Difference between marijuana laws and abortion laws question

[ionel]

25 minutes ago, red viking said:

The moral issue is control over the body. You don't have to kill the fetus to remove it. It is NOT the woman's problem if the hospital can't keep the fetus alive. 

And YES, this should extend to girls under the age of 18 also. 

So can the girl kill another girl or only the boys?  Remember Vak's complete control principle.  What if there is no access to hospital? 

[red viking]

5 minutes ago, ionel said:

So can the girl kill another girl or only the boys?  Remember Vak's complete control principle.  What if there is no access to hospital? 

No need to kill the fetus. She has the right to remove it from her body, or have it removed. Do you understand the difference? Somebody needs to drive her to the clinic. 

Nice try, but this is all VERY simple. The water gets muddy for the wingers because they are on the moral low ground. 

[Paul158]

Maybe we should pass a federal law that all girls and women must take birth control pills ( or have your tubes tied if you never intend to have children) until they decide that they are ready to get pregnant. We have poured billions of dollars into birth control education, but it doesn't seem to be working. It seems people have many choices when it comes to using birth control but are being irresponsible when it comes to using them. I'm going to take cover now from the incoming shells.

[red viking]

24 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Maybe we should pass a federal law that all girls and women must take birth control pills ( or have your tubes tied if you never intend to have children) until they decide that they are ready to get pregnant. We have poured billions of dollars into birth control education, but it doesn't seem to be working. It seems people have many choices when it comes to using birth control but are being irresponsible when it comes to using them. I'm going to take cover now from the incoming shells.

You'd have to make it taxpayer-funded, but that won't fly either because there are proven side effects and somebody can always say "well, I'm deciding to get pregnant" in order to get off the pills. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

18 hours ago, Danny Deck said:

It's at least a little fascinating how when abortion itself is on the ballot, the pro-choice side wins even in red states. However, where legislators enact bans, I don't think any have paid any electoral price for it. 

And how much red states are pushing back to change laws/rules to amend state constitutions because they know they'll lose. See Ohio and recently Arkansas. Shameful. 

[jross]

2 hours ago, red viking said:

No need to kill the fetus. She has the right to remove it from her body, or have it removed. Do you understand the difference? Somebody needs to drive her to the clinic. 

Nice try, but this is all VERY simple. The water gets muddy for the wingers because they are on the moral low ground. 

From "IT" you have shown yourself as ethically evasive and you have zero credibility to call out others on their moral ground.  

[red viking]

20 minutes ago, jross said:

From "IT" you have shown yourself as ethically evasive and you have zero credibility to call out others on their moral ground.  

It's a fetus. You want me to call it a baby? Really? That's how ridiculous you're getting? By trying to force women to have a fetus inside of her body you are taking a disgusting moral (or lack thereof) road and should be ashamed of yourself. 

I actually value human life and would NEVER have an abortion if were pregnant (which I of course never have or never will be). However, I respect the right of others to have autonomy over their bodies and have the moral code to not impose my personal opinions upon others. 

[WrestlingRasta]

18 minutes ago, red viking said:

 By trying to force women to have a fetus inside of her body

No one is forcing the women to have a fetus inside of their body.  The women made a choice (with the exception of rapes), and by virtue of that choice a fetus was conceived in their body.  The fetus is their because of their choice, not because the fetus was forced in there.  Again, terrible take.

Edited July 17 by WrestlingRasta

[red viking]

Just now, WrestlingRasta said:

No one is forcing the women to have a fetus inside of their body.  The women made a choice (with the exception of rapes), and by virtue of that choice a fetus was conceived in their body.  The fetus is their because of their choice, not because the fetus was forced in there.  Again, terrible take.

People have sex and conception is never 100%. You need to wake up and realize that sex is a basic human desire and you can never stop it 100% just because somebody isn't ready to get pregnant. You need to live in the real world. 

Besides, even if somebody slips up and their condom breaks, YOU still don't have the right to tell a woman that she has to keep the fetus inside of her body. Nobody has that right. YOU are not God. 

[Hammerlock3]

3 hours ago, red viking said:

The moral issue is control over the body. You don't have to kill the fetus to remove it. It is NOT the woman's problem if the hospital can't keep the fetus alive. 

And YES, this should extend to girls under the age of 18 also. 

you're that meme of the dog in the burning building. willful ignorance right through.

