Is anyone getting tired of the posts blaming men for Roe v Wade being overturned?

[fhtagn]

I think you're just reading the wrong posts man, I've never seen this and I thought I was pretty "online" as far as these things go. Needless to say, we pro-choice men have nothing to be ashamed of with respect to this decision.

Abortion rights benefits men. None of us wants to be paying child support and dealing with an emotional cripple showing up at our doorsteps decades later due to a one night stand gone wrong.

Dude, that response is like a parody of what anti-abortion activists say pro-choice men think. Do better.

Nah, its just mask off. 90% of abortions are purely elective. The bro-choice "I have a right to consequence free sex" motivation lurks behind much of those reeeeeeing over this decision.

Everyone has a right to consequence free sex. Why should consensual sex have any 'consequences'? There is nothing shameful about it.

You could use your exact argument to advocate for banning condoms or birth control.

Can you please cite where that "right" to consequence free sex is written?

When did I suggest that this was a constitutional right? It's a fundamental right we all have as human beings.

But a fundamental right to life doesn't exist?

Not for anything that is not a legal person!

A blastocyst or an embryo has no more "right to life" than algae or a catfish.

Except it does when it's a human being. And using Ferguson97's own argument here, "legal" is irrelevant.

Oh my god, we get it! This isn't your bible study, you're going to have to put some effort into it if you want to have anything resembling a compelling point. Regurgitating these lines doesn't move anybody. You're wasting precious internet bandwidth by posting the same crap over and over and over again.

Please cite where I mentioned the Bible anywhere in my recent posts regarding abortion. I'll wait.

No one is forcing you to read. Don't like what I have to say? Move on. You're not exactly contributing anything to this discussion yourself, so you may want to think about that before pointing fingers.

[Ferguson97]

But a fundamental right to life doesn't exist?

It does exist, and that right is granted to you at birth.

Where does the "fundamental right" to consequence free sex come from?

It doesn't "come from" anything, I just think it's a good idea. I used my own internal moral compass to reach this conclusion.

[DaleCooper]

I think you're just reading the wrong posts man, I've never seen this and I thought I was pretty "online" as far as these things go. Needless to say, we pro-choice men have nothing to be ashamed of with respect to this decision.

Abortion rights benefits men. None of us wants to be paying child support and dealing with an emotional cripple showing up at our doorsteps decades later due to a one night stand gone wrong.

Dude, that response is like a parody of what anti-abortion activists say pro-choice men think. Do better.

Nah, its just mask off. 90% of abortions are purely elective. The bro-choice "I have a right to consequence free sex" motivation lurks behind much of those reeeeeeing over this decision.

Everyone has a right to consequence free sex. Why should consensual sex have any 'consequences'? There is nothing shameful about it.

You could use your exact argument to advocate for banning condoms or birth control.

Can you please cite where that "right" to consequence free sex is written?

When did I suggest that this was a constitutional right? It's a fundamental right we all have as human beings.

But a fundamental right to life doesn't exist?

Not for anything that is not a legal person!

A blastocyst or an embryo has no more "right to life" than algae or a catfish.

Except it does when it's a human being. And using Ferguson97's own argument here, "legal" is irrelevant.

Oh my god, we get it! This isn't your bible study, you're going to have to put some effort into it if you want to have anything resembling a compelling point. Regurgitating these lines doesn't move anybody. You're wasting precious internet bandwidth by posting the same crap over and over and over again.

Please cite where I mentioned the Bible anywhere in my recent posts regarding abortion. I'll wait.

No one is forcing you to read. Don't like what I have to say? Move on. You're not exactly contributing anything to this discussion yourself, so you may want to think about that before pointing fingers.

I don't know that I've ever seen you quote the Bible. In fact, my posts have way more religious fervor than yours. I probably shouldn't have mentioned bible study, but I used it as a throwaway term because all of your lines here are things engineered to justify the pro-life position to pro-lifers and rile them up. It's like "Build the Wall" or "Cancel Student Debt". I mentioned this earlier, but apparently it needs to be repeated: these lines are not compelling to anyone who isn't already drinking your kool-aid. The endless language about life and conception and babies being torn limb from limb is all stuff that you and everyone who's ever had a conversation about this should know isn't compelling at all to anyone but you and your people. It's mantric repetition and all it does is derail threads, create more crap to scroll through, and it doesn't even reveal anything more about your position or philosophy either. It's just repetition, and it's giving me and everyone else on this website brain damage and honestly there isn't much left to damage at this point so please be merciful and spare us.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I think you're just reading the wrong posts man, I've never seen this and I thought I was pretty "online" as far as these things go. Needless to say, we pro-choice men have nothing to be ashamed of with respect to this decision.

