Look we can all agree the responsible thing to do with an unwanted pregnancy is carry it to term and then let the Catholic Church take care of it. Then THEY can kill it and toss it in a septic tank to be discovered decades later.
SCOTUS leak suggests Roe v. Wade to be overturned
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah, but then they'll be ALIVE and SUFFERING, and God loves that shit. Your life doesn't belong to you, it belongs to God. So be born and suffer in the name of the Lord.
This will impact poorer communities more severely, like people who are black and hispanic, but we can just let the prison industrial complex handle them, right. This is all in God's plan.
Yeah, I might have a higher standard for the Catholic Church nowadays... They'd just rape it
Well sure, Good People (tm) inherently have money, that's the gospel according to prosperity. If you're poor it's because you're a sinner who deserves to suffer. Good People (tm) will always find an excuse for their abortion to be justified, they're Good People (tm) after all. If you were a good enough person, you'd be able to afford to fly to a blue state to fix your God excused mistake
God helps those who help themselves. And if you're poor you just didn't help yourself enough by your bootstraps.
Also, are women who have a miscarriage allowed to sue God now, or you know, just the church? For who else is responsible for natural occuring abortions but God? Or is this suddenly the woman's own responsibility?
The thing with these matters is it's really hard to determine whether someone wasted an opportunity or not in their whole life. I mean, it stands to reason that most people did do this, but you can't know how it'd have turned out if they hadn't anyways. People can always imagine a specific set of circumstances where someone turns their life around and they think if they can imagine it that person should have done it. It's just really simplistic thinking.
This all stems from a desire to paint the world as fundamentally good and just, a world where if you do everything right things will go your way, so they have to explain away misfortune in a way that maintains that conception of the world, and the easiest way to do that is blame the less fortunate.
And yeah basically the idea would be to blame the woman's body for being incapable of keeping the baby alive. Or some sins she committed coming back to haunt her, stuff like that.
You're just jealous that all that promiscuous pussy isn't rolling your way
Well guess what, it won't when it's busy neglecting a child it never wanted either
Because the pigs were crossing their fingers praying for the day they could crack skulls over this.
It is not unfair to place the exceptional burden of children on parents.
Your logic is genuinely human mercy killings.
Child mortality is exceptionally low. The wait line to adopt infants is long and reaches around the globe. You're imagining children dying with no basis to think that would happen at any greater rate.
If someone is encouraging minors to deliberately get pregnant, they should be in jail.
No, adoption is the responsible choice. You're making so many leaps of logic that you don't even recognize: that birthing a child means to have to raise it, that death is bettr than having bad parents, etc. But my favorite is the catch 22 you've established in your own conclusions: if getting an abortion means someone is making responsible choices, does that not make them a responsible person who would likely care for their child, thus making abortion not the responsible choice?
Banning abortions wont stop mercy killings. It will just delay it
[/quote] Child mortality is exceptionally low. The wait line to adopt infants is long and reaches around the globe. You're imagining children dying with no basis to think that would happen at any greater rate. [/quote]
You're imagining that forcing women to birth children will make those same women want to look after the baby. Or even anyone in the family. Or society. The West does not have a good track record with this
You cant even get enough parents to adopt as it is. You've defeated your own catch 22 because you made up a responsible person that are all already been used up
With over a hundred thousand children waiting to be adopted, you think that if we produce more, all those prospective adoptive parents will suddenly start storming the doors.
Stop pretending you care. You just want to see people suffer so that you can feel superior to them.
The fuck moon logic is this?
The ability to make a responsible choice in one respect does not somehow mean that person is able to take far far greater, and very different responsibility.
It takes responsibility to care for a hamster too. Would you say that anyone who successfully cares for a hamster is definitely responsible enough to care for a child, even if they're telling you they're not, just because they've demonstrated a level of responsibility in an entirely different question?
Not to mention raising a child takes a little bit more time, effort and resources than having abortion, and a person might be able to do the latter and not the former.
Plan B prevents pregnancy after unexpected creampies, but i think there is a time limit. IIRC you have afew days tops to take a Plan B and this would prevent pregnancy. It's borth control just like the pill, patch, shot, IUD, condom, etc etc. It stops a pregnancy from starting so it isn't aborting anything.
Unless you use the argument that all BC is abortion in some form, which is crazy talk.
I've read everyone's point on this, and I've changed my mind. Abortions are fine, go nuts. I can't think of any reason to deny them...in retrospect. Except.....
Fucking....what!?You're just jealous that all that promiscuous pussy isn't rolling your way
Hey, Catholicism has always opposed the prosperity gospel nonsense. That is a specific subgroup of Protestants mostly confined to America.
Median Home Price by State 2025
Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.
Quote that part then. I don't see anything that can be interpreted as that.
Where in the text is any of that? I see nothing that says anything that relates to privacy is at jeopardy because the word privacy isn't in the constitution.
Finally, after all this, the Court turned to precedent. Citing a broad array of cases, the Court found support for a constitutional “right of personal privacy,” id., at 152, but it conflated two very different meanings of the term: the right to shield information from disclosure and the right to make and implement important personal decisions without governmental interference.
This argument isn't actually over abortion it's over if it's constitutional for the federal government to dictate abortion law. It wasn't "good" that Cosby got off but the law was applied correctly and if we just handwave stuff that is good to be lawful, then what happens when you don't agree with what someone else thinks is good. If Cosby's case was not overturned, that precedent that it would set would be very bad.
The *fuck* this isn't about abortion. If you're looking for extremely dodgy decisions causing damage each and every day, Citizen's United is right fucking there. This is 100% about abortion and I'm mildly insulted you're bothering to pretend otherwise.
The precedent *this* law set was good. 50 years worth. Do you honestly expect me to believe that the only reason you wanted Roe reversed, and things like Oberfell put in danger, was because the law was kinda shaky and you're just such a stickler for rules? Three conservative justices lied under oath and pretended it was settled law. ( I mean, I never believed them, but still)
Yeah, see: It's the last bit that's important, and that's the bit Alito's blowing up. Are you, Mr anti-mandate, really arguing that the government should be allowed to insert itself into important personal decisions? A vaccine is a bridge too far, but 9 months of hormone baths, irreversable changes, pain, injury, and potential death to be an incubator for somebody you don't even want there is fine?