Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 68 - 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

#15236751
Pants-of-dog wrote:Even if we consider a fetus a person, a pregnant person woman should still have the right to have the fetus removed at any stage of the pregnancy.


Even after correcting your moronic term I still think that's a hideous attitude for 2nd/3rd trimester fetuses.
#15236753
terrapinsfan wrote:Even after correcting your moronic term I still think that's a hideous attitude for 2nd/3rd trimester fetuses.


Your moral judgements are noted.

Please note that being morally opposed for subjective reasons does not refute my point. And my point is that giving fetuses personhood does not, in any way, mean we should limit abortion.

Another person on this thread was certain that my proposal would end up with dozens of gleeful young ladies giggling away as they forced doctors to kill the 38 week fetuses in their wombs. I then pointed out that this is actually the law in at least one developed country and this country (i.e. Canada) has significantly less abortions than the USA and other developing countries with bans on abortion.
#15236754
Bulaba Khan Jones wrote:
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.

#15236759
Bulaba Khan Jones wrote:https://youtu.be/qx8hrhBZJ98

OIP (17).jpg
OIP (17).jpg (25.69 KiB) Viewed 958 times


The Korean Presbyterian Church in America now Korean Presbyterian Church Abroad (changed name in 2012) is an independent Presbyterian denomination in the United States.

The “Southern” Presbyterian Church’s mission (the official name of the church is the Presbyterian Church of the United States originally Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America ) in Korea began with Horace Grant Underwood, a “Northern” Presbyterian missionary in Korea, who took a sabbatical year in 1891 after having already served in Korea since 1885. Until the Japanese imperialists expelled all foreign missionaries from the Korean Peninsula in 1942, more than 170 Southern Presbyterian missionaries came to Korea.



Allen's family, who were at the time clerks of the U.S. Legation, had purchased and lived in the mansion of the German Corporation, and they had built a new house on the site of the U.S. Legation and were about to move out. The Southern Presbyterian Mission hoped to purchase the mansion and use it as a mission base in Seoul. In response to that wish, the Southern Presbyterian missionaries left the temporary homes provided by the Northern Presbyterian missionaries and settled there on November 12. Located 2.4 kilometers from the Presbyterian Church of the North's Jungdong Station (now the site of the Yewon School), the house was affectionately called Dixie by other missionaries.

The Ministry of Women and Children by Godlady Linnie Davis

Davis began her ministry of women and children on the Dixie premises in the spring of 1893. Every day at 3 p.m., the children of the neighborhood were brought to their own rooms to present interesting Bible stories as a way to use the pictures. They also taught how to pray by singing hymns such as "Jesus Loves." During his nearly 4-year sojourn in Seoul, Davis' children's mission was active enough to be praised by his fellow missionaries.
#15236764
snapdragon wrote:Will anyone apart from the woman carrying it miss it and grieve for it?


Is this question under the assumption that "the father, who contributed the half of the genes, doesn't fucking care"?

Because of our physiology I do admit that men are less responsible on this matter, but it doesn't mean all men don't give a fuck on their offsprings.


snapdragon wrote: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?


This is exactly where I find your words offensive.

The embryo you talked about could be the seven-year-old in seven or eight years time. (and the possibility of that is rather high in developed countries)

However, I do agree that before the embryo leaves his / her mother's body and becomes a baby, the matter is not just about him / her, and that's where everyone else, myself included, cease to have a say on what his / her mother decides to do.


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


I don't see this matter so absolute. Abortion is probably somewhere in the fuzzy middle ground.

However, such a situation already renders any attempt to ban abortion (which itself is absolute) impractical and, in fact, morally untenable, as I stated in my previous post.


snapdragon wrote:Be against abortion for whatever moral reasons you may have, but don’t start making up daft reasons to suit your agenda.



I have no agenda, and my previous post was exactly my opposition to certain politicians' agenda on this matter.
#15236786
Saeko wrote:Pants-of-Dog often jokes that America is not a first-world country, but a developing one. I think he is being too generous. America is not even a civilized country let alone a developing one.


:D

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tDYLZuR5NU0
#15236799
Bulaba Khan Jones wrote: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.


It depends on where you live, I guess. You can definitely find secular people who don't like abortion in Latin America and Europe.

You could also make the argument that the case for abortion is, well, fairly centered on feelings as well. I don't think this is something that can be avoided (unfortunately).

Bulaba Khan Jones wrote: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.


