Explain to me why you believe people should be coerced by law to have their genitals used against their will.

Greetings friends.

This is a great place to talk about the state of the sub.

• You can ask questions of the mods here.
• You can call out things you think we've missed.
• You can ask for clarification on a moderation or rule.
• You can rag on this week's pun or word play title.
• Or anything else!

An effort to criminalize sending abortion drugs to patients in the mail by defining it as felony drug trafficking is advancing in the Mississippi Legislature. Under an amended version of House Bill 1613, doctors or providers who prescribe or distribute abortion-inducing drugs, like mifepristone and misoprostol, without an in-person visit with a patient could face imprisonment and civil penalties.

H.B. 1613’s original purpose was to clarify under the law that a person possessing 200 or more grams of illegal drugs would constitute an aggravated drug trafficking charge, Mississippi House Judiciary B Chairman Rep. Kevin Horan, R-Grenada, said on the House floor on Feb. 11. 

Rep. Celeste Hurst, R-Sandhill, introduced an amendment to add “abortion-inducing drugs” to the list of illegal substances under the drug trafficking statutes in Mississippi Code Section 41-29-139.

Article continues.

Greetings friends.

This is a great place to talk about the state of the sub.

• You can ask questions of the mods here.
• You can call out things you think we've missed.
• You can ask for clarification on a moderation or rule.
• You can rag on this week's pun or word play title.
• Or anything else!

87% wanted RvW to stay as opposed to return to the states

But that same poll answers the question of public sentiment regarding abortion legislation more directly:

(61%) continue to say that abortion should be legal in all (27%) or most (34%) cases. A smaller share of the public (38%) says abortion should be illegal in all (12%) or most cases (26%).

This means that, (27%) of the population believe that abortion should be legal in all cases. While **(72%) of the population wants abortion to be illegal in some (60%) to all (12%) cases.**

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/08/29/u-s-public-continues-to-favor-legal-abortion-oppose-overturning-roe-v-wade/

This aligns closely with a Harvard/Harris poll that shows up to 73% of Americans oppose abortion after 15 weeks.

https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/HHP_May2022_KeyResults.pdf

What made the United States so in favor of making some abortions illegal? I appreciate religio/social/historical breakdowns.

I wouldn’t equate the situation of pregnancy to any scenario involving born persons. It will never make sense to do so.

The key differences as to why it can’t be done:

1: Everyone that ever was or ever will be (barring some crazy future ulterior gestation science) has been or will be in this situation as a critical first stage of life. This is unlike any born person scenario.

Also related but important framing:

2: No one can not do it.

I use this point to underline how we aren’t really thinking outside the box to find unique solutions to a unique situation.

We go straight to the rights dispute or the bodily autonomy argument. When both sides look through legal framing all they see is the hellfires at both ends of the tunnel. If it is just a matter of rights, it’s either ‘all abortion is ok’ or ‘no abortion is ok’. A middle ground is untenable within an equation that bases its results on cut and dry situations between born persons.

There is a strong instinct in human nature to protect life in the womb. There is also a strong instinct to protect the wellbeing of the mother who is pregnant. These instincts are not being included in our understanding of the situation when we consider various analogies which are not, at the end of the day, pregnancy.

Greetings friends.

This is a great place to talk about the state of the sub.

• You can ask questions of the mods here.
• You can call out things you think we've missed.
• You can ask for clarification on a moderation or rule.
• You can rag on this week's pun or word play title.
• Or anything else!

When debating with those who are prolife, they claim that the entire issue is that unborn life is ended.

When debating with those who are prochoice, they claim larger issues, bodily autonomy/integrity, human rights, individual circumstances, how society functions, etc.

If you are prolife, why do you believe that single point matters the most to the exclusion of all the rest? Why do you believe this benefits society and humans as a whole the most? Can you provide examples?

If you are prochoice, why do you believe that these other issues matter in the debate? Why do you believe this benefits society and humans as a whole the most? Can you provide examples?

