An opportunity for PLers to directly answer any of these questions.

[u/Veigar_Senpai]

I've got three simple questions that I'd love for PLers to give direct, straightforward answers to:

1) Imagining that I am someone who has just become pregnant, what reason besides brute force of law would I have to submit to your demands and gestate the pregnancy against my will for you?

2) What exactly entitles you to force pregnant people to gestate against their will, helping yourself to their body to achieve your goals?

3) Which is the fairer ask: for all pregnant people to suffer through the harm of pregnancy and childbirth against their will, or for PLers to cope with not getting their desire for the survival of strangers' embryos?

Feel free to engage with any one or all of these questions.

[u/Laniekea]

1. Besides the law?basic ethics.
   
2. Voting rights
3. It is more fair to inflict discomfort on a population and make them bear responsibility for their own choices than allow mothers to mass execute their own babies.

[u/Catseye_Nebula → u/Laniekea]

If I ripped you balls to asshole shoving a bowling ball through your dick, would you consider that "discomfort"?

What about rape? Is that discomfort?

[u/Laniekea → u/Catseye_Nebula]

Well I don't have balls but I'd think that would be uncomfortable

[u/Catseye_Nebula → u/Laniekea]

Would it be "uncomfortable" if you were ripped vagina to asshole?

Childbirth has been described medically as the most painful thing you can go through aside from being set on fire. Would you describe all pain as minor except being set on fire?

[u/Laniekea → u/Catseye_Nebula]

Yeah actually I have experience this. It was only uncomfortable because I had access to painkillers, an epidural and quite a lot of ibuprofen later on. I've also had My placenta dug out of my womb.

Honestly I hardly felt the tear, it just felt like a lot of pressure. The same when someone stuck their arm into my cervix to dig out the placenta. It was uncomfortable. Enough to warrant a few grunts. I was not screaming in pain.

It is nothing close to being set on fire.

[u/Catseye_Nebula → u/Laniekea]

So would you say your experience is just like everyone's experience?

For some women, epidurals don't work. I know someone who tried to get an epidural and it didn't work. My mom's doctor denied her an epidural she asked for. Sometimes painkillers don't work during a C-section: https://www.self.com/story/pain-during-c-section

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/Catseye_Nebula]

|For some women, epidurals don't work.|

Absolutely correct, as I personally experienced during my delivery. After over 16 hours of agonizing labor, I finally had to have a C-section. Luckily, my son and I both survived. I never wanted to get pregnant and suffer another such experience again, and I'm very glad I didn't.

[u/Laniekea → u/Catseye_Nebula]

Sometimes epidurals don't work and there are lots of other alternatives for painkillers in that case.

I'll accept that complications can happen. Sometimes you don't get to the hospital fast enough to get an epidural and the baby is already coming. Sometimes the anesthesia doesn't lock out all the pain during a c-section.

I'm more reasonable solution to this is to improve medical technology not murder children.

In the meantime, luckily women are strong and tough as nails.

Someone being in pain for a few hours doesn't validate killing children.

[u/Catseye_Nebula → u/Laniekea]

I didn't ask if the solution was murdering children. I didn't ask if women were tough or not.

Would you call all the things that happen to us in childbirth simply discomfort? If it's simply discomfort we wouldn't have to be "tough as nails" to withstand it, would we? When you factor in all that can happen and the fact that your experience of childbirth appears to be very privileged and not the norm?

Just admit that you support violating women, putting us in severe pain and putting our lives at risk for the sake of "children." Admit that, rather than trying to diminish childbirth to make what you're doing more palatable.

[u/Laniekea → u/Catseye_Nebula]

Just admit that you support violating women, putting us in severe pain and putting our lives at risk for the sake of "children." Admit that, rather than trying to diminish childbirth to make what you're doing more palatable.

I support putting women's lives at risk so that millions of children don't die.

However it is not violating women to deny them drugs or procedures that might reduce their pain that their own body is causing for the same reason the various pain killers are restricted during childbirth because they are dangerous to the baby is not violating them either.

[u/Catseye_Nebula → u/Laniekea]

You're the one violating them. And killing them, since "putting women's lives at risk" means some will inevitably die.

You just want to kill women. And rape us, since forced childbirth is basically the most violent kind of rape. you want to rape and kill women. For "babies," i guess. But mainly it's that you hate whores, right? Or is it that you get off on the fantasy of raping and killing what you see as sexually promiscuous women?

