• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gaetan said:
Three quarter are economic others are for for social reason as to keep their work than you can say it is all economic anyway, the propaganda in media it because of rape is false, it is just a very small amount.
Click to expand...
That's an intentionally disingenuous framing, to save money. It conjures up some some middle class woman finding it rewarding to clip a few coupons in her idle time to save a few bucks and... oh yeah, having an abortion will save money too.

It's like bringing into this world another human being is no big deal and not laden with all sorts of profound implications. Yes, you dismiss some of it as merely economic; but merely economic can have profound implications & can completely derail someone's life (including the child, I might add).

But yeah, it's no biggie. Carry on. Let's go back to a time when women could not legally make their own financial decisions.
 
Having a child profoundly changes not only a woman's economics, but her entire life. Ask any mother, especially a single mom. 'To save money' is the most egregiously dishonest POS excuse.
 
Gaetan said:
Three quarter are economic others are for for social reason as to keep their work than you can say it is all economic anyway, the propaganda in media it because of rape is false, it is just a very small amount.
Click to expand...

Citation, please. That breakdown does not appear on the page you linked.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Having a child profoundly changes not only a woman's economics, but her entire life. Ask any mother, especially a single mom. 'To save money' is the most egregiously dishonest POS excuse.
Click to expand...
Kinda changes a fathers life as well. How the hell am I going to pay for this was definitely something I thought before, but not after.
 
slyjoe said:
If you quote someone else in a dissenting opinion, then yes, you are making the same argument.
Click to expand...

Really? I quote jackass arguments I intend to rebut or dismiss all the time. In fact I'm doing it right now. Only an idiot or a scumbag would read this post as agreement with you.

So tell me more about your take on a Supreme Court Justice's citations in their dissent.
 
Stacyhs said:
Having a child profoundly changes not only a woman's economics, but her entire life. Ask any mother, especially a single mom. 'To save money' is the most egregiously dishonest POS excuse.
Click to expand...

You have to call a cat a cat, if you provide to women and family the economic way to have child, you have children, if not you don't.
 
Brainster said:
It's the lying media as usual. Thomas was quoting the petitioners:



And that particular claim isn't exactly incorrect, even according to NBC News:



So they were derived from abortions, just many years ago and they've since been replicated, so it doesn't really count?
Click to expand...
What's the problem? No part ofvthe vaccine molecules comes from fetuses, as stated. Nothing to do with "long ago." There are enzymes and even cells in vaccine processes. None of those come from mammals.

A piece commonly used is called plasmid, of bacterial origin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine

Pfizer:Manufacturing the vaccine requires a three-stage process. The first stage involves the molecular cloning of DNA plasmids that code for the spike protein by infusing them into Escherichia coli bacteria. For all markets, this stage is conducted in the United States,[117] at a small Pfizer pilot plant in Chesterfield, Missouri[118][119] (near St. Louis). After four days of growth, the bacteria are killed and broken open, and the contents of their cells are purified over a week and a half to recover the desired DNA product. The DNA is bottled and frozen for shipment. Safely and quickly transporting the DNA at this stage is so important that Pfizer has used its company jet and helicopter to assist.[120]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer–BioNTech_COVID-19_vaccine
 
Last edited:
Tero said:
What's the problem? No part ofvthe vaccine molecules comes from fetuses, as stated. Nothing to do with "long ago." There are enzymes and even cells in vaccine processes. None of those come from mammals.

A piece commonly used is called plasmid, of bacterial origin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine

Pfizer:Manufacturing the vaccine requires a three-stage process. The first stage involves the molecular cloning of DNA plasmids that code for the spike protein by infusing them into Escherichia coli bacteria. For all markets, this stage is conducted in the United States,[117] at a small Pfizer pilot plant in Chesterfield, Missouri[118][119] (near St. Louis). After four days of growth, the bacteria are killed and broken open, and the contents of their cells are purified over a week and a half to recover the desired DNA product. The DNA is bottled and frozen for shipment. Safely and quickly transporting the DNA at this stage is so important that Pfizer has used its company jet and helicopter to assist.[120]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer–BioNTech_COVID-19_vaccine
Click to expand...

"Would you kindly..."
 
Tero said:
What's the problem? No part ofvthe vaccine molecules comes from fetuses, as stated. Nothing to do with "long ago." There are enzymes and even cells in vaccine processes. None of those come from mammals.
Click to expand...
This is how fact checking works:

Statement: The vaccine was developed using foetal tissue.
Factcheck: False! The vaccine does not contain foetal tissue.

They do this over and over again.
 
shuttlt said:
Kinda changes a fathers life as well. How the hell am I going to pay for this was definitely something I thought before, but not after.
Click to expand...

Pay for what? An abortion? A man could never be forced to pay for an abortion he didn't want. But think of all the child support he's going to be forced to pay by a court order.

