Abortion

[Sculptor]

You lying little nonentity. You do realise that a large percentage of abortions are performed on women in monogamous relationships don't you? Even 'good, married, kristian' relationships? You certainly don't seem to have a clue about biology and in particular reproduction.
Do you think married couples should all be celibate, as a way of avoiding any chance of an unwanted pregnancy?
Your judgementalism and self-righteous moralising oozes through your creepy posts. You can't hide it behind what I can only assume is a deliberately incoherent writing 'style'.

Where is the data supporting this claim?

Again, if people become pregnant only to abort that is evidence of lack of forethought.

And you skipped over this part of the comment:

I'm not addressing the issue of abortion here as much as I am the issue of senseless, carnal animality and the complications arising from it.

Carnal animality applies to all genders.

Women can't be whores without partners, and those partners are often men.

Nearly half a million women are raped in the USA every year. Only 60% are reported and of those only 6% of rapists spend a day in gaol.
Which of these is a whore in your opinion?

[daniel j lavender]

Nearly half a million women are raped in the USA every year. Only 60% are reported and of those only 6% of rapists spend a day in gaol.
Which of these is a whore in your opinion?

The rapist.

But the term for that would be "animal".

[Sculptor]

Nearly half a million women are raped in the USA every year. Only 60% are reported and of those only 6% of rapists spend a day in gaol.
Which of these is a whore in your opinion?

The rapist.

But the term for that would be "animal".

Women do not often rape so your words are bullshit.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You must be talking about yourself then, Mr 'Lavender' (a creepily apt surname).
Still, it's refreshing that finally someone on here is voicing what all the hypocritical kristian males who frequent these threads really think. Your use of the word 'whore' to describe women who have sex is very 'touching' (and oftentimes it's only once--the first time they have sex, common with the very young). What do you call men who have sex? 'Lucky bastards'?

[daniel j lavender]

Women do not often rape so your words are bullshit.

Don't pretend we're not living in an era of "free love" and open promiscuity where sexual activity is advertised and promoted. It's celebrated.

Simply observe mass media for a bit. Youtube, for example, where minor channels and content creators can't question the Holocaust but multi-million subscriber music channels can celebrate and sell mindless molestation and sexuality (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsm4poTWjMs). Sex culture is thriving. There are whores, there are meatheads, there are rapists. There are a bunch of animals thrusting. That's largely what biology is, hence my earlier statement:

Perhaps the issue isn't society but rather the species. Further, perhaps the issue is biology itself.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

ANY woman who is able to get pregnant can have an unwanted and disastrous pregnancy for any number of reasons. ANY woman who can get pregnant can at some point in her life need a safe, legal abortion.

Mr. Lavender's cute assertion that all of these women are WHORES should be noted by everyone on here.

[daniel j lavender]

ANY woman who is able to get pregnant can have an unwanted and disastrous pregnancy for any number of reasons. ANY woman who can get pregnant can at some point in her life need a safe, legal abortion.

Mr. Lavender's cute assertion that all of these women are WHORES should be noted by everyone on here.

Honestly I think you're all animals. See my comment above.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Honestly I think you're all animals. See my comment above.

Is that supposed to be an insult, rather than a scientific fact?

[daniel j lavender]

Is that supposed to be an insult, rather than a scientific fact?

Both.

Just look at the state of the species.

[Immanuel Can]

Here's the thing I'm still fuzzy about...

Can the Congress then pass legislation that literally makes all abortions illegal? Legislation the president then signs and enforces. Law that is then backed by the Supremes?

That's not what they've done. It's not even what anybody has tried to do.

All the Supreme Court has said is that R v. W. was not a federal issue, one over which the federal government had rightful say. They haven't said that they are planning to ban abortion, or that the individual states will do so. They've just said, essentially, that provision of abortions is a matter that has to be decided at the state level.

But my question was once the Supremes overturn Roe, can a Republican Congress and Presidency down the road -- a re-elected Trump? -- pass legislation that does make all [or almost all] abortions illegal? The states be damned?

