Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong. (2 Viewers)

[Bodi]

what do you think the SC does ?


right or wrong isn't what they do

It is what they do. That is why Plessy was reversed, for example.


d

 

[Ahlevah]

Those are about as big a stretch as I have ever seen. It is illegal to make a peat bog? LOL

Is that what I said? No. You said Mother Nature allows for abortions. She also allows for torturing animals by trapping them in peat bogs. Even humans have been “murdered” and “tortured” by Mother Nature when they suffocated in peat bogs or quicksand, burned to death in forest fires, or drowned after getting swept away in tsunamis. As far as I know, she hasn’t been arrested yet for any of these “crimes.” So, once again, you need to find another line of reasoning to support for your pro-abortion argument, because this one sucks. The same laws that apply in nature, like no one being held accountable for dead humans resulting from an act of nature, don’t apply when it’s someone’s idea.

States that don't will be forcing Forced Slavery... just as bad as Slavery. And remember, you support this.

With limited exceptions, such as to preserve the life of the woman, most of the planet has gestational limits on when an abortion can legally take place. So it appears that you’ve been outvoted. And, yeah, I support that.

 

[choiceone]

Well, they don't complain because we largely genocided them, but that's a different story. The problem is, we won those territories fair and square, and we shouldn't have to give them up to anyone, through either conquest or because our leaders are so feckless they let anyone in.

We won the territories fair and square? The people already lived there. You think that people who are basically alien invaders have a right to tell people to change their language or be kicked out? This is like the French in Annam in the 1920s and it's creepy. You think the Mexicans are the invaders? You don't know US history.

Or. We just send you back where you came from until you learn English and come in the legal way. That works, too.

FYI, there are lots of adults who are unable to learn a foreign language adequately. So you're with Trump - let's let in English speaking white Afrikaners as refugees and tell the people who came to the US as refugees from Afghanistan after risking their lives to help the US military that they have to leave now because their English isn't good? I'm not sure what you think an American is, but I think that's ridiculous.

Not sure what your point is here. Drafts were okay when we thought throwing walls of bodies at the enemy was acceptable. Today, that really isn't. We gave up in Iraq after only taking 5000 fatalities.

Not sire what your point is, either.

Nor from me. But I also don't believe in punishing people for what their ancestors did.



go out and punch a pregnant woman and see how that works out for you. You can't claim they are people if someone else kills them but they aren't if the woman they are inside kills them.

I do not think any implanted embryos or fetuses are persons, but I do think that, if you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and cause her to miscarry, you have injured her body and mind. In addition, if she wanted that pregnancy to continue, you ended what she was using her life to grow into a human being. Its life was part of hers, just as is true of her leg or arm. You should pay through the nose.

Well, she didn't have a choice because she had all her kids before they made baby-killing legal in this country. (Also, don't know why I wrote she had six kids, she only had five.)



Why should he pay at all? If a woman can suck it into a sink, he should be able to walk away.

I'm one of the few people on these threads who believe that a man should have a right to a so-called "paper abortion." However, unless someone stole his sperm to impregnate her or he's prosecuting her for rape, he also took a risk. Because it's so easy for men to rape women and it's way more difficult for women to rape men, and almost all rapes are committed by men, we can't assume she victimized him.

He should have to pay half the cost of the cheapest way of dealing with the pregnancy, which is not continuing it, but ending it by early medication abortion. He basically owes half the cost of the doctor visits, transportation, and any other costs incidental to such an abortion. Of course, if he were remotely decent, he'd also help her in other ways. But because the moment the law demanded that he pay anything, he'd want to control her body, mind, and future, we just ignore it and let the woman take the financial loss as the best of a bad bargain.

 

[choiceone]

She should have thought of that before she got pregnant. If she was raped, file a police report and we'll arrest the guy who did it. The fetus can be used as DNA evidence.

You do not understand rape. An emotionally and psychologically strong woman may be able to report it, but many girls and women crumble. Minors can't bring themselves to tell their mother, let alone a cop. Some become psychologically unable even to tell a doctor what happened. And some are raped by fathers, brothers, uncles, or even cops themselves. Some are told by rapists that if they tell, the rapist will injure their family member(s). Etc.

Oh, please. Women are helpless little things, and we just can't stand up to men or even pick good ones, apparently, so please let us murder our babies!!!

