• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

About the leaked draft opinions of US's SC judges

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 6:23 AM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,144
-->
Egregious. Despicable. Hypocritical. A developed country whose population opposes the notion that women have control over their bodies. What is wrong with the SC? Never mind. It looks like Trump's lack of grey matter in the noggins is symptomatic among all republicans. The judge was a Republican one.

This simply proves how astoundingly hypocritical USA's leaders are. You grab the muslim countries by the balls on moral stances and I read this piece of news after reading how Taliban is enforcing burqas and shutting down schools. Hell, getting an abortion in India is much easier despite the fact that she is a developing country. This is probably the saddest joke in the history of USA. Also, Christians who oppose abortion - kudos in proving the inherent bullshittery contained in Abrahamic religions in general. First orthodox Jews refuse vaccinations, then Christian judges' dicks shrink and Muslims devolve - shuttering girl schools and enforce 'blue burqas for national solidarity'. To add more irony, USA stopped financial aids to early hominids (Taliban) for 'violating women rights'.

1652063919714.png


Look at them. These are the people who WITH A MAJORITY said that Roe v Wade judgement is bullshit. These are the people who are going to serve you justice. Why not just nominate Fathers and Pastors in place of them? I don't know what went wrong with the Alito - did he get beaten up by a gang of women? Did he have a divorce? Is he suddenly into BDSM? Did he take the Old Testament more seriously than yo-mama jokes? I would love to see him say the same thing on some international platform.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 1:53 AM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,992
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
Poverty and group think such as religion are working together both in Afghanistan and US.
50 years of war in Afghanistan and US becoming increasingly impoverished since the 70s, nevermind the rich people GDP statistics.

When people lack hope, the revert back to religion as form of security.
Most religious people are those who seek security inherently more so than anything else.
If 60 percent of your thinking is about feeling security, you are going to be more of a groupthinker, you are going to value religion more, and you are going to seek comfort in predictable tradition as well as enforce values that make the group stronger.

India does not have this, since its just vast continent in and of it self and mixed religion and culture. So there is no cohesion, but I think you would probably find pockets of people in India who think abortion is bad.

Didn't Poland do the similar thing?

If you don't want groupthink you have to make individuals more strong and give them agency.
Group think is valid survival strategy in times of scarcity and instability.
Because groups are stronger than individuals.

US individualism came to be when the country was not overpopulated, the land was still cheap, resources were unlimited and free to grab, so freedom and individualism made sense.

Zero sum market saturated market, population that has reached its productive limits and ability to generate value, and high density high cost of living and unstable work and social environment enforce group think.

Since US is predominantly Christian nation and one of the most religious Christian nations on the planet it only makes sense that somewhere they pushed a law through.

If you look at religious people they are often poor, or have struggled with poverty.
These people often have strong religious beliefs.
On average not as point of rule.
Education also plays role, but instability in life will lead to religion.

People who have relatively good life, and their needs are met, feel at least reasonably secure and able to exercise agency are always less likely to be religious or often atheistic.

That is also what is meant by opiate of masses.
Ergo Marx knew that religion gave people false sense of security when that security was supposed to be in hands of state.

Thus he became known as materialist.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
1:53 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,755
-->
The best argument I've heard is that an organ donor can potentially save up to eight people's lives but doctors are not allowed to remove any organs no matter how many lives they may save unless the person is a registered organ donor and has thus given their written permission for those organs to be removed.

Whereas a pregnant woman isn't allowed to get an abortion even if the pregnancy threatens her life, even if she has twins and one of them threatens the life of the mother and its sibling.

Eight lives, eight lives saved for disobeying the wishes of a corpse, whereas once a woman is pregnant she apparently loses body autonomy even to the extent that she may lose her own life.

Why are corpses getting more civil rights than living women?
 

onesteptwostep

The Lance of Longinus
Local time
Today 9:53 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,686
-->
Overturning Roe vs Wade simply allows the states to decide. Most states allow abortion anyway within their own state laws. I'm pro-choice but I really don't see why people should dabble in the affairs of red states when they pretty much account for like 15% of the US total population.

I think it's politcally better to let the abortion issue die because it's one of the formost biggest single voter issues in the US.

I mean I guess you can suddenly be vengeful for the women in red states, but chances are they probably want to restrict abortion anyway.
 

