Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 67 - 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

#15236667
Pants-of-dog wrote:Because people like you have agitated and demanded that unborn people get more rights than the rest of us.

Let me know another example when a perfectly healthy person living in their natural environment having done no wrong is killed without their consent.

You want pregnant people and their doctors to have more rights than the rest of us: right to kill another healthy law-abiding human being.
#15236672
I'm not so sure. I think all this talk of having the "option" to travel somewhere else for an abortion is merely a cover for the effective decriminalization of rape (and child rape) through the effective criminalization of pregnancy.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Grow up.

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Because people like you have agitated and demanded that unborn people get more rights than the rest of us.


Well if you want to use this idiotic comparison I guess you would agree then that the "unborn Person" should have the same rights as any other unwanted tenant. The right to an eviction hearing before a judge and the requirement that the landlord wait 90 days to see if the tenant leaves on his/her own before asking for the hearing. This is a good example because like the bad tenant, it is usually an act of carelessness, bad policy or bad judgment that let the pesky tenant in in the first place.

Yea. Great idea POD. I am all for that. You actually make sense here. We treat it like any other unwanted tenant and, as you assert, since it is a person, we make sure to give it its rights. Oh yea. I almost forgot. The just must grant a delay in the judicial proceedings if the tenant would be physically endangered by going to court.

Yup. POD. Really thought that one through, didn't you.

We also would be wise to keep in mind that in the majority of cases, abortion performed in the US are performed as a means of birth control. I understand that people like @Saeko would like us to believe that most of them are performed on free range, organic non GMO, transgendered future liberal arts major, 10 year olds the overwhelming number of them are actually the result of an extra 6 Long Island Ice Teas and a reasonably good dancer with a big back seat.
#15236673
Unthinking Majority wrote:Let me know another example when a perfectly healthy person living in their natural environment having done no wrong is killed without their consent. You want pregnant people and their doctors to have more rights than the rest of us: right to kill another healthy law-abiding human being.


You also have the right to donate your blood and tissue and organs and body to help another person stay alive. And you have the right to refuse to do so. So no, no one is arguing that pregnant people and their doctors should have more rights.

Quite the opposite, I want pregnant people and their doctors to have the same rights that you and I enjoy.

———————-

@Drlee

Human bodies are not property to rent out.

Consequently, comparing a human body to a rented home is not only illogical, but a little creepy.
#15236682
Drlee wrote::lol: :lol: :lol:

Grow up.


I've said it three or four times now, but I'll say it again. TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE. You've repeatedly displayed a stunning lack of maturity and awareness for someone who is supposed to have 70+ years of experience of living on this Earth. Talking to you feels like I'm talking to someone less than half my age and not someone more than twice my age. Whenever I've explained to you exactly why some half-baked opinion of yours was factually or ethically laughable, you've merely slinked away into the shadows only to resurface again parroting the exact same bullshit as before as though the previous conversation never happened.

A dismissive tone, an inability to consider opposing perspectives, context, or nuance, an impenetrable ego-centrism, and an unwillingness to admit to making mistakes or errors of judgment are NOT the signs of an adult mind.

EDIT: Not to mention the literally endless bloviating about how terribly inconvenient it is that hundreds of millions of strangers don't immediately bend to your every whim and brain-fart as a white man, God's greatest gift to the world and its most misunderstood suffering martyr. :roll: FUCKING HELL. This person is telling ME to grow up.
#15236685
This argument is going round in circles. Unborn human entities can’t ever be people or have the same rights as people. They must have more or fewer.

Speaking as someone who has been through two miscarriages and also seen a child who was very close to me die, I’m telling you the claim that embryos or foetuses are of the same human value as a born person is hideous and grossly offensive.

How women deal with miscarriage varies according to how they feel about their pregnancy, but the way other people feel when they hear of a miscarriage depends entirely on how they feel about the woman who went through it.

My daughter miscarried last year and did I weep and wail over the death of my potential grandchild? No, I did not, because I’m not a neurotic. My concern was wholly for my darling daughter and how she was coping with losing a wanted pregnancy.
If everyone is honest that’s exactly the way they feel in that situation.
My daughter was fine, by the way. It was an early miscarriage and her feelings were mostly of disappointment and that they would try again.
#15236689
I find @snapdragon's words offensive because a conscious life is a conscious life.

However, as I said before, anti-abortionists are practicing oppression by forcing things on people they have no control whatsoever.
Meanwhile, their actions do little to help fetal rights.

