Author |
Message |
Shack
Devil's Advocate
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am Posts: 38240
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
Barrabás wrote: Shack wrote: Funny how the people who talk about how Trump is a threat to democracy, are upset that the Supreme Court made the abortion issue more democratic, it's now more determined by the voters and their elected congresspeople. Ok but why should people's bodies and their personal lives (because they already explicitly stated they want to reinstate sodomy laws) be subject to the opinion of the majority??? Since when is it ok for a democracy to dictate what you can do WITH YOUR OWN BODY? Because if you believe the fetus is alive it now involves 2 person's bodies, similar to why a mother can't smother the baby right after its born.
_________________Shack’s top 50 tv shows - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90227
|
Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:54 pm |
|
|
Barrabás
llegó a la casa vía marítima
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:53 pm Posts: 6161 Location: la gran casa de la esquina
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
zwackerm wrote: This could boost overall turnout. But people who are motivated to vote based on abortion don’t often cross the aisle and vote for the other side. If you think abortion is baby murder, you’re already not a democrat. If you think restricting abortion is to control women, you’re already not voting Republican. This is evidenced by the lack of change in polling when the draft was leaked.
Also, Texas Beto is not seeing a boost due to guns lol. Campaigning on gun control in Texas is like campaigning on banning abortion and gay marriage in California Well, California voters voted against gay marriage in 2008 so...
_________________ .
|
Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:57 pm |
|
|
Barrabás
llegó a la casa vía marítima
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:53 pm Posts: 6161 Location: la gran casa de la esquina
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
Shack wrote: Barrabás wrote: Shack wrote: Funny how the people who talk about how Trump is a threat to democracy, are upset that the Supreme Court made the abortion issue more democratic, it's now more determined by the voters and their elected congresspeople. Ok but why should people's bodies and their personal lives (because they already explicitly stated they want to reinstate sodomy laws) be subject to the opinion of the majority??? Since when is it ok for a democracy to dictate what you can do WITH YOUR OWN BODY? Because if you believe the fetus is alive it now involves 2 person's bodies, similar to why a mother can't smother the baby right after its born. By this logic, if you are in a car crash and unconscious but not badly hurt enough to require blood transfusion, and in the hospital they realize they can only save another car crash victim by hooking up your blood to theirs to give them an emergency transfusion, and then you wake up, then you would legally not be able to say "get this thing off of me, I don't want to give anyone blood, I want to get out of here", because at that point another body's life depends on your own. A mother can't smother a baby after it's born because it's literally outside of her body and not dependent on her body anymore. You can't smother a baby for the reason you can't smother anyone. That is a stupid illogical comparison that shows you are not using your brain properly. I support the idea of banning abortion if the fetus is viable, but before that? That's a totally different scenario. Should you be forced to carry a baby to term if you were raped? If you thought you were using protection but it failed? If you suddenly find yourself in extreme poverty? If the pregnancy is going badly and it could kill you?
_________________ .
|
Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:59 pm |
|
|
Barrabás
llegó a la casa vía marítima
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:53 pm Posts: 6161 Location: la gran casa de la esquina
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
That woman in your avatar would NEVER sleep with you, EVER. You need to stop projecting your anger at that fact of the universe onto other people's bodily autonomy.
_________________ .
|
Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:03 pm |
|
|
Shack
Devil's Advocate
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am Posts: 38240
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
Barrabás wrote: By this logic, if you are in a car crash and unconscious but not badly hurt enough to require blood transfusion, and in the hospital they realize they can only save another car crash victim by hooking up your blood to theirs to give them an emergency transfusion, and then you wake up, then you would legally not be able to say "get this thing off of me, I don't want to give anyone blood, I want to get out of here", because at that point another body's life depends on your own.
What is the difference between this scenario and a mother leaving a 1 week old to starve to death? After all, the 1 week old can't survive on its own any more than the person in your hypothetical can without the blood transfusion. Just because a baby is no longer physically attached doesn't mean it's really any more capable of surviving on its own.