Abortion rights benefits men. None of us wants to be paying child support and dealing with an emotional cripple showing up at our doorsteps decades later due to a one night stand gone wrong.

Dude, that response is like a parody of what anti-abortion activists say pro-choice men think. Do better.

Nah, its just mask off. 90% of abortions are purely elective. The bro-choice "I have a right to consequence free sex" motivation lurks behind much of those reeeeeeing over this decision.

Everyone has a right to consequence free sex. Why should consensual sex have any 'consequences'? There is nothing shameful about it.

You could use your exact argument to advocate for banning condoms or birth control.

Can you please cite where that "right" to consequence free sex is written?

When did I suggest that this was a constitutional right? It's a fundamental right we all have as human beings.

If that were true then pregnancy wouldnt naturally result from unprotected sex. Thats really the kicker. 90% of abortions are birth control, not for-cause. If a married couple doesnt want more kids use a 50 cent condom. I have no sympathy for whiners who cant even be bothered to do that and that act like they are shocked they are pregnant.

[Badger]

I think you're just reading the wrong posts man, I've never seen this and I thought I was pretty "online" as far as these things go. Needless to say, we pro-choice men have nothing to be ashamed of with respect to this decision.

Abortion rights benefits men. None of us wants to be paying child support and dealing with an emotional cripple showing up at our doorsteps decades later due to a one night stand gone wrong.

Dude, that response is like a parody of what anti-abortion activists say pro-choice men think. Do better.

Nah, its just mask off. 90% of abortions are purely elective. The bro-choice "I have a right to consequence free sex" motivation lurks behind much of those reeeeeeing over this decision.

Everyone has a right to consequence free sex. Why should consensual sex have any 'consequences'? There is nothing shameful about it.

You could use your exact argument to advocate for banning condoms or birth control.

Can you please cite where that "right" to consequence free sex is written?

When did I suggest that this was a constitutional right? It's a fundamental right we all have as human beings.

If that were true then pregnancy wouldnt naturally result from unprotected sex. Thats really the kicker. 90% of abortions are birth control, not for-cause. If a married couple doesnt want more kids use a 50 cent condom. I have no sympathy for whiners who cant even be bothered to do that and that act like they are shocked they are pregnant.

Wrong on so many levels. But Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

[Illiniwek]

This "fundamental right to consequence-free sex" is just about the most asinine, preposterous thing I have ever heard.

This is like saying "I have a fundamental right to have a great time getting absolutely blitzed drunk without the consequences of a hang-over." You can pace yourself and hydrate and drink Pedialyte before and after, and maybe you can avoid the hangover. But you might get the hangover. That is the risk you run.

Or "I have a fundamental right to gorge myself on decadent food without any consequences." Well you can try do exercise to offset the consumption. But there is also the chance you put on weight or damage your heart or get diabetes. That is the risk you run.

Life is full of consequences. Everywhere. You just have to do a cost/benefit analysis to decide if that is something you really want to do. The hangover? Yeah those suck but they go away after a day or so, so maybe you get drunk anyway. Sex? Amazing. Great. Fun. But getting pregnant? Well that's a pretty flipping big consequence that maybe you have to fully grasp the magnitude of. And if you don't want to run that risk of having a child, then maybe you need to explore other options to having a good time.

But a fundamental right to life doesn't exist?

It does exist, and that right is granted to you at birth.

Where does the "fundamental right" to consequence free sex come from?

It doesn't "come from" anything, I just think it's a good idea. I used my own internal moral compass to reach this conclusion.

So it is something that you just made up. Jesus....

[GP270watch]

   If the majority of Congress and state legislators were women there is no way that abortion would be demonized and illegal. Abortion is a part of comprehensive women's healthcare. It is mostly the fault of men that abortion services have been allowed to be politicized to the detriment of women.