In other words, banning abortion creates much, much more harm / unfairness than the problem it intends to solve.

So if I have to take a side I will be pro-choice, even though I am ideologically pro-life.

IMHO this is where rights, freedom and democracy are important -- I can uphold my view but I can't impose my view on someone else if it's not to work out. Conversely those abortionists have no rights to force me to accept their views are right.
#15236698
Explain in what way an embryo or foetus is conscious. Does it feel and think?

Will anyone apart from the woman carrying it miss it and grieve for it?

How would you feel if you were told that your seven year old murdered child had exactly the same value as an embryo flushed down the loo?

Abortion isn’t murder. It is disgusting to claim it is.

Be against abortion for whatever moral reasons you may have, but don’t start making up daft reasons to suit your agenda.
#15236702
On the whole, I'm not familiar with any argument against abortion rights that isn't grounded in religious beliefs (which would be forced on others). As myself and others have noted, the Supreme Court's argument contradicts American history and the fact women have pursued abortions throughout time.

Interestingly, the same people who argue against abortion rights while pretending it's about saving lives aren't typically people who oppose the death penalty or tend to be pacifists. I think it's very curious to note that.

Even more interesting is how aforementioned religious types think abortion is a crime against life and against children, but ignore the fact miscarriages happen. Apparently it's okay for God to abort countless fetuses, but some of those same people think it's not okay for a woman to have an abortion if she's been raped or the fetus poses a physical risk to her. Again, this is another curious thing that adds to my skepticism of the intentions of anti-abortionists.

Aside from those concerns, I wonder what people think happens now. Even when abortions are made illegal, they will still be pursued, and they'll be much riskier than before.
#15236707
BlutoSays wrote:
Unborn people? Are you stating the unborn are a person?



His writing can be sloppy, at times.

You ever hear of the Chinese curse about living in interesting times? This is going to get excessively interesting..

Btw, people that are dealing with a challenged person in their family often find the use of the retarded word insulting.
Last edited by late on 03 Jul 2022 12:51, edited 1 time in total.
#15236719
Democrats discuss ending the filibuster now again. It will be repeatment of 2013 and 2014. If they do it again and anger Republicans, my guess it is that abortion wil be completely banned nationwidely once Republicans takes majority in Congress at the end of this years.
#15236722
Istanbuller wrote:
Democrats discuss ending the filibuster now again. It will be repeatment of 2013 and 2014. If they do it again and anger Republicans, my guess it is that abortion wil be completely banned nationwide once Republicans takes majority in Congress at the end of this years.



For the American people, not just Dems, Congress is a heads you lose, tails you lose, kind of situation.
#15236736
@Saeko
Whenever I've explained to you exactly why some half-baked opinion of yours was factually or ethically laughable, you've merely slinked away into the shadows only to resurface again parroting the exact same bullshit as before as though the previous conversation never happened.


This is bullshit. I have not run from anyone here not the least you. I am right in your grill on this issue. You want to whine. I am calling for action. You want to make emo speeches and worry about when a puppy becomes a puppy while I am discussing how to solve YOUR problem.

The reason I am pissing so many people off here is that I am parroting exactly what your opposition will tell you. All except for what to do about it. I have told people over and over what you have to do if you want abortion to be legal again in your state and all most of you want to talk about is pop biology. Or slam religion. Or snivel about the SCOTUS.

I am truly sorry that every one of the pro choice people posting here (save two) are simply not intelligent enough to analyze the problem they face and take action for a solution. And I will tell you that until you find someone smart and just as ruthless as your opponents to lead you, you (all) will not be able to change this. And you will not find this person because you are not looking. You will not see, in your lifetimes, abortion become a right in every state. Saeko claims to be half my age. When she is 65 there is a good chance that Gorshuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett will still be on the court. Maybe even Roberts. Alito could serve another 20 years. So you will get no help in the SCOTUS. But wait. We could stuff the court. Appoint some liberal justices. And get this through the congress, how? The Democrats could not even muster a simple majority to pass voting rights.

I know that state politics are boring. Very few people even know who their state representative is. But that is the (mostly white male) dude who is camped in your uterus. While the democratic party is slowly becoming more diverse the republican party is not. Less than 3% of Republican state legislators are minorities. And these are the states with the anti-abortion laws. And the Republican party completely controls 23 state governments and is the majority in 6 more.