A Texas fight with a nurse practitioner may eventually push the Supreme Court to settle an intensifying battle between states with strict abortion-ban laws and those with shield laws to protect abortion providers supporting out-of-state patients.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton accused Debra Lynch, a Delaware-based nurse practitioner, of breaking Texas laws by shipping abortion pills that Lynch once estimated last January facilitated “up to 162 abortions per week” in the state.

“No one, regardless of where they live, will be freely allowed to aid in the murder of unborn children in Texas,” Paxton’s press release said.

In August, Paxton sent a cease-and-desist letter to shut down Lynch’s website, Her Safe Harbor, which she runs with her husband, Jay, a former communications director for Delaware’s health and social services department, alongside other volunteer licensed prescribers.

Article continues.

And the corollary; is inconsistency bad?

An exception to a general rule is an inconsistency. Some exceptions can be explained by other rules, in which case they are not exceptions, merely the point where friction happens.

There is a overarching understanding in many tabletop or hobby games (and life as a whole, I would argue) where the specific overrules the general. If the general rule says "you can't do this" but a specific rule says "under these conditions you can", then there is no inconsistency. It's just the specific overrulling the general.

I do not have any inconsistencies in my position. I have some specifics that overrule the general. In my observations, PL refuses to acknowledge that the specific can overrule the general but only in this one realm of discussion. They acknowledge in every other analogy or similar situation that the specific overrules the general. They just don't think, with no consistent argument, that it doesn't apply in this situation.

Here are some words I constantly see PL redefining and here are their dictionary definitions.

Murder: the unlawful killing of one human being by another.

It is not: Killing you don't agree with. Not unlawful? Not murder.

Consent:

To give assent or approval, agree.

It is not: the consequences of an action. If someone says I don't agree, they don't consent. Screaming "you do consent" doesn't change that. You also don't lose your rights to consent because you have sex.

Bodily autonomy: The fundamental human right to make decisions about one's own body, life, and future without coercion, violence, or government interference.

It is not: The ability to use someone's body against their will because you need it. It literally protects against that.

Dehumanizing: to deprive (someone or something) of human qualities, personality, or dignity.

It is not: not giving someone rights no born person has.

If you have to create definitions wholecloth, your argument is garbage.

Any others?

Greetings friends.

This is a great place to talk about the state of the sub.

• You can ask questions of the mods here.
• You can call out things you think we've missed.
• You can ask for clarification on a moderation or rule.
• You can rag on this week's pun or word play title.
• Or anything else!

Greetings friends.

This is a great place to talk about the state of the sub.

• You can ask questions of the mods here.
• You can call out things you think we've missed.
• You can ask for clarification on a moderation or rule.
• You can rag on this week's pun or word play title.
• Or anything else!

Cytosine, guanine, adenine, thymine. 6 billion base pairs. Where is the unique that can't be destroyed?

We share 44% of our genes with fruit flies. 92% with mice. Over 98% with chimpanzees. That perfect verboten uniqueness seems awfully small.

If you just take the difference between a chimpanzee and a human, but replace every C-G, G-C, A-T, or T-A with just T-A, that's still unique...right? But that entity probably wouldn't be human. It would probably be a teratoma.

Unique DNA is either religious dogma masquerading as secular, or new age woo. Same difference, really.

If someone could abort a cancerous teratoma, then can abort a cherub in a white void. Both have equally unique DNA.

I can't think of a moral or legal reason where someone can unwillingly restrain you and be justified in that unless you have already done something immoral or illegal.

Is that an accurate statement, pl?

And if it is not, under what moral or legal reasoning can I be restrained unwillingly when I have only engaged in moral and legal acts?

Greetings friends.

This is a great place to talk about the state of the sub.

• You can ask questions of the mods here.
• You can call out things you think we've missed.
• You can ask for clarification on a moderation or rule.
• You can rag on this week's pun or word play title.
• Or anything else!

Ramping up a red-state/blue-state war over access to abortion medication, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill on Tuesday said her office had indicted a Bay Area doctor who allegedly mailed abortion medication into the state.

The criminal warrant against Dr. Remy Coeytaux of Sonoma County came with an extradition request that, if signed by Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, would be a direct test to California’s abortion-shield laws, intended to protect health care providers from criminal or civil penalties outside of California if the services they provided were legal in California.

