the fetus, not the pregnant person who wishes to kill another human.


This is all moralizing.

It seems that you want to prove this moral point more than you want to save lives.

Why should enforcement of your moral code be more import than the right to life?

We should not legalize rape and publicly fund rape hotels with medical staff on-site just because it would be safer for the victims. Making it easier to rape is not a good idea. It should be as hard as possible to get an abortion, unless you've been raped or your life is in danger.


The rape exception is also illogical.

You would punish the fetus for the sins of the rapist, but you would punish the pregnant person for their own sins.
#15229770
Pants-of-dog wrote:
punishment

This is all moralizing.

sins



You are using the language of the kooks.

Health care is the opposite of punishment. We're a secular country, religion should not be dictating what health care is, that's insane.

Using their language sends a message you don't want to send.
#15229772
late wrote:Then why do you keep jumping to an absurd conclusion?

The answer is you aren't actually doing anything. A lot of life requires work for it to be done properly.

If you think it's absurd that's your opinion. You seem to think a fetus is not a child and that this is backed by science. That seems absurd.
#15229775
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not according to you.

You are perfectly happy with having pregnant people die, as you just pointed out.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that.

You literally just said that a pregnant person deserves to die if they try and abort the child.

I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.

Yes, you said this was the deserved punishment for their bad choices.

I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.

It seems that you want to prove this moral point more than you want to save lives.
right to life?

Are you kidding? Almost a million unborn babies are aborted in the US every year. I'm trying to save those lives. You're fighting for the right to have them killed. I'm the one saving lives here. Innocent lives. You're advocating the right to murder innocent babies.

I don't want pregnant women to get shady abortions and die. I would support any measures to stop that. But I'm also not going to support legal abortions just because some will try to do it anyways. Just like I'm not going to support safe legal rapes.
#15229776
Unthinking Majority wrote:Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that.

I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.

I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.


You literally just said that if a pregnant person dies seeking an abortion, then it is their fault and no one else, and they are responsible for said consequences.

Are you kidding? Almost a million unborn babies are aborted in the US every year. I'm trying to save those lives. You're fighting for the right to have them killed. I'm the one saving lives here. Innocent lives. You're advocating the right to murder innocent babies.


Abortion bans do not save lives. There are just as many abortions in places where it is illegal as there are in places where it is allowed on demand.

If you wanted to save lives, you would stop trying to push useless laws that take away the rights of others, and focus instead on policies that actually reduce abortion rates.

I don't want pregnant women to get shady abortions and die. I would support any measures to stop that. But I'm also not going to support legal abortions just because some will try to do it anyways. Just like I'm not going to support safe legal rapes.


If you support laws against abortion, you are supporting a policy that directly leads to pregnant people dying.

You can talk about how you are not intending for this to happen, and that is true. We can separate intent and effect. Your intent is laudable, but the effect is less rights and more death.
  • 1
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 62

Thats fucking awful. Is it possible to crack down […]

20 years in the army? Yea. I think so. A […]

The Ministry for the Future has some MMT lessons[…]

There is virtually no thinking involved. It's jus[…]