Poll of the Day > Supreme Court voted to overturn Abortion Rights

(+) Yeah! (+)

Hmmm. I used to think the Dems were gonna flop this midterm. But now they've got a rallying cry. Oooooh, this was not the year to do this...

I took the day off today so I can go get as many abortions as possible before they are illegal.

Muscles posted...

Do you not see how "you can't have an opinion about x because you are y gender" sets a bad precedent?

It's not that they can't have an opinion. It's that their opinion is irrelevant and largely amounts to a matter of arguing for hypothetical argument's sake with people who are actually affected by the issue, which is a massive dick move.

Wanded posted...

Yeah, tomorrow or in 2 days after the hype goes down and you all drank some water and calmed down

I'll still be asking the same question then. This is not a position born of temporary outrage in response to a horrible development. I don't know why you might think it would be, given that I've stated exactly the same things every other time the subject has come up.

Wanded posted...

i need to pinpoint the genuinely curious people asking questions

In part I am genuinely curious how you can ignore an entire person like that, but mostly I already know and I just want you to confront that cognitive dissonance for yourself instead of "solving" this moral dilemma by pretending the other half of the issues doesn't exist.

So again, I ask you: Why do you act like pregnant women aren't people whenever you discuss this issue?

Wanded posted...

take them aside away from the leftists who just wanna fight

And this is why I say pro-life men need to stay out of this discussion: This is not "just wanna fight." You will never have a horse in this race, so you view it as just trying to win an internet argument, but this is a very serious issue that stands to very adversely affect millions of women. There are real-world consequences at stake in this debate, and *that* is what people are fighting against.

I say again, there is no morality in demanding that other people make a sacrifice you will never have to consider. You are a coward joining other cowards in a self-righteous circle jerk over winning an argument that will only ever be hypothetical for you while others suffer the real-world consequences of your opinion. This is not about winning a fight or arguing for argument's sake. Pay some goddamn attention.

American conservatism is like a festering, putrid disease the world can never rid itself of.

You guys are being overly dramatic about this. I'm sure abortions will continue to be readily available for the rich and powerful.

wolfy42 posted...

Actually I CAN make that statement because I have followed those rules even though I can't get pregnant myself. I have not had sex with random people, I have not ever taken a chance at getting someone pregnant unless I was willing (and they were willing) to raise a child together if she did get pregnant.

My gender does not prevent me from being careful and taking the potential child into consideration before I engage in an activity that could create it.

Meanwhile if I COULD get pregnant (Which I would have loved the ability to do mind you) I know myself well enough to state that I would not have an abortion. I might take a pill to prevent pregnancy if I was raped, but if I had sex with someone voluntarily and got pregnant I would never have considered it. That is all I said, and it's true. You certainly don't know me better than I know myself. Maybe I would be a bit different if I was another gender, but I doubt I would be different enough to change how I feel about it.

I'm not reading this because your opinion as a man literally matters 0% here

Dark_SilverX posted...

Men can get pregnant.

Not ones without uteruses and wolfy has no uterus. Don't try to turn this into some transphobic BS

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/6/4/AAFUswAADMXI.jpg

adjl posted...

It's not that they can't have an opinion. It's that their opinion is irrelevant and largely amounts to a matter of arguing for hypothetical argument's sake with people who are actually affected by the issue, which is a massive dick move.

I'll still be asking the same question then. This is not a position born of temporary outrage in response to a horrible development. I don't know why you might think it would be, given that I've stated exactly the same things every other time the subject has come up.

In part I am genuinely curious how you can ignore an entire person like that, but mostly I already know and I just want you to confront that cognitive dissonance for yourself instead of "solving" this moral dilemma by pretending the other half of the issues doesn't exist.

So again, I ask you: Why do you act like pregnant women aren't people whenever you discuss this issue?

And this is why I say pro-life men need to stay out of this discussion: This is not "just wanna fight." You will never have a horse in this race, so you view it as just trying to win an internet argument, but this is a very serious issue that stands to very adversely affect millions of women. There are real-world consequences at stake in this debate, and *that* is what people are fighting against.

