Support NeoGAF

[PHOENIXZERO]

Thankfully Trump and Penis don't have only a slightly better chance than a snowball in hell of actually getting 270 electoral votes.

 

[UraMallas]

What happened in '06ish?

If I had to guess, Fox News took it up as an issue.

 

[James]

Well, technically he's not wrong. All of America would be turned to ash along with it if Trump became president.

 

[LiquidSword]

Hmm.. Why is no other media writing about this? All I can find is latimes, nymag, and then a bunch of blogs.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

Hmm.. Why is no other media writing about this? All I can find is latimes, nymag, and then a bunch of blogs.

Liberal media doing its job.

Oh wait...

 

[CadetMahoney]

No I don't,... having the body invaded is a matter of choice.

? being "invaded" doesn't sound very choice like. The circumstances of conception have nothing to do with why abortion is legal either way.

There are other laws for situations where it isn't, and rightfully so. If you claim that the embryo is another person 'invited' into the body, and killing it when you eject it, that would be wrong and overrule any clause of bodily integrity.

None of this exists in the legal sphere. It's not a person and "Invitation" is irrelevant.

"Responsibility" because it was invited can't be argued either.

Say you negligently started a fire and you were the only bone marrow match for a person who is dying as a result from it, it would be a very upright and good of you to donate to him/her, but the state cannot force you to undergo a medical procedure to which you have not consented. You may be thrown in jail or pay with your wallet, you don't "pay" for it with your own bodily resources.

The only true argument is that a embryo isn't a person, and therefore it is ok to remove it.

You still need a legal reason to criminalize abortion. I'm pretty sure Roe has made it's arguments quite clear in regards to bodily integrity.

What pro-lifers keep forgetting is that no one born and alive has rights they want to grant the unborn. Even when someone is "responsible" (i.e. see arsonist example above). If it doesn't apply to people right now who are born and alive, why would it apply to the unborn? Responsibility argument doesn't work and "innocence" argument doesn't work either. Consider that pregnancy heightens the chance of death too, considerably more than having a legal abortion.

And yes, anti-abortion people like to argue they have other reasons, but their only true arguments are that a. god doesn't like abortion and b. from conception onward the fetus is a person with a soul and has the value of a real human. That we know this isn't true doesn't matter to them.

Right which is the same arguments that have consistently failed to overturn abortion for over 40+ years.

You're reversing the argument I made. What you say here is true, but religious people disagree with this statement for NO OTHER VALID REASON than 'my religion says this isn't true'.

Any arguments to legalize abortion should simply be 'get your religion out of my government' not 'women have a right to their own body'. The latter is true, but not the point at all.

I see, I sort got what you where trying to say but am just replying to you anyway even if we are on the same page (I think). I agree with the latter part about the "true" argument, I would change it to the "real" argument however. But as we have seen their "real" argument hold little weight.

In the end just saying "get religion out" is far too broad and not an actual argument and is sort of the same as what religious people to have their laws in place "get my religion in". Such a system would be laws made out of mob rule and turn like the tide with whoever is in power.

 

[YourMaster]

I see, I sort got what you where trying to say but am just replying to you anyway even if we are on the same page (I think). I agree with the latter part about the "true" argument, I would change it to the "real" argument however. But as we have seen their "real" argument hold little weight.

In the end just saying "get religion out" is far too broad and not an actual argument and is sort of the same as what religious people to have their laws in place "get my religion in". Such a system would be laws made out of mob rule and turn like the tide with whoever is in power.

O, but that argument does hold weight. Abortion is legal yes, but continuously under siege enough to be a serious hindrance. Because of their religion.
Coming up with other arguments beyond 'freedom of religion'(don't mix religion and politics) only serves to legitimize their 'fake' reasons.

 

[LizardKing]

I hate the sentiment that this is a woman's issue. The decision most often affects both men and women alike and while it's ultimately her body and her final decision the right to choose is a right that men are also affected by. Men need to feel just as strongly about protecting this right as women.

 

[gutter_trash]

he is going to hand the governing duties entirely to Pence while Donald remains mascot

Trump is an egomaniac

 

[Man Called Aerodynamics]

This is a big gift for Hillary.

Yeah, like just from a political perspective this kind of statement seems like a loser for them. Staunchly anti-abortion people are already on their team anyway, this doesn't change that, but it seems like could galvanize undecided voters against them.

 

[QuantumZebra]

how?

Whoever wins this election is going to own the Supreme Court.

They can overturn anything.

 

[aliengmr]

I keep telling myself there are no surprises left with far right conservative politicIans.

Then this shit happens.

How is this a surprise? It's been a goal for as long as I can remember.

 

[Byakuya769]

Pence doesn't understand demographics.

 

[low-G]

What happened in '06ish?

Hitler II abortion