Want worse? OK Saeko here is some more for you. There are over 7000 state legislators in the US. Guess how many state legislators are Republican women. 723. 1509 are democrats. You got 30% of state legislators who are women. And news flash honey. Not all women are pro-choice. Not even close. In fact, the Republican move to ban abortion is about the only thing they do to appeal to Republican women. Otherwise the Republican party just wants women to raise white children and make the pot luck food for the pro-gun rally.

What happens when some (very rare) smart people get together and elect women to the state legislature? Well we actually know the answer to that because we have one (read it women who are the majority of voters in the US , one) state legislature that is majority women. Nevada. And what did they do:

"Since women have held the majority in the Nevada legislature, they have passed policies mandating paid sick leave, boosted the minimum wage, put a state equal rights amendment on the ballot and made sure that breast, uterine and cervical cancer were included in a law that provides compensation to firefighters who develop cancer on the job."


But no @Saeko you want to insult me for pointing this out. You want to whine and complain. You are too busy working to, oh I don't know, work for your civil rights or get unwanted men out of your body. Well you go back to work honey. We guys got this. Somehow we find spare time while we are working along side you to, you know, govern the country.

Your problem is not religion. It is not white men. 33% of women are pro-life and that is more than enough to carry the day when they are largely grouped in Red states. So lets get this discussion back on track and understand a few things.

First is that abortion is still legal in the majority of states. (Actually it is legal in all but one but damned inconvenient in quite a few.) If you don't live in one of those states where it is easy, and you find yourself pregnant and want to end the pregnancy, it sucks to be you.

Prior to Roe V. Wade falling, women only had the unlimited and absolute right to an abortion in one state.

So back at you folks. I told you my plan for restoring your limited rights to have an abortion. How about a few posts about what YOUR plan is to fight this problem? If you are too busy working or petting your kitty feel free to not post. We white males will be happy to tell you how to behave. We always have. And from our perspective, in doing it, made the US the most powerful nation in the world. And we just love power.
#15236738
Bulaba Khan Jones wrote:On the whole, I'm not familiar with any argument against abortion rights that isn't grounded in religious beliefs (which would be forced on others). As myself and others have noted, the Supreme Court's argument contradicts American history and the fact women have pursued abortions throughout time.

Interestingly, the same people who argue against abortion rights while pretending it's about saving lives aren't typically people who oppose the death penalty or tend to be pacifists. I think it's very curious to note that.

Even more interesting is how aforementioned religious types think abortion is a crime against life and against children, but ignore the fact miscarriages happen. Apparently it's okay for God to abort countless fetuses, but some of those same people think it's not okay for a woman to have an abortion if she's been raped or the fetus poses a physical risk to her. Again, this is another curious thing that adds to my skepticism of the intentions of anti-abortionists.

Aside from those concerns, I wonder what people think happens now. Even when abortions are made illegal, they will still be pursued, and they'll be much riskier than before.


There's definitely a non-religious argument for abortion, you just need to argue fetuses are people without mentioning any religion. There are philosophical arguments that do so, as part of the attempt to precisely answer "who's a person?" (and there are arguments for and against fetal personhood that derive from this debate).

The irony though is that, prior to the second half of the 19th century, the case for the quickening standard (a fetus isn't alive until it moves in the womb, which happens at the 16th week) was supported by religious people, the Church included, based on Aristotelian writings on the matter. The Catholic Church only changed its position on the matter in 1869 (IIRC) based on the development of medical science at the time, which by then had shown quite conclusively fetal life does not start when the fetus is quick but much earlier. Medical associations, the AMA included, were among the greatest opponents of abortion when anti-abortion laws were passed in the 19th century, and their argument was definitely not purely religious at the time.
#15236743
wat0n wrote:There's definitely a non-religious argument for abortion, you just need to argue fetuses are people without mentioning any religion. There are philosophical arguments that do so, as part of the attempt to precisely answer "who's a person?" (and there are arguments for and against fetal personhood that derive from this debate).

The irony though is that, prior to the second half of the 19th century, the case for the quickening standard (a fetus isn't alive until it moves in the womb, which happens at the 16th week) was supported by religious people, the Church included, based on Aristotelian writings on the matter. The Catholic Church only changed its position on the matter in 1869 (IIRC) based on the development of medical science at the time, which by then had shown quite conclusively fetal life does not start when the fetus is quick but much earlier. Medical associations, the AMA included, were among the greatest opponents of abortion when anti-abortion laws were passed in the 19th century, and their argument was definitely not purely religious at the time.