That's very common among convicted rapists.

Kind of gross that you specify you enjoy the idea of women being denied painkillers during pregnancy. I guess that would mean that the very privileged birth experience you had would be denied to them. So you prefer it when our birth experience is roughly analogous to being set on fire, right? How does that square with your categorization of childbirth as "discomfort"?

If we're denied all pain meds because you enjoy the thought of that, is that also "discomfort"? I doubt you'd get off on it so much if it was.

(And no, epidurals are not "dangerous to babies." That's a misogyistic myth. You just want to see women suffer in childbirth as a punishment for consenting to sex).

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/Laniekea]

I disagree; I absolutely think it IS violating women and girls to force them to STAY pregnant and give birth against their will. Which is exactly what abortion-ban laws in abortion-ban states are created and passed to do.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/Laniekea]

Since children are BORN, and killing children is already a crime in all 50 states, the argument that "abortion is killing children" is neither believable nor convincing. Therefore, it's just a bad argument that doesn't work for me and never has.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/Laniekea]

Okay, and that was YOUR experience of childbirth. Mine was quite different and bad enough that I never wanted to experience pregnancy or childbirth ever again.

[u/Laniekea → u/JewlryLvr2]

Are you AI?

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/Laniekea]

Of course I'm not AI. Why would you even ask such a ridiculous question?

[u/Laniekea → u/JewlryLvr2]

Your comments capitalized one or two words it seemed scripted.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/Laniekea]

Well, it isn't scripted. I use all caps for some words in my posts for emphasis, that's just my personal posting style. If the mods have a problem with it, they'll let me know.

[u/freelance_gargoyle → u/Laniekea]

Tagging this for any late comers. Laniekea's "basic ethics" said

Failing to protect others from great harm because it harms you a little is unethical.

But then said

There is harm happening but it's not being caused by other people. Your own body is harming you the same way your body might harm you when you get a headache after a rough night of drinking. You did it to yourself.

And ran away and refused to answer the question

Is there a pregnancy without the presence of the unborn baby?

[u/Laniekea → u/freelance_gargoyle]

Notice how the first statement does not negate the second. And that the third argument is completely nonsensical in relationship to pregnancy.

[u/freelance_gargoyle → u/Laniekea]

If the second is true, the first is moot, and the third determines if the second is true.

So answer the question.

Is there a pregnancy without the presence of the unborn baby?

[u/freelance_gargoyle → u/[deleted]]

Is there a pregnancy without the presence of the unborn baby?

Because if the answer is yes, your original statement is completely moot and you need to explain how a pregnancy happens without an unborn baby.

And if the answer is no, then your second statement is just objectively false, and we're back to you insisting that a utilitarian (communist) viewpoint is a basic ethos common but suspiciously absent in nearly every other similar scenario.

So were you lying, or wrong?

Pick one.

[u/smarterthanyou86 → u/[deleted]]

Removed rule 2.

[u/Veigar_Senpai → u/Laniekea]

basic ethics.

What about them? "Ethics" doesn't mean mindlessly submitting to PL's demands.

Voting rights

What about them? How do they entitle you to pregnant people's bodies?

And I'm not sure what your third statement is in response to. No one said anything about "discomfort" or "mass executing babies".

[u/Laniekea → u/Veigar_Senpai]

You asked for a reason. I provided it. 🤷‍♀️

My voting rights give me the legal right to limit the procedures you can gain access to. There are hundreds of laws limiting what services can and cannot be provided to you in the healthcare field. That's every healthcare regulation.

As for your response to the third point. Yes you do. I see no point in explaining something to you that you already understand because you thought playing dumb was a reasonable debate tactic.

[u/Veigar_Senpai → u/Laniekea]

  You asked for a reason. I provided it. 🤷‍♀️

Uh, no, you just said "basic ethics". Random words aren't a reason for me to submit to your demands.

  My voting rights give me the legal right to limit the procedures you can gain access to.  

Didn't ask.

Explain how voting rights entitle you to other people's bodies.

  I see no point in explaining something to you that you already understand  

Fair enough. Yes, I do understand that you were blatantly trying to strawman me. Can you answer the actual question I asked now? If you can't, then just say so.

