Roe v Wade is on deck

[Tigers!]

What I think: Anyone who opposes abortions should not have one. Anyone who opposes abortions for X reason should not have an abortion for X reason.

Funny. That could be applied to slavery too.
Don't like slavery. Do not own any slaves.

 

[Tigers!]

Yes, because the pain, inconvenience, possible postpartum depression and risks of injury and death to an actual sentient woman don’t matter at all. It’s as if the woman doesn’t count at after the magic date on the calendar.

The death of the unborn doesn't matter at all. If as if the unborn does not count after a magic date on the calendar.

 

[Tigers!]

C’mon people, would it kill y’all to only post the part to which you are responding?
This is useless;
View attachment 54910

What happened here?

 

[Tigers!]

It’s really sad that you cannot see a pregnant girl or woman as innocent and are happy to relegate her to bystander status with regards to her own body.

The unborn is innocent too. It did not request, demand to be conceived.
It is relegated to disposable (or perhaps nuisance is a better word?) status with regard to its own body.
It's only crime (sic) to be unwanted or a nuisance.
In no time or place do we allow humans to be killed because they are unwanted or a nuisance.

 

[Toni]

What I think: Anyone who opposes abortions should not have one. Anyone who opposes abortions for X reason should not have an abortion for X reason.

Funny. That could be applied to slavery too.
Don't like slavery. Do not own any slaves.

The connection to slavery is not as you suggest. You are suggesting that women must give up control of their bodies, and their lives, even against their will, much as slaves were forced to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will. And quite often forced to give birth to their rapists’ babies o my ti see them likewise enslaved Abd used against their will.

 

[Toni]

It’s really sad that you cannot see a pregnant girl or woman as innocent and are happy to relegate her to bystander status with regards to her own body.

The unborn is innocent too. It did not request, demand to be conceived.
It is relegated to disposable (or perhaps nuisance is a better word?) status with regard to its own body.
It's only crime (sic) to be unwanted or a nuisance.
In no time or place do we allow humans to be killed because they are unwanted or a nuisance.

One difference is that a fetus has no consciousness and no will.

 

[Tigers!]

It’s really sad that you cannot see a pregnant girl or woman as innocent and are happy to relegate her to bystander status with regards to her own body.

The unborn is innocent too. It did not request, demand to be conceived.
It is relegated to disposable (or perhaps nuisance is a better word?) status with regard to its own body.
It's only crime (sic) to be unwanted or a nuisance.
In no time or place do we allow humans to be killed because they are unwanted or a nuisance.

One difference is that a fetus has no consciousness and no will.

So does someone in a coma after an accident or surgery.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, because the pain, inconvenience, possible postpartum depression and risks of injury and death to an actual sentient woman don’t matter at all. It’s as if the woman doesn’t count at after the magic date on the calendar.

The death of the unborn doesn't matter at all. If as if the unborn does not count after a magic date on the calendar.

You got it wrong - there is no magic date on the calendar in my position.

 

[Tigers!]

What I think: Anyone who opposes abortions should not have one. Anyone who opposes abortions for X reason should not have an abortion for X reason.

Funny. That could be applied to slavery too.
Don't like slavery. Do not own any slaves.

The connection to slavery is not as you suggest. You are suggesting that women must give up control of their bodies, and their lives, even against their will, much as slaves were forced to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will. And quite often forced to give birth to their rapists’ babies o my ti see them likewise enslaved Abd used against their will.

In both cases an action is taken against a 3rd party without their consent.

Not a perfect analogy I'll grant.

 

[Tigers!]

Yes, because the pain, inconvenience, possible postpartum depression and risks of injury and death to an actual sentient woman don’t matter at all. It’s as if the woman doesn’t count at after the magic date on the calendar.

The death of the unborn doesn't matter at all. If as if the unborn does not count after a magic date on the calendar.

You got it wrong - there is no magic date on the calendar in my position.

I know you have no magic date on your calender.
I was being facetious.

I'll use </facetious> next time.

 

[laughing dog]

What I think: Anyone who opposes abortions should not have one. Anyone who opposes abortions for X reason should not have an abortion for X reason.

Funny. That could be applied to slavery too.
Don't like slavery. Do not own any slaves.

When slavery was legal, people who were against slavery didn’t own them.

The attempt at making a parallel has a chance at a legitimate is if a fetus is a person. Which it isn’t.

 

[Tigers!]

What I think: Anyone who opposes abortions should not have one. Anyone who opposes abortions for X reason should not have an abortion for X reason.

Funny. That could be applied to slavery too.
Don't like slavery. Do not own any slaves.

