Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v Wade

[Papaya]

The more I sit with this the more it feels just another wet on a conquered people by the occupation cadre. The shear level of “ my body , my choice” hypocrisy in timing is astonishing in light of still warm vaxx mandates: this can not be happenstance. It just cant.

This sure feels like just another “FU and there’s nothing you can do about it”...especially when the religious sides of the issue are considered

Well...((( FU ))) too

 

[Rob Banks]

Banning abortion is a good first baby step forward. It is a realistic goal. Your goals are unrealistic at this time. Do you think the left wing with their degenerate agenda would not have liked to have their full agenda implemented immediately? They took little steps pushing, pushing and pushing to get where we are today and still have further to go and will continue to push. At least the banning of abortion is a measure against there agenda.

He said in a previous post that he doesn't think abortion should be banned if society doesn't also deal with fornication and all these other issues. I don't want to misquote him, but his reason was because abortion culls the ghetto undesirables or something like that.

 

[Cavalier]

He said in a previous post that he doesn't think abortion should be banned if society doesn't also deal with fornication and all these other issues. I don't want to misquote him, but his reason was because abortion culls the ghetto undesirables or something like that.

Fornication would be very difficult if not impossible to deal with at this point. There are better ways to cull the ghetto undesirables. Cutting off free money being one.

 

[Rob Banks]

Fornication would be very difficult if not impossible to deal with at this point. There are better ways to cull the ghetto undesirables. Cutting off free money being one.

I don't agree with him...

I think the idea of "culling undesirables" by killing their young children to be disgusting and un-Christian.

I'm actually quite surprised and even a little shocked at how much support for abortion there are on this forum.

Just because you support abortion "to cull the undesirables in the ghettos" (as opposed to supporting it for feminist reasons) doesn't make it any better.

 

[Max Roscoe]

When you argue that abortion is necessary/the lesser of two evils in some cases, do you believe that the woman and child would be better off with the abortion (i.e. that the woman would be better off ending the pregnancy and the child would be better off dead)?

Or are you arguing that despite abortion being a negative outcome for the mother and child, it is beneficial/necessary for the rest of society and therefore should be accepted/encouraged?

Neither.
Abortion is neither necessary nor a good idea, morally.
And it also should not be used to engineer a society with fewer "undesirables", morally.

So if we want to have an academic debate, it can end there, abortion is immoral.
But these decisions were made for practical reasons, whether you agree with those reasons or not.
In a secular society, you can't just toss the reasons out and expect feminists to cuck to your morality.
Anyway, most if not all of what my government does is something I consider immoral or evil, so that is an insufficient argument for change, or alternatively, one for revolution.

If terminating pregnancy is the problem, abortion is dying off on its own as it is now one of the least popular methods of doing so. Why is it the only method receiving any attention, despite already dropping to pre-1973 levels on its own?

If you ban only surgical abortion, you will still get millions of terminated pregnancies (the bad) and at the same time you have eliminated whatever demographic benefits it resulted in (the good). You may say nothing bad can be good, but that is untrue. War can lead to good outcomes even if innocents die. There are measurable demographic changes caused by abortion. You may not think they are worth the cost, but they do exist.

So this answer is neither a good idea for society, nor a morally supportable one.

The only morally supportable decision would be to ban all methods of abortion (and I would argue birth control as well). The only societally supportable decision would be to bad all forms *except* surgical abortion. The answer being proposed is neither of those, but a third way, bad both morally and socially.

The idea of whether it can be tolerated at all or not really comes down to your definition of when life begins. And there is little to no discussion or debate about that. If people are split on this viewpoint, what do you propose we do about it?

Also, we shouldn't make decisions based on what our enemies want, but it is worth noting, if you put yourselves in (((their))) shoes, continuing unrestricted private abortion for white teens while ending it for welfare queens is the best of both worlds for them. If they can get unwitting Christians to go along with them for a moral reason, they will take advantage of that, much in the same way they are playing on the sympathies of Ukrainians to push for war by NATO.

 

[renotime]

Max, saying there is no debate isn't really much of an argument.

Not that it matters, no one changes their mind these days anyways. Especially lunatics those in favor of disgusting practices such as abortion in third trimester.

 

[Rob Banks]

If you ban only surgical abortion, you will still get millions of terminated pregnancies (the bad) and at the same time you have eliminated whatever demographic benefits it resulted in (the good). You may say nothing bad can be good, but that is untrue. War can lead to good outcomes even if innocents die. There are measurable demographic changes caused by abortion. You may not think they are worth the cost, but they do exist.

