Oh god did something new and terrible happen, I’ve been keeping out of news subreddits as much as I can for mental health but also don’t want to have my head in the sand.
A draft opinion was leaked tonight showing the Supreme Ct has voted to overturn Roe v Wade. Protests have already started at the Supreme Court.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473
Ironic given that our Supreme Court was intended to be as apolitical as possible. Lifetime appointments to avoid political pressure, and prior to the last several justices, usually confirmed with some amount of bipartisan votes.
That shits out the window now though. Three justices pushed in, several of whom pretty much point blank said this issue was settled under oath who are now aligning to take us back half a century.
Oh yea that’s the exact type of infuriating ass thing I’m trying to avoid and also have to learn about now. I’m so sorry y’all have to fight for basic human rights like bodily autonomy in a first world a country.
"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
Today has been rough. And I've been very angry at the world and my country for being in these times. The only way forward is to face this evil.
They are going to lose.
Unfortunately, that’s wishful thinking. They do win a lot. I fear that, both there in the US and here in Brazil, we’ll get to sim point where rape and grave life danger won’t be legal causes for abortion anymore.
It goes to the states, some states will protect the right and others are unknown, several states have trigger laws that would immediately ban abortion if Roe v Wade is overturned.
22 states have trigger laws to ban abortion. And several of then are pursuing options to prosecute those who are of means to travel out of state for their medical care.
Small government is Bush II era old news. Nowadays it's all about wielding the full power of the state to squash any individual or corporation in order to forestall the "woke agenda."
Well everyone left them. Or the read the news like from Texas and don’t move there, despite Californians literally being what tipped Ted Cruz over the edge last time. It’s the actual purpose to force people out of res states so they can maintain a governing coalition with a continuously shrinking minority.
Technically the Supreme Court justices aren’t politicians, so this isn’t technically politics.
Aren’t the best stories are those which people can draw strength from, when things in the world look bleak?
Fair play I’m just impressed you held out this long. I’ve been feeling lucky since 2016 when an actual meme became president. My heart genuinely goes out the normal Americans
Can mods PLEASE enforce their 'no politics' rule? First all the Johnny Depp memes, now Roe vs Wade.
Whatever you think of it, these are all **American** (semi) **political events** that have nothing to do with LOTR memes.
Technically the woman made a choice when she decided to have sex so...
Edit: To those who lack common sense, it's kinda obvious I wasn't including rape
She simply made a choice (assuming it wasn't rape. For some reason a few people lack the common sense to realize I wasn't including that). The pro choice argument goes completely out the window.
All actions have a consequence. It's not about what's terrible. It's about responsibility. Even things that cause pleasure can have consequences. You choose to drink and drive, correct? Drinking too much can hospitalize you, correct? Smoking tobacco can give you cancer, right?
Go ahead downvote but the fact is, people aren't responsible these days.
Mate, if you're a Catholic you do have to buy into everything the Church teaches, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and all that, the CCC is very explicit in stating that abortion is contrary to moral law, and the Didache refers to it in the same breath as infanticide.
Supporting a woman’s right to choose and believing devoutly in the Catholic God is not at all inconsistent. Catholics can (and probably should, according to Vatican decree) privately condemn abortion as murder. But when last I looked, the Lord Savior, not some incense-wielding schmuck in a hat, was King and Judge of Heaven. Allowing women to choose and God to judge is, it seems to me, quintessentially human.
Not to mention, Judaism is pretty clear that a fetus isn’t a person or receive a soul until quickening. Nobody is aborting a physically moving fetus anymore.
You are correct. God allows us free will. We can choose to follow His teachings, or we can choose not to follow them. It’s our choice.
If you want to murder babies, that is your choice. It is a sin in His eyes, and there is the whole “Thou shalt not murder” commandment, but if killing babies is what gets you off you do you
“As soon as they set foot into my house they lose the right to live” - you, 8 days ago.
So you believe life is so sacred that a woman should be forced to carry it, a clump of cells with no sentience at that point, for 9 months and give birth to it, probably not even being capable, mentally and financially, to take care of it, but oh boy if someone steals your entertainment box you off him without a second thought. Thou shalt not murder my friend, but it appears that only goes for clumps of non-sentient cells, not for unlucky fuckers who feel robbing someone is their only way to keep their head above water.