I disagree. There are plenty of SCOTUS rulings showing otherwise - e.g. Jacobson v Massachusetts (the state can force you to vaccinate) and Buck v Bell (the state can forcibly sterilize you, this one hasn't actually been overturned).

Bulaba Khan Jones wrote: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.


The ruling also mentions it cannot be used for something else but abortion. Who knows if it will, regardless, I'd need to read e.g. the ruling on gay marriage as I recall not all arguments for it were based on personal liberty at all but on anti-discrimination law as well.

One thing I don't like about this ruling is that it claims there's no "deeply rooted tradition" of abortion in American history. But that's definitely not true, as I said prior to the 19th century it was generally accepted abortion of non quick fetuses was OK, it was even mentioned in legal manuals regarding English common law, and the arguments against this basic idea are not too convincing.
#15236804
Patrickov wrote:Is this question under the assumption that "the father, who contributed the half of the genes, doesn't fucking care"?


First of all, I accidentally liked your post.

Secondly, there is no father. Or mother.
There is nothing for him to care about.
He might have hopes and dreams, but it’s not the same as having a born child.


Because of our physiology I do admit that men are less responsible on this matter, but it doesn't mean all men don't give a fuck on their offsprings.


Potential offspring. There could be quite a few, for all a lot of men know. I get that some men might be disappointed when they discover they won’t be a father after all, but they need to ask themselves why that is.

This is exactly where I find your words offensive.

The embryo you talked about could be the seven-year-old in seven or eight years time. (and the possibility of that is rather high in developed countries)


But it isn’t.

An embryo is not equal to a born child. To claim it is , is offensive to any parent whose child has died.



However, I do agree that before the embryo leaves his / her mother's body and becomes a baby, the matter is not just about him / her, and that's where everyone else, myself included, cease to have a say on what his / her mother decides to do.


There is no mother. There is a potential mother who doesn’t want to be one, or endure an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reasons she might have.


I don't see this matter so absolute. Abortion is probably somewhere in the fuzzy middle ground.


Only because you’re trying to put it there.

You might as well claim that some men want to be fathers and they should therefore have the right to have a say in what a woman chooses to do in a situation that only involves her. A man cannot take over a pregnancy.

However, such a situation already renders any attempt to ban abortion (which itself is absolute) impractical and, in fact, morally untenable, as I stated in my previous post.


Quite right.

I have no agenda, and my previous post was exactly my opposition to certain politicians' agenda on this matter.


Well, you do seem to think men should have a say over whether a woman goes through a pregnancy and gives birth.
Although there’s no doubt it would be a good thing for men to support women they’ve made pregnant and that could have an impact on the choice the woman makes, but it ultimately comes down to her.

A lot of men try to persuade their pregnant girlfriends to terminate.

They should never be allowed any say, either way.
#15236814
Drlee wrote:@Saeko

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:



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.


Aaahhh... Now that I am less absolutely furious, I think I understand your angle. ;)
#15236816
I plan to respond to @wat0n after sleeping, but I want to mention that my wording earlier where I say I dislike people based on their abortion opinions was was unintentionally offensive. I meant opinions by such people who might be obnoxiously toxic.

Some of my best friends are former fetuses.
#15236839
snapdragon wrote:They should never be allowed any say, either way.


This is a bit too far, and I dare say is one of the root reasons of decline in marriage number, birth rate and, of course, population.

But I accept that the world does need less human at this point of time, so I will say no more.
#15236843
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.

Pregnant people and their doctors are the only people with special rights to give medicine to another perfectly healthy person without their consent in order to kill them. Doctors can also commit physical assault with intent to kill.

Refusing to donate blood to someone else who is outside the womb is a non-action and involves no violence. Abortion is an action involving assault and violence.
#15236846
snapdragon wrote:
Secondly, there is no father. Or mother.
There is nothing for him to care about.


So if the mother (who is mother of nothing by your definition) decides to keep the, shall we say organized mass of desperate cells, since there is no father, he should not think himself responsible for the mobile Petri dish's medical care. Nor, since he is not a father, should he feel in any way responsible for the "mass". And it is OK for him to feel no responsibility for this tumor.

But wait. There comes a day when this tumor is expressed and suddenly it is a) a human with rights the same as yours and I and b) the person who is, suddenly as lightning, now a father, is required to pay for the organized mass of cells until it is 18 years old.

That is beyond absurd. Care to rethink your position?