War is not always evil. There is such a thing as a just war (maybe not in modern times, but in theory, and historically, there are just wars). On the other hand, killing babies on purpose is always evil. So it is a bad comparison

So this answer is neither a good idea for society, nor a morally supportable one.

The idea that there is a difference between what is "good for society" and what is "morally acceptable" is precisely the problem.

This is what we get when we confine "religion" to what you do on Church on Sundays and abolish God and righteousness from all the "practical" aspects of life.

 

[SaintPiusX]

This autism is contrary to Saint Paul:
"What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?"

Likewise, confession isn't a simple mechanical formula that operates as you describe.

It's not autism. It's the logical conclusion of an argument. The fact that the conclusion of the argument is absurd does not invalidate that the conclusion follows logically from the premise.

 

[josemiguel]

It's the logical conclusion of an argument

An argument whose initial assumptions are not met in reality.

The fact that the conclusion of the argument is absurd does not invalidate that the conclusion follows logically from the premise.

The conclusion is absurd because the starting assumptions do not match reality.

Ergo your argument is surface-wise internally coherent yet useless as it has nothing to do with existing reality.

 

[Max Roscoe]

War is not always evil. There is such a thing as a just war (maybe not in modern times, but in theory, and historically, there are just wars). On the other hand, killing babies on purpose is always evil. So it is a bad comparison

We are talking past each other. These are completely different arguments. I am talking about the philosophical ideas of means versus ends and the measurable outcomes of each.

I don't want to get too far off topic as this is really an issue of philosophy and logic.

Outcomes of an action can be positive or negative.
For example I can drive to the store, and a positive outcome can be I bought a steak for dinner.
A negative outcome can be I was involved in an auto accident.

These are logical statements and have nothing to do with making black and white moral claims about the cause of said events, like "driving is a good and moral act" or "driving is sinful and evil."

We can have those moral conversations (about abortion) but that's not what I'm discussing and so we are having two separate conversations.

Anyway,

There is a good discussion of the abortion issue on James Edwards Political Cesspool.

https://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/radio-show-hour-1-2022-05-07/

https://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/radio-show-hour-2-2022-05-07/

https://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/radio-show-hour-3-2022-05-07/

Hour 1 NPI's Sam Dickson on the legal aspect (the audio is bad, so I would skip this, though Dickson is brilliant).
Hour 2 Occidental Dissent's Brad Griffin on the moral aspect (recommend this one the most)
Hour 3 Dr F Roger Devlin on the social/sexual dynamics aspect (also good)

Very good commentary. They discuss how abortion has been on a long term decline, and has long since been surpassed by other means of terminating pregnancy which no politician or even church is condemning (along with no politicians or churches condemning gay marriage or trannies).

They are also generally suspicious of this whole announcement, and in addition to the possible court packing and electioneering purposes as we have discussed here, they bring up the possibility of statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, which would permanently remove the Republican Party's ability to win majorities.

From the enemy's point of view, It's worth sacrificing an outdated and essentially irrelevant social relic from 50 years ago in order to ensure perpetual political rule.

 

[Rob Banks]

We are talking past each other. These are completely different arguments. I am talking about the philosophical ideas of means versus ends and the measurable outcomes of each.

I don't want to get too far off topic as this is really an issue of philosophy and logic.

Outcomes of an action can be positive or negative.
For example I can drive to the store, and a positive outcome can be I bought a steak for dinner.
A negative outcome can be I was involved in an auto accident.

These are logical statements and have nothing to do with making black and white moral claims about the cause of said events, like "driving is a good and moral act" or "driving is sinful and evil."

We can have those moral conversations (about abortion) but that's not what I'm discussing and so we are having two separate conversations.

OK, but in the case of abortion, it is not "morally neutral" or "sometimes good, sometimes bad" like driving.

If you drive a car, the outcome can be good or bad. It is justifiable to drive a car in pursuit of a good outcome (whether cars are good for society as a whole is a different topic. I am only talking about individual actions).

"I drove my car to the store in order to get a steak" is a perfectly morally acceptable action.

Now what if you replace "I drove my car..." with "I got an abortion..."

"I got an abortion in order to..."

What outcome can you put at the end of that statement that would justify it and make it even remotely OK?

Yes, I know you're saying abortion is bad but can sometimes lead to good outcomes in some aspects (such as demographically).