That isn't how the vast majority of women think. There's a populational difference in men and women in their degree of natural aggression. While an average man will blame others even when he is at fault, and so either physically or verbally lash out at them, there are many girls and women who blame themselves, and instead of physically aggressing outwardly or blaming the other, will turn their anger onto their own bodies. Because pregnancies are inside their body boundaries, many don't think those embryos or fetuses are separate, but part of themselves. It's easier for a lot of them to get an abortion than accuse an external person of rape. I'm sorry you aren't capable of grasping that, because it shows how little you understand of populational difference.

Actually, the men were under the belief that she was using contraception. That was the point of my buddy who knocked up his girlfriend because she stopped taking her pills to try to force him to marry him.

That was stupid. Men's bc is way cheaper and doesn't have negative consequences for the guy. Bc for women is harder to use, lots of it is more complicated, more things can go wrong with it, and much of it has negative side effects for the woman. And if you want to protect yourself, you should certainly use your own. And what kind of man just assumes the woman is using contraception and doesn't have an open talk with the woman when they are having intimate relations? She would probably not have done what she did if he had established a forthright relationship in which they actually talked about it.

Actually, normal women are getting a little tired of feminists.. it's why 45% of women voted for Trump.

No, actually, they're not. An overwhelming majority of women 18-30 years old is pro-choice at a very extreme level. Single women are also overwhelmingly pro-choice. Not all women thought Trump was completely anti-choice, because he really isn't. He intended to push the issue of abortion back to the state level, not to ban it federally. That some Republicans are extreme doesn't mean all of them are.

End Part 1

 

[choiceone]

Okay, the question is, did it change civilization for the better? Seems to me that Western Civilization has been on the decline. I look forward to the benevolent rule of our Chinese overlords.

Better for whom or what? Populationally, women are always better off with feminism and suffer without it. Second wave feminism has moved research in the direction of impartial truth, from a position of partiality and bias. In the area of medicine, that has meant greater efficacy for women. In areas such as history, it has meant more truth-telling and better balance in understanding. In philosophy, it has meant grappling with reasons why the edifices of Western AND Chinese civilization had serious weaknesses. Christianity had to deal with its bias, too, fyi. How can you fix any problem if you don't have the guts to admit you have a problem?

Um, okay. This sounds like a lot of Feminist garbage, but you do you.

I hope you're really old, so you will leave naturally and not promulgate your garbage for too much longer.

Actually, they were both inadequate because they failed to address the issue of when life begins, and were still somewhat premised on a right to privacy that doesn't exist.

They can't do that, because life had already begun at a much earlier time. Life began millions of years ago, and life just goes on deriving from life. Women have live ova, men have live sperm, and fertilized human ova are alive. Doesn't mean a thing.

They can't become future human beings unless they are implanted into the live bodies of mature members of the species and more life is transferred into them from those live bodies to grow them. Of course, we can say that "life" begins at zygote formation if we wish, but past the natural mortal limit of 8-10 days of growth, embryos die if not implanted and given more life from outside themselves by those bodies.

And no one has a right to use a person's body against their will to survive - it has no right to her blood oxygen, nutrients, and antibodies, her organs' functioning, etc. If a parent has a right to refuse to offer blood for a transfusion to another person, including even his/her own child, even if the latter will die, then how can one claim that the embryo has such a right? That is the issue, not "when life begins."

End Part 2

 

[choiceone]

Except few women did. When you had a child mortality rate of 50%, you didn't waste a perfectly good pregnancy.

I don't have a statistic for Americans, but in Japan in 1941, the average age at death for women was about 40. A perfectly good pregnancy could easily kill a woman. They wasted women all over the world to get babies out of them.

Actually, Carter was the guy who started arming the "Freedom Fighters". And he protested the Moscow Olypmics. Ohh. that had to sting.

At the start, the Freedom Fighters weren't sharing their US weapons with the reactionaries. That happened under Reagan.

The thing Reagan did was allow the CIA to recruit Arabs because they didn't have anyone that spoke Pushtan or understood Afghan culture. He wasn't the first or last president to make that mistake.



Then it's not your society anymore, if you do it that way. This is the problem we in the late 19th century, that too many immigrants, and we were losing our national identity, it's why they cracked down, and we went from 15% foreign born in 1910 to 5 % foreign-born in 1970. Today, the foreign-born is close to 16%, and that's unsustainable.