I say again, there is no morality in demanding that other people make a sacrifice you will never have to consider. You are a coward joining other cowards in a self-righteous circle jerk over winning an argument that will only ever be hypothetical for you while others suffer the real-world consequences of your opinion. This is not about winning a fight or arguing for argument's sake. Pay some goddamn attention.

The horse men have in this fight is the same horse anyone who opposes abortion has: We don't like baby murder.

That's why the debate at the core of abortion is "So what is a 'baby?' At what point in the term does the organism cease to be an unimportant clump of cells, and something it would be unethical to kill?"

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

The horse men have in this fight is the same horse anyone who opposes abortion has: We don't like baby murder.

So... nothing that will ever directly impact you, and for some reason you think that opinion is equally valid to that of those that are directly impacted. You don't really have a horse in the race, you're just watching the race on TV and arbitrarily picking a favourite without putting anything at all on the line. My point stands.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

That's why the debate at the core of abortion is "So what is a 'baby?' At what point in the term does the organism cease to be an unimportant clump of cells, and something it would be unethical to kill?"

I've never been a fan of that approach. Whatever line is drawn is inevitably going to be highly subjective and mostly arbitrary. Instead, I prefer to start from the premise fetuses are humans and that killing humans is bad, but sometimes it's the lesser of two evils. Then, you start examining when killing somebody is okay, because there are countless circumstances in which people are justifiably killed every day and it's not at all difficult to fit abortion into that. In my mind, the most relevant comparison is taking somebody off of life support: You choose to end their life because you have reason to believe that their quality of life would be too poor and the burden they would place on others too great for them to want to survive. "What they would want" becomes a little harder to determine for pre-conscious people, but it's easy enough to make reasonable guesses.

Of course, having said that, I recognize that my opinion means jack all because nothing gives me the right to enslave a woman for the purposes of producing a baby I've decided to care about. Saving a life isn't an excuse, otherwise we'd forcibly extract blood from everyone that could withstand it and save countless lives in the process. People's right to autonomy over their own bodies trumps whatever good could be done by stripping them of that autonomy, and given the choice between respecting the autonomy of a conscious person and the autonomy of a pre-conscious one with zero chance of ever having a problem with that infringement, I'm going with the conscious person every time. I'm in favour of inducing premature labour instead of performing abortions after viability is reached, since at that point it's a pretty similar process with similar risks to the mother and there's therefore very little reason to kill the baby (medical necessity aside, of course, but I feel like that exception is a given when discussing the matter among competent people), but late term abortions are exceedingly rare to begin with. The vast majority of the abortions people actually want access to happen much, much earlier than that, and that's where most of the discussion is happening (as much as many pro-lifers like paint a picture of fully-formed babies being hacked to pieces).

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

The horse men have in this fight is the same horse anyone who opposes abortion has: We don't like baby murder.

Ah yes the infamous "Oh I care so deeply about every child and- *child is born* OH WE NEED TO SEND THAT MOOCHER STRAIGHT TO HELL!" line.

So compelling.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Ah yes the infamous "Oh I care so deeply about every child and- *child is born* OH WE NEED TO SEND THAT MOOCHER STRAIGHT TO HELL!" line.

So compelling.

i can't really find that second part in what he said, seems you are imagining things

Im firmly in the ban welfare first, otherwise you are just further enslaving the taxpaying working class to millions of unwanted welfare babies.

That said, this doesnt ban abortion, it just passes that decision to the states.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Ah yes the infamous "Oh I care so deeply about every child and- *child is born* OH WE NEED TO SEND THAT MOOCHER STRAIGHT TO HELL!" line.

So compelling.

Yes. If said child grows up to be criminal, pedo or shithead, yes. That said, I would rather the welfare class abort the child.

Shoregrey posted...

Im firmly in the ban welfare first, otherwise you are just further enslaving the taxpaying working class to millions of unwanted welfare babies.

That said, this doesnt ban abortion, it just passes that decision to the states.

And sets up different standards across state lines. If one state tries to make it illegal and another doesn't and then prosecutes someone who crosses state lines it becomes a federal issue. It's objectively not a states issue.

