Abortion

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
N

Numbers_sl

shitlord
4,054
3
Defining a zygote,embryo, fetus as a human with full rights leads one to believe that you are being disingenuous when you say no one is saying that women can't choose to abort. Add to that the lawmakers in the U.S. who have successfully restricted access to abortions and it sounds like you support at the very least making it more difficult for a woman to choose. That also means that I couldn't possibly win the woman hater's thread.
 
A

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,763
Numbers_sl said:
Defining a zygote,embryo, fetus as a human with full rights leads one to believe that you are being disingenuous when you say no one is saying that women can't choose to abort. Add to that the lawmakers in the U.S. who have successfully restricted access to abortions and it sounds like you support at the very least making it more difficult for a woman to choose. That also means that I couldn't possibly win the woman hater's thread.
Click to expand...
Nope, just call a spade a spade. It's ONLY about CHOICE anyways, right. So who care if it's human or not, kill it, that's fine. It's her body and her choice. Doesn't matter what is inside her.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Numbers_sl said:
Defining a zygote,embryo, fetus as a human with full rights leads one to believe that you are being disingenuous when you say no one is saying that women can't choose to abort. Add to that the lawmakers in the U.S. who have successfully restricted access to abortions and it sounds like you support at the very least making it more difficult for a woman to choose. That also means that I couldn't possibly win the woman hater's thread.
Click to expand...
You added that part in there about "full rights". No one said that.

I don't understand people who go to lengths to distance the fetus from humanity. As if that changes the reality of what is going on. To me, it seems that these people are either inhuman monsters who crave baby flesh nightly, or they have some sort of issue with abortion that they can't reconcile if they admit that the thing being aborted is human. What is so wrong about accepting the reality of the situation? ALL of the reality, both the positive and negative? I thought we were all supposed to be enlightened and educated and shit like that, accepting facts and tossing out bullshit.
 
A

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,763
Someone has been on wikipedia and is taking the original 1970's wording to heart.

You ask any woman today: "Is your right to abortion about privacy or is it about your right to choose what you do with your body?" you won't find a single one that says privacy.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
That is certainly what the courts ruled in the past. I do not think privacy is a very good argument. But they did, so whatever.
 
A

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,763
chaos_sl said:
That is certainly what the courts ruled in the past. I do not think privacy is a very good argument. But they did, so whatever.
Click to expand...
Correct. I guess we take a ruling 40 years ago verbatim. Makes Numbers sound like one of those idiots that believes every word from the Bible is inspired by God himself.

"Privacy" was a loophole because there was no other way they could word it to legalize it. The entire concept was different at that time as well.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,938
82,643
a_skeleton_03_sl said:
Someone has been on wikipedia and is taking the original 1970's wording to heart.

You ask any woman today: "Is your right to abortion about privacy or is it about your right to choose what you do with your body?" you won't find a single one that says privacy.
Click to expand...
I'd bet many would say both.
 
Phazael

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,803
32,024
Privacy is part of doctor patient confidentiality. I am sure if and when you get your balls clipped, you would rather not have your coworkers knowing about it. Same principle on a larger scale. Privacy is a separate issue and not specific to gender in this argument or any argument involving patient care.
 
A

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,763
Tuco_sl said:
I'd bet many would say both.
Click to expand...
No because we have completely extracted privacy and made it an issue entirely on its own.

You do remember when California ruled that minors could get abortions without their parents approving it and had full doctor patient confidentiality? That was because they didn't have that option before.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).
Click to expand...
If the issue was a privacy issue then you could have abortions the hour before you would naturally give birth and there would be no legal issues with that. It is no longer a privacy issue because in 40 years we have fleshed out our privacy laws when it comes to medical procedures.
 
Phazael

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,803
32,024
You cannot ever have abortions that close to term in any but the most extreme cases because of the health risks it places on the mother, social disputes aside.

And privacy is ALWAYS a legal concern with ALL medical procedures. Unless you think Bob wants his Enzyte use of penis implant to be a matter of public record when he is applying for that big corporate job.

Troll Harder.
 
A

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,763
Phazael_sl said:
You cannot ever have abortions that close to term in any but the most extreme cases because of the health risks it places on the mother, social disputes aside.

And privacy is ALWAYS a legal concern with ALL medical procedures. Unless you think Bob wants his Enzyte use of penis implant to be a matter of public record when he is applying for that big corporate job.

Troll Harder.
Click to expand...
Right, we have separate laws for privacy that were all made in the last forty years. Abortion is not about privacy. Troll harder.
 
Phazael

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,803
32,024
Intrusion from Seclusion related laws existed prior to 1944, though the Florida case was the first one to hit the public consciousness. And, yeah the Fourth Amendment (among others) might predate RvW by a few years....
 
Phazael

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,803
32,024
Part of its original creation was to prevent invasion of your personal privacy by the government through searching your private residence needlessly. Do you require more elaboration than that? It would be more interesting than being trolled by Suenig repeatedly....
 
Sebudai

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
a_skeleton_03_sl said:
Correct. I guess we take a ruling 40 years ago verbatim. Makes Numbers sound like one of those idiots that believes every word from the Bible is inspired by God himself.

"Privacy" was a loophole because there was no other way they could word it to legalize it. The entire concept was different at that time as well.
Click to expand...
Layin' it on a little thick, bro.

Anyway, haha abortion is legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.