_________________Shack’s top 50 tv shows - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90227
|
Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:23 pm |
|
|
Shack
Devil's Advocate
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am Posts: 38240
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
Quote: I support the idea of banning abortion if the fetus is viable, but before that? That's a totally different scenario. Should you be forced to carry a baby to term if you were raped? If you thought you were using protection but it failed? If you suddenly find yourself in extreme poverty? If the pregnancy is going badly and it could kill you? Situations like this are unfortunate but personally I feel if a baby is determined to be alive, I don't think it would make sense to kill it just because its father was a rapist. People like that or the person in poverty would just have to give it up for adoption. An abortion to save the life of a mother is justified to me. While I personally think a fetus should probably be considered alive as soon as it has a heartbeat and brain activity (based on how we determine death), I can understand some of the pro choice arguments enough that it's not the end of the world if abortions are allowed up to 12-15 weeks or something. I feel more stronglly that the Supreme Court's decision to make themselves neutral on the issue is correct than I do that the Republican states banning it outright are correct as when life starts is a philosophical question that there is no objective answer to, California and Texas are allowed to have different opinions on probably one of the hardest questions to answer.
_________________Shack’s top 50 tv shows - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90227
|
Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:29 pm |
|
|
Shack
Devil's Advocate
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am Posts: 38240
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
In terms of gay marriage I think they should try to codify it as a federal law. I feel pretty confident they could get at least 10 Republican senators to do it.
But the Obergefell ruling also makes more sense than Roe v Wade cherry picking the most pro choice lines. It's actually logical that equal protection clause in the constitution would mean that you can't discriminate between straight and gay couples for marriage. They also had a great precedent with Loving v Virginia, it was essentially the same argument for interracial marriage as gay marriage. Also, I believe Gorscuch is a LGBT friendly judge. The vote to extend civil rights era discrimination rules to LGBT people was 6-3 due to him voting with Roberts and the left wing judges.
_________________Shack’s top 50 tv shows - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90227
|
Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:03 pm |
|
|
Rev
Romosexual!
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:06 am Posts: 32128 Location: the last free city
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
Shack wrote: Quote: I support the idea of banning abortion if the fetus is viable, but before that? That's a totally different scenario. Should you be forced to carry a baby to term if you were raped? If you thought you were using protection but it failed? If you suddenly find yourself in extreme poverty? If the pregnancy is going badly and it could kill you? Situations like this are unfortunate but personally I feel if a baby is determined to be alive, I don't think it would make sense to kill it just because its father was a rapist. People like that or the person in poverty would just have to give it up for adoption. An abortion to save the life of a mother is justified to me. you can't make sense of why, really? what if the rapist was also the father of the girl? sounds to me like you don't value a woman's life/choice
_________________ Is it 2024 yet?
|
Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:23 am |
|
|
zwackerm
Hold the door!
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:26 pm Posts: 20418 Location: Where they shot Knock at the Cabin
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
It doesn't make sense to kill a baby because its father is a rapist. If the reason abortion is wrong is because it kills a baby, and it still kills a baby when it is from a rape, it doesn't logically make sense to make an exception.
However, talking about rape at all is a red herring, as its just a fringe case pro choice people use to distract from the 99% of abortions that are not due to rape, which they support but are harder to argue in favor of.
|
Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:53 am |
|
|
Rev
Romosexual!
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:06 am Posts: 32128 Location: the last free city
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
zwackerm wrote: It doesn't make sense to kill a baby because its father is a rapist. If the reason abortion is wrong is because it kills a baby, and it still kills a baby when it is from a rape, it doesn't logically make sense to make an exception.
However, talking about rape at all is a red herring, as its just a fringe case pro choice people use to distract from the 99% of abortions that are not due to rape, which they support but are harder to argue in favor of. it's the choice of the woman that matters. If she doesn't want to birth her rapist baby, then she shouldn't be forced to. Plain and simple. If she's a teenager and doesn't want a baby then she can abort it. Her life matters more than a baby, IMO. She can choose to have a baby later in life if she wants. Freedom to choose > Forced to birth KEEP YOUR RELIGION/POLITICS OUT OF THEIR UTERUS!!!
_________________ Is it 2024 yet?
Last edited by Rev on Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:24 am |
|
|
zwackerm
Hold the door!
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:26 pm Posts: 20418 Location: Where they shot Knock at the Cabin
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
I agree, her life could be prioritized over the baby's if her life was in greater than normal danger. But as it is not in the vast majority of cases, the right of the baby to life is important enough to not kill it IMO.
