SCOTUS Tells Anti-Abortion Nuts To Go Fuck Themselves

[John V]

I’m talking about having a moral discussion.

Yes, and moral discussions involve judgments. When you opine that something is moral or immoral, you're judging.

Having cake and eating it too?  Yeah, it is a bit like that, I guess. How can we preserve a woman’s bodily autonomy without diminishing the value of human life?  I never said I had all the answers.  Maybe there is no perfectly, morally right solution.  But my point about Tres was that women should get to have sex for pleasure just as men do.

And, as I've said, I have nothing against (and in the case of my wife am extremely in favor of) women having sex for pleasure.

HOWEVER...when weighing the value of human life against the freedom to have sex for pleasure, I'm siding with the value of human life. Once you come to the position that the unborn baby is indeed human life, as you have (at least in some circumstances), I don't see how you can choose otherwise.

---

I'm still not certain what your impetus was for the "keep your legs shut" comment

Something I never actually said.

The impetus for my uterus comment was, obviously, your uterus comment, specifically the irony of it.

other than remarkably inflammatory snark. If that's it, so be it - just another day on the web.

But I can only surmise that if you actually knew me as a person rather than a bunch of 0's and 1's, you'd be deeply ashamed of your comments.

-Teresa

It's amazing how sensitive you guys are. The comment was very mild compared to what Christians get here on a daily basis.

[LadyForCamus]

I’m talking about having a moral discussion.

Yes, and moral discussions involve judgments. When you opine that something is moral or immoral, you're judging.

Sure, yes. What I am attempting to differentiate here is one individual’s subjective moral judgement versus having that open dialogue as a society and arriving at collectively agreed upon moral facts, if that’s even possible. Much of the abortion rhetoric going on these days shuts down discussion rather than opens it up. “Never, ever have an abortion!” versus “women should be able to have an abortion at any time, for any reason, as many times as they want!” That’s black and white thinking that I don’t find to be appropriate given the complexity of the subject.

Having cake and eating it too?  Yeah, it is a bit like that, I guess. How can we preserve a woman’s bodily autonomy without diminishing the value of human life?  I never said I had all the answers.  Maybe there is no perfectly, morally right solution.  But my point about Tres was that women should get to have sex for pleasure just as men do.

And, as I've said, I have nothing against (and in the case of my wife am extremely in favor of) women having sex for pleasure.

HOWEVER...when weighing the value of human life against the freedom to have sex for pleasure, I'm siding with the value of human life. Once you come to the position that the unborn baby is indeed human life, as you have (at least in some circumstances), I don't see how you can choose otherwise.

And in some circumstances, I, as an individual, subjectively agree with you.

[Amarok]

No. Likewise, Tres shouldn't have expected her comment to be off-bounds because it was personal. Further, there were many ways she could have phrased that same sentiment in general terms without saying "my uterus."

What she expected and the bullshit you pulled are two different things . Whether she said her uterus or not . You still slut shamed her . Deal with it 

You don't get to make an unassailable statement by making it personal. You don't accept that from opponents, yet you try to wield it as a weapon in your favor.

And no pointing out your hypocrisy is not same as you slut shaming Tres . Your delusions that these two things are equal is just that  

When you say that in your opinion it's immoral, you're judging. And, you'd support bans of abortions post 20 weeks, so you're willing to force your judgment on other women. You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too

At no point did lady judge anyone .Their is a difference between opening a moral discussion on the merits of a development point while admitting the issue concluded . And slut shaming someone light a giant prick. So again your full of shit Beta Fail.

[John V]

Sure, yes.  What I am attempting to differentiate here is one individual’s subjective moral judgement versus having that open dialogue as a society and arriving at a collectively agreed upon moral fact.

Sounds nice, but your actions don't line up with that. The fact is that you don't have abortion without a pregnancy, and you don't have a pregnancy without sex. That's relevant to the dialogue. Yet, when I alluded to that, you started crying slut-shamer and took the discussion way off track.

