Beginning of the End for Roe v Wade?

[brycejones]

So you want other people to be forced to go through what I did? It's good to know you want other's to give up their faith in humanity as I have. I'm a sociopath and I have more consideration for my fellow man, although that could be just my desire to make people suffer at hands.

glenn1 falls into that vast category of people who are incapable of empathy in the abstract. Until he personally experiences something he doesn't understand it.

 

[Paratus]

glenn1 falls into that vast category of people who are incapable of empathy in the abstract. Until he personally experiences something he doesn't understand it.

Vast category of people incapable of empathy? You could have just said conservative.

 

[brycejones]

Vast category of people incapable of empathy? You could have just said conservative.

I was feeling wordy this morning.

 

[DarthKyrie]

glenn1 falls into that vast category of people who are incapable of empathy in the abstract. Until he personally experiences something he doesn't understand it.

I was fortunate my mother was able to teach me about empathy at a young age. My older sister tried to kill me at least 3 times, that I know of. I had a babysitter that would beat the shit out of me when I was 3 years old too. With my desire to see the human race suffer in horrible ways at my hands, I am still astonished that there are people that openly which for their fellow humans to suffer and they have the gall to call themselves, Christian and Conservative. The only thing they want to conserve is the way of life from the 15th century with all the modern amenities.

 

[glenn1]

So you want other people to be forced to go through what I did? It's good to know you want other's to give up their faith in humanity as I have. I'm a sociopath and I have more consideration for my fellow man, although that could be just my desire to make people suffer at hands.

I did go through something like you did, it doesn't change the basic nature of the procedures involved. Just like because I'm a military veteran that doesn't give me some special enlightened status that allows to have extra moral weight when opining whether a particular conflict is "good" or "bad," likewise having to face such a choice of several equally unpalatable options late in a pregnancy all of which result in your baby being dead is not like a badge of honor I get to wield to give me extra moral cred to say abortion is "good" or "bad." It just means one has first hand experience in having had a medical professional described the methods, needing to weigh their pros and cons and make a "choice", and having to on top of that address questions you never even considered like "what do you want to do with the products of conception" (meaning the dead baby, do you want us to provide it to you so you can have a funeral).

 

[blackangst1]

I think you are one confused bunny.

You've stated that abortion is murder in any trimester, you've likened it to slitting the throat of a todder, you've also said that you're OK with abortions just not third trimester abortions, sometimes abortion is OK in 'exceptional situations' (without saying what those are), and:



Just in case it isn't obvious to you, "murder" is defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being".

Tip: Unless you think abortion should be illegal in every circumstance, don't liken abortion in general to an illegal act. It's like going into a topic about the law on self-defence and saying that self-defence should be illegal in all circumstances but you're OK with it in exceptional circumstances.

I was pretty clear that my opposing views are personal vs what I think the law should be, yes?

In my opinion, exceptions would be rape or incest, in the case of third trimester if the mothers life is in danger.

As for murder I guess it's in intent. I should have said taking a life.

 

[mikeymikec]

I was pretty clear that my opposing views are personal vs what I think the law should be, yes?

In my opinion, exceptions would be rape or incest, in the case of third trimester if the mothers life is in danger.

As for murder I guess it's in intent. I should have said taking a life.

Apart from the internal politics of lawmakers compromising between what they personally believe is right and what is feasibly going to achieve a majority vote, there is no actual difference between the two things you're attempting to separate; the law is based on what is considered to be right and wrong by those involved in deciding it.

Furthermore to everyone else here you've been conflating those two things that most people would regard as inseparable in a purely hypothetical discussion, and during the course of this topic you've been using absolutist terms (such as 'murder in any trimester') for most of the thread. The use of absolutist terms and extremely evocative wording indicates an extreme and uncompromising position with no implied exceptions.