[Ferguson97]

When did I suggest that this was a constitutional right? It's a fundamental right we all have as human beings.

If that were true then pregnancy wouldn't naturally result from unprotected sex.

Huh? What the hell are you talking about? How do you think rights work?

Thats really the kicker. 90% of abortions are birth control, not for-cause. If a married couple doesnt want more kids use a 50 cent condom. I have no sympathy for whiners who cant even be bothered to do that and that act like they are shocked they are pregnant.

Even if 100% of abortions were completely elective, there would be nothing wrong with that. It's a medical procedure.

This "fundamental right to consequence-free sex" is just about the most asinine, preposterous thing I have ever heard.

This is like saying "I have a fundamental right to have a great time getting absolutely blitzed drunk without the consequences of a hang-over." You can pace yourself and hydrate and drink Pedialyte before and after, and maybe you can avoid the hangover. But you might get the hangover. That is the risk you run.

Or "I have a fundamental right to gorge myself on decadent food without any consequences." Well you can try do exercise to offset the consumption. But there is also the chance you put on weight or damage your heart or get diabetes. That is the risk you run.

Life is full of consequences. Everywhere. You just have to do a cost/benefit analysis to decide if that is something you really want to do. The hangover? Yeah those suck but they go away after a day or so, so maybe you get drunk anyway. Sex? Amazing. Great. Fun. But getting pregnant? Well that's a pretty flipping big consequence that maybe you have to fully grasp the magnitude of. And if you don't want to run that risk of having a child, then maybe you need to explore other options to having a good time.

Birth control can prevent pregnancy and abortion can terminate a pregnancy. As far as I know, there is no hangover/weight gain equivalent. So this is a weird comparison to make.

It doesn't "come from" anything, I just think it's a good idea. I used my own internal moral compass to reach this conclusion.

So it is something that you just made up. Jesus....

All rights are made up.

[Illiniwek]

When did I suggest that this was a constitutional right? It's a fundamental right we all have as human beings.

If that were true then pregnancy wouldn't naturally result from unprotected sex.

Huh? What the hell are you talking about? How do you think rights work?

Thats really the kicker. 90% of abortions are birth control, not for-cause. If a married couple doesnt want more kids use a 50 cent condom. I have no sympathy for whiners who cant even be bothered to do that and that act like they are shocked they are pregnant.

Even if 100% of abortions were completely elective, there would be nothing wrong with that. It's a medical procedure.

This "fundamental right to consequence-free sex" is just about the most asinine, preposterous thing I have ever heard.

This is like saying "I have a fundamental right to have a great time getting absolutely blitzed drunk without the consequences of a hang-over." You can pace yourself and hydrate and drink Pedialyte before and after, and maybe you can avoid the hangover. But you might get the hangover. That is the risk you run.

Or "I have a fundamental right to gorge myself on decadent food without any consequences." Well you can try do exercise to offset the consumption. But there is also the chance you put on weight or damage your heart or get diabetes. That is the risk you run.

Life is full of consequences. Everywhere. You just have to do a cost/benefit analysis to decide if that is something you really want to do. The hangover? Yeah those suck but they go away after a day or so, so maybe you get drunk anyway. Sex? Amazing. Great. Fun. But getting pregnant? Well that's a pretty flipping big consequence that maybe you have to fully grasp the magnitude of. And if you don't want to run that risk of having a child, then maybe you need to explore other options to having a good time.

Birth control can prevent pregnancy and abortion can terminate a pregnancy. As far as I know, there is no hangover/weight gain equivalent. So this is a weird comparison to make.

It doesn't "come from" anything, I just think it's a good idea. I used my own internal moral compass to reach this conclusion.

So it is something that you just made up. Jesus....

All rights are made up.

You called it a fundamental right. Look up the definition of a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are not just something that are "made up." "Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by a high degree of protection from encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in a constitution, or have been found under due process of law." So no, you can't just make something up and claim it is a fundamental right.

[Ferguson97]

You called it a fundamental right. Look up the definition of a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are not just something that are "made up." "Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by a high degree of protection from encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in a constitution, or have been found under due process of law." So no, you can't just make something up and claim it is a fundamental right.

