Dont forget my patented babies from toenails machine. I look forward to the arguments about aborting the toenail

Better yet

It still amazes me there is no uproar about a leaked draft of a Supreme Court ruling

Heads should roll for that

Roberts already asked for an investigation. Heads will roll if they figure out who leaked.

I am more amazed that you think there is no uproar.

I agree that the debate not fundamentally about denying pleasure. My response was aimed at lagtight making the case for doing that though.

I don't think it's unreasonable to restrict a comparison to things that are actually comparable. If we compare all things that cause future third party harm, yes we do restrict some of those. I'm saying we don't do that for things that don't cause harm to third-parties in the present (as far as I can tell), like sex, if they may only potentially but not definitely cause future harm (environmental destruction definitely causes measurable harm every time a fossil fuel is burned while each sex occasion is only potential harm of creating an unwanted child). Restricting sex on the grounds of potential future third-party harm would be like restricting chocolate on the grounds that you might get diabetes and be a burden on unborn tax payers in your old age. We might want to discourage people from taking on those pleasurable risks but we wouldn't think they don't have a right to them for that reason. You could make the case that bringing an unwanted life into the world is a risk of so much harm that it's not comparable to tax increases, and should be restricted on these grounds but that's a different argument then saying we can or should restrict pleasures that harm future third-parties generally. I would of course argue other ways to mitigate that without infringing on personal freedom.

Step 2

Step 3

No one outside the Beltway gives a rip about the leak.

Would u be in favour to oblige people with 2 kidney by law , to provide one kidney to someone that is need of a kidney ?
because u know it’s your body , but you can save the life of someone else with what u have in you ?

What’s the difference with abortion ?

What's the difference between donating an organ to save someone in need vs me directly telling a doctor to kill another person? Is that a serious question?

Damn right it is !
Without a kidney transplant the person dies !
U have 2 kidney ….. u can live with one no problems .
Your kidney belongs to you until someone is need of it , to protect a life ….

U telling me a potential life as higher value then an actual life ?

So why a woman would lose control of our body to save a life but not you without kidney to save a life ?
At least just by giving a kidney you aren’t responsible to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars throughout your entire lige to take care of your kidney like you would for a baby …

What’s worst ?
Getting rape and be force to keep a baby or to remove a kidney to save a person life ?
Now be a good Christian and answer …

So Biden seems to already be out doing his 'nothing will really change' type thing to signal to the SC and GOP that the Dem's will not be taking any tough actions to protect RvW.

He is telegraphing that he is "not prepared" to lift the filibuster as talk is picking up that a special exception to the Filibuster might be doable with the votes of Collins and Murkowski, even if Manchin and Sinema fight against it.



I cannot think of more monumentally stupid thing to signal if you want to pressure the SC to moderate this upcoming ruling, than to say, you will not do an exception to the Filibuster to push thru National Abortion rights, something that would scare the bejeezus out of the SC if they believed that would be the consequence of their actions.

To me, Biden out in front of this saying 'no filibuster one off reform is an attempt to kill the talk. That the Dem's do not want to fix this now when they can, and with the power and instead want to gamble and take this into the next election, hoping it saves them in the MT's. If not,... oh well. Just like with RBG, gamble and do nothing while you have the power to and see the country and your purported base pay a huge cost.

There is a huge difference between being a good Samaritan donating an organ so someone else can live vs straight up killing someone simply because you were reckless in your sex life. If you can't see that difference, you're a lost cause.

Agreed

One is NOT doing something and another person dies
One IS doing something and a collection of cells dies

As said before, the actual problem is the definition of when a human life is..... uh, human. There is a both sides to this argument and no matter how long we on 2+2 debate that time frame..... there will be no consensus, no answer.

Try to be civil moving forward (not directed at you specifically, Nick)

https://www.cdc.gov/violencepreventi...-RRP-inUS.html

Rape and Rape-Related Pregnancy: By the Numbers

Almost 3 million women in the U.S. experienced RRP during their lifetime.

The prevalence of RRP was similar across racial and ethnic groups (i.e., Hispanic, White non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, and other non-Hispanic).
About 18 million women have experienced vaginal rape in their lifetime. Women who were raped by a current or former intimate partner were more likely to report RRP (26%) compared to those raped by an acquaintance (5.2%) or a stranger (6.9%).

Of women who were raped by an intimate partner, 30% experienced a form of reproductive coercion by the same partner. Specifically, about 20% reported that their partner had tried to get them pregnant when they did not want to or tried to stop them from using birth control. About 23% reported their partner refused to use a condom.

Women raped by an intimate partner who reported RRP were significantly more likely to have experienced reproductive coercion compared to women who were raped by an intimate partner but did not become pregnant.

These women are "reckless" with their sex lives? I'm sure you also think 12 year olds impregnated by their grandpa were reckless as well, right?

.

Don't be naiive. Young republican boys with money will be able to get their girls an abortion no problem.

A woman who is raped is a far different scenario obviously, so don't jump to conclusions on how I think just to be spiteful. No need to be ridiculous. That is the main reason I rarely post on this forum. There are far too many people that just love to spin what people actually say into what they wanted that person to say to create drama and hate. So many people in this forum are just full of hate.

And how would you know that?

in the grand scheme of things, its both about saving life.....
u can use any word u want to try to shift the argument but banning abortion is to save a life in the end.
its your whole argument to save life cause republican love to kill people that deserve it....(death penalty)
so killing shouldnt be used as argument by republican to defend abortion...

of course.

What's ridiculous is making a statement like this:

The sheer absurdity of making such a statement shows your total ignorance when it comes to this topic.

Obviously. This ruling will have virtually no impact on access to abortion for wealthy people.

I wonder if Republicans have thought through the long-term political implications of forcing poor people to take pregnancies to term.