Page 14 of 19 FirstFirst ... 45678910111213141516171819 LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 374

Thread: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

  1. #261

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    There's no sense to your arbitrary definition of personhood. At the moment of conception, a distinctly unique genetic code is created that has never existed before and will never exist again, and if left alone will become a tiny baby born into the world. Any interference of that process by killing the baby is murder. by definition. The threshold is the moment of conception.
    Except a fetus, if left alone, will die within minutes, if not seconds. It requires constant interference, aka a host, to survive. Arguing that there is a certain threshold of time frame for an organism to attain personhood is not more arbitrary than saying that the moment an organism has a different DNA its a person as you are alluding to.
    The Armenian Issue

  2. #262
    swabian's Avatar igni ferroque
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,294

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    @Cope. It's about personhood, remember? The item laws apply on. I said "human", yes. What I meant was person. You still don't crack down on the problem that fertilized human eggs are not persons, let alone legal entities.

  3. #263

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    Show me in the Constitution where it says two men can marry. I'll wait.
    The Constitution does not specifically mention marriages, so by your logic heterosexual marriage is unconstitutional.

    I don't know how it works in your country, but here in the United States the law is not based on the local despot's whims. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to decide what the law is, and in general things are assumed to be legal unless specifically stated otherwise in the text, or a compelling argument is made that the action in question is harmful to the public good.

    More and more, discriminatory conservative laws have been struck down on appeal as "Because the Bible/Qur'an/Dianetics says so." is seen as the public good by less and less of the population. Which is one reason why the Republicans have been forced to rely almost entirely on gerrymandering, voter suppression, and election fraud to win. That and there just aren't that many people who think billionaires shouldn't pay taxes or want to live in the next Love Canal.

  4. #264

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by swabian View Post
    @Cope. It's about personhood, remember? The item laws apply on. I said "human", yes. What I meant was person. You still don't crack down on the problem that fertilized human eggs are not persons, let alone legal entities.
    The genome for the valuable and individual characteristics of "personhood" (whatever they are held to be) exists at the point of conception; thus, the most objective standard for determining the genesis of "personhood" is fertilization.
    Last edited by Cope; June 30, 2022 at 04:14 AM.



  5. #265
    swabian's Avatar igni ferroque
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,294

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The genome for the valuable and individual characteristics of "personhood" (whatever they are held to be) exist at the point of conception;
    No.
    thus, the most objective standard for determining the genesis of "personhood" is fertilization.
    No, simply no!

  6. #266

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by swabian View Post
    No.

    No, simply no!
    Gainsaying is not an argument.



  7. #267
    swabian's Avatar igni ferroque
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,294

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    @Cope: Frankly, I probably overreacted. You actually did not really say anything of any meaning at all.

    What actually is your bloody point?

    Why do I always have to come up with the interesting stuff?
    Last edited by Lifthrasir; June 30, 2022 at 12:25 PM. Reason: Personal reference removed

  8. #268

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The genome for the valuable and individual characteristics of "personhood" (whatever they are held to be) exist at the point of conception; thus, the most objective standard for determining the genesis of "personhood" is fertilization.
    Not really. At best, its the laziest standard. Personhood is not defined by genetics.
    The Armenian Issue

  9. #269

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Well, this is what happens when you give courts too much power. Unelected boomer giveth, unelected boomer taketh. Such issues should be up to referendums, not unelected government officials.
    Though in retrospective, same people that wanted to violate body autonomy of others with sketchy beta-tests of pharmaceuticals are now pretending to be upset over this, which is hilarious. If you support vaccine mandates, then you have no leg for your pro-choice rants.

  10. #270
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,087

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Actually, it would by hypocritical to make an exception for pregnancies that result from rape or incest. It would undermine the whole line of argument that the right to life is paramount.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  11. #271

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    I already laid out the case for why abortion should arguably be permissible (albeit regrettable) in cases of serious abuse. The positive right to life that an in utero child is owed by his/her mother (which ordinarily invalidates abortionists claims of bodily autonomy) exists only if the mother accepted the risk of pregnancy through consensual intercourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The body, unlike material possessions, is sacrosanct. A person should have a right to resist bodily violation, even at the expense of another's life. This idea was established to some extent in law in McFall v Shimp. The court found that Shimp could not be forced to donate his bone marrow to save McFall's (his cousin's) life on the basis that such a compulsion "would defeat the sanctity of the individual and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn."

    Ordinarily, a pregnancy does not constitute a bodily violation because it is the product of a consensual relationship. But if a pregnancy is not consensual, the mother is no more obliged to the child that was Shimp to McFall, even though the child is an innocent party. A case can be made that it is still immoral for the child to be terminated, but not that it is more immoral than forcing the mother to accept the violation.

    To be clear, my point isn't that SCOTUS would find against laws which prohibit abortion in cases of rape on the basis of MvS, only that the case illustrates my moral reasoning on the matter.
    Setting that aside, abortionists typically refer to cases of a abuse as a means of appealing to the fringe to argue for the norm.



  12. #272

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kansas-...-vote-results/

    For the first time since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving it to states to determineabortion access, the issue appeared on a state ballot. In Kansas, CBS News projects that a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion has been defeated.


    The Kansas ballot initiative is seen as a bellwether for the impact of abortion on the midterm November elections.
    Republicans very disappointed. How dare the majority defy them!

