Supreme Court Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
The justices are old so i assume they have something nice in 30-06



The stream i'm watching was talking about fighting for the future generations. Like bitch you're killing them LMFAO what future generation. All that's coming from their mouth is literally fucking NPC scripts, to be more exacted what's coming out of their mouth is "inspirational" shit you see on the T.V. that are just dramatized re-enactments of past civil rights protests that in reality were just chimpout's lite not people standing around saying "hey hey hoe hoe (insert word) has got to go". "WEEEE WILL NOT TAKE YOUR FASCIST SHIT, WE ARE NOT YOUR INCUBATORS"(They act like there's a government coom squad lmao close your legs whore)
 
It's funny how anti-vaxxers started using the whole "my body, my choice" argument against getting vaccinated. Would the overlap with those who are anti-abortion STILL be pro-life?

You misunderstand the argument. The conservative, libertarians, anti-vaxxers, etc actually do believe "my body my choice" as a general principle.

The problem is that with pregnancy there are two bodies present, and both deserve protection. The woman's personal sovereignty does not override the baby's right to life; the right to life is a higher order right, deserving of stronger protections than a right to liberty. (Unless her life is endangered, in which case it's either a tie or you give her the option.)

Similarly, the pro-vax argument that you lose your personal sovereignty in service of a unproven "greater good" does not justify nullifying your personal sovereignty. You need a stronger justification than "don't overwhelm a health care system" to overcome the protection your sovereignty deserves. Being infected with a known, spreadable disease overcomes that right's protection, so you can be forcibly quarantined, for example.

It's not a contradiction to be both pro-life and anti-jab. The people holding that combination of views either don't agree with you on the definition of fetal life, or your definition of public risk. But it is not an automatically illogical stance.

You could make an emotional argument that this calculus is unfair to women and to people with Covid co-morbidities, respectively. But life ain't fair, laws can't make it fair, and your rights shouldn't be curtailed in a cosmically futile quest for universal equity.
 
You cling to the west because it’s all you know. You could have it better someplace else.

If you are a White human living in the west, you live in a third world shithole that has a rich inheritance and a swiftly-diminishing pool of talented White suckers to exploit.

I encourage any ambitious White Man to leave the collapsing west and seek his fortunes elsewhere. Your intelligence, talents, and industriousness are in demand and will be rewarded elsewhere. Let the west have their precious mystery meats and empowered wymyn.
I cordially invite all of you to come to di Islands. Mi bruddas, experience di Island vibe!
 
You misunderstand the argument. The conservative, libertarians, anti-vaxxers, etc actually do believe "my body my choice" as a general principle.
You can make horrible choices with your body. That's a personal choice that YOU would have to deal with the consequences.

Similarly, the pro-vax argument that you lose your personal sovereignty in service of a unproven "greater good" does not justify nullifying your personal sovereignty. You need a stronger justification than "don't overwhelm a health care system" to overcome the protection your sovereignty deserves. Being infected with a known, spreadable disease overcomes that right's protection, so you can be forcibly quarantined, for example.
Say you're sick and you choose to spread your illness around. Your choice can affect those around you.

At that same token, if you have a severe medical condition that prevents you from going out, that's on you to make necessary precautions, not the people around you.
 
Nobody is forcing you to have sex, though. Don't want a baby? Don't have sex.
This is always the low IQ take and often same argument religious folk make. What you're insinuating is women should not have sex. Men are the ones doing the insemination and yet there is no shame for those creating the unwanted pregnancies. There are many instances where consent can be iffy such as when men lie about fertility or slip off a condom. Some men even claim to want a child until the birth occurs and they're expected to contribute something.

Abortion is eugenics with consent. It makes a lot more sense to offer a way out of parenthood during pregnancy than to have children born to those who should not be breeding (lack of responsibility). Workhouses and orphanages existed because of men who could not support the children they sired due to their death or abandonment (more often men were heads of households in earning so no daddy no bread). Attitudes towards women and fatherhood aren't improving so there will just be more babies without fathers around and more women who resent men.
 
This is always the low IQ take and often same argument religious folk make. What you're insinuating is women should not have sex. Men are the ones doing the insemination and yet there is no shame for those creating the unwanted pregnancies. There are many instances where consent can be iffy such as when men lie about fertility or slip off a condom. Some men even claim to want a child until the birth occurs and they're expected to contribute something.

Abortion is eugenics with consent. It makes a lot more sense to offer a way out of parenthood during pregnancy than to have children born to those who should not be breeding (lack of responsibility). Workhouses and orphanages existed because of men who could not support the children they sired due to their death or abandonment (more often men were heads of households in earning so no daddy no bread). Attitudes towards women and fatherhood aren't improving so there will just be more babies without fathers around and more women who resent men.

42da9w18un741.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back