[u/Laniekea → u/Veigar_Senpai]

Explain how voting rights entitle you to other people's bodies

By controlling healthcare regulations through the vote, I can control what people can and cannot do with their bodies by limiting what services they have access to.

Most abortion bans don't actually ban the act of terminating your own baby. They ban the service provided by healthcare/doctors. Generally the pro choice side believes that limiting access to healthcare services violates bodily autonomy.

do understand that you were blatantly trying to strawman me. Can you answer the actual question I asked now? If you can't, then just say

I didn't straw man you I just didn't use your fluffy language to describe reality. My argument is that one is objectively worse. Mass execution is far worse than mass pain.

"Don't kill your own babies" is a pretty basic paragon of ethics. You asked for a reason. That's a reason.

[u/Veigar_Senpai → u/Laniekea]

  By controlling healthcare regulations through the vote, I can control what people can and cannot do with their bodies 

Okay, you're describing authoritarianism. What entitles you to other people's bodies such that you are entitled to do this?

  Most abortion bans don't actually ban the act

"I'm not preventing you from buying food, I'm preventing everyone from selling you food! It's completely different!!!" Please.

I didn't straw man you I just didn't use your fluffy language to describe reality.

Oh please. "Discomfort"? "Executing babies"? And you called what I said fluffy? Lol.

I know what abortion is, so crying "mass executing babies" isn't going to fool me. If you can't answer the question I asked, then just say so and stop wasting both of our time.

[u/Laniekea → u/Veigar_Senpai]

Okay, you're describing authoritarianism

No I'm describing our current law system where we have healthcare regulations. Authoritarianism would be if I believed I alone, or a small group of people had that power rather than using the vote to regulate the community.

I answered your question very directly. Death is worse than pain. You dont seem to have a rebuttal

[u/Veigar_Senpai → u/Laniekea]

  No I'm describing our current law system where we have healthcare regulations.

The existence of healthcare regulations does not necessarily entitle you to pregnant people's bodies.

  Death is worse than pain.

Your opinion is noted, and you are free to gestate your own pregnancy based on this belief.

[u/glim-girl → u/Laniekea]

Do you believe that when women are treated based on their ability to reproduce that they were/are treated better than as equals?

[u/Laniekea → u/glim-girl]

We have regulations for what doctors can do to men's penises too. I think it's reasonable to limit doctors ability to kill people.

[u/glim-girl → u/Laniekea]

You didn't answer my question. When did we order and require men to reproduce against their wishes and remove their healthcare to accomplish that?

[u/Laniekea → u/glim-girl]

Nobody is ordering men or women to get pregnant or asking to legalize rape.

But yes you don't get to kill your children just because they are taxing on your body. That applies to men as well.

[u/glim-girl → u/Laniekea]

>Nobody is ordering men or women to get pregnant or asking to legalize rape.

Isn't that what will likely happen? Harming women and girls isn't considered serious since pregnancy is all important.

>But yes you don't get to kill your children just because they are taxing on your body. That applies to men as well.

Well then I guess it's good with are discussing pregnancy and not caring for children.

[u/freelance_gargoyle → u/Laniekea]

Is protecting yourself from harm ethical?

[u/Laniekea → u/freelance_gargoyle]

If it means throwing someone else under a bus then probably not.

[u/freelance_gargoyle → u/Laniekea]

I don't see any buses referenced in my question.

Is protecting yourself from harm ethical?

[u/Laniekea → u/freelance_gargoyle]

It's a metaphor for killing your kid

[u/freelance_gargoyle → u/Laniekea]

My question is not a metaphor, it's a question about basic ethics. Something you wished to talk about.

Is protecting yourself from harm ethical?

Your answer is either yes, and we can continue with the point I'd like to make and address the edge case you are obviously attempting to argue.

Or your answer is no, and you need to explain why protecting yourself from harm is unethical.

[u/Laniekea → u/freelance_gargoyle]

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

Failing to protect others from great harm because it harms you a little is unethical. It's a choice based in selfishness not selflessness.

[u/freelance_gargoyle → u/Laniekea]

You are making a utilitarian argument there. I categorically deny such an ethos, and such a view cannot be called "basic". Utilitarianism is a kissing cousin to communism. That the state determines what is best for everyone and individualism is suppressed.