  13. #273

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Democrats can't blame anyone but themselves, given how they literally argued for same thing when they asked for vaccine mandates.

  14. #274

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Except a fetus, if left alone, will die within minutes, if not seconds. It requires constant interference, aka a host, to survive. Arguing that there is a certain threshold of time frame for an organism to attain personhood is not more arbitrary than saying that the moment an organism has a different DNA its a person as you are alluding to.
    Braindead argument. Leave a one year old alone for 72 hours and it will die. Leave a four year old in the woods for three days and it will die. Your argument that the value of life depends on the ability to survive independently is evil. I'd say hilariously evil, but I don't think you're joking. You have no issue with killing children for sheer convenience. I must point out that five years ago I was an atheist, pretty dedicated too. Hook, line, sinker for LGBT and abortion stuff. It is arguments like yours that caused a complete reversal in me politically, which was easy. My relationship with God, more complicated, still working on that. But man, if posts like yours don't make me close to gagging or just crying. Denying someone personhood based purely on the status of whether or not their mother acknowledges their personhood is shocking and terrifying, not only because there are mothers who would do such a thing, but a social construct which supports it.

    -----

    Just a friendly reminder to anyone with any doubts heading into the midterms that the dreams of one of the most evil women to walk the face of the earth, Margaret Sanger, the eugenicist who advocated for the genocide of blacks, browns, and anyone she didn't like:

    So called "abortion rights" are still targeted to women of the black and hispanic community in an effort to convince them to kill their babies. This is, of course, marketed in the most cynical of terms with feminism playing a dominant role to the backdrop narrative of black and hispanic women apparently lacking any agency whatsoever and treating them as little more than breeding cows to advance a political agenda.

    It remains to be seen how these communities will continue to tolerate (1) being the disproportionate number of babies killed and (2) being told they are too stupid to know how to have kids.

    inb4 some leftoid calls me racist for wanting more black and hispanic babies to be born.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix. Nostras deprecationes ne despicia sin necessitatibus, sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper, Virgo gloriosa et benedicta.


    Last edited by Pontifex Maximus; October 09, 2022 at 07:43 PM.

  15. #275

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    Braindead argument. Leave a one year old alone for 72 hours and it will die. Leave a four year old in the woods for three days and it will die. Your argument that the value of life depends on the ability to survive independently is evil. I'd say hilariously evil, but I don't think you're joking. You have no issue with killing children for sheer convenience. I must point out that five years ago I was an atheist, pretty dedicated too. Hook, line, sinker for LGBT and abortion stuff. It is arguments like yours that caused a complete reversal in me politically, which was easy. My relationship with God, more complicated, still working on that. But man, if posts like yours don't make me close to gagging or just crying. Denying someone personhood based purely on the status of whether or not their mother acknowledges their personhood is shocking and terrifying, not only because there are mothers who would do such a thing, but a social construct which supports it.
    I see that the point of that post flew past your head. There is not much difference in putting a threshold on random collection of genes, as you do, with a level of required independence, as I exemplified, in arbitrariness. Somehow, mine is evil, without explanation, hilariously at that, but yours is divine. I am to understand somehow that preference in arbitrariness is what turned you "god-fearing" from a "scorching-atheist" which is what I find hilarious.
    The Armenian Issue

  16. #276

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    We're all random collections of genes. Your standard of viability is demonstrably evil besides just being wrong. You also ignored the race based argument I set forth proving black/brown babies are disproportionately murdered by abortion. I wonder why?
    Last edited by Pontifex Maximus; October 10, 2022 at 09:08 PM.

  17. #277

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    We're all random collections of genes. Your standard of viability is demonstrably evil besides just being wrong. You also ignored the race based argument I set forth proving black/brown babies are disproportionately murdered by abortion. I wonder why?
    What makes using a level of independence as a threshold evil and false while difference in genes makes it good and true?
    The Armenian Issue

  18. #278

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    I see that the point of that post flew past your head. There is not much difference in putting a threshold on random collection of genes, as you do, with a level of required independence, as I exemplified, in arbitrariness. Somehow, mine is evil, without explanation, hilariously at that, but yours is divine. I am to understand somehow that preference in arbitrariness is what turned you "god-fearing" from a "scorching-atheist" which is what I find hilarious.
    So can you even define the "level of arbitrary independence" and which demographics do you consider non-human?
    Are welfare-recipients, dependent on government handouts, just "collections of genes" or humans? What about elderly? Infirm?

  19. #279

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    So can you even define the "level of arbitrary independence" and which demographics do you consider non-human?
    Are welfare-recipients, dependent on government handouts, just "collections of genes" or humans? What about elderly? Infirm?
    The independence levels are not arbitrary among themselves. A fetus has biological dependence on a single host while a baby has societal dependence. This is not a debate over what's human and what's not. Any reason you're trying to push the discussion there?
    The Armenian Issue

  20. #280

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    What makes using a level of independence as a threshold evil and false while difference in genes makes it good and true?
    It doesn't. It is all evil. This is the position you're defending. There is no condition by which you disagree with on demand abortion. It is the one issue for which you pretend to be color blind, class blind, gender blind, it's just open season on killing babies for reasons of convenience in your argument. The most intellectually dishonest portion of your argument, and ironically the least racist, is the viability debate. You are laboring under the delusional belief that somehow a three year old could just exist independently in a was a three week old could not.
    Last edited by Pontifex Maximus; October 11, 2022 at 09:13 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •