SCOTUS fails to stop TX abortion law.

#501
#501
utvols88 said:
Yeah. It does. It means they did a calculation to take said risk knowing what could happen. Therefore, they consented to the consequences.
Click to expand...

Rough take for many reasons, not least of which because it makes unwillingness essentially impossible - everything that happens to someone had a risk of that thing happening, because it happened, so who on Earth would then not be “willing” by that standard? Good to know you’re in the “rape victims were willing to be raped” camp though
 
#502
#502
volinbham said:
willing and desirous of are different things. choosing to do something despite the potential for negative consequences is willing
Click to expand...

May as well remove “unwilling” from the dictionary at that point, since literally everything that happens to someone is a risk they accepted
 
#503
#503
NashVol11 said:
May as well remove “unwilling” from the dictionary at that point, since literally everything that happens to someone is a risk they accepted
Click to expand...

well if a woman is unwilling to become pregnant having unprotected sex is a dumb way to go about that unwillingness
 
#504
#504
volinbham said:
we don't use this logic with live people - they receive life saving care; we devote resources to their basic needs. why wouldn't a unwanted baby be the same?
Click to expand...

This is where it gets interesting to me. As far as conception and pregnancy, we've never formally developed a threshold that separates what we consider "life" in a legal sense vs. not. I think that such a threshold would have to first be created before those decisions could be made with any kind of consistency.
 
#507
#507
volinbham said:
well if a woman is unwilling to become pregnant having unprotected sex is a dumb way to go about that unwillingness
Click to expand...

Holy strawman. Guy said if you had sex you’re willingly pregnant (didn’t say anything about unprotected) and the reasoning is that if there’s a risk of something happening, it means you’re willing. I’m saying that reasoning is absurd because no one could then be unwilling - everything that happens to someone, whether it’s rape or a plane crash or being pooped on by a pigeon, was a risk beforehand.
 
#508
#508
orangepridenation said:
This is where it gets interesting to me. As far as conception and pregnancy, we've never formally developed a threshold that separates what we consider "life" in a legal sense vs. not. I think that such a threshold would have to first be created before those decisions could be made with any kind of consistency.
Click to expand...

yep - I fully acknowledge I don't know the right answer and that the nature of pregnancy is a unique situation

that said, I also know that past a certain point in a pregnancy it's hard to distinguish the fetus from the baby and if we believe human life is precious there should be some restriction (some set of circumstances) on destroying that human life.

I do think the notion Ras brought up (allow end to pregnancy but don't kill a viable fetus) is an interesting angle and we've seen in cases like Ralph Northam and others that they are opposed to even an abortion resulting in a live baby outside the womb said baby has no right to life (I can't fathom that thinking)
 
  • Like
Reactions: CardsNVols
#509
#509
NashVol11 said:
Holy strawman. Guy said if you had sex you’re willingly pregnant (didn’t say anything about unprotected) and the reasoning is that if there’s a risk of something happening, it means you’re willing. I’m saying that reasoning is absurd because no one could then be unwilling - everything that happens to someone, whether it’s rape or a plane crash or being pooped on by a pigeon, was a risk beforehand.
Click to expand...

he said (as I understood it) you were willing to become pregnant not willingly pregnant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RikidyBones
#510
#510
#511
#511
AshG said:
Then let's issue all unborn children Social Security numbers and allow them to count towards child tax credits.
Click to expand...

It's a question of the extent of "rights" and what we really mean when that term is used. In a strictly legal sense, you would be correct. We would basically have to extend full citizenship (or some form of it) to an unborn child for it to enjoy substantiated rights. I'm not sure that's a rabbit hole anyone wants to go down.
 
#512
#512
Rasputin_Vol said:
Oh, and with regards to a medical procedure that requires a woman to abort a baby in order to save her life... I wonder just how much of that is necessary in 2021 and how much of that is just something agenda driven. Makes me think they are attacking the womb. For example...

Experts: Two-thirds of hysterectomies unnecessary - CNN.com

Hysterectomy Side Effects, Disparities That Women Should Know
Click to expand...

You seem to be spray-and-pray in talking about this situation. Hysterectomies aren't abortions.

And as for what is and is not medically necessary, I'd rather a medical professional decide that than some partisan hack someone else elected to office. The doctors are going to have access to knowledge and training that Senator Philip Mamouf-Wihfarz had no way of knowing exists.
 
#514
#514
NashVol11 said:
Rough take for many reasons, not least of which because it makes unwillingness essentially impossible - everything that happens to someone had a risk of that thing happening, because it happened, so who on Earth would then not be “willing” by that standard? Good to know you’re in the “rape victims were willing to be raped” camp though
Click to expand...
Talk about straw man. Keep trying to act like you care about rape victims. You don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#516
#516
AshG said:
You seem to be spray-and-pray in talking about this situation. Hysterectomies aren't abortions.
Click to expand...