A woman could make the choice not to continue a pregnancy but once she's carried it for 9 months and gives birth, it's not an easy thing to give it up for adoption. So many, if not most, women will keep the child and raise it... often without the participation of the father. It's her life that is profoundly changed. His? Not so much if at all.
 
Gaetan said:
You have to call a cat a cat, if you provide to women and family the economic way to have child, you have children, if not you don't.
Click to expand...
It's quite a bit more than that. I rather think you need the society to see families as fundamental, and parenthood to be the assumed default task that adults will perform. I don't immediately recall where it is from, but there is a quote that goes something like.... once having children becomes something whose merits society discusses as a rational question, that society is done. Other than Israel, every first world country has had below replacement birth rates for decades, many for more than a century.
 
Gaetan said:
You have to call a cat a cat, if you provide to women and family the economic way to have child, you have children, if not you don't.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. It may well be that economic considerations are important, but very poor people in very poor places often have lots of kids, and not just because they don't know better, and birth rates go down as economies improve. If money is the only thing that makes a difference, I hope for their sake that you have no kids, and pity them if you do.
 
bruto said:
Nonsense. It may well be that economic considerations are important, but very poor people in very poor places often have lots of kids, and not just because they don't know better, and birth rates go down as economies improve. If money is the only thing that makes a difference, I hope for their sake that you have no kids, and pity them if you do.
Click to expand...
The cost of having children, and the economic rewards of having children, vary hugely depending on where you are. If you go back to the 19th century and before, just as an extreme example, desperately poor people would have lots of children with the expectation that they would work from a young age, provide some kind of support for their parents in old age and require relatively little to maintain. From an economic standpoint, it's interesting how a modern, middle class person can look at having children as an economic catastrophe, where as a medieval peasant could afford to keep pushing out children (all be it with only half of them surviving to adulthood).
 
cosmicaug said:
So close and yet so far.
Click to expand...


and getting further and further....

The southern state’s top law enforcement official was not the only Republican to reference God while taking a victory lap. Nor was he alone in rooting for the supreme court to continue a pattern of forcing religion back into the US political system and tearing down the wall that separates church from state.
The court – said to be more pro-religion than at any time since the 1950s – wrapped up one of its most consequential and divisive terms this week. Critics lamented a string of decisions that they say undermine legal traditions that prevent government officials from promoting any particular faith.

...

In all three cases, the court decided against government officials whose policies and actions were taken to avoid violating the constitution’s first amendment prohibition on government endorsement of religion, known as the “establishment clause”.
Click to expand...
 
If there were more intellectual honesty on the part of those drooling for complete bans I might not mind the Supreme Court's decision so much. But IMO it's an absolute fact that hardly anyone really believes a zygote is a human being. If they did Missouri's AG would not have ruled that Plan B (which can either prevent conception or prevent a zygote from attaching to the uterine wall) is acceptable for now. No Indiana doctor would have performed the abortion on the 10-year-old girl. Etc. They're not going to condone MURDER because technically they can get away with it.

I'm not saying no one believes this but I'd say it's fewer than 10 percent of people. Unfortunately it may be more than 10 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I also believe very few people actually want to force a woman to bear a child WITHOUT A BRAIN who is 100 percent going to die within minutes/hours absent heroic measures to preserve heartbeat/respiration.

Not even the Bible equates a fetus with a human being. A person who causes a miscarriage is guilty of the Bronze Age equivalent of a CIVIL offense.

I don't know how this is all going to play out, I think the U.S. has taken a step backward, but with any luck it will force a more honest look at what's really going on here. I think many people who support choice are still somewhat uneasy with abortion as an "easy" form of emergency birth control, or for selecting the sex of the baby etc. If you think it through, IMO the arguments really do support the position that it's a woman's choice. But that doesn't mean I'm always perfectly comfortable with that position either.
 
shuttlt said:
The cost of having children, and the economic rewards of having children, vary hugely depending on where you are. If you go back to the 19th century and before, just as an extreme example, desperately poor people would have lots of children with the expectation that they would work from a young age, provide some kind of support for their parents in old age and require relatively little to maintain. From an economic standpoint, it's interesting how a modern, middle class person can look at having children as an economic catastrophe, where as a medieval peasant could afford to keep pushing out children (all be it with only half of them surviving to adulthood).
Click to expand...

That has to be one of the most historically ignorant posts I've ever read. "... a medieval peasant could afford to keep pushing out children"? No, they couldn't. They had no choice and many children starved to death or had serious health problems due to severe malnutrition like scurvy, rickets, dental problems, vision problems, goiters, and mental impairment . Most medieval women gave birth many times but they did not have large families because so many children never made it to their first birthday.

Women had many children because
1) there was no reliable birth control
2) using any form of birth control was against religious teachings and
you'd 'go to hell' if you used it.
3) doctors could not even discuss birth control with their patients
4) getting an abortion was illegal and extremely dangerous
5) husbands had a 'right' to have sex with their wives whether the wives wanted to or not. There was no such thing as 'marital rape'.

Take a few history classes before spreading such nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom