There's no "would", as far as I'm concerned. It is a human life. Destroying it kills a human life. That is a different result, a much more evil result, than just stopping a person from "coming into existence". You and I are "cluster of cells", after all. That's not somehow mutually exclusive with us being human lives.
SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade
- Thread starter The Original Sixth
- Start date
There's no "would", as far as I'm concerned. It is a human life. Destroying it kills a human life. That is a different result, a much more evil result, than just stopping a person from "coming into existence". You and I are "cluster of cells", after all. That's not somehow mutually exclusive with us being human lives.
I've seen a post where a lib on FB said "If it was about babies, they'd have universal child day care. If it was about babies they'd have universal health care for expecting mothers. If it was about babies they'd mandate 6 months guaranteed maternity/paternity leave, if it was about babies. If it was about babies, etc" for like another whole paragraph.
And no where in it is the word Constitution.
Because the Constitution does not enter into these people's minds except as something to be changed, not as something to be respected for what it originally said.
Yeah that's a common fallacy pro-aborts love to parrot. And you're right, it has nothing to do with arguing there is a right to abortion in the Constitution, nothing to do with defending Roe v Wade as a sound legal decision that shouldn't be overturned. So technically, it has nothing to do with criticizing the Dobbs ruling one way or another.
For the wider debate on whether abortion should or shouldn't be legal, it's still a sort of strawman fallacy. The key fact at the heart of the issue is that abortion unjustly kills a human life. If you hold the belief that unjustly killing a human life is wrong, evil, and should be illegal, it follows that abortion is wrong, evil, and should be illegal. If you want to make the point that it's important to support struggling mothers and their families, great! We can talk about that. But acknowledging that doesn't change the main moral objection to abortion and reason to make it illegal. And it also pretends like there isn't also debate on whether those social policies would actually help the people they seek to help, or if the government action is the best way to help people in such situations, in the first place.
And at the end of the day, I'm not going to let leftists hold unborn children as hostages, using them as moral blackmail in order to get me to acquiesce to social policies I don't think would be beneficial. That's despicable.
Whenever you see this argument, you can hit them back with a simple question: If we had all these things, would it change their mind on whether or not abortion should be legal? If it wouldn't change their mind, then in their own view it's a red herring that's irrelevant to the actual debate.
Same thing, really: cluster of cells or considered a person at that point or not, it'll still develop into a person if left unimpeded.
Whether it's viewed as just a clump of cells being destroyed or a person being murdered, it's potato potatoe; the result is the same thing. It stops someone from existing.
As I said before, it's a heavy, heavy choice. It's not a quick form of birth-control so Cock Carousel Riders can continue being unpaid sex workers.
Karmic Acumen
Well-known member
Pretty sure they'd just lie then. Those arguments aren't exactly made in good faith to begin with.
But then again, I'm surprised they overturned RvW to begin with. After the leak, I was sure SCOTUS would cuck like they did for the election. Because riots.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Personally, I'd argue you're a person only when you've become capable of comprehending your own existence on an intellectual, rather than instinctual, level. Until then, you're no different than any other animal.
Everyone likes to think they hold that belief, but almost everyone has exceptions. Child molesters, enemy combatants, traitors; there's always someone who it's okay to kill.
You aren't quite making sense. If it's considered a "person" at that point, it's not going to develop into a person. It's already a person.
"Stopping someone from existing" is rather different than "stopping someone from coming into existence". Stopping a couple from having sex when the woman is ovulating and would conceive is stopping someone from coming into existence. And "stopping someone from existing" seems like a euphemistic way of saying it unjustly kills a human life. Either way you want to say it, it shouldn't be a choice at all. It's wrong, evil, and should be illegal.
I did say "unjustly killing".
This would allow infanticide.
New York Times Columnist Jamelle Bouie apparently penned a column for that newspaper of record on how she'd 'punish' the Supreme Court of the United States for its transgressions.
www.foxnews.com
Fox News said:
New York Times op-ed lays out plan to 'discipline' Supreme Court in response to Roe v Wade decision
New York Times published an op-ed titled "How to Discipline a Rogue Supreme Court" by opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie, where he called on Congress to punish the high court.
www.foxnews.com
New York Times Columnist Jamelle Bouie apparently penned a column for that newspaper of record on how she'd 'punish' the Supreme Court of the United States for its transgressions.
New York Times op-ed lays out plan to 'discipline' Supreme Court in response to Roe v Wade decision
New York Times published an op-ed titled "How to Discipline a Rogue Supreme Court" by opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie, where he called on Congress to punish the high court.