We didn't have a national identity based on English ethnicity. We had people from England, Scotland, Ireland, the Netherlands, France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, and there were Jews and Indian Hindus at the time of the Revolution. If I remember rightly, the first baby born in Georgia after we became a country was Jewish. I think Rhode Island was a state that never had anti-miscegenation laws, and when New Hampshire split to generate Vermont, Vermont was the same. That would be because so many guys had Native American wives, like the French trappers in Canada. The only people who cared about this ethnic identity crap were a bunch of narrow-minded xenophobes.

Or they realize that "Constitutionally", they can't go out at night because people who should be in prison or sent back to their own countries are likely to murder them in the streets. Trump isn't deporting any more people than Biden did, but he's certainly pulling back the "Welcome" Mat Biden put out.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but the overwhelming number of criminals in the US are homegrown Americans. And if Trump wanted to pull back the Welcome Mat, he wouldn't have invited white Afrikaners from South Africa to be refugees here. He wouldn't be selling a gold card for millionaires to buy economic citizenship, either, because Russian and other mafia dons, traffickers in the illegal international arms trade, etc., are all as rich as Croesus.

I think it's where you define far left and far right. It's like the old George Carlin bit, anyone who drives slower than you is an idiot, and anyone who drives faster is a maniac!

I don't agree. Trump's changes over 100 days were those of a maniac, and they were far from left.

 

[choiceone]

Hispanics aren't white.

Part of the problem is how we classify people in the Census. We ask race first (White, Black, Asian, Native American) and then we ask Hispanic origin or not. The problem is, of course, is that because Latin America never had the kind of race separation laws we had, their people are often a mix of Native American, European, and African.

These are nothing but folk categories, not scientific ones. I've always said that the difference between being black and white is basically the price of a third-class plane ticket from Fort Lauderdale to Rio, because if one of your grandparents is classed as black in the US, you're black, but if one of your grandparents is classed as white in Brazil, you're white. Like magic.

Now, since you brought up the Chinese, um, here's a group where the REpublicans have made inroads. My wife is Chinese, and she showed me a letter that circulated in their congregation that praised Trump and called Harris a "vile woman". (Again, this was translated from the Mandarin, so wording might not be exact)

I have no doubt that Chinese Catholics would support Trump. But of course, most Chinese aren't Christian.

Ironically, Asian and Hispanic communities ARE taking the brunt of illegal immigration, because they have to live with the unvetted people Biden was letting in. While Trump didn't win either group, he did a lot better with them this time than last time. (As opposed to Blacks and Whites, who really didn't shift that much at all.)

I don't understand why you think Biden and the Democrats were letting them in. Obama deported more illegal immigrants per year over his terms than Trump did in his first, and Biden's enforcement policies resulted in a big decrease in illegal border crossings month by month, even if it was too slow for you.

Trump did very well with men and at least some of their wives.

Have to disagree. People didn't vote for gay marriage, it was imposed on them by court fiat. People didn't vote for abortion on demand, it was imposed by court fiat. Most people would LOVE to have school choice rather than send their kids off to a public school that doesn't support their values.

Where I live, I haven't heard any complaints about gay marriage or liberal abortion laws. Nor do most people want school vouchers instead of effective investment in public schools. But that's because, where I live, people aren't drastically opposed to the values in the schools because they're not ignorant, uneducated rednecks.

 

[choiceone]

The concept of a “right” is a philosophical, moral construct. The American constitutional framework is based on the concept of natural rights as described by the 17th Century English philosopher (and physician) John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government. I mean, he literally wrote the book on the American understanding of the origin and nature of rights. Apparently, Dr. Locke didn’t agree with you:

https://www.uffl.org/vol16/manchester06.pdf

Like I said, according the the person who wrote the "rights" book, it's not.

No man has a natural right to have sex with a woman who refuses him. Even Locke would grant that. Accordingly, no man has a right to reproduce. All you have is a right to try limited inducements to sway a woman toward a decision in your favor. And similarly, no woman has a right to reproduce, either. If you aren't sufficiently attractive, men will not try to induce you to accept them.

So I don't see how anyone can possibly assert that a rape embryo has a right to use a woman's body for its survival without her consent, either.

