# roeVwade:Same-sex couples updating legal status after Supreme Court’s decision on abortion (Jay Reeves) [+CNN clip]



## Creamu (Jul 5, 2022)

'[...]

The ruling last week didn’t directly affect the 2015 decision that paved the way for same-sex marriage. But, Duncan said, it was still a warning shot for families headed by same-sex parents who fear their rights could evaporate like those of people seeking to end a pregnancy.

[...]

Overturning a nearly 50-year-old precedent, the Supreme Court ruled in a Mississippi case that abortion wasn’t protected by the Constitution, a decision likely to lead to bans in about half the states. Justice Samuel Alito said the ruling involved only the medical procedure, writing: “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

But conservative Justice Clarence Thomas called on his colleagues to reconsider cases that allowed same-sex marriage, gay sex and contraception.

The court’s three most liberal members warn in their dissent that the ruling could be used to challenge other personal freedoms: “Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.”

That prospect alarms some LGBTQ couples, who worry about a return to a time when they lacked equal rights to married heterosexual couples under the law. Many, fearful that their marital status is in danger, are moving now to square away potential medical, parental and estate issues.

Dawn Betts-Green and wife Anna Green didn’t waste time shoring up their legal paperwork after the decision. They’ve already visited a legal clinic for same-sex families to start the process of making a will.

*“That way, if they blast us back to the Dark Ages again, we have legal protections for our relationship,” said Betts-Green, who works with an Alabama-based nonprofit that documents the history of LGBTQ people in the South.

As a white woman married to a Black transgender man, Robbin Reed of Minneapolis feels particularly vulnerable. A decision undermining same-sex marriage or interracial unions would completely upend Reed’s life, which includes the couple’s 3-month-old child.*

[...]

In a sign of what could come, the state of Alabama already has cited the abortion ruling in asking a federal appeals court to let it enforce a new state law that makes it a felony for doctors to prescribe puberty blockers and hormones to trans people under age 19. The decision giving states the power to restrict abortion means states should also be able to ban medical treatments for transgender youth, the state claimed.

Any attempt to undo gay marriage would begin with a lawsuit, and any possible rollback is years away since no major legal threat is on the horizon, said Cathryn Oakley, senior counsel and state legislative director with the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy organization.

[...]

Although the threat to same-sex couples feels particularly acute in conservative states, Oakley said she’s heard of people all over the country in recent days seeking second-parent adoptions, which protect a family by having the names of both adoptive parents on the birth certificate. People also are completing medical directives in case one spouse is incapacitated and doing general estate planning, she said.

*Ryanne Seyba’s law firm in Hollywood, Florida, is offering free second-parent adoptions, which are similar to step-parent adoptions, for qualified same-sex couples to help ease some of the stress caused by the possible ripple effects of the abortion decision.*

[...]'

-Jay Reeves

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nati...0220701-563b4jxkrrco5jxd3sfnhxognu-story.html


----------



## Xzi (Jul 5, 2022)

After they get rid of gay marriage, top slippery slope enthusiasts of the republican party will want to get rid of interracial marriage next.  Wonder what Thomas will think about that.


----------



## XDel (Jul 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> After they get rid of gay marriage, top slippery slope enthusiasts of the republican party will want to get rid of interracial marriage next.  Wonder what Thomas will think about that.


 
Interracial Marriage still conforms to the definition of male and woman, so no, there will be no attack on that.

In fact your post reads like one of CNN's White Supremacy Conspiracy Theories.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

XDel said:


> Interracial Marriage still conforms to the definition of male and woman, so no, there will be no attack on that.
> 
> In fact your post reads like one of CNN's White Supremacy Conspiracy Theories.



What's the issue against gay marriage with you in particular? I've seen you mention before that it's an agenda; I'm curious to know what you think this agenda entails. Is it only an affront to your religion or is there something deeper?


----------



## XDel (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> What's the issue against gay marriage with you in particular? I've seen you mention before that it's an agenda; I'm curious to know what you think this agenda entails. Is it only an affront to your religion or is there something deeper?


A lot of my position is covered in the link in my avatar. It's a broader subject than many make it out to be.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 5, 2022)

XDel said:


> Interracial Marriage still conforms to the definition of male and woman, so no, there will be no attack on that.