You didn't read a thing I posted.

Rasputin_Vol said:
Oh, and with regards to a medical procedure that requires a woman to abort a baby in order to save her life... I wonder just how much of that is necessary in 2021 and how much of that is just something agenda driven. Makes me think they are attacking the womb. For example...

Experts: Two-thirds of hysterectomies unnecessary - CNN.com

Hysterectomy Side Effects, Disparities That Women Should Know
Click to expand...
 
#517
#517
Men who have a strong "pro life" stance on abortion, to the the degree they protest and try to effect policy, are weird, I'm sorry...Regardless of how you come about your opinion on the topic, you come off looking like an absolute creepshow when you try to lecture women on their bodily functions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OHvol40 and luthervol
#518
#518
utvols88 said:
Talk about straw man. Keep trying to act like you care about rape victims. You don't.
Click to expand...

A straw man would be “you don’t care about rape victims” as a response to “saying everyone is a willing participant in every ‘risk’ that happens to them is a pretty problematic argument with a ton of holes in it”
 
#519
#519
Rasputin_Vol said:
You didn't read a thing I posted.
Click to expand...

I read them both, thank you. I didn't see a connection to abortion then, and I don't see one now after second and third readings.

Is the point you're trying to make that women exist primarily to crank out more humans, and any operation that prevents them from being baby factories is bad?

If that's the case, then let's make vasectomies require spousal consent and only be the reversible kind.
 
#520
#520
Sub Par SUPERSTAR said:
Men who have a strong "pro life" stance on abortion, to the the degree they protest and try to effect policy, are weird, I'm sorry...Regardless of how you come about your opinion on the topic, you come off looking like an absolute creepshow when you try to lecture women on their bodily functions.
Click to expand...

It's the cancer of 1800s doctrine on complementarianism that has crept out of the AFE churches and into mainstream culture.
 
#521
#521
AshG said:
I read them both, thank you. I didn't see a connection to abortion then, and I don't see one now after second and third readings.

Is the point you're trying to make that women exist primarily to crank out more humans, and any operation that prevents them from being baby factories is bad?

If that's the case, then let's make vasectomies require spousal consent and only be the reversible kind.
Click to expand...
Nevermind
 
#522
#522
AshG said:
It's the cancer of 1800s doctrine on complementarianism that has crept out of the AFE churches and into mainstream culture.
Click to expand...
Some may disagree with this. I don't use religion. What's written in a book is irrelevant to this imo. For me, christianity would help the case for abortion. For this purpose let's assume Christianity is fact. Babies would simply go to heaven.

But the facts of post death are blank. No one knows. Life is a gift, consciousness is a gift that shouldn't be treated as ungratefully as many treat it. I can't reconcile killing an baby for convenience, regret, etc after an act that specifically results in this outcome. Nash wants to introduce rape victims as a red herring from his macro belief because he can't argue it. Discussing rarities as the main point without conceding the generalities is disingenuous

Before you ask, I'm against the death penalty too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and AshG
#524
#524
Dolly Parton's Sister says Women Treated Worse in America than Afghanistan

Stella Parton, sister of country star Dolly Parton, said women in the United States are treated worse than women in Afghanistan on Wednesday following the Texas abortion ban going into effect.

The self-proclaimed "Singer/Songwriter, Actress, Author, Speaker & Human Rights Advocate," according to her Twitter bio, doubled down when the Supreme Court did not block the Texas law that bans abortions after six weeks. While there are no exceptions for rape or incest, there is an exception for medical emergencies.

"Don't you find it odd that women in America are being treated worse than women in Afghanistan?" Parton tweeted. "We wasted 2trillion dollars plus to go into Afghanistan to liberate their women and children? Something ain't right here folks. Are you catching on yet?"

Dolly Parton's sister says women treated worse in America than Afghanistan
 
#525
#525
Franklin Pierce said:
Dolly Parton's Sister says Women Treated Worse in America than Afghanistan

Stella Parton, sister of country star Dolly Parton, said women in the United States are treated worse than women in Afghanistan on Wednesday following the Texas abortion ban going into effect.

The self-proclaimed "Singer/Songwriter, Actress, Author, Speaker & Human Rights Advocate," according to her Twitter bio, doubled down when the Supreme Court did not block the Texas law that bans abortions after six weeks. While there are no exceptions for rape or incest, there is an exception for medical emergencies.

"Don't you find it odd that women in America are being treated worse than women in Afghanistan?" Parton tweeted. "We wasted 2trillion dollars plus to go into Afghanistan to liberate their women and children? Something ain't right here folks. Are you catching on yet?"

Dolly Parton's sister says women treated worse in America than Afghanistan
Click to expand...
That's the take of a very privileged individual
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, NorthDallas40 and AshG
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top