And by this criteria crows and elephants have a better claim to being protected by the constitution than toddlers would.
SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade
- Thread starter The Original Sixth
- Start date
And by this criteria crows and elephants have a better claim to being protected by the constitution than toddlers would.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Killing an animal for food is a good reason. Deciding one day that you don't want to take care of your pet dog anymore, and that seeing what his insides looks like would be fun isn't; and I challenge you to say that's not wrong. That's the sort of mindset I see amongst the regressive left extremist pro-abortion activists, and it's why I vehemently oppose them. I'm just not anti-abortion either.
Because regardless of whether or not the unborn child can be considered a human being, it is still a living thing. Your teeth aren't alive. Neither is a tumor. The ants are alive, but you don't really have the choice not to kill them because not doing so when they're in your basement leads to a whole host of problems, which will eventually culminate in you losing your house.
I don't entirely disagree; I just happen to believe there are a number of exceptions where it shouldn't be illegal. Like for example; say you have a choice between saving the life of the mother, or the child. You can't save both, so who do you save? I'd save the mother every time; because the mother is the human being in this scenario, not the child (who merely has the potential of becoming human later down the line).
Honestly, some adults (and I'm fairly certain everyone knows the sort of people I'm referring to) seem to fail that criteria; there isn't a single thought inside their heads that wasn't planted there by someone else, and they appear utterly incapable of self-reflection.
Arlos
Sad Monarchist
Why?
Well, to the privileged, equal treatment can appear to be oppression.
Batrix2070
RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
Are you seriously asking? It rather seems obvious. Not being able to have an abortion when you want it means for many of these "women" that if they have an "accident" instead of being able to work after the "procedure" they will be forced to take maternity leave and take care of the child, unlike men who in their opinion are free because they are not busy for 9 months and then for another couple of years in which they have to devote themselves to the child because they can't cope on their own.
I know this because in high school my almost entire class consisted of girls and I had the opportunity to become very familiar with the thinking of such "women".
And if you remind them about adoption they are further not equal because they are the ones who have to endure the hardships of pregnancy and childbirth. And so on.
Edit: and this fact too.
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
Unfettered narcissistic hedonists generally do not appreciate anyone trying to put even the lightest of fetters on their hedonism, no matter how warranted.
Also, there are plenty of female pro-lifers out there who would contend that not only are they safeguarding girls' rights to not be murdered in the womb, but that there is no more contradiction between feminism and banning or restricting abortion than there is between men having rights and murder being illegal, and that mothers & wives are no less valuable (rather the opposite even) than 'empowered' sluts and corporate wageslaves. If you look at, for example, Students for Life's organizational team page you'll find that most of the people leading it are women, quite a few of them young women at that - and I guarantee you it's a similar situation with other pro-life orgs, a lot of the movement's figureheads in recent decades (such as Marjorie Dannenfelser, Lila Rose and Abby Johnson) are ladies. To say nothing of the powerful women who have decisively moved against abortion themselves, like South Dakota's Governor Kristi Noem or Justice Coney Barrett herself - suffice to say, a crowd of dusty old dudes they aren't.
As for any attempts by the military, the DOJ, State Department, etc. to try to enforce abortion regardless of what the states and Supremes just said, there's also the Hyde Amendment to consider. It's been illegal for more than 40 years (thanks, in part, to Biden himself until he had to run for the White House with the Democratic Party of 2020) for federal funding to go to abortion and the Dems haven't been able to overturn it any more than they have been able to pass a federal abortion bill.
Because they are no longer able to control thier own bodies. Men have made it so women have no choice.
At least according to my wife.
She thinks the wage gape is real
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
Is your wife aware that more women were involved in overturning Roe v. Wade than in coming up with it to begin with?
Floridaman
Well-known member
Yes you do, you can choose to not have sex, thus not have to deal with the consequences. As for men not having to put up with similar restrictions, they do we call it child support.
Arlos
Sad Monarchist
Not having sex and using contraception is still a thing.
We actually do have to pay child support in most countries when a child is born, we also never had a say on whether the child should be born or not but have to pay regardless depending on the woman choice.
Honestly pretty happy you american did this, great jobs saving innocents life, that deserve respect.
DarthOne
☦️
South Dakota will prosecute abortion docs and restrict access to pills: Gov. Noem
nypost.com
Fuller House Actress Jodie Sweetin Joins Antifa Protesters Blocking Highway in LA, Gets Shoved to Ground By Police While Refusing to Comply(VIDEO)
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Lori Lightfoot Riling up the Crowd in Chicago
It's amazing how many fucking morons there are out there who think that Clarence Thomas single-handedly outlawed abortion.
He didn't. He just ruled that the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to an abortion, and that the legal determination should be reserved to the states. So, if the state of Illinois wants to make abortion legal, then they can do so. This shit isn't complicated.