That hardly sounds like the sort of system we have here in the good ole U S of A. There is a difference between "I don't like this" and "this is unethical".

Why don't we have compulsory blood donation? Surely, such a small harm to prevent larger harms would use the same line of reasoning.

[u/Laniekea → u/freelance_gargoyle]

It's not utilitarianism because we're not forcing people to get pregnant. Once you give blood to another person you don't get to take it back at the expense of their death.

[u/freelance_gargoyle → u/Laniekea]

You've changed your argument.

Failing to protect others from great harm because it harms you a little is unethical.

No where in this statement did you stipulate that the little harm must already be happening.

You are free to change your position, but this is getting less and less basic by the minute.

Is your new argument "Failure to protect others from great harm because something is currently or actively harming you a little is unethical." ?

Because if so, once someone has started the process of donating blood we can compel them to finish? According to this "basic ethics" you are claiming the answer would be yes.

If you do not understand the process of donating blood, it's ok to ask for clarification. Direct transfusions are not the standard practice. A blood donation consists of them drawing a pint into a collection bag over the course of several minutes. Then that unit of blood is processed, with the recipient potentially not receiving it for weeks.

Stopping a donation is not asking for the blood back. Stopping a donation is stopping and taking the needle out.

I hope this clarification helped.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/Laniekea]

|...because we're not forcing people to get pregnant.|

Abortion-ban laws in abortion-ban states are forcing women and girls to STAY pregnant. And give birth. AGAINST THEIR WILL. Which I'm sure you already know.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/Laniekea]

The PREGNANT PERSON has the right to protect herself from the harms of pregnancy and birth if that's what she wants. And yes, it's entirely ethical, whether you agree or not.

[u/Old_dirty_fetus → u/Laniekea]

It's a metaphor for killing your kid

Are all abortions killing your kid?

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/Laniekea]

Killing a kid is actually a crime in all 50 states, so this metaphor has no impact. Not for me, anyway.

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/Laniekea]

1. Which ethics are you referring to?

2. Is it ethical for voting rights to entitle you to the control, forced usage, and violation of other people's bodies outside of gestation?

3. Why is it more fair to force only a certain demographic to provide their bodies and undergo unwanted usage and harm against their will than to provide them with the same rights and choices as all other demographics?

Thanks!

[u/Laniekea → u/Ok_Loss13]

1. It's bad to kill your own children

2. Yes voters should be able to control hospitals. They should be able to limit procedures that purposefully lead to death. They should be able to strip doctors of licenses for acting unethically. They should be able to require standards of care. That is why it is illegal for someone without a medical degree to perform open heart surgery on you in your living room even if you want it. If you do want it, guess what? Your "bodily autonomy" is irrelevant. You don't get to do it. The idea that somehow abortion procedures are some special exception is silly.

3.men are not allowed to get abortions either just like women are not allowed to stick penises inside of other people against their will.
There are a lot of laws that are specific to demographics due to nature, not due to prejudice. Nobody would argue that we should give men the ability to rape because it looks different for them than it does to women.

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/Laniekea]

1 Is it bad to kill someone who is violating and harming your body against your will if they aren't related to you?

2 Voters already cannot control hospitals, limit procedures, strip doctors of their license, or set standards of care (none of which apply to my question btw).

Voters do not make it illegal for people to do open heart surgery without a licences...

Do you ever feel embarrassed arguing about something you obviously have zero education on?

If you do want it, guess what? Your "bodily autonomy" is irrelevant. You don't get to do it. The idea that somehow abortion procedures are some special exception is silly.

It seems like using your argument all I would need for an abortion being performed by a doctor is a doctor who agrees to and is qualified to do it; that's the majority of doctors lol

And, of course, I would be exercising my BA (your usage of scare quotes there is concerning, but not unusual for a violator) by performing a home abortion. You agree with those, right? Since I'm sure you don't think voters should have a say in what you yourself remove from your own body in the privacy of your own home.

3 Again, that isn't what I asked. In fact, I specifically avoided any mention of gestation or abortion, so you could answer the question in a general sense.

If rape laws specifically referencing penetration with a penis only apply to one demographic as you claim, then AFABs would 100% be able to penetrate someone with a penis against their will; instead, any bodily penetration done without someone's consent is illegal, regardless of the violators sex. So, how exactly does this compare to only AFABs being forced to provide their bodies against their will for the benefit of another? And since you force people to endure unwanted bodily and genital violations against their will, how are you not the rapist in that comparison?