I also find it especially bizarre that you would go through the entire thread talking about it being the intentional killing of a child in such evocative and absolutist terms and then say "you know what, women who have been raped should be allowed to abort", because for all your rhetoric, you're then (to put things in your perspective) OK with killing an entirely innocent and healthy child (which is debatable at best in the other exception scenarios you put forward). There are plenty of similar examples of when bringing a child into the world is similarly less-than-ideal to when a woman has been raped, but somehow I don't think you're generally fine with 'killing children' because the circumstances are 'less than ideal', as this notion would logically stray far from what many pro-choice advocates would regard as OK, and as more medical advances are made, the muddier the topic becomes.

I also have no idea whether you believe that a foetus should be considered as having human rights from the moment of conception. On one hand you've regularly said "it's murder in any trimester" (which suggests that you do think it's a human with rights from day 1), on the other hand you've mentioned trimesters in an exception scenario and whether the baby can survive outside the womb (which suggests that you believe it's not a human with rights from day 1). Considering that when a foetus should be regarded as having such rights is often the "no man's land" of abortion discussions, with pro-lifers believing that a bundle of cells is the same as a healthy post-birth human, and pro-choice advocates believing that it's a question of foetal development and our scientific understanding of it that draws the line, your apparent fence-sitting position makes understanding your position that much more of a muddy affair.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Apart from the internal politics of lawmakers compromising between what they personally believe is right and what is feasibly going to achieve a majority vote, there is no actual difference between the two things you're attempting to separate; the law is based on what is considered to be right and wrong by those involved in deciding it.

Furthermore to everyone else here you've been conflating those two things that most people would regard as inseparable in a purely hypothetical discussion, and during the course of this topic you've been using absolutist terms (such as 'murder in any trimester') for most of the thread. The use of absolutist terms and extremely evocative wording indicates an extreme and uncompromising position with no implied exceptions.

I also find it especially bizarre that you would go through the entire thread talking about it being the intentional killing of a child in such evocative and absolutist terms and then say "you know what, women who have been raped should be allowed to abort", because for all your rhetoric, you're then (to put things in your perspective) OK with killing an entirely innocent and healthy child (which is debatable at best in the other exception scenarios you put forward). There are plenty of similar examples of when bringing a child into the world is similarly less-than-ideal to when a woman has been raped, but somehow I don't think you're generally fine with 'killing children' because the circumstances are 'less than ideal', as this notion would logically stray far from what many pro-choice advocates would regard as OK, and as more medical advances are made, the muddier the topic becomes.

I also have no idea whether you believe that a foetus should be considered as having human rights from the moment of conception. On one hand you've regularly said "it's murder in any trimester" (which suggests that you do think it's a human with rights from day 1), on the other hand you've mentioned trimesters in an exception scenario and whether the baby can survive outside the womb (which suggests that you believe it's not a human with rights from day 1). Considering that when a foetus should be regarded as having such rights is often the "no man's land" of abortion discussions, with pro-lifers believing that a bundle of cells is the same as a healthy post-birth human, and pro-choice advocates believing that it's a question of foetal development and our scientific understanding of it that draws the line, your apparent fence-sitting position makes understanding your position that much more of a muddy affair.

Its really not that complex. What I mean is, the simplest and correct answer is, he's full of shit and was the entire time.

 

[zinfamous]

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?

why are you talking about slavery now? Were you dropped on a pile of bricks when you were 1 or something?

 

[zinfamous]

I'm truly sorry for your loss. That's sounds like a trickle thing to go through.

And it's all your fault, because you and others like you and TH vote with the power of willful, spiteful ignorance.

 

[blackangst1]

And it's all your fault, because you and others like you and TH vote with the power of willful, spiteful ignorance.

Which thing have I voted on with spiteful ignorance?

 

[KMFJD]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...egnancy-trump-administration-us-a8854716.html

Alabama is proposing a law that would make carrying out an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy punishable by 10 to 99 years in jail.

The strict abortion ban, which has been branded a “death sentence for women”, would even criminalise performing abortions in cases of rape and incest.

“It simply criminalises abortion,” Terri Collins, a Republican representative who is the bill’s sponsor. “Hopefully, it takes it all the way to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade.”

reichwingers at it again, no rights for you!

 

[ivwshane]

Christian Sharia law strike again!

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I was pretty clear that my opposing views are personal vs what I think the law should be, yes?