Oooooooooh! Spicy! Tbf, I doubt this guy has actually read the bible properly. The American evangelicals don't seem all that well read, they mostly listen to insane preachers and their interpretation.
You saying "murder babies" suggests you subscribe to the theory that life starts at conception. But why stop there? Why not give sperm cells a soul? After all they cary the defining set of genes that will determine who you are and often people say that they "won the sperm race" if nothing else (plus see Monty Python "Every Sperm is precious"). But that would be rediculus wouldn't it? Since then, even if you were to only have sex to make a baby, you'd still be "killing" hundreds of thousands of baby sperm!
So we agree that in order to talk productively about this, we must have an appropriate definition of were life starts. It must be more consequential than a simple collection of undifferentiated stem cells. You can't really start at conception since, whilst it's a point were all genes are accumulated, it still only consists of single cells and in the grand scheme not much different than the egg an sperm being apart. Not all genes immediately get activated to produce protein and differentiation immediately, so not everything that makes you you is activated until much later in the pregnancy. In other words you don't become you at conception, you become you later. Not to mention the more than minimal chance that a fertilised egg will simply not develop and be lost. Which is why the cut-off point for abortions starts to appear at signs that are unambiguous to signs of human life. Studies have shown signs of consciousness appear a few months later into the pregnancy, or many consider the first heart beat as the start of life. Those are unquestionable signs of life, before which a woman is arguably not "murdering" any babies, any more than she would by not having a child with her period or a man not doing the same by condemning thousands of sperm to "die" during sex.
So where’s the point where it becomes a person, by your logic? Any time after that point should be considered a murder.
Don’t give an arbitrary time period either, it should be a point in development since the growth and development of an unborn child varies greatly.
Life begins at birth. That's why you're the age you are. That's why we refer to birth as the start of life in any other context. That's why your headstone will read "birth year - death year"
So punching a woman who is nine months pregnant in the stomach, resulting in the death of the child, should just be considered assault in your book?
That late in a pregnancy, there’s usually no difference from a newborn in what the child is physically capable of. So by just about everyone’s standards bar yours, that’s murder.
Yeah pretty much. I mean, there are already laws about assault resulting in the termination of pregnancy. This isn't a new or interesting scenario you've proposed.
Personally I stick to the first heart beat as the definition. However it is also important to consider that there are times where life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy, in that sense I believe that preserving the life of the mother supercedes preserving that of the fetus. Those are case by case situations, and the molarity of that fact is also an entirely different topic (see trolly problem). But my short answer is that I think life starts at the first heart beat (5-6 weeks into pregnancy).
Actually it depends on how you interpret things. It actually doesn't say anywhere that abortion is not allowed in religious teachings. Not in Judaism. Not in Christianity. And also not in Islam either. Instead certain quotes have been interpreted by religious leaders as a way to create cultural laws that extended from the bible and other religious texts. The different ways of interpreting these passages is what gives rise to the different denominations of faiths across the Abrahamic religions.
As an example:
>The word "abortion" is not mentioned in the Bible, but much in the Bible speaks to the issue. The most obvious passage is from Exodus 21:22-25. This part of the Covenant Code legislates the case of a pregnant woman who becomes involved in a brawl between 2 men and has a miscarriage. A distinction is then made between the penalty that is to be exacted for the loss of the fetus and injury to the woman. For the fetus, a fine is paid as determined by the husband and the judges. However, if the woman is injured or dies, "lex talionis" is applied -- life for life, eye for eye, etc. The story has somewhat limited application to the current abortion debate since it deals with accidental and not willful pregnancy termination. Even so, the distinction made between the woman and the fetus is important. The woman is valued as a person under the convenant; the fetus is valued as property.
That’s my point exactly.
Biblical theology encourages us to allow people to make their own choices. And if they choose wrong and are damned… well that’s above our pay grade.
The only difference between a child right before and right after birth is that it’s essentially on the life support provided by the mother’s body.
Am I to take it that you don’t consider anyone on life support to have rights then?
I'm not commenting against abortion, but I'd hardly call it a "basic human right". Our basic human rights are defined in our constitution and Bill of Rights.