This is not the final decision it is a draft the Supreme Court has not voted.

if you read up on it these go back and forth and justices change or modify their position.

this leak is damaging for that reason as it will confuse the average person.

the final vote and decision may reflect that, it may not it might reflect it in part or be something else.

this might not look good for defending womens freedoms but it is also too soon to jump to conclusions.

thats what happens when you real leaked game scripts before the game is done. Maybe its the same maybe not.

same here.

Shoregrey posted...

Im firmly in the ban welfare first, otherwise you are just further enslaving the taxpaying working class to millions of unwanted welfare babies.

That said, this doesnt ban abortion, it just passes that decision to the states.

Oh that makes sense. Remind me again, why doesn't the state just pass that decision down to the individual while we're at it? Considering how they're the only ones who should be making it, and all.

No we're just going to lie and call it states rights while 20 states are going to immediately make it illegal and others now have to worry about it.

Yellow posted...

Oh that makes sense. Remind me again, why doesn't the state just pass that decision down to the individual while we're at it? Considering how they're the only ones who should be making it, and all.

No we're just going to lie and call it states rights while 20 states are going to immediately make it illegal and others now have to worry about it.

Personally, I think we should be harvesting stem cells, given the healing that can be done with them, but conservit@rded Bush banned that.

Shoregrey posted...

Personally, I think we should be harvesting stem cells, given the healing that can be done with them, but conservit@rded Bush banned that.

Yeah people either ignore or pretend that Republicans don't do these things or they need a wake up call. Without ignorance there would be no republican party.

And that bit on the welfare, how about this, the Republicans can stop protecting billionaires from paying any taxes at all, and then we'll worry about how much welfare is going on.

Yellow posted...

This is just what happens when you have a religious population, so I think the only solution is to just spread atheist thinking. Nothing else will fix it, you have to get to the root of the problem. It's very simple. None of the points they make don't make sense... when you start with the fundamental belief that the church is right.

I never even understood how abortion became a religious issue. Abortion is only mentioned once in the bible... where it gave instructions on how to do one.

Hejiru posted...

I never even understood how abortion became a religious issue. Abortion is only mentioned once in the bible... where it gave instructions on how to do one.

It's just a vessel used to control people, always has been. It's always been a solid way to keep the peasants loyal without giving up any riches. Abortion just happened to be so convenient, that even if the Church wanted to appeal to young people and say they don't care anymore, like they did with gay marriage, the politics can branch off and hold on to it.

Back in my Catholic days the sentiment was explicitly in my youth group "it doesn't matter how terrible the politician is you have to vote for them if they are pro-life". So you a have a lot of young people who could have ended up being pro-union, pro-worker/environmentalism or whatever, but the only thing that will sway their vote is abortion. Then they are just going to rationalize those other things away to further justify their abortion vote.

The difference in this day and age is that it's actually socially acceptable to be an atheist and the grasp isn't so tight.

My mom would be dead if she was forced to carry her first pregnancy to term.

Hejiru posted...

I never even understood how abortion became a religious issue. Abortion is only mentioned once in the bible... where it gave instructions on how to do one.

It wasn't.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That doesn't track with their ethics. I don't think they care about people who act outside their ethics.

true, tragically.

adjl posted...

So... nothing that will ever directly impact you, and for some reason you think that opinion is equally valid to that of those that are directly impacted. You don't really have a horse in the race, you're just watching the race on TV and arbitrarily picking a favourite without putting anything at all on the line. My point stands.

I've never been a fan of that approach. Whatever line is drawn is inevitably going to be highly subjective and mostly arbitrary. Instead, I prefer to start from the premise fetuses are humans and that killing humans is bad, but sometimes it's the lesser of two evils. Then, you start examining when killing somebody is okay, because there are countless circumstances in which people are justifiably killed every day and it's not at all difficult to fit abortion into that. In my mind, the most relevant comparison is taking somebody off of life support: You choose to end their life because you have reason to believe that their quality of life would be too poor and the burden they would place on others too great for them to want to survive. "What they would want" becomes a little harder to determine for pre-conscious people, but it's easy enough to make reasonable guesses.