South Dakota will prosecute abortion docs and restrict access to pills: Gov. Noem
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem said her state will prosecute abortion doctors, not women, who violate its law.
nypost.com
Fuller House Actress Jodie Sweetin Joins Antifa Protesters Blocking Highway in LA, Gets Shoved to Ground By Police While Refusing to Comply(VIDEO)
Fuller House Actress Jodie Sweetin Joins Antifa Protesters Blocking Highway in LA, Gets Shoved to Ground By Police While Refusing to Comply(VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cassandra MacDonald
Jodie Sweetin, who played Stephanie Tanner on both Full House and Fuller House, joined Antifa to block a Los Angeles highway over the decision to overturn Roe v.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Lori Lightfoot Riling up the Crowd in Chicago
It's amazing how many fucking morons there are out there who think that Clarence Thomas single-handedly outlawed abortion.
He didn't. He just ruled that the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to an abortion, and that the legal determination should be reserved to the states. So, if the state of Illinois wants to make abortion legal, then they can do so. This shit isn't complicated.
You should show her the court cases around women's professional soccer's attempt to claim discrimination in pay, and how it actually turned out they were making more than their male counter-parts when everything went to discovery.
The wage-gap is farce pushed to divide the sexes, and it also never accounts for non-monetary benefits.
RBG, for all that she was a political hack, was many times an honest political hack who knew her side was philosophically indefensible garbage even as she'd still rule in favor of it because it was 'her side.'
Contrast with the 'wise latina' whose opinions are always sheeple reasoning straight out of Animal Farm.
@LordsFire @Bear Ribs SCOTUS going to get some more shade for this from the Left, however you two can now quit with the 'they aren't protecting Christians right to pray'/'enforcing state atheism' shit:
They court upheld that the coach praying after a game, and not trying to force students to participate, does not violate the Establishment Clause and the school's actions violated his 1A rights.
They court upheld that the coach praying after a game, and not trying to force students to participate, does not violate the Establishment Clause and the school's actions violated his 1A rights.
Lol, Twitter is bitching and moaning that it wouldn't have cared if the coach was Muslim or Jewish. That's an interesting deflection.
"Hey, a coach should be able to lead prayer at a school event."
"No religion in schools or government! REEEE!"
"The Court says he can!"
"Well...they wouldn't have cared if he weren't Christian!"
"But you're the ones banning it..."
He didn't lead a prayer though, which is part of why SCOTUS ruled in his favor.
The coach prayed by himself on the field, and did not try to make any students participate, and he only did it after the game.
But should it be a punishable offense if a hunter kills an animal and doesn't use it as food? We kill animals all the time so biology students can take a look at the insides. I dissected a frog in high school biology class. Did whoever killed that frog do something fundamentally wrong? Killing a living thing that isn't human isn't fundamentally wrong, no.
And it's not fundamentally wrong to kill a living thing that isn't human. People living in a free country don't need to give a reason in order to do things that aren't fundamentally wrong; saying that they do is arbitrary and authoritarian. You still haven't established a fundamental moral difference between a pregnant woman killing her child a week before her due date, and getting her appendix removed. Or taking deworming meds to flush a tapeworm out of her body. That's a living thing, after all.
And you're also really reaching with saying that an ant colony would result in you losing your house. Most people set out ant baits because they see ants as a nuisance; if a mother sees her newborn infant as a nuisance, why can't she kill it? And let's say the mother pays rent on an apartment, and supporting an infant could cause her to miss rent payments and get evicted. Is it ok for her to kill the newborn infant in that sort of situation?
You actually do disagree, because you're denying that an infant is a human life, a human living thing, which is a necessary premise for my logic in saying that unjustly killing an infant is wrong and evil and should be illegal. And in the process you're erasing any moral reason for why a mother shouldn't be allowed to kill her newborn infant, if she wants to for any reason she chooses.
Think of it this way. You acknowledge that both a fetus and a newborn infant are living things, living beings. But you're denying that they are human. The thing is, there's more than one kind of fetus. Let's say a male dog and a female dog mate, and conceive. Doesn't that create a fetus? It's not the same kind of fetus as a fetus created by a man and a woman mating, though. How do you differentiate between the two fetuses? Is it not accurate to call the fetus conceived by the dogs mating a dog fetus, and the fetus conceived by humans mating a human fetus? If a fetus is human, and a living thing, doesn't that make the fetus a human living thing? In other words, a human being?
No. She does not. I definitely would like sources and stuff to help show her this.
Very true.
She is like "mens bodies are not controlled"
How is Abortion in your country?Not having sex and using contraception is still a thing.
We actually do have to pay child support in most countries when a child is born, we also never had a say on whether the child should be born or not but have to pay regardless depending on the woman choice.
Honestly pretty happy you american did this, great jobs saving innocents life, that deserve respect.
I have made it obvious that unequal pay is against the law and the constitution, because discrimination.
Except that the pay gap doesn't exist at all, when you actually get down to the accounting numbers, and it's a myth to begin with once the monetary value of the non-monetary benefits gets weighed in.
So it's not even a matter of law or the Constitution, it's a matter of your wife believing straight up lies that can be disproven with just cursory court case research.