 

[choiceone]

Legally, they’re not persons. But, like laws against torturing animals, that isn’t relevant from a moral standpoint. The relevant question is whether the state’s interest in upholding a law as a matter of moral right ever outweighs the rights of a person, and it’s my argument that in both cases they do. Your reliance on a legal distinction to support a moral stance highlights the fundamental weakness of your claim that in all circumstances a women has a right to take the life of—to kill—her unborn child, while simultaneously proclaiming that it’s “obvious” that torturing her cat is morally repugnant. But it’s problematic for you to square both points of view when we assume that animals aren’t people with rights, just like an unborn “human” or “non-person.”

I never said a woman has a right to kill the unborn. Don't mistake me for a different poster. It is my claim that abortion is not killing. All the life in an implanted embryo or pre-viable fetus clearly belongs to the woman, because it is only necessary to detach the connection of the placenta to the woman's body for the embryo or pre-viable fetus to die of its own accord. It is her own blood oxygen, nutrients, and anti-bodies, her own homeostasis, her organs' own functioning that keep it alive. If she dies, it automatically dies no matter how quickly and carefully it's removed.

If you want to debate about viable fetuses, to me that's a completely different issue.

It is morally repugnant to claim that an implanted embryo that has no brain and offers not one iota of evidence of mind has "equal rights" to those who have. But even so, if her adult son doesn't have the right to put any of his appendages inside any of her sex organs without her consent, why should an embryo? If her newborn infant doesn't have a right to its father's blood for a transfusion to save its life, why should an embryo have a right to implantation in the woman and a right to her blood oxygen?

Again, you’re making a legal distinction to refute my moral argument. The absurdity of your stance becomes obvious when we look at the pains a doctor took to deliver a baby up to its head before killing it in so-called “partial-birth abortions.” Fortunately, that barbaric practice was outlawed in the United States by Congress.

No. I consider that distinction to be a moral one. I disagree with your morality. To me, the woman's life and liberty are important and the life of the embryo or pre-viable fetus isn't important unless the woman its implanted in says so. Her organs are substituting for the organs it has not yet grown, and her mind should be substituting for the mind it doesn't yet have. You can't substitute your mind, because you're not substituting your organs, etc.

 

[choiceone]

The value comes from our ability to think and reason. For example, while I can’t legally torture a pet cat, I can butcher shrubs in my front yard to my heart’s content without it being a crime. The difference is the cat has a brain and can feel plain. The shrubs can’t.

Thinking and reasoning are not functions of mere life, because it's possible to have life without them. It's not even clear that neonates have them. Thinking and reasoning are functions of mind. No human embryo has ever provided evidence of even minimal mind. The capacity to feel pain cannot be established earlier than fetal viability, and there is no clear evidence even at that point.

You’re engaging in more faulty reasoning. I wasn’t comparing snuffing out the life of an animal to taking human life. I was pointing out the absence of any apparent state interest in preventing the torture of animals beyond any moral question, comparing it to the moral aspect of the state interest in protecting unborn human life.



Correct. So when states change the law to reflect fetal “personhood,” you’ll surrender, correct? Or will you then shift to a moral argument to refute the legal one? Considering that you think morals are relative, at that point you lose by default.

As long as an embryo or fetus is implanted and inside a woman's body, she has personhood and it doesn't because persons have natural rights, and one of these is to prevent others from unreasonably searching her internal body. If you had evidence of her body's containing an illegal substance to warrant a search, it wouldn't be evidence of an embryo or fetus, because they're not illegal. The 4th A specifies a person's right to bodily autonomy.

My answer is in the opinion.

 

[choiceone]

No, most states make exceptions that include protecting the life of the mother. So that’s false. The handful of other ones think it’s a matter of “choice,” unless it concerns her choice to use deadly force or not with a gun in defense of her own life, in which case she has none. I mean, unless one counts “run” as a choice.



For all practical purposes, while it may not legally be a “person,” it’s a fully-developed human being. When it concerns the moral worth of that life, most people think she doesn’t have an unconditional right to kill it.



Just regurgitating the same tired argument won’t make it true.

I don't get you. All fully developed human beings are persons, because the expression "a human being" means "a person." That expression implies that an entity is an objective individual human and has live human conscious mind and communicative capacity, just as the expression "an extra-terrestrial being" implies an entity that is objective and individual and has live human-like conscious mind and communicative capacity. But you can't know that it fits the definition before childbirth. You can't even know the woman is pregnant if she doesn't consent to having a test and sharing the results with you, because her moral worth as a person means the 4th A applies.

