U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending 50 years of federal abortion rights

[coolcarer]

3 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

I'm afraid you're not making any sense.  I explained my point in the previous reply, if you want to ignore what I'm actually saying and then respond to your own weird interpretation of one isolated and out of context comment, I guess you're free to do that, but I don't have much to say to it.

 

What I wrote to you just now is the initial point I made and what I have been discussing, anything else is your misinterpretation.  If you don't want to engage with the actual points I have made, I'm not sure we're even having a discussion.

You have no point, you’ve lost your way completely on the topic of this thread, run out of arguments, pushed in a corner and resorting to dishonest debating. You’re on ignore for me on this topic.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

You seriously believe that 18 years of work has no effect on a man's body?

So if men don’t father children, they don’t work?!

[BangkokReady]

26 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because the obligations are not directly targeting Mr. Smith's body. Nowhere in a child support decision is there any limitation specifically addressed as to what Mr. Smith can or can't do with his body or what can or can't be done to it.

But, as I said, if Mr Smith has to work for his money, and the government says he has to give some of that money away, then some of that work is gone.  That 33% of his labour is not his own.

 

26 minutes ago, placeholder said:

For all we know, Mr. Smith may be a trust fund baby and won't have to alter his way of living at all.

Well, it's a hypothetical situation and I'm saying if it is like this then it could be similar to that...

 

26 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Unless a govt decision directly targets what a person can or can't do with their body or what can or can't be done to it, it's not an issue of bodily autonomy. 

OK.  That's an interesting point!  Probably the first one I've seen in this whole post in response to my hypothetical. 

 

If I have to say "effectively, in certain circumstances, etc." it certainly weakens the argument.  If the comparison cannot be exact, then it doesn't really hold up to anywhere near the level it should.

 

Good.

[BangkokReady]

11 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

You have no point, you’ve lost your way completely on the topic of this thread, run out of arguments, pushed in a corner and resorting to dishonest debating. You’re on ignore for me on this topic.

Not even slightly.  You didn't know what I was talking about from the start of your comments to me.

[BangkokReady]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So if men don’t father children, they don’t work?!

No, but if there isn't a court ordering a man to surrender a proportion of his labour, it doesn't relate to my hypothetical scenario.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, BangkokReady said:

No, but if there isn't a court ordering a man to surrender a proportion of his labour, it doesn't relate to my hypothetical scenario.

Here's a hypothetical scenario for you, the woman never had the baby, she had an abortion as is her right, job done

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

No, but if there isn't a court ordering a man to surrender a proportion of his labour, it doesn't relate to my hypothetical scenario.

So it’s the court order that causes all the harm?!

 

No court order, no harm?!

 

 

 

 

[BangkokReady]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So it’s the court order that causes all the harm?!

 

No court order, no harm?

The court order means the man is made to give up a proportion of his income, therefore he is not free to do what he wishes with that proportion of his physical labour, therefore he has no bodily autonomy over that (for example) 33% of his physical labour.  So 33% of the strain on his body does not go to his own benefit.

 

That was the original scenario, but Placeholder had a pretty good answer to it where he claimed that the government would need to directly control the person's body for it to genuinely be an impingement of the man's bodily autonomy.

[Chomper Higgot]

50 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

The court order means the man is made to give up a proportion of his income, therefore he is not free to do what he wishes with that proportion of his physical labour, therefore he has no bodily autonomy over that (for example) 33% of his physical labour. 

 

That was the original scenario, but Placeholder had a pretty good answer to it where he claimed that the government would need to directly control the person's body for it to genuinely be an impingement of the man's bodily autonomy.

So what’s the alternative of a court ordering a man to pay for the children he’s fathered?

 

Someone else paying.

 

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

What does that have to do with a court compelling a man to work impinging on his bodily autonomy?  Really think about it this time.

 

Let's try a bit more of an example.

 

Mr Smith has a one night stand with Ms Jones.  Ms Jones becomes pregnant.  Mr Smith is the father.  Ms Jones chooses to carry the baby to term, give birth and keep the baby.  Mr Smith does not want her to, he does not want to be a father, he does not want to have a baby with Ms. Jones. 

 

Ms Jones has the baby.  She asks Mr Smith if he will help with financial support.  Mr Smith says he will not.  Ms Jones sues Mr Smith for child support.  Ms Jones wins and now Mr Smith has to pay 33% of his income to Ms Jones every Month for 18 years. 

 

Now, 33% of the resulting money from Mr Smith's labour is being taken from him, therefore 33% of Mr Smith's physical effort is no longer his own to use however he wants and no longer provides any financial reward.  Even though Mr Smith wants this 33% of his physical labour to be for himself it is now being taken from him.  His bodily autonomy in relation to 33% of his physical effort (work) is being impinged upon for the next 18 years.  He has no control over this 33% of his physical effort, it is done for someone else, compelled by law.

 

How does "but women work too" have any effect on this?

what law compels a man to work?

[BangkokReady]

46 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So what’s the alternative of a court ordering a man to pay for the children he’s fathered?

I don't suppose there is one.

 

46 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Someone else paying.

