• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Beginning of the End for Roe v Wade?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
senseamp said:
It was fun and games when they could vote crazy to please religious nuts, but have SCOTUS strike it down so women don't get too pissed off. Now it's going to be a wedge between women and evangelicals. It's a dog catching the bus kind of thing, they have to dance with the evangelicals who brought them, but if they do, they will dig a bigger hole with women.
Click to expand...
It's like why we don't have comprehensive immigration law. The Republicans had complete control of the house and senate for 2 F'n years, yet could not come up with any legislation. It's so frigging transparent.
 
Jhhnn said:
All of that is easy to say when it's not your body & never will be. It's not your life, either. In a society where women are truly equal, they have the same sovereignty over their bodies as men. If they don't, they don't have full equality.

I see that as a first principle in a secular society regardless of religious belief or conviction.
Click to expand...

So people who did not own slaves had no say in the slavery issue?

Not your body, not your problem; not your slave, not your problem?

Are you a jew? Then dont worry about jews being sent to the camps.

Who speaks for those who can not speak for themselves?
 
hal2kilo said:
It's like why we don't have comprehensive immigration law. The Republicans had complete control of the house and senate for 2 F'n years, yet could not come up with any legislation. It's so frigging transparent.
Click to expand...

Just keep 'em crazy enough to vote for that good old trickledown...
 
Texashiker said:
So people who did not own slaves had no say in the slavery issue?

Not your body, not your problem; not your slave, not your problem?

Are you a jew? Then dont worry about jews being sent to the camps.

Who speaks for those who can not speak for themselves?
Click to expand...

Desperate, huh? You'd make a woman slave to a fetus.
 
Texashiker said:
Different century, same propaganda.

Change abortion to slavery and we see how people like yall truly stand on social issues.

This abortion issue is no different than slavery. Blacks were nothing more than property, an were only protected once they were freed. A fetus is not a real person and has to be born to be protected.

Makes me sick to see how easily people diminish the value of human life. Yall would probably be right at home on an 1850s southern plantation. See that black person, they are not a real person, and as such I can do whatever I want.
Click to expand...

As has already been pointed out to you on more than occasion, the flaw in your 'logic' is that banning abortion enslaves women. In order to prevent abortion in all cases, the government would to seize control of the woman's body for the duration of the pregnancy. Which would violate due process. Which was the basis of the Roe v Wade decision.

Like most anti-abortionists, you're so worked up about the rights of the not-yet-born that you ignore that the already-born have rights too.
 
Texashiker said:
Please answer the question:

Who protects those who can not protect themselves?

Who speaks for those who can not speak for themselves?
Click to expand...

I already rejected the way you frame the issue. I don't have the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body & neither does anybody else. If you can't accept that then you don't believe in women's equality at all.
 
Texashiker said:
Please answer the question:

Who protects those who can not protect themselves?

Who speaks for those who can not speak for themselves?
Click to expand...
Not you. You don't really care about those children. At least not after they're born, you don't.
 
Vic said:
As has already been pointed out to you on more than occasion, the flaw in your 'logic' is that banning abortion enslaves women. In order to prevent abortion in all cases, the government would to seize control of the woman's body for the duration of the pregnancy. Which would violate due process. Which was the basis of the Roe v Wade decision.
Click to expand...

That "due process" is utter nonsense.

FDR rounded up Japanese-Americans, and sent them to camps without due process. The supreme court upheld that action.

President Obama authorized the murder of a US citizen without due process, and nothing happened.

My personal viewpoint is that all human life is created equal, and rights start at the time of creation. As such, the life of the unborn child can not be terminated without due process.


Vic said:
Like most anti-abortionists, you're so worked up about the rights of the not-yet-born that you ignore that the already-born have rights too.
Click to expand...

Part of it is making women responsible for their choices. You created a life, not take responsibility for that life.

Diminishing the value of an unborn child is no different than diminishing the value of other human life.
 
Jhhnn said:
I already rejected the way you frame the issue. I don't have the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body & neither does anybody else. If you can't accept that then you don't believe in women's equality at all.
Click to expand...

Slavery set an example that we have a DUTY to speak for those who can not speak for themselves.

We have a moral obligation to stand for those who can not stand for themselves.