Abortion does not kill an embryo or fetus. Abortion ends the connection between the woman's body and the placenta, and, therefore, the amount of her own life that is being transferred to the placenta. That's hers. It doesn't belong to the embryo.

 

[choiceone]

That’s false. How many times have people risked or sacrificed their own lives in the interest of others? Ukraine built its International Legion on that basic idea. People feel empathy naturally, although how it’s shaped is likely the result or learned or conditioned behavior. Still, time after time again we see people risk or sacrifice their own lives for those of people they had never met.



It’s natural that people would feel empathy for unborn human babies. Hence the need to dehumanize them.

I don't understand why it's natural for people to feel anything at all about embryos or fetuses. They aren't human babies - they are material that is being made into future human babies. The present is actual. The future is hypothetical.

 

[choiceone]

Well, if it’s a question of whose life gets sacrificed—Mom’s or her unborn baby’s—Mom should probably win. But if it’s Mom should have the right to terminate her fetus because she’s getting close to the point of no return when it comes to avoiding stretch marks, I’m probably going to side with the authority on rights, John Locke.

I can't believe how shallow you assume her to be. Why should I care anything about John Locke or any other man who did not address the issue of equal rights for women? All men who did not accord women equal rights as persons are not worthy of my consideration. They didn't even allow single women fully equal rights.

I can’t think of anyone who valued liberty more than Locke. He attempted to define it, along with the words “life” and “property.” One could say that the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which led to the overthrow of King James II in favor of William and Mary, was in some ways his idea. And he, along with libertarian and physician Ron Paul, vehemently opposed abortion. So you might want to think about coming up with another idea to support your argument.

John Locke accepted laws according to which men had a right to rape their wives and in which, though single women had the right not to be raped, the raping of a single woman was conceptualized as a man's violation of her father's rights.

So back to the slavery argument again, this time, ironically, with Nazis tossed into the soup as well to justify the termination of human lives.



Okay, so you’re done, and I just called the person who I hope is my final witness, John Locke. Time for cross-examination, followed by redirect, and then hopefully we can call it a day so I can talk about something else that interests me more, like Altman z-scores and the deteriorating situation in the leverage loan and distressed exchange markets.

You're just trying to avoid the hard philosophical question, and you're doing that because, for women, this question is always there as a possibility because of the possibility of rape pregnancy and anti-abortion laws, but it's rarely there for the uncontemplative man. Go watch The Manchurian Candidate, the first version, with Laurence Harvey and Frank Sinatra, and then ask yourself what the dilemma of these veterans really was.

 

[choiceone]

Hey, man, it wasn’t my idea to create women to be human incubators. It was Mother Nature’s. As we see with pet cats, there are limits to the value we place on the liberty of legal “persons.” It’s legal for states to regulate abortion, and has been since before the country was founded.

Excuse me, but wherever did you get the idea that either Nature or God created women to be such incubators? No woman ever has to have sex with a man if she doesn't want to, and no man has a natural right to have sex with or rape a woman. Sexual intercourse and rape have nothing to do with women as persons. Women were created, as men were, to be conscious living mind capable of thought, reason, and the intelligence to discern and appreciate truth. You appear to think they were created to be mindless machines.

 

[JoeB131]

"An insignificant number of healthy viable fetuses being aborted isn't a good reason to end the process of human reproduction. America doesnt need more American babies to continue. There are millions of people that would love to immigrate here legally and work and pay taxes and have babies. I hope you get this, because it seems like you don't."

Nobody wants more foriegners. I'm sorry you don't seem to get that. Even the immigrant communities don't want more immigrants, it's why Trump did so much better with Hispanics and Asians this time. At current rates, these will Republican constituencies by 2028.

Aborting our progeny is committing cultural suicide.

"If an insignificant number of women need to abort viable fetuses, it's going to be because of desperation and lack of access and $ earlier. That's a good reason to improve women's access to abortion, it's not a good reason to make useless, feel-good laws that only harm women that wanted a baby and had to abort it due to medical reasons, who are grieving and suffering."

Boo-effing-hoo.

Do you know what Americans are really tired of? People who expect the government to take care of them and bail them out from their irresponsibility.

You are clueless why Trump won and you will be equally clueless when Vance wins in four years.

 

[choiceone]

Yes, and she tortures animals with things like floods, forest fires, peat bogs, and tar pits. It’s still against the law for humans to do it.



Wouldn’t it be nice and tidy if states could simply disregard the growing life within her?