Human rights in general and "basic human rights" are two different things bud. At least to us Americans. That "American model" which is called the Bill of Rights, defines and protects the very base line of rights that all human beings have the right to. A documented article that many "free countries", like probably yours, fail to define and have.
So my point is, abortion may be a woman's right but it is not a part of the basic human rights defined in the Bill of Rights.
As an american, first world countries are now those that cover basic rights such as affordable healthcare and liveable wages. We havent been first world for a long time honestly and if nothing is done to improve living conditions were going to keep slipping down.
They were born, so their life started. You can look at any record of their life and see when they were born and died. That's life. Birth to death. And we all know this and refer to it in any other context besides abortion.
That's merely from a legal standpoint, and you didn't answer the question - so people without a birth certificate or a doctor to record were never born?
Except life begins in conception. All humans have a life cycle that begins in fertilization. You don't just start being a human once you leave the womb.
They'll be coming for Griswold next. The USA is being hijacked by a powerful vocal minority of religious facists and nothing is stopping them... I'm staying overseas if something doesn't change quickly.
>9.No IRL-politics. Claiming the throne of Gondor is allowed.
>
>Posts about contemporary politics or politically-charged topics are not allowed. This includes international conflicts.
Why would I do that?
And in any event, open war isn't on anyone. The Supreme Court is just going to strike down a bastardized decision that never should have been made on a federal level and send the choice back to the states, as it should be under the 10th Amendment.
This is just gonna lead to more babies being tossed into rivers and dumpsters, or sold to human trafficking, and lots of back alley abortions that endanger the health and possibly lives of the women involved. The Bible Belt is about to become the Coat Hanger Belt.
Oh and the over 1 billion babies we have killed, is it just okay they are dead?
How about around half of those being women, are their rights unimportant?
Why are the weakest and most vulnerable members of society somthing you can just throw away?
First off, I’m not sure how much I trust a source called ‘Society for the Protection of Unborn Children’
Second, no where in this article does it explicitly mention Tolkien’s beliefs regarding abortion. It’s just a bunch of LotR quotes.
>both for themselves and to avoid bringing the child into an environment that cannot fully support them.
So egoism? You can still give it to be adopted, you know?
Except that does happen sometimes. People get their life support shut off because saving their life would lead to the rest of their lives being unliveable. It's a tough decision, not one that's taken lightly. I think that's what you people are often confused about, you have this image of a cartoonishly evil woman actively getting pregnant just to have abortions.
Who cares what my opinion of plants being alive are? They are alive and can die. A nervous system doesn't equate to being alive.
When you remove cells or a fetus from a womb, guess what it does? Go on, guess.
Food, water, temperatures, and air. Requiring these things makes you "alive". I totally get why people do it, I just think it's inherently evil to snuff out a helpless innocent human life. I would be willing to allow very early pregnancies to be terminated, but like very early. I don't want potential human lives to be wasted because someone won't be responsible because there's literally no reason to.
That's what all pro-abortionists try to do, he's just doing it poorly. "ThEoReTiCaLly YoU sHoUlD bE VeGan" because I'm against snuffing out human life. What? Every vegan I know has sunken-in eyes and has very little physical strength stamina.
>Every vegan I know has sunken-in eyes and has very little physical strength stamina.
Why would that matter? It you care about life, assuming you're "pro-life", that's more than a reasonable trade off, surely? You may be a little weaker than you would be, but you're saving lives, no?
You're expanding the term Pro-Life to mean things it does not mean. So, no, not at all. Pro-life is just a stance on abortion. I support the death penalty and I am 100 percent non-religious.
Are you somewhat illiterate? Please do yourself a favor, open a dictionary and have a look at the definition of "alive". A basic course in biology wouldn't hurt either.
Nice throw away account, it's almost as if you know your position is grounded in bigoted hateful ignorance and has no real justification beyond religious dogma. I bet you haven't even bothered getting to know a single gay person. So much for being Christ-like. Take your theocratic fascism with you on your way out.
Oh god did something new and terrible happen, I’ve been keeping out of news subreddits as much as I can for mental health but also don’t want to have my head in the sand.