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 6:23 AM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,144
-->
Most states allow abortion anyway within their own state laws
Every time The Grand Greedy Party comes to power, they ensure that Americans devolve to an earlier hominid stage. When Reds sieze power, there are often widespread shutdowns of abortion clinics and reduced funding. In the hominid states of America, afflicted women are forced to go to a different Sapien state just to get an abortion.
 

onesteptwostep

The Lance of Longinus
Local time
Today 9:53 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,686
-->
Most states allow abortion anyway within their own state laws
Every time The Grand Greedy Party comes to power, they ensure that Americans devolve to an earlier hominid stage. When Reds sieze power, there are often widespread shutdowns of abortion clinics and reduced funding. In the hominid states of America, afflicted women are forced to go to a different Sapien state just to get an abortion.

But that would happen regardless of whether Roe vs Wade is in place.

I think this article explains the aftermath, if were to happen, well: What happens if Roe v Wade is overturned - The Washington Post

Five states would outright ban abortion regardless of term or week, and then most of the other red states would allow abortions until up to the 6th week. Nearly all states bans abortions when the fetus is at its 3rd trimester.

I think the only argument I would support is if the states themselves want a federal protection of abortion. But if that isn't the case, it should be up to the states to decide whether they want to change abortion laws. I haven't seen a good argument that it should be federally mandated. I'm just principally against any top down measure that erodes the principle of self-determination. The cultural makeup of the US isn't homogeneous like in other countries, meaning plurality, thus laws such as abortion shouldn't be universal.
 

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 6:23 AM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,144
-->
But if that isn't the case, it should be up to the states to decide whether they want to change abortion laws
Historically, senators are just a notch higher than apes when it comes to their intelligence. I have all the reasons to believe that these senators are no better than jihadists - forcing women to keep kids after just 6-8 weeks in the afflicted states. What if that woman found out late? Or she was confused? Or she was suddenly divorced or lost her job? So many life pressures to keep up with. Cannot these clowns understand that pregnancy is something a woman thinks about when she actually wants the child and is able to keep up with the little sucker's maintenance? Why cannot a woman change her mind in 2 months? Is it that all the clinics have a bomb attached to it which blows up if there is no footfall in 6-8 weeks? A woman usually finds out about her pregnancy in 6 weeks. Is it not common sense that if the time is 'around' 6 weeks, some will take 7-8? It is not as if these cheeseburgers-chomping excessively flatulent senators are going to push a child out of their dick when they can barely spot it under their swathes of fat. Men won't think twice about not using a contraceptive and the female is the one getting tortured by a fetus.

What if the woman in question is some senator's wife or sister and what if she does not want a kid?

But sadly the senators are busy giving blowjobs to businessmen and turning prisons into a pigsty for no reason other than the want of money by their sodomized asshole which is a gaping hole left by the capitalists. They engage in filibusters which are longer than their usual gormandizing sessions - it's like burping very loudly for a long time after having a sumptuous meal. Everybody hates it but hey! You are spared from frying the remaining neuron in your brain by doing some actual lawmaking that is for the people and not the kinks of the capitalists.
 

onesteptwostep

The Lance of Longinus
Local time
Today 9:53 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,686
-->
It's not up to us or anyone outside the state to make that determination though. People who live in the state make the laws of that state, not people who live outside it. If they want to live backwards or whatever, it's up to them.
 

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 6:23 AM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,144
-->
If they want to live backwards or whatever, it's up to them.
Then what is the need for super-PACs? You talk as if people willingly elect KFC's most frequenting customers. Why do you need corporate funding in elections to win elections if 'people are the ones electing'? Nobody wants to live backwards for fuck's sake. If that was the case, the Middle-East countries would not have had banks and hospitals - they could have engaged in plain-ol' barter system and cattle-rearing in the 21st century. Why? They could have walked on their feet instead of using cars and other modern luxuries.

Without PACs and super-PACs, 100% of these fuckface senators would never have been elected.

Also the ones opposing the abortion provisions are not any fetus-miniguns. If they hate abortion so much, why don't they keep on producing 10 more children? Now imagine a poor republican supporter who argued against abortion bills got pregnant for the 4th time. She has diabetes and other cardiac issues. One more fetus would potentially kill her. So does it make sense for even a proponent of anti-abortion to suffer from the same fate? Imagine that poor women driving all the way to some other state to get rid of the sucker and collapsing in the middle of the highway because her contractions began. She is a single mother.

