Leaked Supreme Court opinion shows conservative majority set to overturn Roe v Wade

Again, you can't complain about whataboutism when you are actively engaging in the mantra. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to answer a simple yes or no question.

What strawman attack do you see? Do elaborate. :)

They weren't whataboutism. By the way Stevo, weren't you the one complaining about calling out other users? Why do I see you do that all the time?

Some of these bans are before many women even find out they are pregnant. Also most abortions are done well before 6 months.

But anyway this is a nonsensical debate. Abortion bans and restrictions don't work or barely work. The end result is primarily just worse health comes and a reduced QOL/HDI.

A cleft lip isn't necessarily that bad. I mean, Leaf Phoenix still became a superstar. I'm talking severe mental and physical deficiencies. A baby like that doesn't NEED to live. Best to kill as soon as possible so that it doesn't come to appreciate life. Like within the first hours. Babies already learn right at the start. Some evidence suggests they learn even in the womb. But they barely understand what's going on. Not like it matters to these fundamentalist politicians, though. They want to stop it at conception. R v W already left late term abortions up to the state and only a pretty small minority of abortions are late term anyway.

They are clearly redirections designed to deflect.

Again, what strawman attack do you see? Why is it difficult to answer a simple yes or no question?

And another case of whataboutism. Lol

No. Self. Awareness.

Nope. Logical flow of conversations.

Take your own advise. You were off topic for these posts you made to me. Indeed, it's whataboutsim.

No. Self. Awareness.

Have a good day.

Abortion bans and restrictions don't really work, and primarily result in negatives. Their position is justified by medical science.

Pretty much.

A lot of that going around.

******* A man, if that's your mindset why not just apply that to all people. Why are we only slaughtering the Baby's for being an inconvenience. Especially for deficiencies out of their control?

I just cant with this outlook. If a guy looses his legs lets just kill him. He doesn't need to live...he's an inconvenience...

If i guy has brain damage just kill him...

if a woman develops breast cancer just kill her...

This idea that its ok to do to babies and not adults... because they have a health condition that's an inconvenience because adults DID get the chance to appreciate life.... we wouldn't consider treating them like this... is nonsensical to me.

That goes back to my first post. A life is only as valuable as the memories the human has acquired. Without any of your memories, your life is nothing. So even if someone loses their legs or gets cancer or something, they still have a life more valuable than a newborn's. They still have complex thoughts. Caring only about the baby's potential is just sentimentalism.

Medical science? What an oxymoron. After the last three years the last thing that can be believed is medical science.

One is guilt of heinous crime and is aware of that when they commit the crime. A baby has committed no crime and its life is less important. Your moral compass is off course.

@zaryia said:

@JimB said:

@zaryia said:

@sargentd said:

Medical science? What an oxymoron. After the last three years the last thing that can be believed is medical science.

This is the best you can do.

Do you value life Jim?

@JimB said:

@zaryia said:

@JimB said:

@zaryia said:

@sargentd said:

Medical science? What an oxymoron. After the last three years the last thing that can be believed is medical science.

This is the best you can do.

Someone's mad his bait was too weak this time. 🤣

Do you?

It would be easier to see said logic if you actually elaborated on the connection beyond accusing users of hypocrisy and minimum effort slings.

Again, what strawman attack do you see? Why is it difficult for you to answer yes or no questions?

I'm merely poking fun at your complaints while exercising the same silliness, which you are STILL doing while avoiding answering any questions. Lol

disagree, it cant come down to memories. People get Amnesia, people get alzheimer's. you don't only deserve to live based on your life experience. With that line of thinking some of the oldest humans are more valuable than young children and I disagree with that. Adults only have complex thoughts due to having the opportunity to grow. Something every baby will have if given the opportunity to simply live. An adults life is no more valuable than a 1 year old's life. They only got the chance to have complex thoughts because they weren't aborted, they were given the opportunity to live. That doesn't make their life any more important. Again babies are the most vulnerable people in society and its 100% out of their control. Adults shouldn't be culling them just because they can. Mindset bothers me and it has nothing to do with "religion" or "god" I don't follow any.

If we are going to kill babies at 9 months for having "deficiencies" then we should do the same to adults. Their life isn't any more important than a baby's life. The only reason this mindset can even take place is because people think they can treat an infant like its nothing because it cant talk back or do anything about... Just find it morally bankrupt

I don't get at all why anyone is making this about killing babies. You're not a baby until you're born, so not one baby has ever been killed during an abortion. This is about a women's constitutional right to choose what happens to her body at any time. You want to outlaw abortion? Fine by me, as long as we can preserve a woman's constitutional rights, which means figuring out a way around it. The right should be focused on that, instead of being focused on going full fascist by taking away constitutional rights to sate their religious desires. We're now entering a time where fascists are forcing women to breed like cattle. It's insane.

It does come down to memories. An adult would have to forget almost everything to be comparable with a newborn. Worse than the worst kinds of late stage Alzheimer's. If I ever forget everything, you are free to kill me. But since they're an adult it should be left to them. Children (not babies) already have a lot of memories and have longer to live than an old person. But no one remembers being a newborn.

I agree to disagree. The difference between alzheimers and being an infant in regards to memories... an infant is supposed to not have memories... it just started its life, its the natural progression of all life. They aren't supposed to have memories...comes with time. I just don't see how this validates killing them... especially when every human HAS to go through that stage of their life.. This argument could be used for 6 month olds... you don't remember being 6 months old... hell I don't even remember being 2-3... we wouldn't kill a 2 year old with the justification "he's not going to remember any of this anyway".