No. This decision means that they no longer have any jurisdiction to do so. That will not happen.

I wish it would. But it cannot.

Although, sure, I may not be understanding the "technical" issues here correctly.

Yeah, it doesn't make a lot of sense, I agree. Something as vile as abortion should be not just a federal concern, but a human concern. It actually transcends all human courts -- so that no court, no matter how self-importantly "Supreme" actually can make abortion moral.

However, that's not what this ruling says. It says that abortion law is permanently, constitutionally, a state matter. And it is only at the state level that, from here on in, it can be adjudicated. I think that's lame and cowardly. But it's not worse than abortion being legislated from the federal level, which is what R v. W was.

That's the difference between law and morality. The law only says what arrangements humans will accept (constitutionally, practically). Morality is bigger: it judges all laws. And any law promoting abortion will always be immoral, no matter how many humans decide to say otherwise, or where they adjudicate that from.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Is that supposed to be an insult, rather than a scientific fact?

Both.

Just look at the state of the species.

Just look at the 'state' of you (in more ways than one). Bible belt kunt.

(I wasn't aware that they had safe abortion clinics in the animal kingdom..)

[daniel j lavender]

Just look at the 'state' of you (in more ways than one). Bible belt kunt.

(I wasn't aware that they had safe abortion clinics in the animal kingdom..)

You've been tossing out insults on the forum for years however I offer a couple direct, concise statements and you call foul?

If you really want to get to the root problem it isn't abortion, it isn't promiscuity, it isn't me in particular.

The root problem is biology, is consciousness.

There are no problems, there are no complaints until biology, until consciousness, until sentience enters the equation. Then extreme temperatures become problems, then rape becomes a problem, then noisy pets become problems, then other genders become problems.

This is why I contend that biology is the problem. No biology, no consciousness, no sentience, no problems. It's just that the animals cannot stop thrusting. At least in/with other animals.

Personally I am proudly childfree and voluntarily celibate, and have been for over 12 years.

[iambiguous]

Ross Douthat at the NYT

'In one sense, liberal outrage at the prospect of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade seems like an uneasy fit with liberalism’s current master narrative, which holds that liberals are defending democracy against the threat of authoritarianism and fighting for the principle of majority rule against a Republican Party that benefits from counter-majoritarian power. After all, overturning Roe would return the abortion issue to the democratic process, after two generations in which abortion policy has been set by a juristocracy, an elites-only vote of 7 to 2 or 5 to 4.'

Here is the conservative rebuttal to the liberal argument that the Supremes are imposing their own political prejudices in overturning Roe v. Wade.

That, in other words, the Roe v. Wade ruling was in itself basically liberal justices imposing their own political prejudices back then.

And, yeah, that's the way these things work. It all comes back to politics which all comes back to how particular individuals have come to understand the world around them. Then they vote liberals or conservatives into office. The liberals and conservatives then nominate their own kind to fill vacancies on the courts. Local, state and federal.

So, if liberals want Roe reinstated they are going to have to win the elections to make that happen.

And stop pretending it's all about what either is or is not "constitutional".

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Just look at the 'state' of you (in more ways than one). Bible belt kunt.

(I wasn't aware that they had safe abortion clinics in the animal kingdom..)

You've been tossing out insults on the forum for years..

Personally I am proudly childfree and voluntarily celibate, and have been for over 12 years.

Well bully for you I doubt if anyone would want to touch you with a barge pole. What a fucking pathetic thing to be 'proud' of. I suppose you don't count the women you torture in your basement.

Oh yeah, and according to your profile you only recently opened your account. I thought your vomit seemed familiar. Probably got banned.

[Sculptor]

Women do not often rape so your words are bullshit.

Don't pretend we're not living in an era of "free love" and open promiscuity where sexual activity is advertised and promoted. It's celebrated.

Hardly relevant.
A "whore" sells sex for money. That is definitively not free sex. So it seems y0u continue to talk bollocks.

You are trivialising the issue.
How many of the half million raped women each year in the USA, get pregnant and wish to terminate the child of her abuser?