- 11,975
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
So you don’t think laws should exist? Laws literally impact the decisions of others all the time.
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
So you don’t think laws should exist? Laws literally impact the decisions of others all the time.
- 147,961
- 195,600
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
i do think laws should exist
and criminals should be prosecuted
that’s why Donald trump and his many coconspirators should be in jail
- 11,975
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
How do you think laws are made?
Do you think they impact the choices/decisions of others?
dacomeup
Supporter
- 25,782
- 35,870
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
Please do us all a favor and stop engaging with Delk. He brings literally nothing to this thread and exactly what he vowed wouldn’t happened has already happened.
- 147,961
- 195,600
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
i think the victims of rape and incest aren’t given much of a choice
or women on the whole after this week
Air Champa
formerly champa
- 2,310
- 4,127
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2017
Man out here trying to one up Ted Cruz and Abbott for worse human beings from the state.
- 147,961
- 195,600
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- 11,975
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
I think you may be reading his tweet incorrectly. Are you familiar with the decisions in Plessy and Brown?
- 1,250
- 2,648
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2020
My post only addressed your “secondary effect” point. Just like you can’t pass up an opportunity to make up an “alienating the moderate” voter point, it’s hard for me to let pointless arguments slide (you can imagine my difficulty with ignoring certain lawyers)
As for your primary point, I find the whole thing moot: there is no arguing here. No one is going to change their mind on the issue of abortion unless they have some personal event. Every single argument has already been made and nothing is compelling to its respective opposition. That’s why both RvW and DvJ hang their respective hats on rather novel and suspiciously ad hoc legal arguments.
Fact is, the DvJ ruling is undemocratic when you look at polling data. So it’s unclear to me why an argument even needs to be made. This isn’t a “win popular support” issue. Messaging around it doesn’t matter. People aren’t making these points to convince anyone. They are expressing their rage. And, personally, I’m not going to tone police women (or really anyone) when they express their rage over this decision.
- 29,829
- 39,666
- Joined
- May 25, 2004
What’s stopping a donation funded shuttle service to states like mn and Colorado that are surrounded by places where abortion is banned?
- 9,134
- 1,012
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
you realize that this is the pretty much same argument behind men not wanting to pay for child support right?
- 147,961
- 195,600
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
Seems like it would take more than personal views to obligate someone to pay child support
- 7,344
- 28,801
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
We opted against including negative reaction options on NikeTalk because we'd rather disagreements be articulated than permit frictionless, push-button negativity, but you really have to wonder about someone who uses a laughing emoji to react to a post about the extreme and racially disparate Black maternal mortality rate in the US. I sincerely hope they just hit the wrong button.
If a fetus is a person, there would be no need for abortion restrictions. After all, as we're so unctuously reminded whenever the issue of gun control arises, murder is already illegal.
By what scientific or rational measure is a fetus a person, but not, say, a fully grown elephant who has passed a mirror self-recognition test? Elephants demonstrate complex emotions and develop lifelong familial bonds. They have fully developed nervous systems and are capable of experiencing pain and suffering.
We're clearly dealing, here, with a specific, highly selective, faith-based standard of personhood.
"Florida man" will maintain the "right" to take a human life to remove an intruder from their private property, but a Florida woman who becomes pregnant will no longer have the right to remove a non-viable fetus from her own body.
Police (and, by extension, armed vigilantes sanctioned by White Supremacy) can kill a child in cold blood for allegedly stealing from a grocery store, but a fetus implanted by rape is entitled to nine months of food and lodging - without even being accused of socialism?
In the same way that a non-viable fetus cannot function independently of the womb, the majority's reasoning is unsustainable outside of a particular brand of Christian fundamentalism.
While the legal rationale seems to be based on equating abortion to murder, the popular rationale against it (which, in my opinion is the real motive behind the legal push to ban abortion) is the fact that Christian religious doctrine forbids abortion.
We should also account for the fact that our laws include exceptions to justify killing other people centered around the principles of self-defense and protection of property. Women own their bodies, and the fetus requires the use of their bodies to survive early in the pregnancy. If the fetus is a full person (despite having no name, no citizenship, and no numerical value from the get-go), it should have ALL the rights and ALL the duties associated with personhood, including the duty to have the consent of the uterus owner before attaching itself to it. The self-defense argument is self-explanatory: women whose lives are put in danger by the presence of a fetus should be able to terminate the pregnancy.
The Right needed religious ideologues sitting in the courts in order to ignore these arguments. That's what makes the religious aspect of the decision to overturn RvW (and trigger abortion bans in many states) important.
If a fetus is a person, there would be no need for abortion restrictions. After all, as we're so unctuously reminded whenever the issue of gun control arises, murder is already illegal.
By what scientific or rational measure is a fetus a person, but not, say, a fully grown elephant who has passed a mirror self-recognition test? Elephants demonstrate complex emotions and develop lifelong familial bonds. They have fully developed nervous systems and are capable of experiencing pain and suffering.
We're clearly dealing, here, with a specific, highly selective, faith-based standard of personhood.
"Florida man" will maintain the "right" to take a human life to remove an intruder from their private property, but a Florida woman who becomes pregnant will no longer have the right to remove a non-viable fetus from her own body.
Police (and, by extension, armed vigilantes sanctioned by White Supremacy) can kill a child in cold blood for allegedly stealing from a grocery store, but a fetus implanted by rape is entitled to nine months of food and lodging - without even being accused of socialism?
In the same way that a non-viable fetus cannot function independently of the womb, the majority's reasoning is unsustainable outside of a particular brand of Christian fundamentalism.
- 147,961
- 195,600
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- 9,134
- 1,012
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
apparently nothing should obligate if we're arguing for personal choices
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 64,047
- 192,217
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- 147,961
- 195,600
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
my ”personal views” shouldnt obligated anyone to pay child support
or obligate them to make a personal choice
aepps20
Supporter
- 41,239
- 87,029
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
Debating him is to debate a person that wants to control women's bodies and supports Republican Pedophiles.
- 147,961
- 195,600
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
lawd, take the wheel…
Air Champa
formerly champa
- 2,310
- 4,127
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2017
F`in pigs are getting really bold man.
- 147,961
- 195,600
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- 11,975
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- 32,537
- 27,060
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
"Personhood" is a subjective moral category guided mostly by peoples moral intuitions.
imo I think it's impractical, and really difficult in practice to apply that to a fetus.
but granting a fetus the moral weight of a human being does not require christian fundamentalisms.
the fact that an elephant can pass a self recognition test or has complex emotions, is a total non sequitur argument.
and imo it's evidence of my claim
animal rights is filled with secular people with subjective standards of what categories of life deserve what moral weight
there are people who aren't guided by any particular religion who think "sentiance" should grant animal lives greater moral weight than we currently give them.
the idea that you only religion could lead you to grant a fetus personhood status,
when non religious people grant animals something approximating personhood all the time.
now imo it's a dumb idea to do this, and almost nobody actually operates in practice like a fetus is a person
because doing so would be impractical and lead to absurd outcomes.
but dumb ideas don't require christian fundamentalism.
- 29,829
- 39,666
- Joined
- May 25, 2004
I didn’t mean an abortion shuttle is the right way. I’m just saying that’s probably gonna be what people have to do.
- 11,975
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
Fetus and unborn baby are synonyms.
Similar threads