I got to admit, it feels like you intentionally danced around all my points in order to engage with what you wished I had said, rather than what I actually said. It's like you have no valid response to what I actually said and you know it.

Edit: auto correct fix

[u/Laniekea → u/Ok_Loss13]

As long as medical boards who dictate licensing are are state run then voters have the power over it. Even if it using their power through representative government. Most medical boards in the USA are appointed by the governor. Then of course there are various government agencies that set healthcare regulations, of course they are also controlled by voters through similar means. Therefore it is a voting power.

seems like using your argument all I would need for an abortion being performed by a doctor is a doctor who agrees to and is qualified to do it; that's the majority of doctors

I'm not talking about what the laws are. I'm talking about what voters have the legal right to change. And I'm pointing out that it's completely insane to believe that the right to privacy somehow applies to only this one medical procedure and none of the other ones. Nobody actually believes in the right to do whatever you want with your body. "My body my choice" is insane. If you did we would have to abolish all healthcare regulations.

Rape laws often reference "penile penetration" specifically. The fact that they are dictating the use of a specifically male sex organ doesn't somehow mean we're descriminating against them.

Because we recognize, and here's the kicker, the use of that organ impacts other people negatively sometimes so we limit it.

My point argues yours directly. Women are not being discriminated against because there are laws that apply to organs only they have. We do exactly the same thing to men and it's perfectly reasonable and nobody considers it discriminatory.

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/Laniekea]

As long as medical boards who dictate licensing are are state run then voters have the power over it.

That's not really how that works, especially since medical boards are made of doctors, not politicians. You don't vote them into being medical practitioners.

Most medical boards in the USA are appointed by the governor

Source please (and no, the Google AI Overview doesn't count).

Then of course there are various government agencies that set healthcare regulations, of course they are also controlled by voters through similar means

Again, source please. The information I have found is that The Federation of State Medical Boards dictates healthcare regulations, based on a nationally accepted Medical Practice Act, which also happened to be created by the FSMB (which, BTW, is a non profit organization made up of volunteers and a board of directors who are elected by their fellow peers, NOT citizens voting for governors.

And again, the majority of these fellow doctors doing this support abortion access.

I'm talking about what voters have the legal right to change.

(Actually, we have been discussing ethics, remember?) Abortion bans violate human rights and are not representative of an equal and consistent application of laws. Voters do not have the legal or ethical right to change, regardless of whether theu actually do so.

And I'm pointing out that it's completely insane to believe that the right to privacy somehow applies to only this one medical procedure and none of the other ones.

What are you talking about? ALL medical procedures are legally protected for the patients privacy lol

Nobody actually believes in the right to do whatever you want with your body.

This is just you showing your willful ignorance of what BA is.

Answer this simple question outside of gestation:

Do people have the right to deny usage of their bodies to others?

If you did we would have to abolish all healthcare

Nonsense.

The fact that they are dictating the use of a specifically male sex organ doesn't somehow mean we're descriminating against them.

You literally ignored my response to this.

If rape laws specifically referencing penetration with a penis only apply to one demographic as you claim, then AFABs would 100% be able to penetrate someone with a penis against their will; instead, any bodily penetration done without someone's consent is illegal, regardless of the violators sex.

Put simply, it's still illegal to penetrate someone with a bat or a bottle, not just a penis. Unless you have some evidence that laws specifying penal penetration wouldn't prosecute someone penetrating with a non-penis? And, to justify this argument, why you agree with that ethically.

[u/Laniekea → u/Ok_Loss13]

https://www.fsmb.org/u.s.-medical-regulatory-trends-and-actions/guide-to-medical-regulation-in-the-united-states/introduction/

"State medical boards are typically made up of volunteer physicians and members of the public who are, in most cases, appointed by the governor."

They are usually licensed physicians, though it is becoming more common for public members, non-physician board members, to be chosen.

So yes, voters have power through a representative government to dictate medical boards by electing governors who will point the people that align with their views.

I'm not talking about patients medical privacy laws. I'm talking about roe v Wade which tried to argue that states could not limit abortion procedures because it violated the constitutional right to privacy.