States don't have the right even to know she is pregnant.

 

[choiceone]

Nobody wants more foriegners. I'm sorry you don't seem to get that. Even the immigrant communities don't want more immigrants, it's why Trump did so much better with Hispanics and Asians this time. At current rates, these will Republican constituencies by 2028.

Aborting our progeny is committing cultural suicide.



Boo-effing-hoo.

Do you know what Americans are really tired of? People who expect the government to take care of them and bail them out from their irresponsibility.

You are clueless why Trump won and you will be equally clueless when Vance wins in four years.

Your supposed future Republican constituencies will have too many deaths by the time 2028 comes around, because Trump doesn't like having FEMA give money to people in disasters. Sarah Huckabee didn't get help for her disaster just because she was a Republican.

I'm not as feckless as to say people are tired of people who expect the government to take care of them, because you're basically saying, "If I have a disaster, don't be there for me." Others will write you off just as you write them off. The degree of complete lack of sympathy for anyone in a difficult situation is unmistakable in your posts. Not even God could overlook it.

 

[JoeB131]

We won the territories fair and square? The people already lived there. You think that people who are basically alien invaders have a right to tell people to change their language or be kicked out? This is like the French in Annam in the 1920s and it's creepy. You think the Mexicans are the invaders? You don't know US history.

Sure I know US History. I just don't buy into the liberal garbage that we should feel sorry about it. We developed Texas and California into great places. We should be proud of that.

FYI, there are lots of adults who are unable to learn a foreign language adequately. So you're with Trump - let's let in English speaking white Afrikaners as refugees and tell the people who came to the US as refugees from Afghanistan after risking their lives to help the US military that they have to leave now because their English isn't good? I'm not sure what you think an American is, but I think that's ridiculous.

Well, I'm reluctant to let anyone from Afghanistan in, given their propensity to be radicalized on line like that guy who shot up the gay nightclub.

I do not think any implanted embryos or fetuses are persons, but I do think that, if you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and cause her to miscarry, you have injured her body and mind. In addition, if she wanted that pregnancy to continue, you ended what she was using her life to grow into a human being. Its life was part of hers, just as is true of her leg or arm. You should pay through the nose.

Except we aren't throwing them in jail for assault, we are throwing them in jail for murder.

I'm one of the few people on these threads who believe that a man should have a right to a so-called "paper abortion." However, unless someone stole his sperm to impregnate her or he's prosecuting her for rape, he also took a risk. Because it's so easy for men to rape women and it's way more difficult for women to rape men, and almost all rapes are committed by men, we can't assume she victimized him.

She took a risk, too. Her way out shouldn't be to kill a baby.

I'm all for bringing back shotgun weddings to make men more responsible.

He should have to pay half the cost of the cheapest way of dealing with the pregnancy, which is not continuing it, but ending it by early medication abortion. He basically owes half the cost of the doctor visits, transportation, and any other costs incidental to such an abortion. Of course, if he were remotely decent, he'd also help her in other ways. But because the moment the law demanded that he pay anything, he'd want to control her body, mind, and future, we just ignore it and let the woman take the financial loss as the best of a bad bargain.

You create a new life, you both have responsibility. Abortion isn't responsible, it's a cop out.

You do not understand rape. An emotionally and psychologically strong woman may be able to report it, but many girls and women crumble. Minors can't bring themselves to tell their mother, let alone a cop. Some become psychologically unable even to tell a doctor what happened. And some are raped by fathers, brothers, uncles, or even cops themselves. Some are told by rapists that if they tell, the rapist will injure their family member(s). Etc.

Here we go with the rape crap again.

That isn't how the vast majority of women think. There's a populational difference in men and women in their degree of natural aggression. ... Because pregnancies are inside their body boundaries, many don't think those embryos or fetuses are separate, but part of themselves. It's easier for a lot of them to get an abortion than accuse an external person of rape. I'm sorry you aren't capable of grasping that, because it shows how little you understand of populational difference.

Yes, we've all done a lot of mental handstands to justify abortion. I'm sad to say I've done some of them myself talking to right-wingers. Outlawing abortion is probably impractical, but let's not pretend we are doing something good.

That was stupid. Men's bc is way cheaper and doesn't have negative consequences for the guy.

Sure rubbers have a negative consequence. The sex just isn't as enjoyable.