You know, if Democrats get enough of a majority in the Senate and House to make packing the court or impeaching the justices viable options, they would have enough of a majority to just pass legislation making abortion legal nationwide. Making these blatantly destructive moves moot.
What many people in the Pro Choice side don't want to admit is a whole lot of young women have been using Abortion as Birth Control. As in they have random sex with many many men. And when they get pregnant they just run to the Abortion Clinic. It is the dirty open secret out there.
The Woke Monster eventually eats everyone ... Libs are now turning on Ruth Bader Ginsburg
The Woke Monster eventually eats everyone ... Libs are now turning on Ruth Bader Ginsburg
When Ruth Ginsburg passed away in 2020, she was basically sainted by the left.notthebee.com
To be fair, a lot of conservatives have "thanked" RBG, tongue in cheek, because there is truth to the idea that this only happened because RBG stubbornly held on to her seat and didn't retire when she had the chance for Obama to replace her.
One thing people are overlooking though - in 1973, two justices dissented to Roe. Future chief justice WIlliam Rehnquist, and Byron White. White wrote in his dissent,
"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court."
Byron White retired under Bill Clinton and his seat was filled by, guess who? Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He passed in 2002, 20 years ago. Now though, 49 years after he wrote his dissent, the seat Byron White once held voted to overturn Roe v Wade. White didn't live to see the day that Roe was undone, but his legacy lives on in Amy Coney Barrett.
The only thing that happened was the the issue was kicked down to the states. If you really want abortion then move to a stay in a blue stateNew York Times Columnist Jamelle Bouie apparently penned a column for that newspaper of record on how she'd 'punish' the Supreme Court of the United States for its transgressions.
New York Times op-ed lays out plan to 'discipline' Supreme Court in response to Roe v Wade decision
New York Times published an op-ed titled "How to Discipline a Rogue Supreme Court" by opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie, where he called on Congress to punish the high court.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
I don't want to come across like I'm advocating it, but you're not wrong. That said; I don't think we as human beings have a blank check to kill any animal we come across either. There has to be a good reason for it; even if the bar isn't set quite as high as it would be if it were an actual person they were killing.
Laziness isn't a valid justification in my mind, nor is wanting to experience some sick pleasure from killing something that had the potential to become a person; both of which seem to cover the vast majority of regressive leftist who advocate abortion. Not defend its use in certain circumstances as I am, mind you; those people seem to want everyone to get abortions all the time. I refuse to support that.
Nancy Schaefer.
Funny story but Brad Raffensperger benefited immensely from her death.
Just say'n
And I don't think it's fundamentally wrong to kill animals. We do it all the time, for food. Do we need a "good reason"? Let's say someone goes out hunting, for sport. They shoot a deer, or a duck. Is that wrong? Does it matter if they take the dead deer or duck and use its meat for food later? I don't think it is, I don't think there should be some law requiring the hunter to prove they consumed the animal as food or suffer legal consequences. Now, it might be a good idea for the government to regulate hunting, to limit how many animals a hunter can shoot, for the purpose of conservation. But that doesn't mean the simple act of killing an animal is in itself wrong.
On the other hand, if it's not fundamentally wrong to kill an unborn child, or an infant, what grounds do you have to tell a mother that she can't do that, in any situation? What does it matter if she's lazy, or sadistic? What is the actual difference between her killing an unborn child, for any reason, and her getting her appendix removed, or her wisdom teeth removed? Or setting an ant bait trap to deal with some ants in her basement?
It is fundamentally wrong to unjustly kill an infant, or any human life. It is wrong and evil, and should be illegal.
The Woke Monster eventually eats everyone ... Libs are now turning on Ruth Bader Ginsburg
The Woke Monster eventually eats everyone ... Libs are now turning on Ruth Bader Ginsburg
When Ruth Ginsburg passed away in 2020, she was basically sainted by the left.
Didn't she once refer to modern feminism as 'slut culture" and once said something rather hilarious about the 19th. She could be pretty Savage when she wanted to be.
When they find out what that maniac hag actually thought.
Last edited:
Wargamer08
Well-known member
Feminism caught victory disease and went masks off decades ago. They are just now finally starting to have the damage catch up to them.
I've been laughing pretty hard at all the wailing about how women might actually have to suffer some kind of consequences for their actions. About how terrible pregnancy is. I guess they thought all those societal perks and benefits came free?
Imagine having to actually pay your part for the massive difference a woman receives in so many things. Imagine consequences to lifestyles that corrode the fundamentals of civilization.
Vyor
My influence grows!
That would quite literally be up to four years old.