The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

"Hurr durr why do we wear seatbelts if car crashes still happen?"

How can you be so confident in your retardation? This isn't some weak number either. We're talking 50-55% decreases in crime

Says the guy who takes a comparative study as single lined fact lol
Your own retarded ideal is to kill unborn babies to reduce crime by a vague margin instead of fixing the hardcore societal problems of poverty and inequality. You can kill as many babies as you want and get your reduced crime rates, but this way crime will never stop, you'll still leave the window open for the real reason that shit is a thing.
This is in the same line as saying we should nuke the entire middle east so that way all terrorists will die, literally living in an imaginary world where the mass hysteria of such bloodshed won't start even more problems back in home base.
My friend, you want to talk retarded, keep talking about passing judgement before a guven cause and you're all set.

 

[Almighty MoeBro Nation]

Says the guy who takes a comparative study as single lined fact lol
Your own retarded ideal is to kill unborn babies to reduce crime by a vague margin instead of fixing the hardcore societal problems of poverty and inequality. You can kill as many babies as you want and get your reduced crime rates, but this way crime will never stop, you'll still leave the window open for the real reason that shit is a thing.
This is in the same line as saying we should nuke the entire middle east so that way all terrorists will die, literally living in an imaginary world where the mass hysteria of such bloodshed won't start even more problems back in home base.
My friend, you want to talk retarded, keep talking about passing judgement before a guven cause and you're all set.

Even more problems? In what fucking world? Is it really such a hard concept to grasp that abortion can have some positive social effects on society? Providing abortions to women who need them WILL inevitably improve our poverty levels since we'll have less people who can't fend for themselves. Sorry sweetie but facts don't care about your feelings.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

The rhetorical arena you've established is unnecessary-- one can evaluate the value the enforcers of law have for either right when the application of those rights are called into question in any context, against anything else. Accordingly, it was never on me to to provide counter-examples specifically involving this rights conflict. but even then, the very precedents that protect the practice of abortion by virtue of what can be understood as bodily autonomy also limit it in the interest of "protecting prenatal life". Despite what you said about not being able to have it both ways, SCOTUS definitely tried and continues to maintain that such is possible-- even if we both don't believe that to be the case, ourselves.

It's absolutely necessary, since the two rights we're talking about form the entire basis of the debate. If you took either right out of the conversation, then at least one side would have no reason to argue their position. That neither of these rights are upheld perfectly in law is hardly relevant, since laws are often imperfect; hence why they can—and in some cases should—be revised.

The imperfect nature of law doesn't in any way negate the issue of judicial precedent. It is through an understanding of the precedents which have been set that the justness of a particular law is understood, and when a particular precedent is found to be flawed, a new one takes it's place. It pains me to have to repeat myself, but this is how law evolves.

However much you try to tangent away from the central point here, the fact remains that you have yet to establish how restricting abortion makes sense in relation to the relevant precedents which have been set. To put it more simply: you have yet to provide a non-abortion example (or case law) of a judge ruling that one person's right to life takes precedence over another person's right to bodily integrity.

Prior to now, your issue with the conscription example was that you disagreed with the concept of conscription and considered it inconsistent and worthy of abolition (regardless of whether it has been repeatedly upheld without fail since WWI).

Now, it's that it doesn't demonstrate the conflict you're looking for, for some reason? Or are you just glossing over that example, here? As well as the mention of drug possession/use?

My pointing out that conscription violates bodily autonomy and my pointing out that it doesn't involve the same conflict of rights that abortion does isn't a contradiction. They're answers to two separate questions, and it is possible for both answers to be correct.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

"Hurr durr why do we wear seatbelts if car crashes still happen?"

How can you be so confident in your retardation? This isn't some weak number either. We're talking 50-55% decreases in crime

Not to hop back into this, but isn't there a disproportionate amount of black abortion? And we all know about blacks and crime statistics. Couldn't that account for a significant amount of the decrease in crime?

 

[Zero Day Defense]

It's absolutely necessary, since the two rights we're talking about form the entire basis of the debate.