In my opinion, exceptions would be rape or incest, in the case of third trimester if the mothers life is in danger.

As for murder I guess it's in intent. I should have said taking a life.

-I still have trouble understanding that, if abortion is murder/taking a life, why make exceptions for rape or incest?

Isn't a child conceived under those circumstances as innocent as any other? Unless the incest is multi-generational, the odds of weird disabilities and genetic disorders cropping up isn't far above that of any two random people having a child.

 

[darkswordsman17]

-I still have trouble understanding that, if abortion is murder/taking a life, why make exceptions for rape or incest?

Isn't a child conceived under those circumstances as innocent as any other? Unless the incest is multi-generational, the odds of weird disabilities and genetic disorders cropping up isn't far above that of any two random people having a child.

Well, you see, it kinda has something to do with the sex being consensual or not. If you make it so that guys can rape women and force them to have babies, you don't think that's problematic then I don't even know what to say.

Just holy shit...I have trouble understanding how you can't understand rape and incest being especially problematic.

I get you're trying to posit that the people calling abortion murder then going "ok, well maybe in that instance its not" and highlighting how fucked up their argument is, but it more just makes you seem like you're completely insane.

 

[darkswordsman17]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...egnancy-trump-administration-us-a8854716.html

Alabama is proposing a law that would make carrying out an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy punishable by 10 to 99 years in jail.

The strict abortion ban, which has been branded a “death sentence for women”, would even criminalise performing abortions in cases of rape and incest.

“It simply criminalises abortion,” Terri Collins, a Republican representative who is the bill’s sponsor. “Hopefully, it takes it all the way to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade.”

reichwingers at it again, no rights for you!

I look forward to Alabama becoming even more inbred after women flee there and so they have to resort even further to fucking their relatives since they'd be the only ones around. Have a hunch that they'll declare that there is no age of consent for women any longer (as in, there's no age that they females aren't capable of consenting to sex).

Even if you're anti-abortion I don't know how you can square away such penalties for it. Also, have fun if your wife has a miscarriage and some anti-abortion nutter decides that hmm, maybe it was intentional.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Well, you see, it kinda has something to do with the sex being consensual or not. If you make it so that guys can rape women and force them to have babies, you don't think that's problematic then I don't even know what to say.

Just holy shit...I have trouble understanding how you can't understand rape and incest being especially problematic.

I get you're trying to posit that the people calling abortion murder then going "ok, well maybe in that instance its not" and highlighting how fucked up their argument is, but it more just makes you seem like you're completely insane.

-I'm asking questions to get at the core of the belief. I strongly suspect anti-abortion folks just regurgitate that talking point "except for rape and incest" without ever fully considering what it means for their argument.

 

[blackangst1]

-I still have trouble understanding that, if abortion is murder/taking a life, why make exceptions for rape or incest?

Isn't a child conceived under those circumstances as innocent as any other? Unless the incest is multi-generational, the odds of weird disabilities and genetic disorders cropping up isn't far above that of any two random people having a child.

Believe me. I'm fully aware of my own contradiction. At least I'm willing to admit it

 

[SMOGZINN]

Well, you see, it kinda has something to do with the sex being consensual or not. If you make it so that guys can rape women and force them to have babies, you don't think that's problematic then I don't even know what to say.

Just holy shit...I have trouble understanding how you can't understand rape and incest being especially problematic.

I get you're trying to posit that the people calling abortion murder then going "ok, well maybe in that instance its not" and highlighting how fucked up their argument is, but it more just makes you seem like you're completely insane.

It has to do with the premise of the argument. If once conceived that embryo is a human baby and should be protected by murder laws, then killing that baby for any reason should be murder.

Think of it this way, if there is no difference between a embryo and a child, then in the case of incest would it be okay to kill her 5 year old son (from incest) as well? If not then we are obviously saying that an embryo is less than a full human child.

 

[Sunburn74]

Believe me. I'm fully aware of my own contradiction. At least I'm willing to admit it

I personally think the response to state sanctioned murder of children by the anti-abortion crowd is actually pretty tepid.

