The Amy Coney Barrett Abortion Arms Race Is On

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Like using contraception?

Like when contraception fails, or a guy secretly pulls off his condom?

You brought smoking and cancer to the table, well, most medical agencies refuse to give a healthy lung transplant to those who continue to smoke and many refuse them to former smokers in lieu of providing the healthy lungs to people not "victimized" by their own bad choices.

More hyperbole. Nobody is asking for a new uterus for a woman who has had numerous abortions. Most people with lung cancer aren't getting a new lung. But, they are going to be getting therapy and treatment, and they may just gett better and add a few years to their life, due to their treatment and therapies.

we're not talking about the "consequences of women having sex" we're talking about the consequences of women choosing not to utilize prophylactic measures to protect themselves against unwanted consequences of irresponsible sex.

Only women have irresponsible sex? They deserve what they get (pregnant) for being sluts!

Children should not be used a punishment for the consequences of casual sex.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

Your last 3 posts main points are all made by using a logical fallacy

I think not. There is no error in my reasoning.

Don't bother trying to explain equality to a feminist. The concept is beyond their comprehension.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Only women have irresponsible sex? They deserve what they get (pregnant) for being sluts!

The male usually gets stuck with the child support payment for 18 years. So... no. Again you're wrong and, more than that, you're stereotypically wrong.

originally posted by: TKDRL
Don't bother trying to explain equality to a feminist. The concept is beyond their comprehension.

3rd and 4th wave feminists find it beyond their comprehension because, in their narrow minds, equality is impossible thanks to there being no cure for their imaginary state of constant inferiority and victimhood. 1st and 2nd wave feminists are quite logical and smart.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Arizonaguy

Your last 3 posts main points are all made by using a logical fallacy

I think not. There is no error in my reasoning.

Wrong
You used circular thinking to support the idea that ut is morally just for a woman to decide whether or not a fetus is a person
You used cherry picking, also known as the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy to further support this idea by citing only a relatively new Federal law in comparison to much older state laws
Then you used the bandwagon fallacy to argue that many states have incorporated Roe V Wade principles into their laws as a defense for those same principles
If you need help reading about these fallacies and how they perpetrate dishonest dialogue then I can provide you links in an effort to educate you on these matters
Deny Ignorance

originally posted by: Guyfriday
The Abortion Issue, is only complicated by the issue of many of the people wanting abortion to be legal, also want the Death Penalty abolished. So at a very basic level how can taking a life in one situation be ok while it is not ok in another?

Until the pro-choice side and come to terms with that paradox, they are going to be on the losing end of any logical discussion over the matter.

I have never understood how it's ok to kill an unborn baby but not ok to kill a murderer of a person of any age that has been born.

That just screams hypocrisy.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Only women have irresponsible sex? They deserve what they get (pregnant) for being sluts!

The male usually gets stuck with the child support payment for 18 years. So... no. Again you're wrong and, more than that, you're stereotypically wrong.

I thought we were talking about abortion. Now, you're mad at women who keep their babies?

Make up you're mind.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

You used circular thinking to support the idea that ut is morally just for a woman to decide whether or not a fetus is a person

Our laws aren't enacted to dictate morality. Roe V Wade isn't about morality, it's about personal autonomy.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: Willtell
Abortion won't be made illegal
That's a typical strawman of the Left on this issue
At most, it will be left to individual states to decide

I would give you 50% of my stars in agreement with this sentiment if I could.

BOTH sides have their meticulously crafted, carefully curated wedge issues, and the "ZOMG ZOMG THEY'RE COMING FER YER ABORTION RIGHTS!!" is, along with race baiting, the GO-TO wedge issue of The Left.

It's my feeling that a non-trivial amount of votes for Biden this election were cast as a direct result of dog whistlin' about Trump's new SCOTUS pick, and the paranoid delusion that overturning Roe V Wade is on the horizon. I know more than a few women who are SINGLE ISSUE voters in favor of Democrats for this item alone. No amount of attempts at rationale persuasion, reasoned debate and devil's advocacy will move them off this position.

It's entirely possible IMO that the ACB nomination, ironically one of Trump's biggest victories in 2020, might have been a yuuuge contributing factor in the POTUS election results.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
The Abortion Issue, is only complicated by the issue of many of the people wanting abortion to be legal, also want the Death Penalty abolished. So at a very basic level how can taking a life in one situation be ok while it is not ok in another?