Have you read the fates of single mothers and the shit they have to go through just to make their own sustenance? One innocent sexual encounter and these fatties are hell bent on destroying her life. Who wants to suffer such a fate? Even a Christian would go to a hospital for a serious ailment and not hang herself from a cross and emerge spick and span from a 'virgin's womb'
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 1:53 AM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,992
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
It's not up to us or anyone outside the state to make that determination though. People who live in the state make the laws of that state, not people who live outside it. If they want to live backwards or whatever, it's up to them.
Thats a thing only for US citizens.
 

onesteptwostep

The Lance of Longinus
Local time
Today 9:53 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,686
-->
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Most red state senators have been serving for more than 30 years. Also senators don't decide state laws, state legislatures do. Senators go to D.C. and make national policy not state laws.
 

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 6:23 AM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,144
-->
Also senators don't decide state laws, state legislatures do. Senators go to D.C. and make national policy not state laws.
And if the national policies are not well concocted, state legislatures go ISIS in their lawmaking. Hence, the senators represent their states. If their states act in a wonky manner, who is to be held accountable? Now, look at this Alito. He is there because of republican senators and his jackass opinions are putting all the states' female populace at risk.
 

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 6:23 AM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,144
-->
f you look at religious people they are often poor, or have struggled with poverty.
These people often have strong religious beliefs.
On average not as point of rule.
Education also plays role, but instability in life will lead to religion.

I don't need to explain what religion looks like in India.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 1:53 AM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,992
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
f you look at religious people they are often poor, or have struggled with poverty.
These people often have strong religious beliefs.
On average not as point of rule.
Education also plays role, but instability in life will lead to religion.

I don't need to explain what religion looks like in India.
I know that India has number of major issues, poverty being major drive.
And yes you don't have to talk about indian religion. I think you know very little on that topic.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 10:23 AM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
6,145
-->
People are talking about groupthink but this wasn't a referendum. Trump was effective at gaining control of the Supreme Court for Republicans. This is a unilateral Supreme Court decision and a good example of the influence a president can have.

I think the right to self-determination argument is weak. Abortions happen whether or not it's legal. Roe v Wade is about how many women die in the process. This will also disproportionately affect the poor who can't afford to go interstate for abortions - the rich will care a lot less. There is no upside to this.

If America has a right to freedom of religion, then rights will be preserved if people have the choice to act on their beliefs. This would place abortion outside the purview of arguments for self-determination. Self-determination feels like freedom wordplay: The freedom for states to deny individuals their freedoms. Where have I heard that before?
 

Daddy

Making the Frogs Gay
Local time
8:53 PM
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
362
-->
Next is contraceptive; condoms will soon be illegal. Then it will be illegal to masturbate - you're killing babies for God's sake! Pretty soon we will all be so horny that our heads will explode and they will say it's God's work and that we should have gotten married and had many kids. Amen. Praise Jesus and the Holy Ghost.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 1:53 AM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,992
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
People are talking about groupthink but this wasn't a referendum. Trump was effective at gaining control of the Supreme Court for Republicans. This is a unilateral Supreme Court decision and a good example of the influence a president can have.
Democracy means people vote.
Demo is people.
They get to decide.
This means republicans did something horribly wrong, and against the will of people.
In US democracy majority vote gets to decide.
If people who have the decision in the hands are doing something people do not like they will not get a vote.
The confidence of people goes down and they will vote someone else.
But according to US democracy Trump won fair and square.
About as fair and square you can win elections in US, which is kind of oxymoron, because its mostly about money, but he won.

So if democracy is supposed to be working these people who are doing something wrong will be overuled by people and this thing will be changed again.
 

onesteptwostep

The Lance of Longinus
Local time
Today 9:53 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,686
-->
People are talking about groupthink but this wasn't a referendum. Trump was effective at gaining control of the Supreme Court for Republicans. This is a unilateral Supreme Court decision and a good example of the influence a president can have.

I think the right to self-determination argument is weak. Abortions happen whether or not it's legal. Roe v Wade is about how many women die in the process. This will also disproportionately affect the poor who can't afford to go interstate for abortions - the rich will care a lot less. There is no upside to this.

If America has a right to freedom of religion, then rights will be preserved if people have the choice to act on their beliefs. This would place abortion outside the purview of arguments for self-determination. Self-determination feels like freedom wordplay: The freedom for states to deny individuals their freedoms. Where have I heard that before?