Also no one is trying to force "their beliefs" on anyone in any way that is not normal in a society. If someone believes that society is benefitted by a policy, they have the right to vote for that policy. And if a majority of people oppose that policy, it won't be enacted. All laws "force beliefs about morality" on the people that live under them. If the majority of people elect politicians who like abortion, we'll have abortion and vice versa
|
Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:35 am |
|
|
Darth Indiana Bond
007
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:43 pm Posts: 11064 Location: Wouldn't you like to know
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
I think it depends on the parameters of the search, but I am pretty sure most abortions are due to health concerns as was the case with my cousin. Of course some don’t consider her situation an abortion, but some states don’t discriminate on the nature of the procedure in their legal verbiage of the laws they are spewing out.
_________________
|
Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:40 am |
|
|
Chippy
KJ's Leading Pundit
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm Posts: 63026 Location: Tonight... YOU!
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
zwackerm wrote: I agree, her life could be prioritized over the baby's if her life was in greater than normal danger. But as it is not in the vast majority of cases, the right of the baby to life is important enough to not kill it IMO.
Also no one is trying to force "their beliefs" on anyone in any way that is not normal in a society. If someone believes that society is benefitted by a policy, they have the right to vote for that policy. And if a majority of people oppose that policy, it won't be enacted. All laws "force beliefs about morality" on the people that live under them. If the majority of people elect politicians who like abortion, we'll have abortion and vice versa So you think murder is OK. In some situations.
_________________trixster wrote: shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element trixster wrote: chippy is correct
|
Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:01 pm |
|
|
zwackerm
Hold the door!
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:26 pm Posts: 20418 Location: Where they shot Knock at the Cabin
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
Chippy wrote: zwackerm wrote: I agree, her life could be prioritized over the baby's if her life was in greater than normal danger. But as it is not in the vast majority of cases, the right of the baby to life is important enough to not kill it IMO.
Also no one is trying to force "their beliefs" on anyone in any way that is not normal in a society. If someone believes that society is benefitted by a policy, they have the right to vote for that policy. And if a majority of people oppose that policy, it won't be enacted. All laws "force beliefs about morality" on the people that live under them. If the majority of people elect politicians who like abortion, we'll have abortion and vice versa So you think murder is OK. In some situations. I know youre not commenting in good faith but there is a difference between self defense and murder.
|
Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:26 pm |
|
|
Corpse
Don't Dream It, Be It
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:45 pm Posts: 37152 Location: The Graveyard
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/202 ... 788415001/Yes, this might be an example of a very small percentage of cases. But the fact it happens, and some states (Ohio in this case) preventing a 10-year-old rape victim from receiving an abortion at just 6 weeks (and 3 freakin' days, which seemed to be far too far along at that point...), is utterly ridiculous and cruel. (Her family was able to find a place in Indiana to perform the procedure, for those not reading the article.) Restricting adult women (as much as I disagree with that too) is one thing, outside of rape, as their pregnancy was at least consensual or considered a possibility beforehand (note: by the man, too, of course; he seems to be forgotten about in these discussions and needs to be held equally accountable), but forcing a child who was abused, who can't consent, to birth another child? It's disturbingly grotesque. Just no.
_________________Japan Box Office “Gods are great ... but the heart is greater. For it is from our hearts they come, and to our hearts they shall return.” “We were like gods at the dawning of the world, & our joy was so bright we could see nothing else but the other.” “There are three things all wise men fear: the sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man.” “You have to pretend you get an endgame. You have to carry on like you will; otherwise, you can't carry on at all.” "Paper is dead without words / Ink idle without a poem / All the world dead without stories."
|
Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:01 am |
|
|
Chippy
KJ's Leading Pundit
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm Posts: 63026 Location: Tonight... YOU!
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
zwackerm wrote: Chippy wrote: zwackerm wrote: I agree, her life could be prioritized over the baby's if her life was in greater than normal danger. But as it is not in the vast majority of cases, the right of the baby to life is important enough to not kill it IMO.
Also no one is trying to force "their beliefs" on anyone in any way that is not normal in a society. If someone believes that society is benefitted by a policy, they have the right to vote for that policy. And if a majority of people oppose that policy, it won't be enacted. All laws "force beliefs about morality" on the people that live under them. If the majority of people elect politicians who like abortion, we'll have abortion and vice versa So you think murder is OK. In some situations. I know youre not commenting in good faith but there is a difference between self defense and murder. So you then admit that all life is not precious, since you're ok with the killing of a baby. What about forced organ donation? Do you think women should be forced to donate their organ to save their child?
