Jump to content

Featured Replies

1 minute ago, NOTW said:

Just pointing out that your logic on abortion is based on the 1800s, whereas you probably don't apply that to other areas like civil rights, gender, or other issues.  If you want to look at the evolution of views and laws around abortion and include the past but also take recent discoveries as well that's a more comprehensive approach, that would make sense.  

You brought up the 2nd amendment which is funny because people argue the 2nd amendment is outdated and written a long time ago when things were so different...then you're referencing abortion laws older than the 2nd amendment.  

I was making a point views about pregnancy and abortion were different throughout history. My logic on abortion is not based on any time frame. Women have a right to choose - now, then, whenever.

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Views 155.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • vikas83
    vikas83

    Putting aside one’s stance on the issue, we should all agree that it is egregious and dangerous that this was leaked. Draft opinions should remain private and debated among the justices. Not every cas

  • vikas83
    vikas83

    I meant someone competent. You go ahead and enjoy that White Castle at your leisure.

  • the meme template you didn't know you needed!        

Posted Images

43 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

My point was about society's view of abortion as acceptable and how we have regressed in that regard.

I think there are pro-choice arguments that are more valid then, well hundreds of years ago it was acceptable.  All sorts of morals and views have changed over the years.  There are plenty of things that at one time were acceptable and aren't.  

13 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Just pointing out that your logic on abortion is based on the 1800s, whereas you probably don't apply that to other areas like civil rights, gender, or other issues.  If you want to look at the evolution of views and laws around abortion and include the past but also take recent discoveries as well that's a more comprehensive approach, that would make sense.  

You brought up the 2nd amendment which is funny because people argue the 2nd amendment is outdated and written a long time ago when things were so different...then you're referencing abortion laws older than the 2nd amendment.  

I think the main point is to show shifting views on abortion over time and point to the rationales for that shift.

It really comes down to the self righteous piety of a minority overriding broad public agreement on policy.

Wouldn't be the first time. Prohibition comes to mind. 

  • Author

They've always got dem crazy eyes...

image.thumb.png.bff260a9ba0094acd51e60c2a8b84b64.png

3 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

The right to birth control rests on the exact same legal rationale as the right to an abortion. It is absolutely on the table, and you are seeing states already considering limiting access.

No it doesnt, one prevents conception the other eliminates a life after conception.  Nice try

  • Author
27 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

No it doesnt, one prevents conception the other eliminates a life after conception.  Nice try

 

Roe was decided using the "right to privacy" doctrine established by Griswold, a case dealing with contraception. This opens the door to every case using that logic beung challenged and upended 

Some of these state laws define abortion according to fertilization.

 

Nice try.

There are politicians who most certainly want to ban gay marriage and birth control next. 

 

15 minutes ago, toolg said:

There are politicians who most certainly want to ban gay marriage and birth control next. 

 

What a loon :wacko:

31 minutes ago, toolg said:

There are politicians who most certainly want to ban gay marriage and birth control next. 

 

Wont be getting my vote

Look at the bright side.  Democrats said men shouldn't make laws about women's bodies.

 

 

 

So women will instead.  :P

 

 

Jacky-Eubanks.jpg

 

6b3d2545-6580-4ac0-be2b-73ba9079dded-001

 

 

EmGyht-X0AYpTxI?format=jpg&name=900x900

 

  • Author

Religion is a scourge

29 minutes ago, NOTW said:

EmGyht-X0AYpTxI?format=jpg&name=900x900

 

2, 8, 10, 5, 11, 6

7, 12, 13-(although I think I'd rather chop my D off), 4, 9, 1, 3

7 hours ago, Gannan said:

I mean Ted Cruz once argued that ****ing should be illegal, so let's not act like this could never happen...

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/ted-cruz-texas-sex-toy-ban

In Ted's defense, it must be pretty hard to get someone to "stimulate your genitals" when you look like/have the personality of a sentient garbage bag of mayonnaise. I'd be pretty frustrated too.  If he can't have pleasure no one can.

2 hours ago, NOTW said:

Look at the bright side.  Democrats said men shouldn't make laws about women's bodies.

 

 

 

So women will instead.  :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EmGyht-X0AYpTxI?format=jpg&name=900x900

 

Right to life ? So they are all against the death penalty? good to hear

 

5 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I think the main point is to show shifting views on abortion over time and point to the rationales for that shift.

It really comes down to the self righteous piety of a minority overriding broad public agreement on policy.

Wouldn't be the first time. Prohibition comes to mind. 

This logic holds unless you consider the fact that there is a group of people who firmly believe that life begins quite early on.  If you hold that believe then it is going to be quite a bit more on principle rather than anything based on "shifting views".  Whether it is a minority position or not isn't really of any significance to that group.

btw - My position in in the viability camp.

4 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Roe was decided using the "right to privacy" doctrine established by Griswold, a case dealing with contraception. This opens the door to every case using that logic beung challenged and upended 

Some of these state laws define abortion according to fertilization.

 

Nice try.

No it doesnt, youre being a useful idiot alarmist

2 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Religion is a scourge

Agreed taoism and islam must go, right?

Modern America liberal fascism is far more of a scourge to the entire planet than religion.  

39 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

This logic holds unless you consider the fact that there is a group of people who firmly believe that life begins quite early on.  If you hold that believe then it is going to be quite a bit more on principle rather than anything based on "shifting views".  Whether it is a minority position or not isn't really of any significance to that group.

btw - My position in in the viability camp.

Its not a belief its science.  It begins at conception

1 hour ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

Right to life ? So they are all against the death penalty? good to hear

Another moron equating convicted murderers with unborn babies

I bet you also say "pro lifers only care about babies until theyre born deeerp"

As if the left has ever done anything except fondle kids and not contribute to charity

11 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Another moron equating convicted murderers with unborn babies

I bet you also say "pro lifers only care about babies until theyre born deeerp"

As if the left has ever done anything except fondle kids and not contribute to charity

I bet I've given more to charity than you have. Exponentially more.

  • Author
33 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

No it doesnt, youre being a useful idiot alarmist

 

You literally don't have a goddamn clue what you're talking about.

 

30 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Agreed taoism and islam must go, right?

 

All organized religion, but especially Christianity.

6 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

You literally don't have a goddamn clue what you're talking about.

 

 

All organized religion, but especially Christianity.

The foundation of the pro life movement is the opposition to terminating a human life, not preventing the ability to conceive.  Calm down chicken little

 

 

Oh and especially Christianity, huh?  Do tell....:pizza:

25 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

I bet I've given more to charity than you have. Exponentially more.

Ok we'll bet the total amount that youve given ro charity.....

Which is zero dollars

  • Author
2 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Oh and especially Christianity, huh?  Do tell....:pizza:

 

Christofascism will be the downfall of the republic.

56 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Ok we'll bet the total amount that youve given ro charity.....

Which is zero dollars

Probably much, much, much more than you make in a year (I added the extra "much's" because I doubt your salary amounts to anything substantial at all). And that's not including the time I give charitably every week. 

Create an account or sign in to comment