I think the case with abortion is a bit different than other universalized freedoms/rights in the US. Most freedoms and rights were something that were a part or social conscious so they were codified in the amendments and the bill of rights. But the case with abortion is that it isn't viewed as a women's right to choose, a type of 'freedom' but something contentious. If the majority in the state sees it as offensive then it's up to the state to make that determination. If the majority of that state saw abortion as a freedom of choice, then abortion should be protected and upheld per the wishes of their states people.

Rights aren't always universal, most of the time, what becomes a 'right' is more in tune to human dignity. If some women in the affected states feel wronged, it's a sacrifice the people in the state are making to achieve internal cohesion. Making the issue abortion a nationwide blanket law, whether to uphold or restrict, results in more dignity being wronged than if it were a state by state determination.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 1:53 AM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,345
-->
Egregious. Despicable. Hypocritical. A developed country whose population opposes the notion that women have control over their bodies. What is wrong with the SC? Never mind. It looks like Trump's lack of grey matter in the noggins is symptomatic among all republicans. The judge was a Republican one.

This simply proves how astoundingly hypocritical USA's leaders are.
Then why would you follow American-Western behaviours, like being interested in science, supporting liberal freedoms, supporting the idea of states being secular, etc?

I gather that in China, from their one-child policy, that people there are fine with abortions and ending pregnancies before they end in adulthood.

Why not learn from other countries like India, or China?

You grab the muslim countries by the balls on moral stances and I read this piece of news after reading how Taliban is enforcing burqas and shutting down schools. Hell, getting an abortion in India is much easier despite the fact that she is a developing country. This is probably the saddest joke in the history of USA. Also, Christians who oppose abortion - kudos in proving the inherent bullshittery contained in Abrahamic religions in general. First orthodox Jews refuse vaccinations, then Christian judges' dicks shrink and Muslims devolve - shuttering girl schools and enforce 'blue burqas for national solidarity'.
You claimed that "orthodox Jews refuse vaccinations", when I know plenty of orthodox Jews, and didn't hear anything like that, and that the people who were refusing to take vaccinations in the UK, were mostly non-religious people.

What are your sources for the things you believe? What is your source for this and the other things you claimed?

How do you know that your sources aren't probably spinning you evil-backed propaganda.

Remember that the more divided your country is, the more the evil people win, and this issue is making the USA more and more divided.

To add more irony, USA stopped financial aids to early hominids (Taliban) for 'violating women rights'.
You support abortion, but are opposed to sanctions against people you consider to be oppressing and killing innocent women, but are fine with sanctions against Russians because they're oppressing and killing innocent women?

Look at them. These are the people who WITH A MAJORITY said that Roe v Wade judgement is bullshit. These are the people who are going to serve you justice. Why not just nominate Fathers and Pastors in place of them? I don't know what went wrong with the Alito - did he get beaten up by a gang of women? Did he have a divorce? Is he suddenly into BDSM? Did he take the Old Testament more seriously than yo-mama jokes?
The people who are fine with killing people, are not taking the Old Testament more seriously than yo-mama jokes, because not killing people is in the Ten Commandments, and according to the Old Testament, murder results in the death penalty.

Are you OK with murder?

I would love to see him say the same thing on some international platform.
SCOTUS rulings are written down for anyone to read. Besides, this leak has made it all around the world, as even people from India are getting to read about it on the www. So this IS being said on "some international platform" like the internet. Did you think the internet was only in the UK, and you can't read it?
 

birdsnestfern

Active Member
Local time
8:53 PM
Joined
Oct 7, 2021
Messages
199
-->
The older the fetus gets, the sillier it becomes to consider an abortion. Only consider it in the first three weeks, or forget it unless its a medical issue. This is why you have to act fast and not put emotion into it at that stage. But once that cell becomes developed, say 5-6 weeks onwards, I don't think its such a good idea. More bonding, less humane.

I haven't read all the details yet, but you don't get a long time line to decide, but I think every woman has a right to decide if its done right away and early.

Men don't have to stay around and therefore, those states that won't allow abortions better have a system in place that supports and raises those babies too.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 10:23 AM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
6,145
-->
The Republican party, well-known for...
  • Improving access to contraception?
  • Improving healthcare services to ease pregnancy?
  • Supporting childcare payments?
  • Providing welfare for single mothers?
Conservatives are anti-abortion in order to secure single-issue voters who are a large and particularly valuable voting block because they allow flexibility in every other conceivable (huehue) position. This is why "pro-life" can often mean pro-capital punishment and anti-healthcare.