What of it? How the legal system handles the two rights can be assessed independently of each other and vis-a-vis anything else. Most importantly, how they're handled in any other context is at minimum arguably relevant to any conversation involving them. I don't need to specifically pit bodily autonomy against right to life if my argument is that the legal system doesn't uphold bodily autonomy on a consistent basis even when there's no direct harm to another, or when harm to another isn't even a question-- to speak less of in general, which speaks to the reality that "bodily autonomy" is already generally "infringed" upon in various ways and we allow it for whatever reasons those may be.

I especially don't need to do so when the most pertinent legal precedents for abortion, which allow abortion (and are much more pertinent than an organ donor case), actually attempted a balancing act between the two in a way where restrictions can still be made after some cutoff-- which itself sends the message that bodily autonomy doesn't prevail in the way you're framing the matter.

That neither of these rights are upheld perfectly in law is hardly relevant, since laws are often imperfect; hence why they can—and in some cases should—be revised.

If you want to make that case, then you can't make an argument directly from the law at the same time.

The imperfect nature of law doesn't in any way negate the issue of judicial precedent. It is through an understanding of the precedents which have been set that the justness of a particular law is understood, and when a particular precedent is found to be flawed, a new one takes it's place. It pains me to have to repeat myself, but this is how law evolves.

And it pains me to repeat myself, but the most pertinent precedents (as opposed to one that may be applicable with some stretching) don't allow bodily autonomy to prevail.

However much you try to tangent away from the central point here, the fact remains that you have yet to establish how restricting abortion makes sense in relation to the relevant precedents which have been set.

See above.

My pointing out that conscription violates bodily autonomy and my pointing out that it doesn't involve the same conflict of rights that abortion does isn't a contradiction.

That's not the accusation. The accusation is that you're not consistently answering to that point, and that's partly because you didn't mention it alongside the taxation reference even though I brought those two examples together, so I had to infer whether you considered the conscription question a red herring as well as the manner in which you thought it so if you did.

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

Even more problems? In what fucking world? Is it really such a hard concept to grasp that abortion can have some positive social effects on society? Providing abortions to women who need them WILL inevitably improve our poverty levels since we'll have less people who can't fend for themselves. Sorry sweetie but facts don't care about your feelings.

What the fuck are you talking about? Shooting niggers in the streets who even look like they may be criminals someday is a more reasonable solution that abortion. You're literally advocating for death by possibility to commit crime here, retard.
And it doesn't matter how many people you have, crime is a thing because of poverty, laziness to work and a degenerate culture. You can wipe out half of your country's poor population and then you would honestly think the government or corporations will become benevolent utopian socialists and improve the lot of everyone that's left? When the rest of the population will still be lazy well fare monkeys as before?
You fucking dumbass.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

I knew I forgot one of your talking points! Catholics, incels, and punishing women for sex. That's all you have. Ad hominem and assigning negative intent, that's literally the meat of your posts. Probably should never show yourself around here again, for the good of your fellow pro-abortionists, because those are embarrassingly inept debate tactics.

You completely ignored my points about your false equivalence which would result in punishing people who have done literally nothing at all, and homosexuals who never would impregnate women.

You also fail to justify why a woman's bodily autonomy supersedes her own offspring's she willing conceived, to the detriment of its life. You merely screech your talking point, "women's bodily autonomy" like a magic incantation lmao

You're clearly unable to argue in good faith and engage the ideas of others. You're a juvenile, morally bankrupt idiot, and have been thoroughly defeated. You can't refute anything I say, and everyone can see it.

You are just completely disregarding my points and apparently unaware of what "false equivalency" means.

You want to eliminate abortions, right? Well, making men undergo vasectomies, which can be reversed, at birth, would eliminate close to 100% of unwanted pregnancies and thus eliminate abortions.

Instead you want to punish those harlots who have sex, by forcing them to have a baby. You don't want to remove men's body autonomy, but think you should control what women do with their own body.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

You are just completely disregarding my points and apparently unaware of what "false equivalency" means.

You want to eliminate abortions, right? Well, making men undergo vasectomies, which can be reversed, at birth, would eliminate close to 100% of unwanted pregnancies and thus eliminate abortions.

Instead you want to punish those harlots who have sex, by forcing them to have a baby. You don't want to remove men's body autonomy, but think you should control what women do with their own body.