To not do so makes us as guilty as everyone else.

Mark my words, anyone who supports abortion is on the wrong side of history.
 
Jhhnn said:
I already rejected the way you frame the issue. I don't have the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body & neither does anybody else. If you can't accept that then you don't believe in women's equality at all.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that when the discussion was about protecting already-born little brown children, TH said that "breaking the law is not a right." But when it's about unborn white children, suddenly it became not just a right, but a moral obligation, to break the law.
Like most anti-abortionists, he doesn't care children. He cares about punishing women for having sex.
 
Texashiker said:
That "due process" is utter nonsense.

FDR rounded up Japanese-Americans, and sent them to camps without due process. The supreme court upheld that action.

President Obama authorized the murder of a US citizen without due process, and nothing happened.

My personal viewpoint is that all human life is created equal, and rights start at the time of creation. As such, the life of the unborn child can not be terminated without due process.
Click to expand...
All of this bullshit. Because we've discussed how you don't believe that all human life is equal if it was born on the other side of an imaginary line in the sand. Then we need that wall to keep them out, right? So obviously, you do not believe that all human life is equal, because the people on the side on that wall are also human life, and you would force them to be kept in inequality.

Diminishing the value of people born on the other side of an imaginary line in the sand is also no different than diminishing the value of other human life.

Part of it is making women responsible for their choices. You created a life, not take responsibility for that life.

Diminishing the value of an unborn child is no different than diminishing the value of other human life.
Click to expand...
And here we have the truth at last, it's all about punishing women for having sex. That sex could have been rape, but 'they' created a life, and 'they' have to be held responsible. As though they did something wrong.

Diminishing the value of women is also no different than diminishing the value of other human life.

Hypocrite, heal thyself.
 
Texashiker said:
Slavery set an example that we have a DUTY to speak for those who can not speak for themselves.

We have a moral obligation to stand for those who can not stand for themselves.

To not do so makes us as guilty as everyone else.

Mark my words, anyone who supports abortion is on the wrong side of history.
Click to expand...

And the ultimate straw man, that posters here 'support' abortion. I do not 'support' abortion, I support a woman's right to own and control her own body just as a man can own and control his own body. Because that is equal rights for all human life.
And I believe strongly in helping women to have choices other than abortion, and in discouraging abortion whenever possible.
But if it's a choice between the mother's life or the baby's, or if it's about allowing a rapist to procreate, there is no doubt that the rational choice is obvious.
Women are not slaves to men and they are not slave to churches or governments. Period.
 
Besides when the mothers life is in danger, or when the baby will never be viable, I feel sorry for everyone who supports abortion.

This argument that "It's a woman right.....", is not different than saying slaver owners have a right to own slaves.

Abortion is the moral dilemma of our generation. One day future generations will look back and ask what kind of heathens killed unborn children? Just like we look back and ask why cultures sacrificed children, or why various cultures killed children.

Like the Roman brothels where mass graves of newborn children have been found. After the child was born, it was killed and tossed into a pit.

Anyone who supports abortion on demand, or because it is a womans right.... you are on the wrong side of history. Sad, sad, sad to diminish human life the way yall do.

Don't worry, society is moving towards enlighten and hopefully such barbaric thoughts will change in future generations..
 
hal2kilo said:
Not going to link it, but I saw where she's getting more campaign money from out of state Kavanagh supporters than from her own state.
Click to expand...

Well then there is this new idiocy for which there is no explainable ulterior motive

https://twitter.com/x/status/1094013046954041347

Maybe you shouldn't have supplied a vote to confirm the guy who's vote decided that ban is constitutional then. Either she is really fucking dumb or thinks everybody else is.
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
Whose only agenda is to enslave women to men and the government. We've already been over this.

Oh, and also to get your vote, despite whatever other policy issues they might have, by tricking you into believing they're fighting "baby killers."
Click to expand...

we deserve the gov we have with these idiots voting. We need better edu but they think edu is the enemy as well.
 
Holy shit, liberals are fucking lucky that Roberts seems to have found his soul. America better be on its knees every day praying he doesn't lose it again before the final ruling.

What are the odds that Susan Collins doesn't get kicked to the curb in 2020?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top