It's a delicate balance between what I'm talking about and what you're talking about. Which is why I say that if the baby does have severe deficiencies and you do decide to end it, it should be done as soon as possible. Within the first hours. Animals kill their defective babies.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140328-sloth-bear-zoo-infanticide-chimps-bonobos-animals

But yeah, memories are the main factor, and babies do already learn at the beginning.

I am not morally bankrupt. I have great morals.

I wouldn't use animals as some kind of measuring tool for if this is moral/right or not...

Animals will kill their young sometimes even if nothing is wrong with them... Animals will kill and eat each other over nothing..

I just disagree with your mindset on this... and that's ok.. we just see it differently.

Didn't know you couldn't connect the word life. Shame that.

You continue to dodge and sprout non-sense.

Covfefe.

Sad.

I'm not the subject of this thread. What is your obsession with what I think? Seems creepy.

That doesn't work either. You called me out for a logical fallacy you believed to be true, which it's not. There's such thing as context. I questioned you with the same line of reasoning, and you're dodging and being super weird about answering a simple question. Then saying people are obsessed when they engage with you on a forum.

Maybe you're having a rough day, if so godspeed. I hope it gets better.

If Republicans cared about babies, maternal and paternal leave would be a thing to mention one.

Most are against abortion in the third trimester. However 6 weeks the way it is counted today gives you about 2 weeks warning at most.

I'm all for more time off for paternity leave since I got another one coming this fall. Republicans have a lot of catching up to do with modern living.

Yet they are determined to walk the wrong way.

Again, this is a stupid argument made out of pure ignorance. Not all rights are enumerated. For f*cks sake we have a literal amendment in the bill of rights which says this.

I didn't make the claim. He did.

Still waiting.

These items do not exist in a vacuum; feel free to explain/detail your position.

Again #4, what strawman attack do you see? Why is it difficult for you to answer yes or no questions?

You don't ever discuss the topic and I'm not interested in playing your game where you attack individuals.

I'm asking you to elaborate on your position, since you earlier advised it was relevant to the thread.

Are you now refusing to elaborate on said position? What attacks are you seeing since you can't name the strawman, and still refuse to answer questions?

@sargentd: nobody said you have to be religious to be against abortion. Most of the nonreligious ones simply choose to not get one rather than preventing others from getting them. The overwhelming majority of those who wish to ban it outright however are conservative Christians. The current laws(up until the past few months) saw nearly all abortions come early in pregnancy and those that come later are mostly for medical reasons. Was it perfect? No. How many groups were fighting for third trimester or late term abortions? The status quo was working for the majority of people. The only people affected by the choice to abort are the two who made the baby. Banning it outright has zero positive or negative effect on those it appeased, making others pay the price.

Elaborate on what? Because I engaged another user and asked him questions on what life he supports? Get out of here with that garbage. It's deflection.

That's not really the case. Look, I don't think anyone would argue that abortion should be the first or only option, just that it should be on the table, and the the decision which way to go should be made by the parents and their doctor.

For a specific example, my wife and I decided to abort a pregnancy years ago. She's bipolar, and was on some psychotropics that had the potential to mess up fetal development. Now, this wasn't a sure thing, nothing really is in medicine, but the risk was high enough that we ultimately terminated the pregnancy. It still wasn't an easy decision, and yes, an abortion is traumatic. But it was our call to make, and while I do have my regrets, I think it was the right one.

For another, when my wife was pregnant with our second daughter, her blood pressure spiked at 34 weeks and she had to have an emergency c-section. During the operation she had 16 minor strokes. We were incredibly lucky in that there does not seem to have been any long term brain damage from it, but that was still fucking terrifying. So needless to say, we are done having kids. We are being very careful to make sure she doesn't get pregnant again (in fact I will be getting snipped in the next few months) but nothing is 100% in medicine. If by some chance it does somehow happen, we will abort it. No one is going to tell me otherwise.

My point is, while I do think most states would allow people in our situation to terminate a pregnancy, there are some that probably wouldn't. How much risk to the mother is enough to justify it? That answer will vary from person to person, group to group, state to state. Do they have a risk assessor break it down to a percentage? Do the parents go before a tribunal who makes decisions on a case by case basis? Do they have some political committee compile a list of acceptable situations? Do they just say, let nature run it's course and we'll see what happens?

Having been through it myself, I say the choice is between the parents and their doctor.

Correct, you stated capital punishment and overturning Roe v Wade were relevant and not whataboutism. How is there relevance and how are they interconnected? You made the argument, why are you refusing to substantiate it?

Let me get this straight, you can question another user on capital punishment and the 2nd amendment and accuse hypocrisy, but when I ask you to detail your position - it's now deflection and "garbage"? lol

Refusal to answer the question noted, let's not baselessly accuse another user of attacks/strawman. Remember you can disagree without being disagreeable.

No, he said it was a right. You asked to show it being enumerated, which it is not. Constitutional rights can be enumerated or unenumerated. Something can be a constitutional right without being explicitly listed verbatim as so.

sourcing atm(i lost link going thru my history... that going to take a while )

miss carriage now in 1 state consider homicide

@HoolaHoopMan: show me where it’s a constitutional right.

Waiting.

Do you?

@zaryia said:

@JimB said:

@zaryia said:

@JimB said:

@zaryia said:

Medical science? What an oxymoron. After the last three years the last thing that can be believed is medical science.

This is the best you can do.

Someone's mad his bait was too weak this time. 🤣

I am not mad. You can't answer anything for yourself without visual aids. Take them away and your posts would be blank.

Given where abortion has morphed I doubt the Supreme Court would have ruled the way they did in 1973. Tomorrow the senate is a vote to protect Roe V. Wade in which the abortion can occur while the woman is in labor. Do you think the court would rule as it did if this was before them for consideration.

Read my posts Jim. The answer is there.

Please be satire.