Your biggest gripe with what I said is that I chose to use the word "fundamental" instead of something else like "important" or "essential"?

This is a level of pedantry that others can only dream of, congratulations.

[Illiniwek]

You called it a fundamental right. Look up the definition of a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are not just something that are "made up." "Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by a high degree of protection from encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in a constitution, or have been found under due process of law." So no, you can't just make something up and claim it is a fundamental right.

Your biggest gripe with what I said is that I chose to use the word "fundamental" instead of something else like "important" or "essential"?

This is a level of pedantry that others can only dream of, congratulations.

This entire thread is about a Supreme Court case that decided what "rights" are guaranteed to you by the Constitution. So you said "no I'm not talking about a Constitutional right, I am talking about a fundamental right that is guaranteed to you at birth. No I didn't actually mean fundamental right I meant important or essential right." Like, what are we doing here?

But fine. Let's go back to what you said. You said "Everyone has a right to consequence free sex. Why should consensual sex have any 'consequences'? There is nothing shameful about it."

It has nothing to do with anything being consensual or not. It has nothing to do with anything being shameful or not. It is just the simple truth that there is no logical basis for the idea that you have the right to be free from the natural, scientific, and biologically-intended consequences of a specific action.

[John Dule]

You called it a fundamental right. Look up the definition of a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are not just something that are "made up." "Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by a high degree of protection from encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in a constitution, or have been found under due process of law." So no, you can't just make something up and claim it is a fundamental right.

Your biggest gripe with what I said is that I chose to use the word "fundamental" instead of something else like "important" or "essential"?

This is a level of pedantry that others can only dream of, congratulations.

This entire thread is about a Supreme Court case that decided what "rights" are guaranteed to you by the Constitution. So you said "no I'm not talking about a Constitutional right, I am talking about a fundamental right that is guaranteed to you at birth. No I didn't actually mean fundamental right I meant important or essential right." Like, what are we doing here?

But fine. Let's go back to what you said. You said "Everyone has a right to consequence free sex. Why should consensual sex have any 'consequences'? There is nothing shameful about it."

It has nothing to do with anything being consensual or not. It has nothing to do with anything being shameful or not. It is just the simple truth that there is no logical basis for the idea that you have the right to be free from the natural, scientific, and biologically-intended consequences of a specific action.

Maybe we should ban casts for broken arms now, since they allow the wearer to escape the "natural consequences" (malunion and permanent physical impairment) of a fractured bone.

Literally all medical science is about escaping the medical "consequences of our actions." This argument makes about as much sense as saying people should suffer the "natural consequences" of brain hemorrhages, pneumonia, and appendicitis. Goddamn, pro-lifers just do not think.

[Beet]

You called it a fundamental right. Look up the definition of a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are not just something that are "made up." "Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by a high degree of protection from encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in a constitution, or have been found under due process of law." So no, you can't just make something up and claim it is a fundamental right.

Your biggest gripe with what I said is that I chose to use the word "fundamental" instead of something else like "important" or "essential"?

This is a level of pedantry that others can only dream of, congratulations.

This entire thread is about a Supreme Court case that decided what "rights" are guaranteed to you by the Constitution. So you said "no I'm not talking about a Constitutional right, I am talking about a fundamental right that is guaranteed to you at birth. No I didn't actually mean fundamental right I meant important or essential right." Like, what are we doing here?

But fine. Let's go back to what you said. You said "Everyone has a right to consequence free sex. Why should consensual sex have any 'consequences'? There is nothing shameful about it."

It has nothing to do with anything being consensual or not. It has nothing to do with anything being shameful or not. It is just the simple truth that there is no logical basis for the idea that you have the right to be free from the natural, scientific, and biologically-intended consequences of a specific action.

Maybe we should ban casts for broken arms now, since they allow the wearer to escape the "natural consequences" (malunion and permanent physical impairment) of a fractured bone.

Literally all medical science is about escaping the medical "consequences of our actions." This argument makes about as much sense as saying people should suffer the "natural consequences" of brain hemorrhages, pneumonia, and appendicitis. Goddamn, pro-lifers just do not think.

Thank you. Finally someone with some sanity in this thread.