No offense guy but who the fuck cares? Do you really think this argument is going to change anyone's mind?
#15236744
Drlee wrote:No offense guy but who the fuck cares? Do you really think this argument is going to change anyone's mind?


I don't see why shouldn't we correct misconceptions.

Ultimately though as you said it's up for those who want a federal abortion standards law to go out and vote. I think that's going to be one consequence of this case and will help the Dems in the midterm.
#15236747
wat0n wrote:There's definitely a non-religious argument for abortion, you just need to argue fetuses are people without mentioning any religion. There are philosophical arguments that do so, as part of the attempt to precisely answer "who's a person?" (and there are arguments for and against fetal personhood that derive from this debate).

The irony though is that, prior to the second half of the 19th century, the case for the quickening standard (a fetus isn't alive until it moves in the womb, which happens at the 16th week) was supported by religious people, the Church included, based on Aristotelian writings on the matter. The Catholic Church only changed its position on the matter in 1869 (IIRC) based on the development of medical science at the time, which by then had shown quite conclusively fetal life does not start when the fetus is quick but much earlier. Medical associations, the AMA included, were among the greatest opponents of abortion when anti-abortion laws were passed in the 19th century, and their argument was definitely not purely religious at the time.

I can post it right? It literally looks like I'm allowed to post it. It looks like I'm allowed to post it.



#15236748
wat0n wrote:There's definitely a non-religious argument for abortion, you just need to argue fetuses are people without mentioning any religion. There are philosophical arguments that do so, as part of the attempt to precisely answer "who's a person?" (and there are arguments for and against fetal personhood that derive from this debate).

The irony though is that, prior to the second half of the 19th century, the case for the quickening standard (a fetus isn't alive until it moves in the womb, which happens at the 16th week) was supported by religious people, the Church included, based on Aristotelian writings on the matter. The Catholic Church only changed its position on the matter in 1869 (IIRC) based on the development of medical science at the time, which by then had shown quite conclusively fetal life does not start when the fetus is quick but much earlier. Medical associations, the AMA included, were among the greatest opponents of abortion when anti-abortion laws were passed in the 19th century, and their argument was definitely not purely religious at the time.


Sure, the argument exists. I admit it's an interesting philosophical rabbit hole, and the image put out by anti-abortionists of late term babies in the womb being subjected to something horrific is... horrific. I only mention that because it's one of the main mental images of the arguments made by people that late term fetuses are indeed babies, and people, with rights as people.

The problem is that one could declare a fetus, late term or not, to be a person, but paradoxically that fetus is not a citizen and it's simply feelings and philosophy. I also don't accept that it's entirely free of religious inflection. I would argue, for better or worse, that some of those feelings and arguments are deeply influenced by those individuals' religious beliefs. I do accept there are secular people who can be opposed to abortion, but that's really not terribly common because at that point, personal liberty generally trumps feelings.

Personally I think abortion is horrible and gross. But American law at the Constitutional level is, traditionally and by design, determined by personal liberty, the tradition and cultural legacy of certain rights, and if something prevents certain liberties. Abortion has been met with backlash from certain regions, states, and large segments of the population, so it hasn't been free of divisiveness. Often the Supreme Court will delay a particular case because the ramifications haven't had time to saturate American culture and law.

Ultimately, laws in America are supposed to weigh in favor of personal liberty. If we want to argue philosophy, then it seems strange for a government to give itself the right to dictate what a woman can or can't do with her body, especially with an unwanted pregnancy, as if women are more on the classification of property than people. Prohibition failed because the demand for alcohol is unstoppable. The War on Drugs and the criminalization of marijuana has failed because there's an unstoppable demand for it. Banning abortion doesn't stop abortions, but it does lead to more deaths.

Finally, a central argument used by the majority opinion of SCOTUS sets a direct precedent in law to institute bans on interracial marriage and a whole list of other basic personal freedoms people have the right to enjoy today. That's the bizarre part because anyone looking at this sees how crazy that is.
  • 1
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 93
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Says the idiot who peddles Russian propaganda, wh[…]

https://youtu.be/1A1h21fYUv0 Divine Knights in Ira[…]

I know. I already posted that. It's disturbing. I[…]

Truss vs Sunak

It looks like H.L. Mencken’s prophesy for America[…]