I actually have no problem with the father, prior to birth, deciding that he does not want a child and formally asking the mother to abort. If she refuses then it is on her. She can raise the child as she pleases. He would have no claim, right or privilege to be in the child's life at all. In fact, if he does demand abortion, he should be restrained from ever seeing the child.

And here lies the reason that trying to make some logical argument when faced with the dilemma of abortion is pointless. Woman want absolute rights to run their lives as they please. They do not want men to have the same rights WRT children.

There is a reason that certain conventions have worked for, oh, say, 100,000 years. Yet we collection of monumental egos believe we should simply ignore that without an alternate plan.

By the way. Since I believe in body integrity, I believe that a person should have the right to refuse the invasive procedure of having blood drawn for any reason. Let me know how that works out for y'all's paternity suit.

I think women are not making their case very well. Feminism is a failing philosophy. That is not to say that feminists do not have some good ideas. It is to say that they are very bad at explaining them and/or selling them politically. So far, other than some vague claim of "fairness" there is little in modern feminism to attract the interest of the greatest majority of men.
#15236847
drlee wrote:I actually have no problem with the father, prior to birth, deciding that he does not want a child and formally asking the mother to abort. If she refuses then it is on her. She can raise the child as she pleases. He would have no claim, right or privilege to be in the child's life at all. In fact, if he does demand abortion, he should be restrained from ever seeing the child.


I've thought that such a law like this would need to exist for men to have the same right as women to basically consent to being parents without being subjected to the great economic impositions.

Of course, I am pro-life and do not support abortion in any circumstance where it cannot be shown that the abortion will guarantee a net gain in life (e.g., if the mother and child are both doomed, or if the mother and one of two children are doomed and the abortion of a single child is necessary)... but I think it is good to see someone bring up the idea of the mans' consent to fatherhood.

There was a spicy meme about how if you support a woman aborting to do what is right for herself, why not support a father abandoning a mother and child to do what is right for his own future..? Of course, I LOL'd a lot at this because I really do not support that at all, but I get the logic.
#15236848
Unthinking Majority wrote:Pregnant people and their doctors are the only people with special rights to give medicine to another perfectly healthy person without their consent in order to kill them. Doctors can also commit physical assault with intent to kill.


No.

Any person whose body is being used without consent can "give medicine to another perfectly healthy person without their consent in order to kill them" if that is the safest and healthiest way for the person wanting to exercise personal integrity.

Refusing to donate blood to someone else who is outside the womb is a non-action and involves no violence .


Yes, and this difference in proximity and impact makes it even mire important to respect the rights of the pregnant person.

Abortion is an action involving assault and violence.


Not really. This seems more like a use of emotional language than an objective description of biology.

This thing where I pretend a clump of insensate cells is the equivalent of a person is merely a concession to avoid pointless debate about personhood. Most abortions occur before 22 weeks. The fetus probably does not develop the ability to feel pain until at least the 27th week.

It does not seem to make sense to say we assault something that has no ability to sense or react to pain.
#15236850
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not really. This seems more like a use of emotional language than an objective description of biology.

This thing where I pretend a clump of insensate cells is the equivalent of a person is merely a concession to avoid pointless debate about personhood. Most abortions occur before 22 weeks. The fetus probably does not develop the ability to feel pain until at least the 27th week.

It does not seem to make sense to say we assault something that has no ability to sense or react to pain.

The ability to feel sensations like pain doesn't have anything to do with the right to be free from physical violence. ie: You're not allowed to go up to a disabled person who can't feel their legs or a person in a coma and stab them in the leg.

Assault and violence refers to touching someone else with the intent to physically harm them without their consent.
#15236852
Unthinking Majority wrote:The ability to feel sensations like pain doesn't have anything to do with the right to be free from physical violence. ie: You're not allowed to go up to a disabled person who can't feel their legs or a person in a coma and stab them in the leg.

Assault and violence refers to touching someone else with the intent to physically harm them without their consent.


I agree with this, and I would also add the example that there are plenty of ways for people to die instantly without any feelings of pain, or to even be poisoned in such a way as their last moments being pretty OK, man.

I guess pain's relevance, though, comes from the fact that the pro-choice position always centers around reducing it to a clump of cells.

I would further point out, though, that in a truly godless and nihilistic universe... What prevents someone from viewing me as just a clump of cells?
  • 1
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 93
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Igor Antunov , @Independent_Srpska You guys[…]

Some men do not care about children at all. They […]

A woman has been sentenced to 34 years in prison b[…]

FBI, R.I.P.?

It's easy to keep things legal when you play by y[…]