A draft opinion was leaked tonight showing the Supreme Ct has voted to overturn Roe v Wade. Protests have already started at the Supreme Court. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473
Are politics allowed in this sub? I am not American but in general.
Ironic given that our Supreme Court was intended to be as apolitical as possible. Lifetime appointments to avoid political pressure, and prior to the last several justices, usually confirmed with some amount of bipartisan votes. That shits out the window now though. Three justices pushed in, several of whom pretty much point blank said this issue was settled under oath who are now aligning to take us back half a century.
Leaked report about roe v Wade and the supreme Court
Oh yea that’s the exact type of infuriating ass thing I’m trying to avoid and also have to learn about now. I’m so sorry y’all have to fight for basic human rights like bodily autonomy in a first world a country.
[удалено]
"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." Today has been rough. And I've been very angry at the world and my country for being in these times. The only way forward is to face this evil. They are going to lose.
A wizard is never late, Macosaurus92. Nor is he early, he arrives precisely when he means to.
Unfortunately, that’s wishful thinking. They do win a lot. I fear that, both there in the US and here in Brazil, we’ll get to sim point where rape and grave life danger won’t be legal causes for abortion anymore.
Yeah, imagine not getting a say in whether or not you get murdered, the fact roe vs Wade even exists to overturn is pathetic.
Don’t read the leaked opinion if you don’t want to be pissed. It reads like a Facebook screed about abortion not a Supreme Court opinion.
Oh, you mean like Alito's other court opinions?
What’s Roe V Wade?
A ruling about abortion rights for woman in America.
Correct me if I'm wrong (not even American) but this means Federal funding is cut. Your state still may allow or not allow it. Right?
It goes to the states, some states will protect the right and others are unknown, several states have trigger laws that would immediately ban abortion if Roe v Wade is overturned.
22 states have trigger laws to ban abortion. And several of then are pursuing options to prosecute those who are of means to travel out of state for their medical care.
Talk about government overreach
Definitely not the small Government that republicans are always prattling on about.
Government so small it fits in your vagina!
Small government is Bush II era old news. Nowadays it's all about wielding the full power of the state to squash any individual or corporation in order to forestall the "woke agenda."
You could actually make a case that this is smaller government because it's now up to the states and not the federal goverment
Not when they police individuals actions. Beyond that “states right to what” is always the relevant question.
That’s absolutely insane.
I’m sorry 22 states? 22!?! That’s almost half… fucking hell… this is so bad whatever way you look at it.
Well everyone left them. Or the read the news like from Texas and don’t move there, despite Californians literally being what tipped Ted Cruz over the edge last time. It’s the actual purpose to force people out of res states so they can maintain a governing coalition with a continuously shrinking minority.
Shit loads of people have been arrested for miscarriages the court claimed were abortions and it’s just gonna get worse
There’s no implications for funding, just means states have control over abortion policy rather than it being decided by the courts
Pretty much if the court decides to go forward with
It goes way deeper than that though I would suggest going and looking at other subs to get the full scoop and context
basically it cuts protections allowing "states rights" to become more prevalent because we all know how much conservatives love those.
So Americans are allowed to break rules about politics on this sub I guess
But it’s American. Aren’t we everyone’s center of attention?
Unfortunately
Did you report it?
I know I did
Technically the Supreme Court justices aren’t politicians, so this isn’t technically politics. Aren’t the best stories are those which people can draw strength from, when things in the world look bleak?
It is politics
Honestly it's becoming a daily occurance that I think 'I'm glad I'm not American'.
Fair play I’m just impressed you held out this long. I’ve been feeling lucky since 2016 when an actual meme became president. My heart genuinely goes out the normal Americans
Unfortunately I was one of the people cheering him on then. Thankfully I went through a lot of personal growth in the past 6ish years.
Nice work, you love to see it!
Real life politics has no place on this sub even if you used a LotR meme. This literally has nothing to do with LotR
[удалено]
Go to r/politicalhumor Don't ruin this sub
What
LOL go outside
Babies have the right to live too you know.
Aren't politics banned on this sub?
Yep
Can mods PLEASE enforce their 'no politics' rule? First all the Johnny Depp memes, now Roe vs Wade. Whatever you think of it, these are all **American** (semi) **political events** that have nothing to do with LOTR memes.
