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

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

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....

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

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.

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

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.