• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

News Roe v. Wade overturned

Page 39 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
25,586
10,283
136
I know people with frozen embryos who are now concerned about what might happen to them if they opt not to use them. Typically you can donate to couples unable to conceive on their own, or you can donate them to science. But if you're not keen on the idea of having a biological son/daughter out there who doesn't know their biological parents, can you be charged for not allowing these embryos to develop?

The worst situation is being in a state like Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma etc. and having to decide whether to terminate the embryos now or keep them available for future family planning, but risk prosecution if you don't use them/make them available to others or be forced to carry a complicated pregnancy to term.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
62,838
19,055
136
"He is favored to win..."

I'm sure he tells his daughters to lay back and enjoy it multiple times a week. Where are the Q fucks when you need them?
He did lose, at least, to a woman even. But by kind of a disgustingly small amount though. And he is a Q fuck, of course, aren't most people who actually want to have sex with children?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and Zorba

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,649
15,843
146
I'm really confused by this. For the longest time in pro-life circles, we wanted to prosecute abortion providers for murder, but not women who seek them out.
Maybe it's because I live in the north east, but something has really changed over time. There wasn't any impetus to investigate every miscarriage as a possible abortion (which is logistically impossible anyway).
It's getting pretty crazy, IMHO, even for us 'old school' pro-lifers.
So I've asked this before of pro-life folks but never got a decent answer. Maybe you can educate me. If you believe that abortion kills a child and that's the primary reason not to abort how to do you reconcile all the spontaneously aborted embryos/miscarriages that parents create while trying to procreate.

In your 20's the risk is around 15%
In your 40's the risk is around 85%
Taking RU486 without the second pill only causes abortion in 60-85% of cases. With both its above 95%

Since most people do not get pregnant the first month they try the above means almost all parents have killed some kids to have the kids they do - if you believe the above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,374
33,017
136
So I've asked this before of pro-life folks but never got a decent answer. Maybe you can educate me. If you believe that abortion kills a child and that's the primary reason not to abort how to do you reconcile all the spontaneously aborted embryos/miscarriages that parents create while trying to procreate.

In your 20's the risk is around 15%
In your 40's the risk is around 85%
Taking RU486 without the second pill only causes abortion in 60-85% of cases. With both its above 95%

Since most people do not get pregnant the first month they try the above means almost all parents have killed some kids to have the kids they do - if you believe the above.
God's will, lol. Miscarried souls go to heaven. Aborted souls go to hell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thilanliyan

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,649
15,843
146
God's will, lol. Miscarried souls go to heaven. Aborted souls go to hell.
Interesting. So God either doesn't know which souls will be aborted or purposely sends innocent baby souls to hell to punish abortion. I wonder where in the bible this idea comes from..... ;)
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,374
33,017
136
Interesting. So God either doesn't know which souls will be aborted or purposely sends innocent baby souls to hell to punish abortion. I wonder where in the bible this idea comes from..... ;)
AFAIK the Bible only talks about how adulteresses SHOULD abort their babies and that the penalty for causing a miscarriage is in line with property damage rather than killing an actual born human.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,114
136
Yeah, not here for another abortion or religious debate. Just been watching the thread and was stuck by how things have changed. That's all.

@Paratus The simple answer is unsatisfying. I'm not smart enough or educated enough in Christian theology to make the complicated answer simple.
 
Last edited:

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,649
15,843
146
Yeah, not here for another abortion or religious debate. Just been watching the thread and was stuck by how things have changed. That's all.

@Paratus The simply answer is unsatisfying. I'm not smart enough or educated enough in Christian theology to make the complicated answer simple.
Fair enough.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,935
3,914
136
Sounds like a 1st amendment violation to me.

Only if you're a corporation.
Senate Republicans are trying to find the Democrats responsible for this.


During Dredd Scott, the public was well aware that SC members were just politicians. We've been spoiled by a relatively long period of fairly neutral behavior (other than outliers like Bush v Gore) and somehow forgotten that.

These people are no more impartial than anyone else, and will go through any manner of mental contortions to get the result they want.

It's way past time to have rotating, limited terms.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
62,838
19,055
136
Yeah, not here for another abortion or religious debate. Just been watching the thread and was stuck by how things have changed. That's all.