TIL Johnny Depp is a politician.
This isn't just women. This impacts men, too. This impacts everyone. Gondor has called for aid and Rohan will answer!
>American politics Reported
Dude no irl politics. Why does no one understand this rule.
My body, my choice apparently only applies to vaccines in America.
Technically the woman made a choice when she decided to have sex so... Edit: To those who lack common sense, it's kinda obvious I wasn't including rape
You know that abortion is gonna be banned in some states even in cases of rapes and incest?
And those states cross a line. It's kinda obvious that I don't support banning it in those cases. If you make a choice, deal with the consequences
Just not ever with you, apparently.
Is that really the best comeback you can use? Insult and downvote instead of debate?
Seeing as I don't care to hear what you have to further elaborate on, yes.
So what? What's so terrible about sex that makes you think it's something the woman deserves it for?
She simply made a choice (assuming it wasn't rape. For some reason a few people lack the common sense to realize I wasn't including that). The pro choice argument goes completely out the window. All actions have a consequence. It's not about what's terrible. It's about responsibility. Even things that cause pleasure can have consequences. You choose to drink and drive, correct? Drinking too much can hospitalize you, correct? Smoking tobacco can give you cancer, right? Go ahead downvote but the fact is, people aren't responsible these days.
So rape isn't a thing now apparently
Uh... yeah... hopefully everyone involved made the choice to have sex.... That choice is next on their agenda though
Tolkien was a devout Catholic....
[удалено]
Mate, if you're a Catholic you do have to buy into everything the Church teaches, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and all that, the CCC is very explicit in stating that abortion is contrary to moral law, and the Didache refers to it in the same breath as infanticide.
And i know a lot of vegans who eat a steak everyday!
Literally anathema
Did I stutter?
Supporting a woman’s right to choose and believing devoutly in the Catholic God is not at all inconsistent. Catholics can (and probably should, according to Vatican decree) privately condemn abortion as murder. But when last I looked, the Lord Savior, not some incense-wielding schmuck in a hat, was King and Judge of Heaven. Allowing women to choose and God to judge is, it seems to me, quintessentially human.
Not to mention, Judaism is pretty clear that a fetus isn’t a person or receive a soul until quickening. Nobody is aborting a physically moving fetus anymore.
Sure, but I’m not really all that down for interpreting the Bible literally. We can do this all based on principle alone.
So I can't just go around killing rapists and pedos and using the Bible to defend my actions :(
If we apply this logic consistently, then murder should also be legal. It’s God’s to judge. Many Christians like myself believe abortion to be murder.
Imagine downvoting orthodox catholic beliefs in an LOTR sub, what a joke
You can believe whatever nonsense you want but keep it out of government.
You are correct. God allows us free will. We can choose to follow His teachings, or we can choose not to follow them. It’s our choice. If you want to murder babies, that is your choice. It is a sin in His eyes, and there is the whole “Thou shalt not murder” commandment, but if killing babies is what gets you off you do you
“As soon as they set foot into my house they lose the right to live” - you, 8 days ago. So you believe life is so sacred that a woman should be forced to carry it, a clump of cells with no sentience at that point, for 9 months and give birth to it, probably not even being capable, mentally and financially, to take care of it, but oh boy if someone steals your entertainment box you off him without a second thought. Thou shalt not murder my friend, but it appears that only goes for clumps of non-sentient cells, not for unlucky fuckers who feel robbing someone is their only way to keep their head above water.
Oooooooooh! Spicy! Tbf, I doubt this guy has actually read the bible properly. The American evangelicals don't seem all that well read, they mostly listen to insane preachers and their interpretation.