_________________trixster wrote: shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element trixster wrote: chippy is correct
|
Sat Jul 02, 2022 12:13 pm |
|
|
zwackerm
Hold the door!
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:26 pm Posts: 20418 Location: Where they shot Knock at the Cabin
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
Chippy wrote: zwackerm wrote: Chippy wrote: zwackerm wrote: I agree, her life could be prioritized over the baby's if her life was in greater than normal danger. But as it is not in the vast majority of cases, the right of the baby to life is important enough to not kill it IMO.
Also no one is trying to force "their beliefs" on anyone in any way that is not normal in a society. If someone believes that society is benefitted by a policy, they have the right to vote for that policy. And if a majority of people oppose that policy, it won't be enacted. All laws "force beliefs about morality" on the people that live under them. If the majority of people elect politicians who like abortion, we'll have abortion and vice versa So you think murder is OK. In some situations. I know youre not commenting in good faith but there is a difference between self defense and murder. So you then admit that all life is not precious, since you're ok with the killing of a baby. What about forced organ donation? Do you think women should be forced to donate their organ to save their child? All life is precious but if only one can live it’s not discounting the value of life to prioritize your own.
|
Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:37 pm |
|
|
Chippy
KJ's Leading Pundit
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm Posts: 63026 Location: Tonight... YOU!
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
"self defense" is literally discounting another life and prioritizing your own.
_________________trixster wrote: shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element trixster wrote: chippy is correct
|
Mon Jul 04, 2022 11:16 am |
|
|
Excel
Superfreak
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:54 am Posts: 21929 Location: Places
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
There are a million examples of the hypocrisy behind the absurd branding of anti-abortion as" pro-life" with regards to average Republican. Such term puts them in constant contradiction with the general other policy positions they hold. I have no idea how a self-respecting person can even say such a statement with a straight face unless there is a dramatic lack of self awareness with regards to consistency.
Life begins at conception, pauses at birth, and then restarts at age 18, then ends if the person registers as R.
_________________Ari Emmanuel wrote: I'd rather marry lindsay Lohan than represent Mel Gibson.
|
Mon Jul 04, 2022 5:14 pm |
|
|
Darth Indiana Bond
007
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:43 pm Posts: 11064 Location: Wouldn't you like to know
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
Another horrific shooting. If these keep up, it could lead to more voting against the GOP who blindly renounces any attempt to curb gun violence at the the political level and just calls for even more guns.
_________________
|
Tue Jul 05, 2022 12:01 pm |
|
|
Excel
Superfreak
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:54 am Posts: 21929 Location: Places
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
Darth Indiana Bond wrote: Another horrific shooting. If these keep up, it could lead to more voting against the GOP who blindly renounces any attempt to curb gun violence at the the political level and just calls for even more guns. The mass shooting outbreak feels 2012 sequels and is definitely not good for Republicans. No, voters do not see this as their #1 issue, but the GOP is shockingly out of the mainstream with that. Same with abortion. Democrats will absolutely gifted political daylight with Roe and these horrible shootings- we will see what becomes of it.
_________________Ari Emmanuel wrote: I'd rather marry lindsay Lohan than represent Mel Gibson.
|
Fri Jul 08, 2022 10:23 pm |
|
|
Barrabás
llegó a la casa vía marítima
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:53 pm Posts: 6161 Location: la gran casa de la esquina
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
I love how the same people that are "pro life" now want to remove access to HIV medication for gay men
Just come out and say you want us dead, it's easier
_________________ .
|
Fri Jul 08, 2022 11:51 pm |
|
|
Shack
Devil's Advocate
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am Posts: 38240
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
Barrabás wrote: I love how the same people that are "pro life" now want to remove access to HIV medication for gay men
First I've heard of this
_________________Shack’s top 50 tv shows - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90227
|
Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:23 am |
|
|
Chippy
KJ's Leading Pundit
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm Posts: 63026 Location: Tonight... YOU!
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
_________________trixster wrote: shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element trixster wrote: chippy is correct
|
Thu Jul 14, 2022 2:39 pm |
|
|
zwackerm
Hold the door!
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:26 pm Posts: 20418 Location: Where they shot Knock at the Cabin
|
Re: The Biden era: The Establishment Strikes Back
Chippy wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/07/14/texas-sues-biden-emergency-abortion/
There is not a single good republican. That article is behind a paywall
|
Thu Jul 14, 2022 2:42 pm |
|
|