By this logic, child rape also technically "leads to some good outcomes." A child who was raped will maybe commit suicide later in life and therefore not reproduce, sparing the world of one more "undesirable" (and any potential descendants that person might have).

But that is hardly a reason to argue that child rape should be legal "until we deal with the other demographic issues." Child rape -- and abortion -- are simply too barbaric to ever allow "for the greater good."

 

[Max Roscoe]

You're confusing morality with logic.
Logic is yes / no.
Morality is should / ought.

They are completely different arguments. That's why I say we are talking past each other.
I'm saying "I bought a steak" which is a binary statement which is either true or false and you are replying "but driving is immoral" which may or may not be true, but is not what the logical (yes/no) statement is saying. One is a true / false statement, and the other is a moral view.

You are using morality to invalidate logic, which is the inverse of moral thought: Logic is used in order to build moral claims.

Here's an example with abortion:
Consider the case of an abortion which saves the mothers life.
The mother's life being saved is a positive outcome.
The ending of the pregnancy is a negative outcome.
Those are true/false statements; one is good and one is bad. They make no claim on whether abortion is good, bad, or indifferent, but are simple observations.

We first make the observations which are either true or false, and then we can make a moral conclusion based on the logical facts.

The position of whether abortion is moral or not in that case is a separate question from whether the two events happened. Your answer seems to be ignore the yes/no statement and exclaim "NO BUT ABORTION IS ALWAYS BAD IN EVERY INSTANCE" which may be true, but is not a response to the logical statement, which is true or false regardless of your moral view.

In other words, a moral statement does not refute a logical one. In fact moral statements are underpinned by logical assumptions so that is impossible.

This is way too technical and boring for most I think... but we are simply not communicating as we are discussing two different things.

 

[Rob Banks]

You're confusing morality with logic.
Logic is yes / no.
Morality is should / ought.

They are completely different arguments. That's why I say we are talking past each other.
I'm saying "I bought a steak" which is a binary statement which is either true or false and you are replying "but driving is immoral" which may or may not be true, but is not what the logical (yes/no) statement is saying. One is a true / false statement, and the other is a moral view.

You are using morality to invalidate logic, which is the inverse of moral thought: Logic is used in order to build moral claims.

Here's an example with abortion:
Consider the case of an abortion which saves the mothers life.
The mother's life being saved is a positive outcome.
The ending of the pregnancy is a negative outcome.
Those are true/false statements; one is good and one is bad. They make no claim on whether abortion is good, bad, or indifferent, but are simple observations.

We first make the observations which are either true or false, and then we can make a moral conclusion based on the logical facts.

The position of whether abortion is moral or not in that case is a separate question from whether the two events happened. Your answer seems to be ignore the yes/no statement and exclaim "NO BUT ABORTION IS ALWAYS BAD IN EVERY INSTANCE" which may be true, but is not a response to the logical statement, which is true or false regardless of your moral view.

In other words, a moral statement does not refute a logical one. In fact moral statements are underpinned by logical assumptions so that is impossible.

This is way too technical and boring for most I think... but we are simply not communicating as we are discussing two different things.

Believe me, I am more than capable of undersranding technical and logical arguments.

I am not missing your point. Rather, I am disagreeing with it.

What you say sounds a lot like how I used to think when I was an atheist.

To address your example:

I saw a video by a (converted) former abortion doctor some time ago. I believe it was Dr. Anthony Levatino, but I could be wrong.

He explained very clearly that such an example does not exist. There is never a binary choice where you need to kill the baby to save the mother.

This doctor explained that in pretty much all cases where pregnancy complications put the mother's life at risk, it is safer to have her deliver the baby (premature, but alive) rather than killing it. In fact, the chemicals and surgical procedures used to kill the baby are usually somewhat dangerous for the woman as well.

Of course, there are cases where the woman's life must be saved and one prioritizes her life over that of the unborn child. For example, if a woman has cancer while pregnant and needs chemo, it is acceptable to give her the chemo knowing that the baby might not end up surviving. This is different than deliberately killing the baby, though.

The one exception I will grant is the case of an ectopic pregnancy. This is when the fertilized egg gets stuck in the fallopian tube and does not make it to the uterus. If left untreated, the baby will grow and literally burst the woman's fallopian tube open. There is no medical treatment to get the embryo to the uterus.

