JUST IN | US Supreme Court ends constitutional right to abortion

airborne

airborne

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
18,071
MrGyre said:
She should have kept her legs closed. Hasn't she heard of protection? Lazy people that just want to have abortions as a form of birth control. /s
Click to expand...

“As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure”

That’ll teach her not to use both oral contraceptives and condoms, as we have been taught on this thread, with those at hand there’s no excuse for “unwanted pregnancies”. Little murderess, god will punish her when the time comes.
Repent ye witch!

Reading that Twitter thread what stood out is how dangerous it is for young girls to take pregnancy’s to term, their bodies aren’t developed sufficiently to cope with the burden of the pregnancy or the birth. And even if they successfully take the baby to term they often suffer long term health issues as a result.

Makes you wonder about the plight of domestic abuse victims, often a form of abuse in those situations is preventing the lady from using contraception, using pregnancy as a way of ensuring the victim can’t exit the relationship and is forever tied to the abuser.
 
ForceFate

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
41,141
Bottone astutely pointed out the double standard with current Texas laws: is her unborn child considered a living person or not? She told the Dallas Morning News: “One officer kind of brushed me off when I mentioned this is a living child, according to everything that’s going on with the overturning of Roe v. Wade."
Click to expand...
www.vanityfair.com

‘My Baby Girl Is Right Here, She Is a Person’: Pregnant Woman Pulled Over in Texas for Driving in HOV Lane

In Texas, two laws are contradictory: Is an unborn child considered a living person or not?
www.vanityfair.com www.vanityfair.com
 
Grant

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
60,621
agentrfr said:
I'm sorry friend, you dont get to wriggle out of this one.

First off, stop strawmanning what I say. It is dishonest. Several thousand people are reading this and they can see you. Whenever you do, you are not making compelling argument or a substantial contribution to the debate.


I said financial reasons are not a valid justification for an abortion (I will expound on this infra). I did not say "financial reasons are not valid for an abortion because anyone having sex is obligated to be both willing to give birth and raise a child, as well as be prepared for the birth of said child."

I said given the obligation that parents have toward their spawn, it is negligent and irresponsible to not be prepared for a child before engaging in sex.

Strawman fallacy. Fallacy of incredulity.

I said, in post number 1041: "Mitigating against a potential outcome does not absolve you of responsibility if that outcome comes to fruition." You responded in post number 1043 "In the real world, such an obligation does not exist. It's frankly ridiculous that you think it does."

I cackled, then linked you to a summary of the Law of Damages. I choose that example expressly as not having anything to do with abortion directly.

The principal laid before you is that of the obligation we have as members of society to not damage the patrimony of others. It doesnt matter if you take mitigating steps against it. If you are responsible for causing damage to the patrimony of someone, they have a valid claim in that you are responsible for restitution.

Therefore, your statement "In the real world, such an obligation does not exist." is false. It does. It is an established matter of law. The Law of Damages is one such example. There are others.

You then facetiously retorted "Nowhere does it say there that there is a legal (or otherwise) obligation to be willing and prepared to have a child in order to have sex." at post number 1046.

I then directed your attention to the relevant section of our Constitution, the Children’s Act, Child Justice Act and Sexual Offences Act.

It is pertinently clear that parents have the obligation to the best interests of their children. You do not have a choice. You have to.
This includes inter alia
The obligation to feed the child.
The obligation to clothe the child.
The obligation to provide education for the child.
The obligation to protect the child from physical harm.
The obligation to provide security for the child.
The obligation to look after the health of the child.

All of the above cost money.

If you had applied your mind, you would have put two and two together and realized the link. If you fail in your legal obligations, you are in material breach of the law.

The point going over your head, you responded in post 1057: "None of that says that prohibits sex unless you are willing, prepared and ready to raise a child. You're attempting some serious goalpost shifting."

I then responded "Ignorance is not an acceptable defense." and linked you to a summary of ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

The point you're supposed to understand is claiming ignorance of a law or obligation does not absolve you from executing it.

So here comes the kicker:

If you make a child, you have to look after it. You do not have a choice. If you do not, you are in material breach of the law.

Your obligations to that child involve money.

If you plan to not fulfill your obligations, or in your behavior demonstrates a repudiation of your obligations, you are in material breach of the law.

Therefore, it is a trite conclusion that it is responsible to be prepared for the outcomes of an event which place obligations upon you, where that activity is elective.

Nobody forces you to make a child. But if you do, you are forced to look after it.

You cannot claim ignorance that if you make a child you must look after it. It is not an acceptable defense.

You're going to find yourself in court one day and it will not go well for you.

Fallacious appeal to popular opinion.

Just because a lot of people do something, does not justify the act. A lot of people thought it was moral to be racist during apartheid. It may have been lawful, but was it right then?

Having a child is a terrifying, stressful and expensive process. Ask any parent.

Making a child (whether you want one or not) while being unprepared for one, is negligent. If you continue to repudiate, you are in material breach of the law.
Click to expand...
Quite the wall of text and quoting of our various laws & legal obligations.

What has our law / constitution have to say on abortion?
 
Vorastra

Vorastra

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
14,125
Dave said:
How do you know she's pro-abortion? There appears to be an anti-abortion poster behind her and she isn't wearing anything to show her being pro, in fact, the guy with the microphone tries to push her away.
Click to expand...
She's a pro-abortionist who's crashing an anti-abortion rally. Or possibly it's the anti-abortionists who are crashing their protest.

The Indian with the mic is obviously with the poster dude.

Now let's pretend none of that is true and no one can understand what's going.

Edit: seems it's a pro-life protest in DC, which the pro-baby-killers are crashing.
 
Last edited:
Dave

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
76,538
Vorastra said:
She's a pro-abortionist who's crashing an anti-abortion rally. Or possibly it's the anti-abortionists who are crashing their protest.

The Indian with the mic is obviously with the poster dude.

Now let's pretend none of that is true and no one can understand what's going.

Edit: seems it's a pro-life protest in DC, which the pro-baby-killers are crashing.
Click to expand...

So you don't know either? That still makes two of us then.
 
GrootVoet

GrootVoet

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
1,489
I watched this YT speech from Ronald Reagan where he explains that in California they have a law that makes it possible to charge someone with murder if that person is responsible that a pregnant woman looses her baby due to assault. So why can some else murder a unborn but not the mother carrying that baby?

 
ponder

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
92,825
Grant said:
What has our law / constitution have to say on abortion?
Click to expand...


Christian Lawyers Association of South Africa & Ors. v. Minister of Health & Ors. | Global Health & Human Rights Database

www.globalhealthrights.org www.globalhealthrights.org
The Court dismissed the application, holding that the South African Constitution does not afford the fetus a legal personality or protection. Particularly, the court interpreted Section 28 that specifically provides for the rights of a child as implicitly not extending those rights to protect the fetus. Therefore, the Court reasoned the Constitution did not intend to extend the right under Section 11 either. Further, extending the term "everyone" to include fetuses would enlarge other rights that clearly cannot apply to fetuses, and create rights that would have anomalous consequences for the rights of women.
Click to expand...

en.wikipedia.org

Abortion in South Africa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
V

vigras rojara

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
5,431
GrootVoet said:
I watched this YT speech from Ronald Reagan where he explains that in California they have a law that makes it possible to charge someone with murder if that person is responsible that a pregnant woman looses her baby due to assault. So why can some else murder a unborn but not the mother carrying that baby?

Click to expand...
Reagan died about 18 years ago.

Also if you want to communicate in English, please make it a bit more delicious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top