@Paratus The simply answer is unsatisfying. I'm not smart enough or educated enough in Christian theology to make the complicated answer simple.
Weeeeellllll... the simple answer is: "Don't base legislation/SCOTUS decisions on Christian theology".
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,799
10,094
136
I'm really confused by this. For the longest time in pro-life circles, we wanted to prosecute abortion providers for murder, but not women who seek them out.

They wanted to see results. Not the status quo of the past 60 years.
One cannot deny that the SCOTUS has made the new approach... effective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
26,228
15,638
136
Ehm.
Question popped in.
What is this going to do to US readiness?
Not good thing I assume?
 

esquared

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 8, 2000
25,129
6,225
146
He did lose, at least, to a woman even. But by kind of a disgustingly small amount though. And he is a Q fuck, of course, aren't most people who actually want to have sex with children?
This guy is a POS.

From a link in that article from his daughter , who said don't vote for him.

"The only place where I really see systemic racism would be the abortion clinic cause they seem to target the African American community.”
“I don’t buy into this whole systemic racism thing at all,” he later said.

"“I’m not saying there’s not hurdles to overcome. We all have hurdles to overcome. You know, as a quote-unquote rich, white, Christian male, people look at me a certain way. And it’s not always good. So, everybody has obstacles to overcome

"He also said, unlike his daughter, he doesn’t believe white privilege exists "


Seriously WTF!
He has problems to overcome as a rich, white, Christian male???
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
39,756
20,330
146
This guy is a POS.

From a link in that article from his daughter , who said don't vote for him.

"The only place where I really see systemic racism would be the abortion clinic cause they seem to target the African American community.”
“I don’t buy into this whole systemic racism thing at all,” he later said.

"“I’m not saying there’s not hurdles to overcome. We all have hurdles to overcome. You know, as a quote-unquote rich, white, Christian male, people look at me a certain way. And it’s not always good. So, everybody has obstacles to overcome

"He also said, unlike his daughter, he doesn’t believe white privilege exists "


Seriously WTF!
He has problems to overcome as a rich, white, Christian male???

yes, his problems include libtards, taxes, Jesus, other people not behaving the way he wants, kindness, empathy, cognitive dissonance, facts, systemic racism, and anything else that his little brain can come up with on a whim
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,163
136
Well if Roe vs Wade is overturned, I think we still have hope.

w.jpg
 

Attachments

  • w.jpg
    w.jpg
    222.7 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,269
6,446
136
So I've asked this before of pro-life folks but never got a decent answer. Maybe you can educate me. If you believe that abortion kills a child and that's the primary reason not to abort how to do you reconcile all the spontaneously aborted embryos/miscarriages that parents create while trying to procreate.

In your 20's the risk is around 15%
In your 40's the risk is around 85%
Taking RU486 without the second pill only causes abortion in 60-85% of cases. With both its above 95%

Since most people do not get pregnant the first month they try the above means almost all parents have killed some kids to have the kids they do - if you believe the above.
You can do a lot better than this.
Conflating a natural phenomena with abortion is absurd. By that logic you could point out that every single person is going to die, so killing them is natural and inevitable. How can that be a crime?
Lets be honest here, abortion is about convenience. We flush those kids down the toilet because having them around would be a lot of trouble and expense. All the arguments about how many die naturally or it just being a clump of cells is what we tell ourselves so we don't feel bad about doing it.
I know what abortion is, I know the reasons why it exists. The only argument for it that holds water is that sometimes it's the lessor of two evils.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,983
55,386
136
You can do a lot better than this.
Conflating a natural phenomena with abortion is absurd. By that logic you could point out that every single person is going to die, so killing them is natural and inevitable. How can that be a crime?
Lets be honest here, abortion is about convenience. We flush those kids down the toilet because having them around would be a lot of trouble and expense. All the arguments about how many die naturally or it just being a clump of cells is what we tell ourselves so we don't feel bad about doing it.
I know what abortion is, I know the reasons why it exists. The only argument for it that holds water is that sometimes it's the lessor of two evils.

This is not even remotely correct. We have laws on the books like manslaughter, for instance. If you undertook an action that you knew had an 85% chance of killing a person you would almost certainly be sent to prison for manslaughter even if you had no intent to kill anyone.

So I guess if pro-life people want to imprison women for manslaughter instead of murder for having sex over 40 that would be a more coherent argument - is that what you're going for?

The main problem for pro-life people is that the 'life begins at conception and deserves full legal protections' is obviously, inarguably insane. This is why they never grapple with the biology of it... they can't.