Going back to my ex-Army Buddy (I really needed a better class of friend back then), she lied to him about taking contraception. She claimed that she stopped taking them because she didn't like the way they made her feel, but we all knew what she was really trying to pull.

 

[JoeB131]

No, actually, they're not. An overwhelming majority of women 18-30 years old is pro-choice at a very extreme level. Single women are also overwhelmingly pro-choice. Not all women thought Trump was completely anti-choice, because he really isn't. He intended to push the issue of abortion back to the state level, not to ban it federally. That some Republicans are extreme doesn't mean all of them are.

It's easy to be irresponsible when you are young, not sure what your point is here.

Better for whom or what? Populationally, women are always better off with feminism and suffer without it. Second wave feminism has moved research in the direction of impartial truth, from a position of partiality and bias. In the area of medicine, that has meant greater efficacy for women. In areas such as history, it has meant more truth-telling and better balance in understanding. In philosophy, it has meant grappling with reasons why the edifices of Western AND Chinese civilization had serious weaknesses. Christianity had to deal with its bias, too, fyi. How can you fix any problem if you don't have the guts to admit you have a problem?

Are they , though? All the unhappy cat ladies would say otherwise.

They can't do that, because life had already begun at a much earlier time. Life began millions of years ago, and life just goes on deriving from life. Women have live ova, men have live sperm, and fertilized human ova are alive. Doesn't mean a thing.

They can't become future human beings unless they are implanted into the live bodies of mature members of the species and more life is transferred into them from those live bodies to grow them. Of course, we can say that "life" begins at zygote formation if we wish, but past the natural mortal limit of 8-10 days of growth, embryos die if not implanted and given more life from outside themselves by those bodies.

So what? It's still a person in the eyes of the law in some circumstances.

And no one has a right to use a person's body against their will to survive - it has no right to her blood oxygen, nutrients, and antibodies, her organs' functioning, etc. If a parent has a right to refuse to offer blood for a transfusion to another person, including even his/her own child, even if the latter will die, then how can one claim that the embryo has such a right? That is the issue, not "when life begins."

Again, pregnancy is 100% avoidable. Don't have sex if you don't want to risk a baby.

We tell people what to do with their bodies all the time. That's why you can't be a hooker, assisted suicide is still illegal, and you can't use hard drugs.

I don't have a statistic for Americans, but in Japan in 1941, the average age at death for women was about 40. A perfectly good pregnancy could easily kill a woman. They wasted women all over the world to get babies out of them.

Let me know when you get a statistic for America at that time. But if you want to talk about Japan, today, Japan is going through a demographic death spiral because women aren't having babies.

 

[JoeB131]

At the start, the Freedom Fighters weren't sharing their US weapons with the reactionaries. That happened under Reagan.

Um, not exactly. Biden Laden and the Arabs all started joining in 1979, and the CIA found them easier to work with than the Afghans. The idea that Jimmy Carter was only arming the "nice" Muslim radicals is a bit silly.

We didn't have a national identity based on English ethnicity. We had people from England, Scotland, Ireland, the Netherlands, France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, and there were Jews and Indian Hindus at the time of the Revolution. If I remember rightly, the first baby born in Georgia after we became a country was Jewish. I think Rhode Island was a state that never had anti-miscegenation laws, and when New Hampshire split to generate Vermont, Vermont was the same. That would be because so many guys had Native American wives, like the French trappers in Canada. The only people who cared about this ethnic identity crap were a bunch of narrow-minded xenophobes.

But here's the thing. All those folks were required to learn English at a certain point, and immigration was limited after 1920 to keep us from losing our national ID.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but the overwhelming number of criminals in the US are homegrown Americans. And if Trump wanted to pull back the Welcome Mat, he wouldn't have invited white Afrikaners from South Africa to be refugees here. He wouldn't be selling a gold card for millionaires to buy economic citizenship, either, because Russian and other mafia dons, traffickers in the illegal international arms trade, etc., are all as rich as Croesus.

Right. We already have too many criminals, we don't need to import more. This is an issue Trump is still popular on, BTW.

These are nothing but folk categories, not scientific ones. I've always said that the difference between being black and white is basically the price of a third-class plane ticket from Fort Lauderdale to Rio, because if one of your grandparents is classed as black in the US, you're black, but if one of your grandparents is classed as white in Brazil, you're white. Like magic.