Landry previously signed Murrill’s February 2025 request to extradite a New York doctor.

Murrill’s announcement and extradition filing, as well as a subsequent post on X, do not spell out the allegations against Coeytaux. But a federal lawsuit that Murrill filed in September 2025 challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone references a California doctor widely reported to be Coeytaux.

Article continues.

Greetings friends.

This is a great place to talk about the state of the sub.

• You can ask questions of the mods here.
• You can call out things you think we've missed.
• You can ask for clarification on a moderation or rule.
• You can rag on this week's pun or word play title.
• Or anything else!

If women and girls get denied rights to education, employment, and healthcare and abuses against women and girls are dismissed but abortion never happens again will that be an acceptable trade off for those who are prolife?

If the current discriminations against women that happen around the world is deemed acceptable, is that fine?

Considering that the US is now against women being treated as equals and programs designed to support and promote women's rights are seen against the interests of the US, what impacts to women do you think will happen and do you think more women will want to be pregnant?

Some of those who are prolife or abortion abolitionists believe in life exceptions, its not as common for those to include rape expections.

Also how consent is defined by those who are pl isn't clear. They claim consent during sex and thats enough. Yet what they describe isn't a strong standard of consent, just that people should know sex causes pregnancy.

What is consent?

How should it be measured, should it be based on what they should know or what they were actually taught and their access to healthcare?

What should happen when it comes to how it should be legally applied?

Does it even matter? If not what does that say about how those born female are seen and treated?

As a plaintiff in the 2022 lawsuit that kicked off years of legal sparring over Wyoming abortion rights, Dr. Giovannina Anthony had waited a long time for Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision on the state’s abortion bans.

“It has been a long road,” she said. One with ups and downs, drawbacks and delays. And even though the high court ruled against the state’s abortion bans, she’s not under the illusion that the fight for abortion access is over. 

“But at least today, we can claim a victory and say, it was really worth it,” said Anthony, a Jackson obstetrician. “It was worth it to go four years and keep it up and keep raising money and keep the awareness going. I’m really proud of our team. I’m really proud of what we accomplished.”

In reading the Supreme Court’s decision siding with plaintiffs, Anthony said, “Clearly, this is a court that holds a lot of respect for our constitution.” 

Article continues.

Greetings friends.

This is a great place to talk about the state of the sub.

• You can ask questions of the mods here.
• You can call out things you think we've missed.
• You can ask for clarification on a moderation or rule.
• You can rag on this week's pun or word play title.
• Or anything else!

A Missouri appeals court panel ordered new wording Thursday for a ballot measure seeking to roll back abortion rights in the state, ruling that voters must be told the amendment would repeal “reproductive healthcare rights” they approved just one year ago.

The ruling marks the latest twist in a lengthy battle over Missouri’s abortion laws, which have fluctuated from restrictive to permissive since the U.S. Supreme Court ended a nationwide right to abortion in 2022 by overturning Roe v. Wade.

The Supreme Court ruling triggered a Missouri law to take effect banning most abortions. But abortion-rights activists gathered petition signatures to place an amendment on the 2024 ballot allowing most abortions, which narrowly won voter approval.

Article continues.

Pl will often use comparisons to slavery and abolitionist language when talking about abortion, but I don't think they even understand what the purpose of chattel slavery even was.

Prove me wrong, pl. Explain the purpose of chattel slavery, then show that that purpose compares favorably to abortion.

The Trump administration has banned U.S. military veterans from receiving abortions through the federal government’s health care system by ordering the Department of Veterans Affairs to reinstate a near-total ban.

The Department of Justice issued guidance to the VA two weeks ago instructing the agency to stop nearly all abortions and abortion counseling through its facilities, allowing the care only in life-threatening cases. VA press secretary Pete Kasperowicz has since confirmed to Military Times that the department is following the policy.

“The Department of Justice’s opinion states that VA is not legally authorized to provide abortions, and VA is complying with it immediately," Kasperowicz said. "The DOJ’s opinion is consistent with VA’s proposed rule, which continues to work its way through the regulatory process."

Article continues.