Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

So the only answer for selfish asses is anal.

RED STATES STILL TRIGGERED

 

More of a reference from this OB/GYN doctor that posited the argument saying ethically you can't make someone save another person's life against their will if they don't want to. Even a dead person that never volunteered for their organs to be harvested. And if a dead person has that type of autonomy over their body even though it would potentially save multiple lives, women should too, especially since that life isn't even a fully developed human being, and the lives that would be saved by organ harvesting would be people who no one in good faith would debate their personhood.

 

Whose alt account is this?

 

I didn't call women irresponsible. I said if you bet your own money on the promise that someone would cover your losses if you lose, people would feel bad for you but also look down on you for believing them. Generally, if someone is going to stake you they give you the money up front and then you give them half the winnings if you win. That is regardless of gender. It isn't my fault you failed to properly line up your analogy with your one very specific experience with an ex-girlfriend. As to her, maybe she should have just put the kid up for adoption. Tons of people are in line for a baby.

I didn't bring up the Bible. Someone else brought it up to try to argue in favor of abortion (which you can tell by the way I was quoting @Reeko ). I like to make secular arguments to support the right to life.

Nope, I am supporting avoiding getting pregnant for poor people. Abstinance has a 100% success rate. Tubal ligation and vasectomy nearly so. IUD and Implant over 99% effective. In the event of a pregnancy, put the kid up for adoption. There are thousands of people looking to adopt babies and provide them good homes, so many that people fly to China or Africa and pay authoritarian governments to get babies.

 

Let's go back further than the 1940s and start entering the 1880s now. Let's enter eugenic territory where we sterilize the poor. There are already over 100,000 children up for adoption that nobody is picking up the tab for and you want to increase those numbers? Really? IUDs aren't safe. Many women run into health complications using them. How many settlements have been made regarding them? In fact, weren't Puerto Ricans used as guinea pigs and up to a third of Puerto Rican women were forced into sterilization when birth control was first on the market? In fact isn't that something the U.S. did to Native American women as early as the 1960s and 1970s, thereby eliminating any chance of a tribe's ability to reproduce more off spring? Isn't that something that Trumps administration did to immigrants detained at our border? These are your Pro-Life solutions?

I thought Libertarian's believed in individual rights and things like bodily autonomy? Isn't that part of the deal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

 

Please quote where I said to forcibly sterilize anyone.

Those are children in foster care, not infants. People are lining up to adopt babies, not 12-year-olds from broken homes, many of whom already have serious behavioral issues.

IUDs are still considered safe and are widely prescribed. Like all medications and medical devices, there can be side effects. Side effects are rare but can be serious. There are also side effects of childbirth, abortion, pregnancy, and sexual intercourse.
Just How Much Do IUDs Put Your Health at Risk? (womenshealthmag.com)

Again, who said anything about forced sterilizations?

Yes, though not in the case of killing other people. That is why abortion is a very divisive issue in the libertarian community.

How many of your links are related to your strawman? All of them? Nope, one was about a different strawman that I said anything about people adopting foster children.

 

How did those 12 year olds get to be 12 years old? They were infants at some point were they not? Does quality human life have an expiration date once you start becoming a toddler?

When you suggest poor people should opt for sterilization methods, it just seems like a poorly thought out answer that's been tried before and leads to incredibly dark outcomes, typically against minorities or people with mental or physical disabilities. I could easily see elected officials with let's just say, white supremacist tendencies, encouraging forced sterilization of "poor people". Seems like a dog whistle to me personally.

 

I don't think those points are brought up to argue in favor of abortion, they are just showing that religious people often tdon't know their own book and also showing how silly it is to let your faith dictate policy.

I doubt anyone using the bible to show that God endorsed abortion is saying "Because the bible says it, I am pro abortion."

 

Harm on women and families.

 

@HTM argument acts like contraceptives do not exist sometimes.

Thanks to contraception, people can pretty reliably have sex without ever having babies, over 90% for all forms of it, 98 (IIRC) for condoms. If a man is wearing a condom (or a vasectomy) and the woman is correctly taking her birth control, there is probably a less than 1% chance that a baby will come from the sex, which destroys his whole point "It's irresponsible to have sex unless you're prepared to be a parent' mentality.

Apparently, 99% effective. I'm betting you do that, wear a condom, there will never be a baby from you. Then you have morning after pill or is a less than 1 week old embryo now considered human life with a soul?

This is what I don't get. Why not just stick on these points if you are against abortion? Instead, it's just moral grandstanding about how people shouldn't have sex outside of marriage, which, again, that has never worked.

Exactly. You're not going to stop people from having sex, the best you can do is educate them and prepare them for it, which is why sex-education has always been the best way to fight unwanted pregnancies. Teaching women how to actually use contraceptives that they feel comfortable with and showing men how to wrap up. This helps a lot more than preaching about how sex is irresponsible and bad and should only be saved for reproduction.

Good luck telling super hormonal 16-25 year olds not to have sex when every nerve in their bodies is telling them to do just that. People in these years definitely are very obedient and listen earnestly to whatever is told them!

 

So in other words you are calling women irresponsible.

 

Yes there are many children up for adoption, particularly older children that haven't been adopted. This argument that "Well the should just put the child up for adoption because many people want to adopt a children" ignores how many children are still sitting in foster care right now.

 

So it's not about adoption just adopting the preferred child. This is even more of an argument for abortion given that many abortions come from broken homes and fetal abornmalities.

 

This point has already been made, but there are not enough babies up for adoption.

Foster children are a completely different topic because they weren't aborted, because they aren't necessarily up for adoption, and because they aren't babies. But mainly because they have nothing to do with abortion unless you're saying they should have been aborted.

 

The Democrats have not been this mad since Lincoln freed the slaves.

 

Incorrect, and also incorrect in the proposed national abortion law the Democrats concocted (which was NOT a Roe replacement, it vastly expanded abortion 'rights' beyond Roe). Yes, it required staff to allow it, but for any number of reasons, including emotional health. So, a woman could simply be stressed out about it, and a doctor could authorize it. In fact, a doctor could authorize it without their really being any justification at all, they could just make one up, as the vagueness of the law allowed for that. Now, has this happened much? No. But is it contained in the laws and proposed bills? Yes.

 

Red States so triggered that you see riots in CALIFORNIA, which the courts ruling doesn't impact at all, and which has extremely loose abortion laws in place. In fact, so triggered that they are somehow causing riots against pro life support centers (what happened to a Woman's Right to Choose, hmmm?).

Why is it always the triggered who accuse everyone else of being triggered?

 

The health of a woman is a legitimate concern.

Doctors are professionals that aren't just licking their chops hoping to make up excuses to perform 9th month abortions.

 

This gets to the conversations we SHOULD be having, but aren't, due to only listening to extremists on both sides.

That being that abortions were always supposed to be rare. They aren't. Why aren't we talking about that, and what could be done to address that?
Conversely...why so many foster children? What causes that? What could be done to address that?

The whole abortion 'debate' would be far less significant if we addressed the underlying causes of why there are so many of them.