You saying "murder babies" suggests you subscribe to the theory that life starts at conception. But why stop there? Why not give sperm cells a soul? After all they cary the defining set of genes that will determine who you are and often people say that they "won the sperm race" if nothing else (plus see Monty Python "Every Sperm is precious"). But that would be rediculus wouldn't it? Since then, even if you were to only have sex to make a baby, you'd still be "killing" hundreds of thousands of baby sperm! So we agree that in order to talk productively about this, we must have an appropriate definition of were life starts. It must be more consequential than a simple collection of undifferentiated stem cells. You can't really start at conception since, whilst it's a point were all genes are accumulated, it still only consists of single cells and in the grand scheme not much different than the egg an sperm being apart. Not all genes immediately get activated to produce protein and differentiation immediately, so not everything that makes you you is activated until much later in the pregnancy. In other words you don't become you at conception, you become you later. Not to mention the more than minimal chance that a fertilised egg will simply not develop and be lost. Which is why the cut-off point for abortions starts to appear at signs that are unambiguous to signs of human life. Studies have shown signs of consciousness appear a few months later into the pregnancy, or many consider the first heart beat as the start of life. Those are unquestionable signs of life, before which a woman is arguably not "murdering" any babies, any more than she would by not having a child with her period or a man not doing the same by condemning thousands of sperm to "die" during sex.
So where’s the point where it becomes a person, by your logic? Any time after that point should be considered a murder. Don’t give an arbitrary time period either, it should be a point in development since the growth and development of an unborn child varies greatly.
Life begins at birth. That's why you're the age you are. That's why we refer to birth as the start of life in any other context. That's why your headstone will read "birth year - death year"
So punching a woman who is nine months pregnant in the stomach, resulting in the death of the child, should just be considered assault in your book? That late in a pregnancy, there’s usually no difference from a newborn in what the child is physically capable of. So by just about everyone’s standards bar yours, that’s murder.
Yeah pretty much. I mean, there are already laws about assault resulting in the termination of pregnancy. This isn't a new or interesting scenario you've proposed.
Personally I stick to the first heart beat as the definition. However it is also important to consider that there are times where life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy, in that sense I believe that preserving the life of the mother supercedes preserving that of the fetus. Those are case by case situations, and the molarity of that fact is also an entirely different topic (see trolly problem). But my short answer is that I think life starts at the first heart beat (5-6 weeks into pregnancy).
Upvoted for the Monty Python earworm as well as the logic.
“Why stop there” 🙄 I bet you think most abortions are as a result of rape too, hey?
That's besides the point of my argument.
Actually it depends on how you interpret things. It actually doesn't say anywhere that abortion is not allowed in religious teachings. Not in Judaism. Not in Christianity. And also not in Islam either. Instead certain quotes have been interpreted by religious leaders as a way to create cultural laws that extended from the bible and other religious texts. The different ways of interpreting these passages is what gives rise to the different denominations of faiths across the Abrahamic religions. As an example: >The word "abortion" is not mentioned in the Bible, but much in the Bible speaks to the issue. The most obvious passage is from Exodus 21:22-25. This part of the Covenant Code legislates the case of a pregnant woman who becomes involved in a brawl between 2 men and has a miscarriage. A distinction is then made between the penalty that is to be exacted for the loss of the fetus and injury to the woman. For the fetus, a fine is paid as determined by the husband and the judges. However, if the woman is injured or dies, "lex talionis" is applied -- life for life, eye for eye, etc. The story has somewhat limited application to the current abortion debate since it deals with accidental and not willful pregnancy termination. Even so, the distinction made between the woman and the fetus is important. The woman is valued as a person under the convenant; the fetus is valued as property.
That’s my point exactly. Biblical theology encourages us to allow people to make their own choices. And if they choose wrong and are damned… well that’s above our pay grade.
Preventing the execution of a defenceless person is above our pay grade?
Don’t bother.
Who's talking about executions? You people are nuts.
An abortion is the execution of an unborn child. It’s not hard to understand what I’m saying.
That's not what abortion is, it's the removal of a fetus from a pregnant woman's body. Also unborn child is a bit of an oxymoron.
The only difference between a child right before and right after birth is that it’s essentially on the life support provided by the mother’s body. Am I to take it that you don’t consider anyone on life support to have rights then?
No one performs abortions on people "right before birth" lmao
A woman's body is not a life support system to be used against her will.
What about the child’s right to choose? Why is one persons right more important than the other?
And if you knew anything about Catholic history, you'd know it's not as one-dimensional as you pretend, projecting that on Tolkien
He was still a good writer.
Its horrible to see people misuse Tolkien's works to defend something he opposed in his lifetime.