I mean imagine the response if the state was shooting old people in the head or 10 year old kids or something compared to the response actually given to abortion. It pretty much shows that the arguments anti-abortion people use are full of crap.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It pretty much shows that the arguments anti-abortion people use are full of crap.

That is what I am pointing out as well, they don't actually believe that a fertilized egg is a person or there would be no incest or rape arguments. No one would argue it is okay to kill a 5 year old because he was the product or rape or incest. Then if you actually believe that a embryo is a child the same as that 5 year old, then killing it should be just as horrific. Almost no one, even in the 'abortion is murder' crowed, believes that. Therefore they understand the difference and their arguments are not made in good faith.

 

[kage69]

C'mon guys, those sex-loving sluts have to pay if we're going to MAGA.

Women can't be trusted to responsibly operate their own genitals, so we need small government to provide some oversight and control for all those wayward vaginas.

 

[SMOGZINN]

C'mon guys, those sex-loving sluts have to pay if we're going to MAGA.

Can I say, legalize and tax?
I like sex-loving sluts. They are my favorite type of slut. I will gladly pay for them.

 

[darkswordsman17]

-I'm asking questions to get at the core of the belief. I strongly suspect anti-abortion folks just regurgitate that talking point "except for rape and incest" without ever fully considering what it means for their argument.

I got that, it still makes the manner in which you were trying to point it out make you seem every bit as obtuse.

There's plenty of them that absolutely do not care about murdering certain people (as in you can find some of them saying that mentally handicapped people should be killed to keep them out of the gene pool or to keep them from having to pay money to support people like that; and you can also find them saying stuff like that kids from women on welfare - which they happen to believe is predominantly black - well its not a big deal if they die as they were never gonna contribute to society anyway), so I don't think you're actually pointing out some grand contradiction that isn't already readily apparent in a lot of other ways.

It has to do with the premise of the argument. If once conceived that embryo is a human baby and should be protected by murder laws, then killing that baby for any reason should be murder.

Think of it this way, if there is no difference between a embryo and a child, then in the case of incest would it be okay to kill her 5 year old son (from incest) as well? If not then we are obviously saying that an embryo is less than a full human child.

No, it really doesn't because playing similarly stupidly obtuse just makes you similarly stupidly obtuse. That's my point. I mean, I explicitly mentioned that I believe he was trying to highlight the ridiculously stupid logic that anti-abortion nuts rely on (which I am fully aware of, I have absolutely no clue why both of you tried to explain it like I didn't, did either of you read my post beyond the first sentence?). My point being, don't resort to the same type of bullshit because you'll just end up looking as stupid.

Have you had to actually talk to some of these people? Because some of them would be very ok with murdering various people, so there is not some huge contradiction in that they view babies as uniquely innocent beings because that's what their religion teaches them. And uh, yeah, some of them viewed mixed race children as people that should be killed as abominations. That's the types of mindset that these people evolved from.

That is what I am pointing out as well, they don't actually believe that a fertilized egg is a person or there would be no incest or rape arguments. No one would argue it is okay to kill a 5 year old because he was the product or rape or incest. Then if you actually believe that a embryo is a child the same as that 5 year old, then killing it should be just as horrific. Almost no one, even in the 'abortion is murder' crowed, believes that. Therefore they understand the difference and their arguments are not made in good faith.

If you get to know some of these people, they might just argue that type of shit and there's a lot of them that wouldn't actually care. It seems they'd generally prefer to sterilize poor people and while they often will go out of their to not specify, you can clearly get the hint that non-white people should especially be considered for such treatment. I grew up in area where that type of thinking was far too common (in high school for a class we had to find a topic to debate on - where we had to do a speech on it in like a debate format but we weren't debating anyone, it was stupid and holy shit were people's arguments awful, so I just made up some shitty one defending video games against idiots like this teacher who was also head of the "forensics" club which did debates and she said that she would not allow anyone in basically either area to use abortion as their topic because "I know more about it than you do" and this was a fucking English teacher that I guarantee knew jack shit about biology and medicine; her and a couple of other teachers tried to get another teacher fired because they were all anti-abortion and the other teacher was pro-choice which led to me getting fucked over in a class because of a situation that they tried to use to get her in trouble over).