Of course the government could pay.

 

[BangkokReady]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

what law compels a man to work?

I can't keep writing the same thing multiple times.  I appreciate you're writing one comment to one other user, but I have about four people each replying to everything I write and it's taking ages to reply.

 

I'm pretty sure I answered this above.  Can you take a look?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

I can't keep writing the same thing multiple times.  I appreciate you're writing one comment to one other user, but I have about four people each replying to everything I write and it's taking ages to reply.

 

I'm pretty sure I answered this above.  Can you take a look?

I'm 100% sure you did not, at least not in a reply to me. I'll compromise, are you sure there is a such a law?

[BangkokReady]

Just now, ozimoron said:

at least not in a reply to me.

No, I mean someone else asked the exact same question.

[Jingthing]

13 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Kill it or Nurture it ... UP2U

 

I know my preference ...

 

You do you.

 

But that doesn't give you or any man to FORCE any woman to bear a child she doesn't want to bear.

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

You do you.

But that doesn't give you or any man to FORCE any woman to bear a child she doesn't want to bear.

Nothing to do with anyone's gender , one person shouldnt have the right to end another persons life

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

No, I mean someone else asked the exact same question.

I did as well, you didn't respond to me. And just now you ducked a direct question, are you sure there is such a law? You keep repeating this mantra about men being compelled to work to support a child despite significant numbers of posters calling you out over it.

 

So, lets lay this issue to rest, sure? or not?

[Chomper Higgot]

On 6/25/2022 at 10:35 AM, BangkokReady said:

And women having rights magically nullifies men's feelings?

I think it’s quite clear women having rights enrages some men’s feelings.

[BangkokReady]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I did as well, you didn't respond to me.

OK.  I think I know the reply.  I'll answer when I can.

 

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

And just now you ducked a direct question

Not ducking anything.  I'm obviously limited as to how much time I can spend responding.

 

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

posters calling you out over it.

"Calling you out" makes it sound kind of undignified.

 

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

So, lets lay this issue to rest, sure? or not?

A solid question.

[Jingthing]

For those that support this HORRIFIC misogynist court ruling by the theocratic right wing radicals, consider that in much of the world what has happened in the US is a cautionary tale that they should take pains to avoid themselves.

 

Shining city on a hill? More like a putrid mountain of dog poo.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/27/global-abortion-reproductive-rights-united-states-cautionary/

 

 

The Supreme Court turns the U.S. into a cautionary tale

 

 

The American right loves to trumpet their nation’s “exceptionalism,” the myth that the United States’ political system and values are inherently unique and implicitly better than anything found elsewhere in the world. But whatever the merits of the belief, the United States in recent years has been seen by its closest partners as exceptional for all the wrong reasons.

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Nothing to do with anyone's gender , one person shouldnt have the right to end another persons life

Persons?!?

A fetus is not a person.

[placeholder]

31 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

But, as I said, if Mr Smith has to work for his money, and the government says he has to give some of that money away, then some of that work is gone.  That 33% of his labour is not his own.

 

And Mr. Smith's employer requires that Mr. Smith show up at work every day along with his body. Does requiring people to be at a certain place at a certain time violate their bodily autonomy?

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Persons?!?

A fetus is not a person.

It would end up being a person, if it wasnt killed .

If you go to a supermarket and buy dinner , you aren't actually buying "dinner" , you are buying the ingredients which will become dinner shortly afterwards

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It would end up being a person, if it wasnt killed .

If you go to a supermarket and buy dinner , you aren't actually buying "dinner" , you are buying the ingredients which will become dinner shortly afterwards

That’s not entirely correct.

 

There are very many pregnancies that excluding abortion do not result in a living human being.

 

https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/miscarriage-rates-by-week#causes

 

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s not entirely correct.

 

There are very many pregnancies that excluding abortion do not result in a living human being.

 

https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/miscarriage-rates-by-week#causes

 

 

Well yes , if you want to be argumentative , there are always exceptions to the rule .

   Everyone knows that miscarriages can and do happen , was it really necessary for me to state the obvious ?

[Jingthing]

11 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It would end up being a person, if it wasnt killed .

If you go to a supermarket and buy dinner , you aren't actually buying "dinner" , you are buying the ingredients which will become dinner shortly afterwards

Quite a stretch.

At this point in the US a fetus is not a person under the law. Fact.

The radicals are trying to change that in which case then yes then abortion would be murder.

[Mac Mickmanus]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Quite a stretch.

At this point in the US a fetus is not a person under the law. Fact.

The radicals are trying to change that in which case then yes then abortion would be murder.

But you are still denying a future person their life .

 

[ozimoron]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

But you are still denying a future person their life .

That's been the law for 50 years in the US and is the law in most countries in the world.

 

How about the right wing doing more to help living people live longer?  The argument about abortion being murder is pure religion.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

But you are still denying a future person their life .

 

But not a current one.

[Mac Mickmanus]

Just now, placeholder said:

But not a current one.

They will be labelled as being something different through the stages of living, but they still have life when they aren't yet born .

   They are still alive when aborted and the abortion ends that life