You're conveniently ignoring that you're imposing actual, unjustified punishment on males (including homosexuals, which you're extra ignoring lmao) who have done nothing to deserve it, whereas you're conflating punishment with personal responsibility for women.

Furthermore, we're talking about ending human life which already exists, not preventing it from existing (we can already do that by enforcing personal responsibility and "safe" sex, we don't need mass sterilization). It's wrong to end an innocent human life which has been--for the millionth time--purposefully and willingly conceived.

And, you won't acknowledge that vasectomies are often irreversible anyway. All because you won't hold women accountable for their actions, to ensure they, their partner, or preferably both of them, have taken the appropriate, responsible precautions to avoid pregnancy.

Eat shit, dude. Your ego and agenda are out of control. You absolutely refuse to budge on anything, or fully engage with what is being presented. Why are you even here? Either troll (poorly) like @Freya and just call everyone incels, or actually take the discussion seriously, make up your mind.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

You're conveniently ignoring that you're imposing actual, unjustified punishment on males (including homosexuals, which you're extra ignoring lmao) who have done nothing to deserve it, whereas you're conflating punishment with personal responsibility for women.

Lol how is a vasectomy punishment anymore than removing women's body autonomy is? Your autistic peabrain is totally fine with removing women's body autonomy because you don't view them as your equal. I don't blame you, though, it's your crippling autism.

Furthermore, we're talking about ending human life which already exists, not preventing it from existing (we can already do that by enforcing personal responsibility and "safe" sex, we don't need mass sterilization). It's wrong to end an innocent human life which has been--for the millionth time--purposefully and willingly conceived.

You want to get rid of abortions, making men get vasectomies at birth would be the best way to eliminate them. More so than forcing women to give birth, because back alley abortions already exist.

And, you won't acknowledge that vasectomies are often irreversible anyway. All because you won't hold women accountable for their actions, to ensure they, their partner, or preferably both of them, have taken the appropriate, responsible precautions to avoid pregnancy.

No, they're pretty frequently reversible. Besides, there's always adoption that you pro-life retards are pushing for.

Just admit, you want to punish women that have sex by forcing them to have babies.

Eat shit, dude. Your ego and agenda are out of control. You absolutely refuse to budge on anything, or fully engage with what is being presented. Why are you even here? Either troll (poorly) like @Freya and just call everyone incels, or actually take the discussion seriously, make up your mind.

That's ironic coming from your spaz ass who can't seem to grasp things that aren't black and white. That's a tell-tale sign of severe autism, btw

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Lol how is a vasectomy punishment anymore than removing women's body autonomy is? Your autistic peabrain is totally fine with removing women's body autonomy because you don't view them as your equal. I don't blame you, though, it's your crippling autism.


You want to get rid of abortions, making men get vasectomies at birth would be the best way to eliminate them. More so than forcing women to give birth, because back alley abortions already exist.


No, they're pretty frequently reversible. Besides, there's always adoption that you pro-life retards are pushing for.

Just admit, you want to punish women that have sex by forcing them to have babies.

That's ironic coming from your spaz ass who can't seem to grasp things that aren't black and white. That's a tell-tale sign of severe autism, btw

Didn't even read past the first sentence. We should set you upon the southern border, you brick fucking wall.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Didn't even read past the first sentence. We should set you upon the southern border, you brick fucking wall.

Okay, Feetloaf. I hope you start getting treatment for your crippling autism

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Okay, Feetloaf. I hope you start getting treatment for your crippling autism

Says the guy who has Feetloaf living in his head rent free. What a retard.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Says the guy who has Feetloaf living in his head rent free. What a retard.

You're the guy who got banned from here, twice, for acting like a spaz and then re-registered and is now at least smart enough to deny it's you

You know I am right about the vasectomy thing and it's blowing your autistic brain because it is nothing that your evangelical upbringing told you how to handle

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

You're the guy who got banned from here, twice, for acting like a spaz and then re-registered and is now at least smart enough to deny it's you

You know I am right about the vasectomy thing and it's blowing your autistic brain because it is nothing that your evangelical upbringing told you how to handle

You don't even believe your own shit because otherwise you wouldn't dodge points. I ripped holes in your vasectomy trash nonsense and you just glossed over it all.