In this case, I believe terminating the pregnancy is acceptable because if you don't terminate it, there is a 100% chance that both the woman and the baby will die.

(And even in that case, there does exist a special procedure they can do where the part of the fallopian tube containing the embryo is amputated/removed. The embryo dies, but the doctor is not directly killing it).

It's like, for example, if your child contracted a virus that would turn him into a zombie, and your choices were to either kill the child or have the whole family turn into zombies, I think it would be acceptable to kill the child in thar scenario.

But this is not even remotely the same thing as what you're saying (the supposed "benefits to greater society" from abortion).

 

[Rob Banks]

Furthermore, @Max Roscoe, would you agree that in all cases where the mother's physical health is not at risk, abortion is wrong and creates an outcome that is objectively negative?

 

[get2choppaaa]

You're confusing morality with logic.
Logic is yes / no.
Morality is should / ought.

They are completely different arguments. That's why I say we are talking past each other.
I'm saying "I bought a steak" which is a binary statement which is either true or false and you are replying "but driving is immoral" which may or may not be true, but is not what the logical (yes/no) statement is saying. One is a true / false statement, and the other is a moral view.

You are using morality to invalidate logic, which is the inverse of moral thought: Logic is used in order to build moral claims.

Here's an example with abortion:
Consider the case of an abortion which saves the mothers life.
The mother's life being saved is a positive outcome.
The ending of the pregnancy is a negative outcome.
Those are true/false statements; one is good and one is bad. They make no claim on whether abortion is good, bad, or indifferent, but are simple observations.

We first make the observations which are either true or false, and then we can make a moral conclusion based on the logical facts.

The position of whether abortion is moral or not in that case is a separate question from whether the two events happened. Your answer seems to be ignore the yes/no statement and exclaim "NO BUT ABORTION IS ALWAYS BAD IN EVERY INSTANCE" which may be true, but is not a response to the logical statement, which is true or false regardless of your moral view.

In other words, a moral statement does not refute a logical one. In fact moral statements are underpinned by logical assumptions so that is impossible.

This is way too technical and boring for most I think... but we are simply not communicating as we are discussing two different things.

So is it murder? True or false?
It's not really a moral or logical question. Its a factual one. When is a life viable? And where do we provide rights. Do rights of privacy (the current argument) supercede the right to life?
I mean the whole frame is retarded. Either a forceful act of removing a fetus from a womb is murder... or its no different that defecating... its really that simple.

 

[SpaceShredder]

So is it murder? True or false?
It's not really a moral or logical question. Its a factual one. When is a life viable? And where do we provide rights. Do rights of privacy (the current argument) supercede the right to life?
I mean the whole frame is retarded. Either a forceful act of removing a fetus from a womb is murder... or its no different that defecating... its really that simple.

You're house is burning down and you only have time to save your 3 year old child or your viable embryo that is being held in a fridge in the basement. What do you go for? Also, explain your choice.

 

[get2choppaaa]

You're house is burning down and you only have time to save your 3 year old child or your viable embryo that is being held in a fridge in the basement. What do you go for? Also, explain your choice.

Is this a joke/hyperbolic? If so got it. If not:

What are you talking about?

The analogy doesn't fit.

Better yet:
You have a gallon of gasoline and can chose to light a kid on fire or not.

You chose to.

Why and please justify your answer.

 

[Max Roscoe]

in all cases where the mother's physical health is not at risk, abortion creates an outcome that is objectively negative

The externalities are inconsequential to the morality. Now do you see what I'm saying?

 

[Rob Banks]

I gotta be honest, I thought I did, but I guess I don't.

So you're saying abortion is always wrong and objectively bad/harmful?

As for externalities being inconsequential to the morality of an act, I don't believe they always are.

For example, if I murder a man but I had a good reason (e.g. the man killed one of my children), that makes it less wrong. Still wrong, but to a lesser degree.

And if I murder a man who has credibly threatened to kill my family (assuming he is serious and there is no other way to stop him), I would argue that's not even wrong at all.

Abortion, though, -- except for very extreme cases like the ectopic pregnancy situation I mentioned earlier -- is always totally wrong as far as I'm concerned. Any perceived future "good outcomes" (demographically or whatever) are not worth sacrificing a child.

 

[Max Roscoe]

Now my brain is hurting. Abortion is NOT always a bad act?
I think we are totally missing each other somewhere. Anyway, will pray for the best outcome.
Who knows, perhaps it could really happen and there's no ulterior motive?