Of course, having said that, I recognize that my opinion means jack all because nothing gives me the right to enslave a woman for the purposes of producing a baby I've decided to care about. Saving a life isn't an excuse, otherwise we'd forcibly extract blood from everyone that could withstand it and save countless lives in the process. People's right to autonomy over their own bodies trumps whatever good could be done by stripping them of that autonomy, and given the choice between respecting the autonomy of a conscious person and the autonomy of a pre-conscious one with zero chance of ever having a problem with that infringement, I'm going with the conscious person every time. I'm in favour of inducing premature labour instead of performing abortions after viability is reached, since at that point it's a pretty similar process with similar risks to the mother and there's therefore very little reason to kill the baby (medical necessity aside, of course, but I feel like that exception is a given when discussing the matter among competent people), but late term abortions are exceedingly rare to begin with. The vast majority of the abortions people actually want access to happen much, much earlier than that, and that's where most of the discussion is happening (as much as many pro-lifers like paint a picture of fully-formed babies being hacked to pieces).

Wait a minute, what the hell? Why would whether or not killing babies is allowed not be my horse? That affects me because even if you are pro-abortion, you should still be against killing babies, whatever your interpretation of "killing babies" is. Fuck kinda stance is "Who cares if they're killing babies, they're not your kids?"

BlackScythe0 posted...

Ah yes the infamous "Oh I care so deeply about every child and- *child is born* OH WE NEED TO SEND THAT MOOCHER STRAIGHT TO HELL!" line.

So compelling.

I never said I cared about kids. I do, but that's not the same thing. We're talking about the murder of babies. I could be absolute asshole and not care about hungry kids, but still be against the direct murder of those kids. In the same way maybe I don't donate to the homeless, but I would still oppose the murder of the homeless.

Revelation34 posted...

It wasn't.

Women are instructed to take bitter water if they are pregnant from cheating, I say with some authority citing a 2000 year old book.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

I never said I cared about kids. I do, but that's not the same thing. We're talking about the murder of babies. I could be absolute asshole and not care about hungry kids, but still be against the direct murder of those kids. In the same way maybe I don't donate to the homeless, but I would still oppose the murder of the homeless.

There are people who define a child as a fertilized egg. That is the level we are talking about (or that we should be right now given what's about to happen to our laws), not "baby goes on the chopping block".

Welfare babies always vote for more free shit. Let them die.

Shoregrey posted...

Welfare babies always vote for more free shit. Let them die.

Well that's classist, but again we're not really talking about babies here.

Imaginary friends is the closer word.

Yellow posted...

Well that's classist, but again we're not really talking about babies here.

Imaginary friends is the closer word.

In the current system, the working class is slave to the welfare class.

Yellow posted...

There are people who define a child as a fertilized egg. That is the level we are talking about (or that we should be right now given what's about to happen to our laws), not "baby goes on the chopping block".

Some people do, it's a point of debate for sure yeah. But the goal in all this is to avoid killing what are babies/children/persons. It's hard to answer when an organism becomes unethical to kill, but then so is just about every ethical question.

Shoregrey posted...

In the current system, the working class is slave to the welfare class.

You will find if you look it up that the biggest drain on welfare is social security for old people. You'll also find that the reason the middle class is dying off isn't because of welfare but the donor class hoarding wealth and dodging taxes that you are going to pick up the slack on. It's because higher education has gotten a lot more expensive.

That's another trick Republicans will use, though, pitting the working class against each other.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

Some people do, it's a point of debate for sure yeah. But the goal in all this is to avoid killing what are babies/children/persons. It's hard to answer when an organism becomes unethical to kill, but then so is just about every ethical question.

If that was the case the goal would be to lower the age the fetus is considered a baby, but they are using God as a reasoning and trying to ban it because they say it has a soul. They want it gone, full stop.

Yellow posted...

You will find if you look it up that the biggest drain on welfare is social security for old people. You'll also find that the reason the middle class is dying off isn't because of welfare but the donor class hoarding wealth and dodging taxes that you are going to pick up the slack on. It's because higher education has gotten a lot more expensive.

That's another trick Republicans will use, though, pitting the working class against each other.

Yeah, thats the point of the whole thing. It wasnt so Eugene could sit on his ass and play video games. It became a slush fund for politicians in the 90s(Bipartisan legislation Bill Clinton and Republican congress)

Uniparty.