They know how horrible it is which is why they tend to put those ideas in company that they assume agrees with them on this shit (see a similar example, in another thread, someone pointing out people they knew that would for some reason decide well since they were white they would be totally ok if they said some racist shit around them; they'll do the same shit with abortion and other stupid shit that they know comes off ridiculously badly but they really believe it but don't want to get called out for how awful it is).

I could rant for quite a long time about the amount of ridiculous fucked up behavior that seemed normal to these type of people that would make a lot of people go WTF. If you didn't live there or were around them long enough you'd never know because they put up a total sham facade of this over the top politeness because they know it would make them look like goddamn terrible assholes. The worst part is there are quite a bit of people that are legitimately nice, so its hard to know which is which and it actually helps those awful ones get away with shit. But these days, they've been emboldened to express themselves more openly thanks to social media, so calling them out is no longer getting them to see how awful it is until it basically blows up into a media situation, and even then they're not sorry about anything other than being exposed and ridiculed. We're starting to see it some but the stuff we've seen is like barely scratching the surface of the type of shit that has been going on in social media.

I say a lot of that as someone that because I was around that type of behavior actually partook in it some because that was so normalized. Well by partook in that, I don't mean the anti-abortion shit, more that I've definitely partaken in way off color talk (typically just referencing stuff like movies and mostly as a teenager or young 20s because I was dumb and thought edgy was anything more than just edgy for the sake of being edgy on a lot of that shit; or was blind to how it was normalizing fucked up behavior, that with age and maturation I can clearly see how screwed up it was). But the people I'm talking about have lived that their whole lives, its what they were taught, it was preached to them, taught at home, it wasn't just youthful stuff, in fact it scares me how many people I grew up with, that used to be much more laissez-faire that have had those toxic ideas solidify and become cornerstones of how they live their lives. Shit that they used to see for being hypocritical bullshit that they're now imposing on others like their kids or rationalizing in whatever way they can (like how they're pushing for charter schools, to "get away from the riff raff" which you can often see signs "riff raff" really just means those screwing up their white homogeneous view, but if you point out how that's enabling racism then holy shit nah they're so not racist that you're the racist they never mentioned race it was you so you're the racist!!! also they have black, hispanic and/or asian friends!).

There's a lot more to this and its already far beyond the point of this thread.

Cliff Notes:
I get how absurd anti-abortion logic is
Its not as contradictory to their real beliefs if you actually get to hear some of their real beliefs
Yes its bullshit, so don't play stupid like them to try and highlight their stupidity, it'll just make it seem that both sides are similarly stupid, undermining your side (same way they duped people into "both sides!" idiocy).
One last key piece, understand that their religious belief tells them that babies are uniquely innocent (well if they've been properly baptized) which is why there's no real disparity or contradiction in their beliefs because to them babies are more pure and more vulnerable than yes even kids (which is why they're ok with endangering kids in the variety of ways they've decided is acceptable with their other beliefs like not getting them vaccinated or letting them spend a lot of time alone with other adults like clergymen). If you understand that it lines up perfectly with their other distorted logic, you can see that arguing against it with actual logic will never matter or accomplish anything (and they are deliberately twisting science to support their beliefs; which is why they're becoming more unhinged and insistent on it these days, they're looking at ultrasounds and going "see that's a human face!" or "see if you poke it, it reacts/feels pain!").

 

[SMOGZINN]

I got that, it still makes the manner in which you were trying to point it out make you seem every bit as obtuse.

You apparently don't understand my argument. I don't believe any of these things, and I don't think they do either. That was the whole point, that they are not making a good faith argument, they are not arguing their real reasoning, but one they think we will have a hard time disagreeing with that also makes it look like they have the high ground. My arguments is an attempt to pull the rug of the high ground out from under them and force them to argue their real belief so that everyone not as crazy as them can see how crazy their stance really is.

I know all the stuff you are saying. I am a white guy that grew up in a small Texas town that's almost exclusively dedicated to the raising of livestock. The town has a population of 150 and has 4 churches. It is probably one of the most bigoted places in the US.