There's an enormous difference between someone who genuinely cares about the value of unborn life, and the political machine that represents these values. I can respect people who have genuine beliefs about when life begins but am dismissive if this is the only issue that guides votes.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 1:53 AM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,992
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
Pro life stuff works, but essentially I think its irrational to think of it outside of circumstance of life, since all life is about environment and circumstance.
So being pro life being conflated with extreme pro life principals is just insane experiment rather than actual framework for life.

I believe their argument is that Gods will is above human will so if Gods will life to existence humans intervention on the life of that person is against Gods will.
I think I remember this from INTJforum, the one you guys are from.
Anyway the problem here is that the baby is not "gods will" but human doing anyway, so the logic is very unsound because by defeating common sense these people are kind of going on principals that are invalid if taken to an extreme.

Monthy Python made a good sketch about this called "every sperm is sacret".

The thing is if Gods will is to bring life and his will is to take it away and people should not intervene, then one could go to absolute extremes in real life that make zilch sense.

The other problem is where does Gods will end and human will begin which is another stupid debate that makes zilch sense.

For instance does a baby really have a will of its own?

So when do you count something your will as opposed to Gods will, because if you being born is gods will and everything hence for ward is gods will and gods plan then you could argue that God wants you to abort.

My real guess is if I remember correctly though is that Christians believe in second coming of Christ. Apparently he never came back, and so waiting for him, means you have to stop all people from having abortions, since they could accidentally kill Jesus.

And I think this explains the whole logic of no condoms and no abortions.
I think its a more of a selfish thing from their side anyway, because apparently HIV infested parts of world basically were told not to use condoms and essentially Christians sanctified a sort of covert genocide.
Then they had zika thing and basically that kind of illustrates how insane these Christians principals can be - essentially pro life, but simultaneously pro death.
 

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 6:23 AM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,144
-->
genuinely cares about the value of unborn life

There are people who genuinely believe that Mary was a virgin too. Similarly, there are people who believe that earth is flat. Another sect of people believe that Xenu, an intergalactic warlord, is responsible for world's evils. Another group dies by blowing themselves up because they will be given access to Allah's private brothel.

Now tell me if the people who genuinely believe in unborns having rights are any better than people in the aforementioned paragraph.
 

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 6:23 AM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,144
-->
. I can respect people who have genuine beliefs about when life begins but am dismissive if this is the only issue that guides votes.
Humans have always struck a trade-off between harms to their existence and a better lifestyle. There was slavery, there was war before. Aborting an unwanted child is no less of a convenience. Why don't you go to some impoverished countries and see the kind of zombies these kids grow up to be? Generations after generations having lesser and lesser physical and mental capacities because of their ancestors experiencing the same detriments. This is a common problem with the people of developed countries. You don't see how life works at the basic level and start singing songs like pro-life and anti-abortion. Nobody in their right mind would want to sacrifice themselves for a sucker not born. As far as pain and everything else goes, I think abortion should be allowed after the 8th month also. Is it not simple to simply kill the sucker inside the womb with a simple needle of an injection? All this bullshit about pain and foetus experiencing feelings and yadayada bullshit. When poverty has stripped you to the bones, a child is the last thing you would want.

What about victims of rape, major depression, schizophrenia and other serious mental and physical problems? They are already on the verge of destruction and pro-life wants to burden them with another sucker.

Is it so hard to understand that any species propagates not out of emotion but out of instinct. Humans are the only dumbfucks who don't realize that not producing kids is not going to make their lives miserable. Sure, we will go extinct but what is wrong in that?

Bonus polemic: Evolution made babies look the way they look to increase their chance of being coddled by their producers. We feel protective towards babies not only out of hormones but also because they are generally cute. If babies looked liked Green Goblin from Spiderman or Jason from Friday the 13th, the abortion rates would've soared sky high. That claim is still not far from truth because deformed babies - physical and mental - are routinely aborted. Tell some pro-life person if they would want to have a baby with Harlequin syndrome and ask them if they'd rather have this kid than simply fuck and get a new one.