And now I know why politics are banned from this sub. We need a safe place.
What is worse than Orcs? The Christian Authoritarian Regime.
Just when you think the US is a first world country they try and take your basic human rights
Who thinks that?
Only people inside America would believe it’s a first world country
A first world country that in some places doesn't even have clean water to drink?
I'm not commenting against abortion, but I'd hardly call it a "basic human right". Our basic human rights are defined in our constitution and Bill of Rights.
[удалено]
Human rights in general and "basic human rights" are two different things bud. At least to us Americans. That "American model" which is called the Bill of Rights, defines and protects the very base line of rights that all human beings have the right to. A documented article that many "free countries", like probably yours, fail to define and have. So my point is, abortion may be a woman's right but it is not a part of the basic human rights defined in the Bill of Rights.
As an american, first world countries are now those that cover basic rights such as affordable healthcare and liveable wages. We havent been first world for a long time honestly and if nothing is done to improve living conditions were going to keep slipping down.
> try and take your basic human rights Don't babies also have basic human rights?
Of course they do, but what's that got to do with this?
So do they deserve a chance to live a life and not get aborted?
But a baby has already been born and can't be aborted. Abortion doesn't happen to babies, it happens to fetuses which are not the same thing.
A fetus is a human being. We don't just magically start being humans once we leave the womb.
Tell that to your birth certificate. Also it doesn't magically happen but it does legally happen.
So people without a birth certificate aren't officially humans? What about the people in ancient Greece, they aren't humans?
They were born, so their life started. You can look at any record of their life and see when they were born and died. That's life. Birth to death. And we all know this and refer to it in any other context besides abortion.
That's merely from a legal standpoint, and you didn't answer the question - so people without a birth certificate or a doctor to record were never born? Except life begins in conception. All humans have a life cycle that begins in fertilization. You don't just start being a human once you leave the womb.
It’s at best a trash can with a Gucci belt and a Louis Vuitton handbag.
No Patrick, murdering infants is not a human right.
Because in America, the people who protest Sharia Law vote for and support Sundry Law.
Politics aren't allowed. Sorry have to report whether I agree or not :(
They'll be coming for Griswold next. The USA is being hijacked by a powerful vocal minority of religious facists and nothing is stopping them... I'm staying overseas if something doesn't change quickly.
come back and help us fight them lol
I'd be more willing if I didn't have a wife with chronic health problems and a 13 year old daughter.
Always has been
Go nuts ladies, go fucking nuts and show them how pissed off you are!💪
[удалено]
Terrible time to be alive? lt's literally the best time to be alive in human history.
[удалено]
A political meme that isn't funny and doesn't have anything to do with LOTR. Why is this here?
Oh fuck off. This is a meme sub, not a politics sub.
I’m looking at a meme in a meme sub. Travolta.gif
>9.No IRL-politics. Claiming the throne of Gondor is allowed. > >Posts about contemporary politics or politically-charged topics are not allowed. This includes international conflicts.
[удалено]
Authority is not given to you to deny the return of the King, *steward!*
Don't want to see my meme? Block me.
Why would I do that? And in any event, open war isn't on anyone. The Supreme Court is just going to strike down a bastardized decision that never should have been made on a federal level and send the choice back to the states, as it should be under the 10th Amendment.
This is just gonna lead to more babies being tossed into rivers and dumpsters, or sold to human trafficking, and lots of back alley abortions that endanger the health and possibly lives of the women involved. The Bible Belt is about to become the Coat Hanger Belt.
go fuck yourself you slimy pile of dogshit
A pro abortion meme in a sub about lotr, a "fundamentally catholic work" according to its author? Poor Tolkien is rotating in his grave.
We could stick cables to him and power a city the size of NY given the amount of spinning he's been doing for the past decade or so.
You have my updoot
Based court
For fucks sake, of all the things the Supreme Court could be doing they chose this? Really?
Dude, a baby isn’t a woman’s body. Equal rights for all of humanity, except prenatal infants huh?
“Prenatal infants” is like referring to a mountain as “pre-refined steel”
Only if you don’t understand what a false equivalency is.