[LadyForCamus]

Sure, yes.  What I am attempting to differentiate here is one individual’s subjective moral judgement versus having that open dialogue as a society and arriving at a collectively agreed upon moral fact.

Sounds nice, but your actions don't line up with that. The fact is that you don't have abortion without a pregnancy, and you don't have a pregnancy without sex. That's relevant to the dialogue. Yet, when I alluded to that, you started crying slut-shamer and took the discussion way off track.

Do you have a problem with nuance?  I thought we already agreed that it’s unfair and unreasonable to expect women to only have sex for the purposes of procreation. In other words, celibacy is not a realistic solution to unwanted pregnancies.  Why aren’t we moving the discussion on from that point if we agree on it?

[Anomalocaris]

Sure, yes.  What I am attempting to differentiate here is one individual’s subjective moral judgement versus having that open dialogue as a society and arriving at a collectively agreed upon moral fact.

Sounds nice, but your actions don't line up with that. The fact is that you don't have abortion without a pregnancy, and you don't have a pregnancy without sex. That's relevant to the dialogue. Yet, when I alluded to that, you started crying slut-shamer and took the discussion way off track.

Well, you know, there would be no sex if there had been a timely abortion in the first place. Two can play at this game.

---

Everybody just needs to stay out of my uterus......

-Teresa

You can't throw me out! I just redecorated!

Where is the ICE when you need them.

[Amarok]

Sounds nice, but your actions don't line up with that. The fact is that you don't have abortion without a pregnancy, and you don't have a pregnancy without sex. That's relevant to the dialogue. Yet, when I alluded to that, you started crying slut-shamer and took the discussion way off track.

Nope it's not the same as she never said don't have sex or don't abort after 20 days . She said it's open whether it's moral by 20 days . and admitted she didn't have the answer . THIS TOTALLY MATCHES HER WORDS !. So nope not the same . And even if we granted your foolish narrative. You still slut shamed and deflecting onto  other people does not change that .Dumbass

[John V]

Do you have a problem with nuance?  I thought we already agreed that it’s unfair and unreasonable to expect women to only have sex for the purposes of procreation. In other words, celibacy is not a realistic solution to unwanted pregnancies.  Why aren’t we moving the discussion on from that point if we agree on it?

Mostly because you keep tossing ad hominems my way and I need to defend.

But on point:

First, considering the numerous forms of pretty effective contraception that are available, I don't see why you contrast sex for pleasure with celibacy.

Second, you don't seem comfortable yourself with abortion as a solution for unwanted pregnancy after a certain point, so I don't see what your conceptual point is in bringing up sex for pleasure in the first place.

[LadyForCamus]

Do you have a problem with nuance?  I thought we already agreed that it’s unfair and unreasonable to expect women to only have sex for the purposes of procreation. In other words, celibacy is not a realistic solution to unwanted pregnancies.  Why aren’t we moving the discussion on from that point if we agree on it?

Mostly because you keep tossing ad hominems my way and I need to defend.

What ad hominem?  

But on point:

First, considering the numerous forms of pretty effective contraception that are available, I don't see why you contrast sex for pleasure with celibacy.

What are you talking about?  People are going to have sex; should have sex, mostly for fun, and sometimes to make a baby.  We seem agree on this.  Contraception is very effective, though not infallible.  I think we can agree on that point as well.  Can we proceed?

[RoadRunner79]

I don’t think you are using the word hypocrite correctly.

---

So is this witch hunt and attempted character assasination to avoid the topic?

Sorry, but Alpha made it personal by telling Tres she should keep her legs closed, which was unwarranted, unnecessary, hypocritical, and mean-spirited.  Why don’t you ever call your fellow Christians our for being unChrisitian-like?

I don't think it was any of those things... to be frank, I was thinking the same thing based off of what was said.   It just kind of naturally flowed in that direction.  If you don't want a kid that badly, then don't do the thing that can cause kids.   It's not rocket science!  I don't see what you are saying is unchristian like.  But perhaps you have an odd idea of what it is to be a Christian.