@Wanded would you support a tax-funded social program designed to help women who can't afford to raise their babies and can't legally abort them? Because if you don't, you can't claim to be pro-life. You believe every fetus has the right to be born, but you don't believe that every baby has the right to survive. Which is morally reprehensible.

Im not a woman so I dont really care. Sucks for them though.

mharbenedict34 posted...

Im not a woman so I dont really care. Sucks for them though.

Can you define a woman? Are you a biologist?

Shoregrey posted...

Can you define a woman? Are you a biologist?

A woman is anyone who wants to be one. I guess it sucks for pregnant men too my bad, just most pregnant people identify as women statistically but I shouldnt have left them out. You are right.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

Wait a minute, what the hell? Why would whether or not killing babies is allowed not be my horse? That affects me because even if you are pro-abortion, you should still be against killing babies, whatever your interpretation of "killing babies" is. Fuck kinda stance is "Who cares if they're killing babies, they're not your kids?"

I never said I cared about kids. I do, but that's not the same thing. We're talking about the murder of babies. I could be absolute asshole and not care about hungry kids, but still be against the direct murder of those kids. In the same way maybe I don't donate to the homeless, but I would still oppose the murder of the homeless.

Nobody is doing that.

Yellow posted...

Women are instructed to take bitter water if they are pregnant from cheating, I say with some authority citing a 2000 year old book.

So where does it say abortion?

mharbenedict34 posted...

A woman is anyone who wants to be one. I guess it sucks for pregnant men too my bad, just most pregnant people identify as women statistically but I shouldnt have left them out. You are right.

So both men and women can be women and her body her choice right?

What about vaccinations? Still her body her choice?

HornedLion posted...

R.I.P. Women who will die from back alley abortions

guess they shouldn't have murdered their own children

Wanded posted...

guess they shouldn't have murdered their own children

But they didn't.

Revelation34 posted...

Nobody is doing that.

So where does it say abortion?

It's THERE, it's developing. Regardless of its stage of development, it now exists where once, it did not. What right does a person have to delete a being from existence? One with no voice of its own in its early state to defend itself?

streamofthesky posted...

Not shocked at all. They never gave a damn about judicial precedent, settled law, or decades of court decisions affirming the law.
They've always been the "renegade judges" they fraudulently cried about.
Now the Dems have a reason to actually pass abortion laws in Congress (before, "it's already been decided by the courts") and if they're smart, will run on this in the fall and make the Republican party pay dearly for going against 2/3 of the electorate's wishes.

have you actually read the draft or are you going on about imaginary things without verifying what it even is you are talking about again
because alito went over what you are talking about
Muscles posted...

You should be on the constitution's side since this is an unconstitutional ruling

LMAO
brah you actually think the left cares about the constitution, they wanna destroy the second and first amendment, you literally have one of them here somehow connecting abortions to guns bad and they're still reeeing about elon musk buying twitter because he'll make it a more pro free speech platform
wolfy42 posted...

to protect the interests of people who don't exist yet

they already exist, that's why there is an issue to begin with XD

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/5/5/AAFUswAADMez.jpg

Hey cool thanks for ignoring my perfectly valid question. You clearly don't give a shit about protecting the lives of children. You'd rather a baby starve to death than prevent an unwanted pregnancy. You are literal scum.

Wanded posted...

brah you actually think the left cares about the constitution, they wanna destroy the second and first amendment

Meanwhile, far right politicians in Florida just punished a corporation for exercising their right to free speech.

Wanded posted...

brah you actually think the left cares about the constitution, they wanna destroy the second and first amendment

No one on the left is advocating for allowing the government to punish you for constitutionally-protected speech

Lesson of the day:

You have sex ladies, you assume all risks that it entails.

Yellow posted...

If that was the case the goal would be to lower the age the fetus is considered a baby, but they are using God as a reasoning and trying to ban it because they say it has a soul. They want it gone, full stop.

Yup, and it's due to the Pope. While the Bible is infallible to them, there's also Papal Infallability that means after a weird cult ceremony, the Pope can speak directly for God and I'm guessing the Pope made a claim about this one time.