So, does Trump take up more space in your head than Feetloaf, or are they kinda just roommates?

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

What of it? How the legal system handles the two rights can be assessed independently of each other and vis-a-vis anything else. Most importantly, how they're handled in any other context is at minimum arguably relevant to any conversation involving them. I don't need to specifically pit bodily autonomy against right to life if my argument is that the legal system doesn't uphold bodily autonomy on a consistent basis even when there's no direct harm to another, or when harm to another isn't even a question-- to speak less of in general, which speaks to the reality that "bodily autonomy" is already generally "infringed" upon in various ways and we allow it for whatever reasons those may be.

Except the two rights can't be assessed independently from one another, because one is in direct conflict with the other. The law ultimately has to take a side, and the side it takes can't be arbitrary if it wishes to meet the standard of rational basis (a legal term well established in US constitutional law).

My point to you is that if a person cannot be legally compelled to use their body to support another against their will in the case of organ/blood donation or parabiosis, then it logically follows that a person should not be legally compelled to use their body to support a fetus against their will. Thus far, you have neither provided a sound refutation to this point, nor have you provided an argument to support the notion that a fetus possesses extra rights which could usurp the precedent I have outlined.

Simply pointing out that certain rights are inconsistently upheld is a facile observation, and it's not a refutation of my argument, but a confirmation of it: my entire argument to you has been that restrictions upon abortion are inconsistent with the general precedent which has been established in cases where these two rights have come into conflict, and you undermine your own argument when your response to this fact is to simply shrug your shoulders and accept the inconsistency because doing so happens to be politically expedient.

And it pains me to repeat myself, but the most pertinent precedents (as opposed to one that may be applicable with some stretching) don't allow bodily autonomy to prevail.

And which precedents would those be? Because so far you have cited none which don't apply specifically to abortion, which entirely defeats the point: if the contention of the person you're arguing against is that a particular law is unjust, you can't just cite that law to support your case. The other examples you gave were irrelevant for the reasons I've already given.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

You don't even believe your own shit because otherwise you wouldn't dodge points. I ripped holes in your vasectomy trash nonsense and you just glossed over it all.

Lol no you didn't. You just tardraged about "non equivalency" without even addressing the point.

You want to eliminate abortions, right? Forced vasectomies would virtually eliminate them. Instead, you want to just punish women who have sex by forcing them to have babies. At least now you're admitting you just want to punish women who fuck guys who aren't your spaz ass.

So, does Trump take up more space in your head than Feetloaf, or are they kinda just roommates?

They both take up less room than women who have sex with men who aren't you take up in your tiny pea brain, although there's not much capacity there to begin with

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

You want to eliminate abortions, right? Forced vasectomies would virtually eliminate them. Instead, you want to just punish women who have sex by forcing them to have babies. At least now you're admitting you just want to punish women who fuck guys who aren't your spaz ass.

You keep yapping about punishing women, but you never yap about those who literally die in this situation.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Lol no you didn't. You just tardraged about "non equivalency" without even addressing the point.

You want to eliminate abortions, right? Forced vasectomies would virtually eliminate them. Instead, you want to just punish women who have sex by forcing them to have babies. At least now you're admitting you just want to punish women who fuck guys who aren't your spaz ass.


They both take up less room than women who have sex with men who aren't you take up in your tiny pea brain, although there's not much capacity there to begin with

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

View attachment 2548232

Cute how you don't even address my point there, Feetloaf.

You cen yapping about punishing women, but you never yap about those who literally die in this situation.

You want to eliminate abortions, right? Why not make men get vasectomies at birth? That'd virtually eliminate them. Oh, right, you don't want that because then it'd be removing your body autonomy and not those harlots who have sex with men who aren't you

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Cute how you don't even address my point there, Feetloaf.



You want to eliminate abortions, right? Why not make men get vasectomies at birth? That'd virtually eliminate them. Oh, right, you don't want that because then it'd be removing your body autonomy and not those harlots who have sex with men who aren't you

Oh wow. You actually are retarded lol you're literally screeching the same thing to anyone who disagrees with you, like copy and paste