Until the pro-choice side and come to terms with that paradox, they are going to be on the losing end of any logical discussion over the matter.

True but very similar paradox exists where people who are pro freedom are anti-abortion and pro-life but think Covid is nothing and are against universal healthcare.

Everyone is a hypocrite in one way or another, the only winners in this one are theople selling coathangers.

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: Guyfriday
The Abortion Issue, is only complicated by the issue of many of the people wanting abortion to be legal, also want the Death Penalty abolished. So at a very basic level how can taking a life in one situation be ok while it is not ok in another?

Until the pro-choice side and come to terms with that paradox, they are going to be on the losing end of any logical discussion over the matter.

I have never understood how it's ok to kill an unborn baby but not ok to kill a murderer of a person of any age that has been born.

That just screams hypocrisy.

So, you're opposed to stand your ground laws?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha


Our laws aren't enacted to dictate morality. Roe V Wade isn't about morality, it's about SELECTIVE personal autonomy, liberty for individual choice for the activities WE care about and value.

^^^^ Fixed that for you.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Don't speak for me. Roe V Wade is "selective" in that it deals with a specific issue, as do "stand your ground" laws.

ETA: I'm pro-choice and yet I am not opposed to the death penalty.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Arizonaguy

You used circular thinking to support the idea that ut is morally just for a woman to decide whether or not a fetus is a person

Our laws aren't enacted to dictate morality. Roe V Wade isn't about morality, it's about personal autonomy.

What you are entering into is a realm of philosophical debate
Nothing in the Constitution mentions reasoning behind the enacting of laws
And it is just in recent times that the Liberal viewpoint has abandoned concern for others
The great 19th century Classic Liberal philosopher JS Mill even opined that the Law should not reflect morality EXCEPT in instances in which harm to others can be prevented
As pointed out in the thread earlier, there are already statutes handing down criminal sanctions for a third party causing harm to a Fetus
But what about the mother herself harming the Fetus?
Her body, her choice, right?
Well, not exactly
The 1995 case of McKnight V State showed that a mother can be charged and CONVICTED in cases in which her actions led to the death of a fetus
www.nationaladvocatesforpregnantwomen.org...

I included only an adversarial opinion purposely
It was even upheld by the state supreme court and further legal challenges were turned down
Why? Because the law was crafted over time in an effort to protect unborn children from harm by abusive mothers

So we have established both philosophical background and legal precedents that say that morality can be used in legislation to protect another person
I would say that you need to amend your argument to reflect reality

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: Guyfriday
The Abortion Issue, is only complicated by the issue of many of the people wanting abortion to be legal, also want the Death Penalty abolished. So at a very basic level how can taking a life in one situation be ok while it is not ok in another?

Until the pro-choice side and come to terms with that paradox, they are going to be on the losing end of any logical discussion over the matter.

I have never understood how it's ok to kill an unborn baby but not ok to kill a murderer of a person of any age that has been born.

That just screams hypocrisy.

So, you're opposed to stand your ground laws?

Loaded question, another logical fallacy
Do you have a handbook with you that allows you to insert these with ease?

a reply to: Arizonaguy
Oh come on man. Someone attacking you is exactly the same as a "fetus". Check. Mate. Bro. If there is stand your ground laws, you should be able to shoot a "fetus" too.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Arizonaguy
Oh come on man. Someone attacking you is exactly the same as a "fetus". Check. Mate. Bro. If there is stand your ground laws, you should be able to shoot a "fetus" too.

Well, to be fair, I hear that some fetuses do kick an awful lot
so there's that

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Arizonaguy
Oh come on man. Someone attacking you is exactly the same as a "fetus". Check. Mate. Bro. If there is stand your ground laws, you should be able to shoot a "fetus" too.

I have never understood how it's ok to kill an unborn baby but not ok to kill a murderer of a person of any age that has been born.

I wasn't the person comparing killing a living, breathing, walking person, with terminating a pre-viable pregnancy. You guys are the ones doing that.

Roe V Wade provides the right to women to terminate a nonviable pregnancy, not a viable fetus, not a born infant, not a toddler and not any other born person.

One the other hand, "stand you ground" laws do.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

I should remind you that Roe V Wade was established under a predominately Republican Supreme Court, under a Republican President, and was supported by Christian clergy. I should also remind you that plenty of Republican women, Catholics and so called Born Again Christians also get abortions.

Abortions, they're not just for liberals.