[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[GENSOC]

So if women are to be required to give birth in the US are they still going to be charged six figure sums for the birth?

Especially if they want to hold their new child after delivery.

Without a doubt.

[Restored England]

So if women are to be required to give birth in the US are they still going to be charged six figure sums for the birth?

Especially if they want to hold their new child after delivery.

Without a doubt.

Because neoliberals and neoconservatives agree upon just a few things, one of which is to screw over the poor. Sometimes different poor people, but often they overlap.

[Rifts Earth]

Perhaps not over half, but Obergefell v. Hodges overturning Baker v. Nelson might qualify as might West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, which overturned Lochner v. New York and Adkins v. Children's Hospital, allowing minimum wage and weekly hours legislation to proceed.

Obergefell was a SCOTUS decision, Baker was a state court one. The difference was if gay marriage was a federal issue, which it had become because some states were allowing it and others were not. This was not the case in Baker.

Coast Hotel is a better example, but happened a decade after the initial decision and not 40+.

Caetano v. Massachusetts of 2016 overruled a 1939 ruling, United States v. Miller, that said certain firearms, in this case I think it was some form of shotgun, aren't protected under the 2nd Amendment. Caetano v. Massachusetts extended the 2nd Amendment to "all forms of bearable arms", overruling the 1939 ruling on an issue that changed a major right for the entire population.

It narrowly expanded an already existing right. Not a great comparison.

Also Miller was a shit decision since the Plantif didn't make a legal argument since he nor his lawyer were present for the case.

Also if SCOTUS overturns Roe by deciding that the right to privacy doesn't exist it threatens for more than abortion rights, but also allow states to ban contraceptives and sodomy.

Excellent.

None of those things were ever "rights," save in the sense that owning black people was a "right" back in 1800.

[Limonovshchina]

Obergefell was a SCOTUS decision, Baker was a state court one. The difference was if gay marriage was a federal issue, which it had become because some states were allowing it and others were not. This was not the case in Baker.

Coast Hotel is a better example, but happened a decade after the initial decision and not 40+.



It narrowly expanded an already existing right. Not a great comparison.

Also Miller was a shit decision since the Plantif didn't make a legal argument since he nor his lawyer were present for the case.

Also if SCOTUS overturns Roe by deciding that the right to privacy doesn't exist it threatens for more than abortion rights, but also allow states to ban contraceptives and sodomy.

Excellent.

None of those things were ever "rights," save in the sense that owning black people was a "right" back in 1800.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ObB_S_qZo

[The Alma Mater]

Obergefell was a SCOTUS decision, Baker was a state court one. The difference was if gay marriage was a federal issue, which it had become because some states were allowing it and others were not. This was not the case in Baker.

Coast Hotel is a better example, but happened a decade after the initial decision and not 40+.



It narrowly expanded an already existing right. Not a great comparison.

Also Miller was a shit decision since the Plantif didn't make a legal argument since he nor his lawyer were present for the case.

Also if SCOTUS overturns Roe by deciding that the right to privacy doesn't exist it threatens for more than abortion rights, but also allow states to ban contraceptives and sodomy.

Excellent.

None of those things were ever "rights," save in the sense that owning black people was a "right" back in 1800.

It also allows forced organ and blood harvesting. Which I am not against myself; but most "pro-life" people in this topic tend to believe only women have a duty to offer the use of their body to save lives.

[Thermodolia]

So if women are to be required to give birth in the US are they still going to be charged six figure sums for the birth?

Especially if they want to hold their new child after delivery.

Unfortunately yes. Though we should be providing free healthcare, prevention and rehabilitation for criminals, and killing the death penalty as that’s truely pro life but the current pro life movement is run by a bunch of people who think free healthcare is evil, locking up people is good for their pockets, and that state sanctioned murder is just fine

[Rifts Earth]

Excellent.

None of those things were ever "rights," save in the sense that owning black people was a "right" back in 1800.

It also allows forced organ and blood harvesting. Which I am not against myself; but most "pro-life" people in this topic tend to believe only women have a duty to offer the use of their body to save lives.

Considering the problems that organ shortages cause, I'd be willing to allow the government to harvest organs from any deceased person whose religion is silent on the treatment of corpses. So you couldn't do it to a Muslim, but you would be able to do it to an atheist.

Also, I would say that putting scare quotes around the name of my movement and implying that we're a bunch of misogynist would constitute flame baiting.

[Fauzjhia]

Why would people elect Democrats to protect abortion rights when the Democratic Party doesn't want to protect abortion rights?

Because the viable alternative is even less likely to protect abortion rights

Democrats want to protect abortions.
you forget multiple mechanism like filibuster.

So if women are to be required to give birth in the US are they still going to be charged six figure sums for the birth?

Especially if they want to hold their new child after delivery.

Unfortunately yes. Though we should be providing free healthcare, prevention and rehabilitation for criminals, and killing the death penalty as that’s truely pro life but the current pro life movement is run by a bunch of people who think free healthcare is evil, locking up people is good for their pockets, and that state sanctioned murder is just fine

the pro-life is not in favor of life. its about moralisation
like Machiavel said once, the church is the ultimate moral decline

[Rifts Earth]

the pro-life is not in favor of life. its about moralisation

False. I see our society engages in mass murder on a scale that dwarves that of even the worst of the fascists. That is why I am pro life. I don't want to shove women back into the kitchen. I just want them to stop hiring hitmen to murder their own flesh and blood.

