Roe v. Wade May Be Overturned

@comicgirl21 said:

AYOOOOOOOOOOO, CAUGHT IN 4K 🤨📸

Like it's my first time xD One of my bfs got so excited first time we had backdoor he really did filmed my ass as he was doing it, so for all I know, yeah, I'm somewhere out there in 4K for real. I don't really mind, it's not like you can fish it out among bazillion other redhead clips. If ya want, go look for it and go nuts hahaha :D

@comicgirl21 said:

Your boyfriend gained consent from you while you two were performing sexual intercourse? He proceeded to post the video afterward? Your relationship sounds interesting and radddddd :)

@sigmavamp: Yeah, I don't mind since my face wasn't showing. I'm pretty chill and my relationships are quite colorful, ngl

My entire point is personhood being determined by brain functionality since this is the they ultimate decided in determining someone alive or dead. And even then we decide who's rights supersede who; a woman who has full consciousness, and array of emotions attitudes and sense of self... or a bundle of cells with none of what I just stated.

This tbh. I could not care less.

Abortion is clearly wrong. The heart of man is desperately wicked by nature, though, so it's hardly surprising that many people are okay with it.

IDIOTS. The supreme Court is far too politicized and far too concerned with representing their political party rather than actually representing the people. Abortion is a women's choice and 6 men on the Supreme Court who have to represent their political party despite more than 60% of US supporting Abortion ain't gonna change that. And I'm male.

My own opinions btw I don't wanna argue with anybody

The fact that india has 4x America's population but still outmatched in sexual crimes by a large margin speaks volumes

They are gonna have a lot of unwanted children for sure

@darthor: This is the most ignorant comment im here. First, that's exactly what the court ruled: that abortion is not within their power or purview. Second, you realize that it wasn't "6 men" right? That there are woman on the supreme court...

Third, more than 60 percent of America do not support abortion...California, New York and Illinois support abortion and they don't get to tell the rest of us what to do.

Sit tf down baby killer.

It was amazing to have it overturned on the Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Great video.

Why is the child’s choice or the father who helped create that child’s choice never part of the conversation?

Yah, this sucks. While the stereotypical "my body, my choice" argument in favour of abortion is trash and unconvincing, the pro-choice position is nonetheless the correct one (albeit for entirely different reasons). People who are pro-life, while not the woman hating caricatures many on the left portray them as, are still overly reductive and simple minded with their presentation of ethics.

My money, my choice. If a man impregnates a woman, why is it the man's responsibility to grant the woman money? Many actors have struggled with child support due to its high demand. That said, it should be considered that this type of logic works if a woman is in full custody of her body.

@nevesytneves: An interesting balance. Could you expound?

@paytience: Apologies for the delay, and for how long winded this post will probably be. My perspective on abortion is derived from a broader ethical foundation, which is that of utilitarnianism (basically operating under the simple assumption that happiness is in all cases preferrable to unhappiness, and therefore our goal should be to optimise for maximising the former). Following from this POV, I don't see any intrinsic value to concepts such as "life" or "autonomy" except as they relate to maximising quality of conscious experience throughout the world.

This should logically explain why I find "my body, my choice" to be so problematic. It asserts that the woman should be able to choose based off arbitrary principle, and is easily one shotted by any level one pro-life argument (since the contention will always be with whether the child can be considered alive/equivalent to another human, and conservatives by and large argue it can be because none of the lines we draw really make any fundamental/logical sense, thus meaning that we ought to start at conception). While there's definitely a section of the conservative base, including many on CV, who are deeply misogynistic, by its nature the pro-life case is not inherently so, and I don't find the attempt on the left to paint it as a massive war on woman spearheaded by sexists to be anything more than an unrealistic caricature.

Where I think the conservative case falls apart is that its equivalency between abortion and murder, while permissible, is not in of itself a rock solid argument against the former. To object to the removal of "life" on purely deontological or religious grounds is entirely arbitrary, and I think misses the point as to why we perceive it as such an atrocity. The reason we view it as such isn't because of any random "it's just wrong" claims which give "life" as a concept intrinsic worth, but because we, as humans, recognise the value of our own conscious experience, of its beauty/complexity, and view the removal of that as a negative. This ties back to my earlier point about the framework through which I choose to analyse moral questions; happiness/quality of consciousness are the only reasonable axioms, because to disagree with them as criteria you either have to assign yourself to something much more arbitrary (saying life is valuable just because, rather than admitting that humans have preferences based off our own biology/experiences that can be used as a foundation for our behaviour, which ought to be directed towards maximising things we regularly concede are worthwhile just by existing), or commit to complete nihilism/off yourself to maintain logical consistency (because if you think there's no value in existence or that there aren't states you prefer, why are you even here?).

Now that I've baked in why I think my starting premises are reasonable, it pretty clearly follows why the pro-choice side is correct. Even if we accept that abortion is functionally equivalent to murder (which I'm willing to agree with) the fact remains that women will, by and large, still end up having children (since the kids they abort are typically due to them not being in a position to raise them properly), and the children they have later will be in a position of greater financial and familial stability, and have been had willingly rather than because the state decided to render abortion illegal. This is obviously a stronger recipe for generating happiness/increasing the quality of experience in all parties, which, as noted prior, is the only intrinsically valuable thing about life.

@nevesytneves: No one is forced to raise a child ever. Adoption is one of the options available for that. With that said the entire abortion argument comes down to carrying a child for nine months and whether it happens to be too inconvenient for a woman. The child who gets aborted would not agree that it's best for their happiness and quality of experience. Life is better than death.

Just wanted to put that out there. No need for a ten paragraph reply. I give you credit for not being a complete lost cause like most of your kind but you just can't get there sadly.

@irishx:

No one is forced to raise a child ever. Adoption is one of the options available for that.

Sigh. The problem with this is two-fold:

A) Woman will not start abandoning their kids to the adoption system en masse if abortion is made illegal. I don't know how much you know about human psychology, but the fact is that having an abortion is very different from seeing your kid born and choosing to give it up. Which again, brings us back to the core point. The woman will be unhappy due to bearing the child unwillingly (even if her natural instincts cause her to keep it that's no equivalent to loving and carefully nurturing it for 18 years), will do a shit job at raising it, and if she'd waited until she was properly prepared financially and emotionally with a stable family structure (a husband who can mirror her affection for the kid) would have done a much better job. Why is the life of the current child more valuable than the one later who will have much higher quality of existence (again, consciousness is the only thing that makes life significant)?

B) Even if we were to presume that this hypothetical plays out, the adoption system is not a recipe for successful children. Overflooding it with kids who will bounce from foster home to foster home in a state of perpetual misery is a disastrous outcome for society that will not result in net positive happiness.

With that said the entire abortion argument comes down to carrying a child for nine months and whether it happens to be too inconvenient for a woman.

This is literally not the point outlined in my case at all, as anyone with basic reading comprehension can see... but sure I guess.

The child who gets aborted would not agree that it's best for their happiness and quality of experience. Life is better than death.

Okay:

A) Whether the child would agree with it is irrelevant. What matters under my framework is if it's true. And again, the child's quality of life isn't the only significant point here. The mother, and a hypothetical future child she might conceive, are actually more noteworthy here than the current potential kid.

B) Life being better than death is a pretty notion, but a blanket statement like that doesn't withstand scrutiny, and gives life intrinsic worth it doesn't have. Almost nobody would choose eternal torture over death, so clearly the only thing that matters about existence is the fact that we're conscious and get to maximise the quality of that consciousness (since we'd rather absence than a negative state of affairs).

Again, the conservative case is the simpleton perspective on ethics. The notion that existence holds some inherent weight irrespective of its quality is bizarre, and it's entirely arbitrary to draw the line at conception when it comes to this debate (ruling out any future child with a much better life the woman will probably have).

As an aside:

I give you credit for not being a complete lost cause like most of your kind but you just can't get there sadly.

This was painfully condescending and ironic coming from the guy who argued that being incentivised to take an effectively protective vaccine was tyranny comparable to the Nazis (even as a point of hyperbole that's on its face absurd).

@nevesytneves: Sigh is right. I'm not reading any of that. You did exactly what I said you didn't need to do.

@irishx: I didn't do it because I needed to or had any desire for you to read it. I did it for my own entertainment and to persuade any potentially neutral onlookers.

@nevesytneves: Of course you needed to. You were compelled to respond. Some people always have to have the last word. It makes them think they've "won." You already wrote a book expressing your feelings on the topic I doubt you added anything of significance in responding to me. Catching your last little bit about comparing "incentivised to take a vaccine" to the Nazis is typical leftist disengenuity. If I ever compared the "vaccine" to tyranny it would be in the terms of it being mandated or in the case of forcing people to take it to keep their job and in those cases it is.

@irishx:

Of course you needed to. You were compelled to respond. Some people always have to have the last word. It makes them think they've "won."

A quick look through my posting history would show that that's not true. There's been countless debates where I've not even responded to a person's initial reply to me, let alone kept on dragging it out.

You already wrote a book expressing your feelings on the topic I doubt you added anything of significance in responding to me.

You raised points concerning the adoption system that weren't addressed in my initial case... so obviously I was going to reply. I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or are just stupid, but when somebody adds something new to a discussion that challenges your initial conception of the debate a response is required. The subsequent post was clarifying my motivations for continuing since you gave a rather uncharitable depiction of them by saying I "needed to", rather than just admitting that this sort of back and forth has its merits.

Catching your last little bit about comparing "incentivised to take a vaccine" to the Nazis is typical leftist disengenuity. If I ever compared the "vaccine" to tyranny it would be in the terms of it being mandated or in the case of forcing people to take it to keep their job and in those cases it is.

You're not convincing anyone reading this that you didn't read my post but just so happened to catch the last bit (which was an irrelevant personal dig, the only one of its kind in the post). Which makes your earlier protest that I needn't have replied, because you didn't even read what I wrote, ring hollow. To the actual point, no major country I'm aware of has made it illegal to not be vaccinated (you're not going to be rounded up and executed) so there's no real tyranny. You requiring it as a minimum level of protection for participation in certain facets of society and certain jobs isn't "tyranny", that's the definition of an incentive. So you were, in fact, comparing being incentivised to take it to the Nazi regime, which shows an unhealthy vilification of those on the other side of the political spectrum, and is dangerously hyperbolic rhetoric. Saying that we're being "forced to take an experimental injection" (a vaccine that protects against a deadly virus and is almost ubiquitously supported by experts and data on the subject) is an unfathomable level of stupidity from someone who wants to paint left wingers as lost causes on the subject of abortion, as though all of your takes are extremely logically thought out and not wildly inaccurate. We have rules for all sorts of things in life; I don't know why taking protective measures against a virus is somehow uniquely cruel and oppressive.

@nevesytneves: Yeah, I'm not reading that either. I'll just say I find it funny that you probably think of yourself as a smart and good person. You support baby killing, forcing experimental injections on people, and whether directly or indirectly the pedo who was installed as President. You really are sick person and I should have known better from our past interactions.

@irishx: Friendly advice. Edit out the personal attack calling him what you did.

@dernman: Biden or nev? Not sure what I said that was out of bounds but I'm ok with any consequences that come from my words.

Just to wrap things up and make it simple. I'll repeat this for anyone who didn't hear it in the back row.

NO WOMAN IS EVER FORCED TO RAISE A CHILD. THE EXCUSE OF IT WOULD RUIN MY LIFE TO NOT TERMINATE MY PREGNANCY IS BS AND A LIE. RAPE, INCEST, AND LIFE OF THE MOTHER ARE ACCEPTED AS EXCEPTIONS BY MOST SO IT'S A NON ISSUE. IT ALL COMES DOWN TO 9 MONTHS OF INCONVENIENCE. THIS IS INDISPUTABLE FACT.

Nev.

Mods are not going to do anything if you personally attack Biden. I'm just looking out for ya. Don't want you getting banned.

You ok? You've seem angrier than usual lately. Don't forget to take a break from politics every now and again. I've had to take a step back myself. Too much crazy shit going on. It will eat you alive.

@irishx: you can't say "by most" and then say "so its a non issue" by most means "not by every".

@chimeroid: You'll never get 100% consensus on anything. It's a non issue because not enough people support it to make a difference.

@irishx: 55% of Americans are pro-choice. 38% are pro-life. That's more than enough.

damn, to think there was a point where this was some "the bad ending" possibility and not reality yet.

Satan truly is the pro freedom role model we all need