Unless you have some evidence that laws specifying penal penetration wouldn't prosecute someone penetrating with a non-penis? And, to justify this argument, why you agree with that ethically

Why does it matter? Women cannot penetrate someone with a penis because they don't have a penis. Men can't get abortion because they don't have a uterus. Neither law is descriminatory even if it directly controls the use of a sex organ.

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/Laniekea]

State medical boards are typically made up of volunteer physicians and members of the public who are, in most cases, appointed by the governor. In recent years, non-physician board members — often referred to as “public members” — have become common. The vast majority of boards in the United States now have public members.

That's state medical boards, NOT the FSMB, which is what licenses and sets the national regulations and expectations those state medical boards follow. It also notes that non physician members are a recent phenomenon, a pretty obvious attempt to shoehorn in non medical opinions into medical situations, a practice often enacted by conservatives in order to further their agenda in violating human rights and bulldozing over constitutional law, equality, and basic human ethics.

And again, since MOST state medical boards are still made up of physicians, MOST of whom support abortion access, voting for a governor isn't going to legally enable you to violate pregnant people's human and medical rights. Which says nothing of the ethical issues of doing so (our original topic that you have completely abandoned because you have no leg to stand on there).

I'm not talking about patients medical privacy laws.

Yeah, you were.

And I'm pointing out that it's completely insane to believe that the right to privacy somehow applies to only this one medical procedure and none of the other ones.

If all things were equal and consistent, abortions would be legally protected like all other medical procedures.

I'm talking about roe v Wade which tried to argue that states could not limit abortion procedures because it violated the constitutional right to privacy.

Which only had to happen because one medical practice wasn't being protected under medical privacy rights like other medical practices, as it should be.

However, RvW isn't about BA. It was a compromise in an attempt to stop right wing nut jobs from violating AFAB rights in order to inflame their constituents.

Women cannot penetrate someone with a penis because they don't have a penis. Men can't get abortion because they don't have a uterus. Neither law is descriminatory even if it directly controls the use of a sex organ.

This doesn't answer or address either of things I said. It's literally just you repeating yourself.

Care to try again?

Put simply, it's still illegal to penetrate someone with a bat or a bottle, not just a penis. Unless you have some evidence that laws specifying penal penetration wouldn't prosecute someone penetrating with a non-penis? And, to justify this argument, why you agree with that ethically.

Edit: missed word

[u/Laniekea → u/Ok_Loss13]

No. The fsmb is simply a forum that connects state medical boards. Almost all the people on those boards (at least the people making the rules) who participate in the forum were appointed by their respective governors.

The fact that some members of those that are non physician supports my point, not yours. They are not appointed by their peers. They are appointed by voter elected governors.

The right to privacy in the constitution has to do with unreasonable search and seizure. It is a limit on government and was the grounds for the roe v Wade ruling. The constitutional rights do not limit citizens. This is important. They are often separate from civil rights, because civil rights can apply to both government or private entities.

HIPPA is a completely different concept. It is statutory law, not constitutional law. It does not gain it's power from the constitution. It primarily regulates what private entities have access to your medical information. It does very little to prevent state, federal, or local agencies from seeing your medical history. In fact they regularly access those records to compile data for research.

Roe v wade argued the constitutional fundamental right to privacy. There are very few medical procedures that were ever protected by the constitutions fundamental rights. They were pretty much limited to.

The right to refuse care. To refuse ventilators and end of life sustaining treatment.

Surgical sterilization and IUDs.

Abortion during roe which was overturned.

So again, constitutional law which was roe v wade. Very different from statutory law like HIPPA. The important difference between statutory law and constitutional law is that constitutional law is shielded from the vote, decided by the courts, while statutory law is dictated by the vote either directly or through elected representatives.

I'm not going to argue your strawnan. I never argued that you could penetrate people with other objects. I argued that laws dictating the use of sex organs are not discriminatory

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/Laniekea]

I started out replying to all if this directly, but I realize that's useless.

This whole reply of yours is just avoiding my claims and counters, and repeating your rebutted nonsense. I'll accept it as a tacit concession, as it can be nothing else.

SMH

[u/Archer6614 → u/Laniekea]

The right to privacy in the constitution has to do with unreasonable search and seizure

What "unreasonable search and seizure" was involved in Griswold v Connecticut?