[Limonovshchina]

the pro-life is not in favor of life. its about moralisation

False. I see our society engages in mass murder on a scale that dwarves that of even the worst of the fascists. That is why I am pro life. I don't want to shove women back into the kitchen. I just want them to stop hiring hitmen to murder their own flesh and blood.

Murder would apply only if the victim is a person, which a fetus is not.

[American Legionaries]

False. I see our society engages in mass murder on a scale that dwarves that of even the worst of the fascists. That is why I am pro life. I don't want to shove women back into the kitchen. I just want them to stop hiring hitmen to murder their own flesh and blood.

Murder would apply only if the victim is a person, which a fetus is not.

It is though.

[Isles of Eamhna]

I see our society engages in mass murder on a scale that dwarves that of even the worst of the fascists. That is why I am pro life. I don't want to shove women back into the kitchen. I just want them to stop hiring hitmen to murder their own flesh and blood.

cool, still going to

[Restored England]

Since we aren't certain when fetus becomes a person, shouldn't we give the mothers the benefit of the doubt in determining these matters, preferably after consulting physicians?

We know that women are people, whatever my issues with them lately. We don't know that fetuses are people yet, at least in terms of sapience or sentience.

[Vassenor]

the pro-life is not in favor of life. its about moralisation

False. I see our society engages in mass murder on a scale that dwarves that of even the worst of the fascists. That is why I am pro life. I don't want to shove women back into the kitchen. I just want them to stop hiring hitmen to murder their own flesh and blood.

You just want women robbed of agency and turned into glorified broodmares.

[Isles of Eamhna]

Since we aren't certain when fetus becomes a person

It is wholly irrelevant whether the foetus is a person; that should have no bearing on one's right to terminate one's pregnancy.

[Limonovshchina]

Murder would apply only if the victim is a person, which a fetus is not.

It is though.

Personhood begins at birth, so no.

Since we aren't certain when fetus becomes a person

It becomes a person when it ceases to be a fetus, that is, when it is born.

[The New California Republic]

the pro-life is not in favor of life. its about moralisation

False. I see our society engages in mass murder on a scale that dwarves that of even the worst of the fascists. That is why I am pro life. I don't want to shove women back into the kitchen. I just want them to stop hiring hitmen to murder their own flesh and blood.

It isn't murder.

Murder would apply only if the victim is a person, which a fetus is not.

It is though.

It isn't murder, and nor is it a person.

[American Legionaries]

It is though.

Personhood begins at birth, so no.

Since we aren't certain when fetus becomes a person

It becomes a person when it ceases to be a fetus, that is, when it is born.

That just like, your opinion man.

[The New California Republic]

Personhood begins at birth, so no.


It becomes a person when it ceases to be a fetus, that is, when it is born.

That just like, your opinion man.

No it isn't, under the way the law works the fetus is not considered to be a person.

[Fauzjhia]

Personhood begins at birth, so no.


It becomes a person when it ceases to be a fetus, that is, when it is born.

That just like, your opinion man.

pregnancy does not always end with birth
Are we going to claim that Miscarriage is an accidental homicide.

and once women gives birth, where is the Pro-life care for life ? healthcare right, protection from pollution and etc.
its nowhere because pro-life is about moralization, not protecting life.

[Limonovshchina]

Personhood begins at birth, so no.


It becomes a person when it ceases to be a fetus, that is, when it is born.

That just like, your opinion man.

You can feel free to define personhood in any ass-backwards way you like which would degrade the personhood of actual people in the process. That just means you should have no say in the matter, because it is ass-backwards. You can say animals are people, or mushrooms are people, or rocks or some random item. Fortunately no one else has to or should have to care about your opinion on what people are.

[Restored England]

That just like, your opinion man.

pregnancy does not always end with birth
Are we going to claim that Miscarriage is an accidental homicide.

and once women gives birth, where is the Pro-life care for life ? healthcare right, protection from pollution and etc.
its nowhere because pro-life is about moralization, not protecting life.

Current American laws often see women arrested and jailed for having miscarriages. No joke, dudes. I'm somewhat red-pilled on some issues, but not enough to advocate policies that jail a woman for something that her own body does to her without consulting her.

[Fauzjhia]

pregnancy does not always end with birth
Are we going to claim that Miscarriage is an accidental homicide.

and once women gives birth, where is the Pro-life care for life ? healthcare right, protection from pollution and etc.
its nowhere because pro-life is about moralization, not protecting life.

Current American laws often see women arrested and jailed for having miscarriages. No joke, dudes. I'm somewhat red-pilled on some issues, but not enough to advocate policies that jail a woman for something that her own body does to her without consulting her.

Woah, I really though the laws where a bit more comprehensive.

[American Legionaries]

That just like, your opinion man.

No it isn't, under the way the law works the fetus is not considered to be a person.

Okay, it's his, your, and the government's opinion in some circumstances.

[Restored England]

Current American laws often see women arrested and jailed for having miscarriages. No joke, dudes. I'm somewhat red-pilled on some issues, but not enough to advocate policies that jail a woman for something that her own body does to her without consulting her.

Woah, I really though the laws where a bit more comprehensive.

I'm admittedly no feminist, but even I think that these laws are punitive and extreme.