When slavery was legal, people who were against slavery didn’t own them.

The your attempt at making a parallel has a chance at a legitimate is if a fetus is a person. Which it isn’t.

That sounds very dehumanising.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, because the pain, inconvenience, possible postpartum depression and risks of injury and death to an actual sentient woman don’t matter at all. It’s as if the woman doesn’t count at after the magic date on the calendar.

The death of the unborn doesn't matter at all. If as if the unborn does not count after a magic date on the calendar.

You got it wrong - there is no magic date on the calendar in my position.

I know you have no magic date on your calender.
I was being facetious.

I'll use </facetious> next time.

Bet

Yes, because the pain, inconvenience, possible postpartum depression and risks of injury and death to an actual sentient woman don’t matter at all. It’s as if the woman doesn’t count at after the magic date on the calendar.

The death of the unborn doesn't matter at all. If as if the unborn does not count after a magic date on the calendar.

You got it wrong - there is no magic date on the calendar in my position.

I know you have no magic date on your calender.
I was being facetious.

I'll use </facetious> next time.

Is that Australian for “desperate and obtuse”?

 

[Tigers!]

What I think: Anyone who opposes abortions should not have one. Anyone who opposes abortions for X reason should not have an abortion for X reason.

Funny. That could be applied to slavery too.
Don't like slavery. Do not own any slaves.

When slavery was legal, people who were against slavery didn’t own them.

The your attempt at making a parallel has a chance at a legitimate is if a fetus is a person. Which it isn’t.

Why is the foetus a person when it leaves the birth canal but not before?
That sounds very dehumanising.

 

[Tigers!]

Yes, because the pain, inconvenience, possible postpartum depression and risks of injury and death to an actual sentient woman don’t matter at all. It’s as if the woman doesn’t count at after the magic date on the calendar.

The death of the unborn doesn't matter at all. If as if the unborn does not count after a magic date on the calendar.

You got it wrong - there is no magic date on the calendar in my position.

I know you have no magic date on your calender.
I was being facetious.

I'll use </facetious> next time.

Bet

Yes, because the pain, inconvenience, possible postpartum depression and risks of injury and death to an actual sentient woman don’t matter at all. It’s as if the woman doesn’t count at after the magic date on the calendar.

The death of the unborn doesn't matter at all. If as if the unborn does not count after a magic date on the calendar.

You got it wrong - there is no magic date on the calendar in my position.

I know you have no magic date on your calender.
I was being facetious.

I'll use </facetious> next time.

Is that Australian for “desperate and obtuse”?

No.

 

[laughing dog]

What I think: Anyone who opposes abortions should not have one. Anyone who opposes abortions for X reason should not have an abortion for X reason.

Funny. That could be applied to slavery too.
Don't like slavery. Do not own any slaves.

When slavery was legal, people who were against slavery didn’t own them.

The your attempt at making a parallel has a chance at a legitimate is if a fetus is a person. Which it isn’t.

That sounds very dehumanising.

Slavery is dehumanizing.

A week old human fetus is not a person.

 

[Toni]

What I think: Anyone who opposes abortions should not have one. Anyone who opposes abortions for X reason should not have an abortion for X reason.

Funny. That could be applied to slavery too.
Don't like slavery. Do not own any slaves.

When slavery was legal, people who were against slavery didn’t own them.

The your attempt at making a parallel has a chance at a legitimate is if a fetus is a person. Which it isn’t.

Why is the foetus a person when it leaves the birth canal but not before?
That sounds very dehumanising.

Mandating that a woman carry a fetus against her will is extremely dehumanizing. A pregnant woman is not breeding livestock.

 

[thebeave]

What I think: Anyone who opposes abortions should not have one. Anyone who opposes abortions for X reason should not have an abortion for X reason.

Funny. That could be applied to slavery too.
Don't like slavery. Do not own any slaves.

When slavery was legal, people who were against slavery didn’t own them.

The attempt at making a parallel has a chance at a legitimate is if a fetus is a person. Which it isn’t.

What about Thomas Jefferson? And James Madison? No doubt there were other public and non public figures.

 

[thebeave]

The connection to slavery is not as you suggest. You are suggesting that women men must give up control of their bodies, and their lives, even against their will, much as slaves were forced to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will.

FIFY. We have this right now, legally. Its called conscription.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The connection to slavery is not as you suggest. You are suggesting that women men must give up control of their bodies, and their lives, even against their will, much as slaves were forced to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will.

FIFY. We have this right now, legally. Its called conscription.

And the last time there was a draft was... *checks notes* 1973. Though I hear the regressives might want to bring it back.