[WrestlingRasta]

16 minutes ago, red viking said:

People have sex and conception is never 100%. You need to wake up and realize that sex is a basic human desire and you can never stop it 100% just because somebody isn't ready to get pregnant. You need to live in the real world. 

Besides, even if somebody slips up and their condom breaks, YOU still don't have the right to tell a woman that she has to keep the fetus inside of her body. Nobody has that right. YOU are not God. 

I'm particularly interested in the part of you telling me to live in the real world.

Less interesting, but still interesting, is saying I'm not God to advocate for your argument of disrupting the natural process of life, as if God didn't give us free will, so that we could learn from the consequences of that free will.

 

Edited July 17 by WrestlingRasta

[red viking]

16 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I'm particularly interested in the part of you telling me to live in the real world.

Less interesting, but still interesting, is saying I'm not God to advocate for your argument of disrupting the natural process of life, as if God didn't give us free will, so that we could learn from the consequences of that free will.

 

...because nothing is 100% perfect. People make mistakes. People slip up and don't use contraception appropriately or the contraception fails. It isn't YOUR place to force them to keep the fetus in their body or tell them that they have to remain a virgin unless they are "officially ready" to have kids. 

[uncle bernard]

3 hours ago, Paul158 said:

Maybe we should pass a federal law that all girls and women must take birth control pills ( or have your tubes tied if you never intend to have children) until they decide that they are ready to get pregnant. We have poured billions of dollars into birth control education, but it doesn't seem to be working. It seems people have many choices when it comes to using birth control but are being irresponsible when it comes to using them. I'm going to take cover now from the incoming shells.

Buddy, it's working extremely well. The abortion rate has been nearly cut in half since the 80s and 90s.

The rate would probably be even lower if Conservative states went all-in on "safe sex" education over "abstinence only." The abstinence only approach to sex ed leads to higher rates of teen pregnancy.

The best way to reduce abortion is to invest heavily in BC and contraceptives while teaching students how sex actually works and how to do it safely.

[WrestlingRasta]

8 minutes ago, red viking said:

...because nothing is 100% perfect. People make mistakes. People slip up and don't use contraception appropriately or the contraception fails. It isn't YOUR place to force them to keep the fetus in their body or tell them that they have to remain a virgin unless they are "officially ready" to have kids. 

I do make mistakes, a lot.  And when I do, I am in fact responsible for the results stemming from those mistakes.  That, my friend, is the real world we live in.

 

Have a great day.

[red viking]

That's great for you, but you should respect the right for others to decide to make decisions over what is or isn't inside of their body, even if it doesn't meet  your opinion of "responsible." 

[WrestlingRasta]

2 minutes ago, red viking said:

That's great for you, but you should respect the right for others to decide to make decisions over what is or isn't inside of their body, even if it doesn't meet  your opinion of "responsible." 

I'm not arguing respecting a woman's decision about her body.  I am absolutely respecting a woman's decision about her body, and what potentially comes along with those decisions.  I am also stating that your insistence that once a woman becomes pregnant, and decides she does not want the baby, she is no longer at all responsible for that fetus, all responsibility is immediately shifted to the hospital, and the person who made the decision that created the situation in the first place is free, regardless if by accident or not.

If I make a decision to drink, and then get in a car, and because of that do damage to another living being, and the hospital is not able to save that living being, I do not relinquish my responsibility in the situation, nor does the responsibility shift to the hospital, just because it was an accident and I didn't want the accident.  

When you can actually live and respond in the real world, we can continue this conversation.  Until then, don't bother wasting your time.  

[mspart]

On 7/16/2024 at 12:23 PM, VakAttack said:

The change in abortion access is related to an opinion written by 6 people after 50 years of it existing (due to 7 people) , which has led to immediate loss of access to the abortion services in many areas, despite when it has been voted on, it has been approved of by individual states, many of them red like Kansas and Ohio.  The women in many states lost access to these services based on the opinion of 6 people, not the will of the people in their states prompting a reconsideration at federal level.

 

They're completely different scenarios.

Hey Vak, when you are trying to minimize the number of people who said it is not a thing for courts to deal with, you should also list how many justices said it was for courts to deal with. 

I think SCOTUS was correct lately.   It is not for them to say anything about abortion.   That is for the people and their representatives either in Congress or in individual states.   Ds had ample opportunity to legislate this but didn't.   They didn't because it was a fundraising coup detat for them they figured.   Anyway, it is now out of the court system and in the hands of the people and their representatives on state or federal level where it should be. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/politics/02cong.html

mspart