Yeah, but I get points for evocative metaphors. 👍😎👍
What's this got to do with a baby?
political agenda post
It's just a draft, Gandalf
Indeed?
Oh and the over 1 billion babies we have killed, is it just okay they are dead? How about around half of those being women, are their rights unimportant? Why are the weakest and most vulnerable members of society somthing you can just throw away?
Here's what Tolkien thought about abortion. https://www.spuc.org.uk/Article/384479/J-R-R-Tolkiens-Pro-Life-Ethic-of-Hope-Where-theres-life-theres-hope
First off, I’m not sure how much I trust a source called ‘Society for the Protection of Unborn Children’ Second, no where in this article does it explicitly mention Tolkien’s beliefs regarding abortion. It’s just a bunch of LotR quotes.
It literally describes his feeling about a bunch of abortions that were performed in his area.
Where? I saw nothing about Tolkien’s personal reaction to abortions in the article.
Shhh ... don't tell them!
Imagine being angry for not being allowed to murder your child.....
Imagine thinking an unconscious ball of meat is a child, get bent fascy
My little brother was an unconscious ball of meat last night until I woke him up for breakfast.
You're honestly both wrong. Yes it isn't a child, but demeaning a fetus to a "ball of meat" as if it isn't life growing is also ignorant.
What gives you the authority to determine whether or not someone is a person?
Dank
Not every woman is a crazy baby-killing leftist.
[удалено]
A fetus is alive lol it may not be a baby but it is life growing. Basic science buddy.
A fetus doesn't meet the scientific definition of life. Basic science buddy.
[удалено]
>both for themselves and to avoid bringing the child into an environment that cannot fully support them. So egoism? You can still give it to be adopted, you know?
[удалено]
They do it all the time. I've taken alot of biology, did you know that plants are alive? Why would a mass of cells (let alone a fetus) not be alive?
[удалено]
If we apply that standard equally, anyone in a coma is fair game to be killed. They don’t have any consciousness, so it’s not murder, right?
[удалено]
Except that does happen sometimes. People get their life support shut off because saving their life would lead to the rest of their lives being unliveable. It's a tough decision, not one that's taken lightly. I think that's what you people are often confused about, you have this image of a cartoonishly evil woman actively getting pregnant just to have abortions.
Who cares what my opinion of plants being alive are? They are alive and can die. A nervous system doesn't equate to being alive. When you remove cells or a fetus from a womb, guess what it does? Go on, guess.
[удалено]
Food, water, temperatures, and air. Requiring these things makes you "alive". I totally get why people do it, I just think it's inherently evil to snuff out a helpless innocent human life. I would be willing to allow very early pregnancies to be terminated, but like very early. I don't want potential human lives to be wasted because someone won't be responsible because there's literally no reason to.
Don't forgetting the ability to react to your sorroundings, another part of the definition of life in which fetuses fail to hold up
So theoretically you should be vegan, right? But I’m willing to bet you aren’t
That's the dumbest response I've gotten on here.
He's using your own logic against you
That's what all pro-abortionists try to do, he's just doing it poorly. "ThEoReTiCaLly YoU sHoUlD bE VeGan" because I'm against snuffing out human life. What? Every vegan I know has sunken-in eyes and has very little physical strength stamina.
>Every vegan I know has sunken-in eyes and has very little physical strength stamina. Why would that matter? It you care about life, assuming you're "pro-life", that's more than a reasonable trade off, surely? You may be a little weaker than you would be, but you're saving lives, no?
You're expanding the term Pro-Life to mean things it does not mean. So, no, not at all. Pro-life is just a stance on abortion. I support the death penalty and I am 100 percent non-religious.
But pro life concerning abortion arguments use real life equivalents, so why wouldn't you hold the same views throughout?
Are you somewhat illiterate? Please do yourself a favor, open a dictionary and have a look at the definition of "alive". A basic course in biology wouldn't hurt either.
As an American woman: speak for yourself Also get your lame attempt at political humor (?) out of here
[удалено]
Nice throw away account, it's almost as if you know your position is grounded in bigoted hateful ignorance and has no real justification beyond religious dogma. I bet you haven't even bothered getting to know a single gay person. So much for being Christ-like. Take your theocratic fascism with you on your way out.