Well, not really. Someone from Brazil is more likely to be of mixed race, which is why "Latino" and "Hispanic" became categories after the 1970 census.

I have no doubt that Chinese Catholics would support Trump. But of course, most Chinese aren't Christian.

My wife if Protestant, and many CHinese immigrants are Catholics. They come here because the CCP oppresses Christianity. And they love them some Trump.

I don't understand why you think Biden and the Democrats were letting them in. Obama deported more illegal immigrants per year over his terms than Trump did in his first, and Biden's enforcement policies resulted in a big decrease in illegal border crossings month by month, even if it was too slow for you.

Um, because we saw millions of people Rush to the Border when Biden told them that he would repeal Trump's draconian rules. Now, true, Biden and Obama did deport a lot of people, but they did little to discourage more from coming. "Catch and release" isn't a strategy. "Catch and I send your ass to a Salvadorean Prison" is definitely going to discourage people, which is why border crossings are at an all time low.

What we don't have statistics on are how many people are self-deporting because they don't want to be caught by ICE.

Where I live, I haven't heard any complaints about gay marriage or liberal abortion laws. Nor do most people want school vouchers instead of effective investment in public schools. But that's because, where I live, people aren't drastically opposed to the values in the schools because they're not ignorant, uneducated rednecks.

I think you need to get out to the rest of America, then.

 

[Lursa]

Nobody wants more foriegners. I'm sorry you don't seem to get that. Even the immigrant communities don't want more immigrants, it's why Trump did so much better with Hispanics and Asians this time. At current rates, these will Republican constituencies by 2028.

Wow. Thanks for the xenophobic diatribe. At least you own your racism/ethnicism. Your ability to ignore the diverse foundation that this country was built on is hilariously tone-deaf. Many Americans welcome legal immigrants and cultural diversity.

Aborting our progeny is committing cultural suicide.

And the culture that YOU want isnt worth preserving. Women are not obligated to produce racially pure offspring for De Fuhrer or anyone else.

Thankfully, once again...America is headed like a freight train in the opposite direction from what you want, culturally, ethnically, and morally. You're headed the way of the dinosaur.

 

[weaver2]

... rubbers have a negative consequence. The sex just isn't as enjoyable. Abortion isn't responsible, it's a cop out.

She claimed that she stopped taking (BC pills) because she didn't like the way they made her feel, but we all knew what she was really trying to pull.

And there it is............all you need to know about Joe.

 

[Lursa]

And there it is............all you need to know about Joe.

Heaven forbid the man doesnt get maximum pleasure...but she shouldnt have any...just keep her legs closed. She's a slut for having sex, he's a victim because his pleasure is less.

The blatant hypocrisy is appalling.

 

[Gordy327]

And there it is............all you need to know about Joe.

We all all ready knew a long time ago.

 

[choiceone]

Sure I know US History. I just don't buy into the liberal garbage that we should feel sorry about it. We developed Texas and California into great places. We should be proud of that.



Well, I'm reluctant to let anyone from Afghanistan in, given their propensity to be radicalized on line like that guy who shot up the gay nightclub.




Except we aren't throwing them in jail for assault, we are throwing them in jail for murder.



She took a risk, too. Her way out shouldn't be to kill a baby.

I'm all for bringing back shotgun weddings to make men more responsible.

You would force her to marry the guy and be raped by him whenever he wanted? Even marital rape is illegal now.

You create a new life, you both have responsibility. Abortion isn't responsible, it's a cop out.

Creation is something people do deliberately. If a woman gets pregnant when both people were trying to use contraception responsibly, that isn't creation. It's a mistake.

Here we go with the rape crap again.

Yep. You need to deal with that.

Yes, we've all done a lot of mental handstands to justify abortion. I'm sad to say I've done some of them myself talking to right-wingers. Outlawing abortion is probably impractical, but let's not pretend we are doing something good.

It's safer for the woman, then it IS good.

Sure rubbers have a negative consequence. The sex just isn't as enjoyable.

That's just trivial. I'm talking about bc generating health problems for the woman. I don't think that's trivial.

Going back to my ex-Army Buddy (I really needed a better class of friend back then), she lied to him about taking contraception. She claimed that she stopped taking them because she didn't like the way they made her feel, but we all knew what she was really trying to pull.

Well, that's a horrible woman. Are you going to hold him partly responsible for choosing to have sex with a liar? Because you sure blame the woman when she picks a bad guy.