1652325742746.png
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 1:53 AM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,992
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
Pretty sure Christian Theology would be a different thing if women had say in it over the thousands of years.
My point was also that since adult life is also all about circumstance as well have ethics are part of circumstance we must accept the fact that you can be ethical about nothing, hence being ethical in vacuum is unethical, because you are kind of applying ethical principal to situation, but no situation is purely without context.
Since babies are nowdays 18 year old commitment and basically a full time responsibility its fair to say its not good idea even from financial stand point of view.
In a communist society where money is non issue this christian pro life thing would make more sense, but in a society where money is life, 18 years of child are not negligible. For some having one kid is equal to slashing their budget in half for 18 years.
So that means if they fall on hard times that kid can suffer or die. Or you might suffer and die.
And if you die your kid will not have a great shot at life or even die too.
I think its safe to say many mothers are choosing between having a kid with rotten life or having a kid later with very good life and more safer life.
I think if mother cannot make this choice its down right sad. Especially if that mother is the one person who cares more than anyone else in the world.
So I can see merit in prolife, but being only prolife without consideration to reality makes zilch sense to me.
All the more less sense since the adversities and limitations of human life are based around Gods creation his universe????
Is it Gods goal to make people suffer?
Also kids in the past would work and contribute.
Today kids can do that too, but many poor people just send them to school or they get a job and make some money to offset some expense if they get luck.
Meaning most of these families are destroyed. Especially single mothers as well.

My stance that there should be some consideration like counseling or waiting period as opposed to just showing up at a clinic where you just say abort like you are dealing with alien parasite.
 

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 6:23 AM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,144
-->
My stance that there should be some consideration like counseling or waiting period as opposed to just showing up at a clinic where you just say abort like you are dealing with alien parasite.
How can you counsel someone who does not want a kid and is it not financially sound enough to rear one? The rational thing to do is to abort that kid.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 10:23 AM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
6,145
-->
. I can respect people who have genuine beliefs about when life begins but am dismissive if this is the only issue that guides votes.
Humans have always struck a trade-off between harms to their existence and a better lifestyle. There was slavery, there was war before. Aborting an unwanted child is no less of a convenience. Why don't you go to some impoverished countries and see the kind of zombies these kids grow up to be? Generations after generations having lesser and lesser physical and mental capacities because of their ancestors experiencing the same detriments. This is a common problem with the people of developed countries. You don't see how life works at the basic level and start singing songs like pro-life and anti-abortion. Nobody in their right mind would want to sacrifice themselves for a sucker not born. As far as pain and everything else goes, I think abortion should be allowed after the 8th month also. Is it not simple to simply kill the sucker inside the womb with a simple needle of an injection? All this bullshit about pain and foetus experiencing feelings and yadayada bullshit. When poverty has stripped you to the bones, a child is the last thing you would want.

What about victims of rape, major depression, schizophrenia and other serious mental and physical problems? They are already on the verge of destruction and pro-life wants to burden them with another sucker.

Is it so hard to understand that any species propagates not out of emotion but out of instinct. Humans are the only dumbfucks who don't realize that not producing kids is not going to make their lives miserable. Sure, we will go extinct but what is wrong in that?

Bonus polemic: Evolution made babies look the way they look to increase their chance of being coddled by their producers. We feel protective towards babies not only out of hormones but also because they are generally cute. If babies looked liked Green Goblin from Spiderman or Jason from Friday the 13th, the abortion rates would've soared sky high. That claim is still not far from truth because deformed babies - physical and mental - are routinely aborted. Tell some pro-life person if they would want to have a baby with Harlequin syndrome and ask them if they'd rather have this kid than simply fuck and get a new one.

View attachment 6143
Same team dude. Friendly fire.

You can be a bit ranty no?
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 1:53 AM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,992
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
How can you counsel someone who does not want a kid and is it not financially sound enough to rear one? The rational thing to do is to abort that kid.
Not all women might have legit reasons.
I mean its not like all women under all conditions have a clue and know how to make this decision, and yes, some might end up changing their mind.
They could also be pressured or stressed or just surprised and upset about being pregnant so you want them to give them some rational and emotional support.
I mean its a big decision both ways, so I think some women might just do it and regret it.
Or make the decision on wrong premise.
Like 15 year old mothers supposed to know?
Or such situations where things get murky.
Not all situations where women don't want a kid are about money or health.
SO I am talking about those.
 

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 6:23 AM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,144
-->
You can be a bit ranty no?
Somehow everytime I want to reply curtly, I get another idea and thought and then it turns into a mini essay of sorts. I am extemporaneous a lot of times.

Sorry man, did not mean to offend you
 

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 6:23 AM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,144
-->
I mean its a big decision both ways, so I think some women might just do it and regret it.
Or make the decision on wrong premise.
Like 15 year old mothers supposed to know?
Or such situations where things get murky.
Not all situations where women don't want a kid are about money or health.
SO I am talking about those.
Oh damn, I get your point now!
 
Top Bottom