Thank you for admitting that the court is ruling based on some twisted, authoritarian interpretation of Christianity, thus violating a major component of their oaths.  I'm not interested in what piss-poor excuses Thomas might use to weasel his way out of tossing that particular red meat to his base, which is why I used a period instead of a question mark.  Hell, for all we know Thomas is enough of an uncle Ruckus to vote to abolish interracial marriage himself, provided there's enough money and protection involved for his marriage specifically.  Conservatives are all about the "I got mine" mentality, after all.


----------



## SonowRaevius (Jul 5, 2022)

XDel said:


> A lot of my position is covered in the link in my avatar. It's a broader subject than many make it out to be.


-Makes fun of someone posting conspiracy theories.
-Literally wants people to look at a right wing site that has LGBT+ conspiracy theories posted all over it. 

Can't make this shit up if you wanted to.

The only "Gay Agenda" or "LGBT  agenda" is these people wanting the same rights and treatment as anyone else.

I forget sometime that not wanting to be killed or judged simply for existing is political and an "Agenda" for some idiots out there.



Xzi said:


> Thank you for admitting that the court is ruling based on some twisted, authoritarian interpretation of Christianity, thus violating a major component of their oaths.  I'm not interested in what piss-poor excuses Thomas might use to weasel his way out of tossing that particular red meat to his base, which is why I used a period instead of a question mark.  Hell, for all we know Thomas is enough of an uncle Ruckus to vote to abolish interracial marriage himself, provided there's enough money and protection involved for his marriage specifically.  Conservatives are all about the "I got mine" mentality, after all.



Funny enough there are plenty of Christ based religious conservatives that often spout about how interracial marriage is a sin stated in the bible as well. 

As with many cases, this is just one of many cases of someone joining the face eating leopards thinking their own face won't get eaten as well until it is too late.


----------



## XDel (Jul 5, 2022)

SonowRaevius said:


> Funny enough there are plenty of Christ based religious conservatives that often spout about how interracial marriage is a sin stated in the bible as well.


There are indeed, but it doesn't mean that what they are promoting is true. There are lots of nutty people out there that call them selves all sort of things from Christian, to Buddhist, to Atheist, what is your point?

As for the link in my avatar, it's not a conspiracy theory but a study of tactics that have been and are being used. You people carry on like there is no such thing as social engineering, marketing, propaganda, and the like, and that your thoughts and opinions are clear and are birthed from the depths of your own original thought; never having been tainted by the influences of the world around you. Until you have faced the truth of your self in the proverbial wilderness, you can never know truth but rather illusion.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

XDel said:


> You people carry on like there is no such thing as social engineering, marketing, propaganda, and the like



I can't speak for others but I'm definitely on board with this, except:

A) I'm still curious to know what YOU think about the gay/trans agenda. I can't think of what their endgame would be that's so detrimental to the greater majority of people unless it's faith based, and

B) I refuse to believe that all of these concepts are ONLY used by anyone that isn't a conservative Republican. As in, these concepts are not tied to one particular belief system or way of life. Everyone one from whatever they represent have the capacity to utilize these tools; it's disingenuous to believe that only one subset of people use them.



XDel said:


> that your thoughts and opinions are clear and are birthed from the depths of your own original thought; never having been tainted by the influences of the world around you.





XDel said:


> A lot of my position is covered in the link in my avatar. It's a broader subject than many make it out to be.



Please be careful how you phrase things and present yourself. You're getting awfully close to hypocrisy and, while I don't believe that's your intent, it'd be a shame for you to put yourself in that predicament. Again, I'm all for malicious social engineering and targeted marketing and such as a reasoning, but you can't imply that people are mindless sheep when you let a link dictate how you reason.


----------



## SonowRaevius (Jul 5, 2022)

XDel said:


> You people carry on like there is no such thing as social engineering, marketing, propaganda, and the like, and that your thoughts and opinions are clear and are birthed from the depths of your own original thought


It is rather hypocritical that you are trying to act as though you are some great, intelligent being with original thinking and everyone else is just sheep while literally linking propaganda/conspiracy sites and acting like they are your own opinion that you formed and posted yourself.

As for "tainted views based on the world around us", the world around has been cold towards these people for decades and generations, where many watched friends and loved ones be cast out in the cold and left or nearly left homeless for simply being something they couldn't help or getting sent to camps to be abused and mistreated in many way including electrocution so there is some "truth of the world" for you. 

To think anyone suddenly gained compassion, humanity, or warmth for others through media of any type is absolutely preposterous.


----------



## XDel (Jul 5, 2022)

I stand firm on my position and if you guys want to attack, then I suggest you do it with facts, prove why the information in my avatar is wrong, then we will be having a conversation, but to make accusations about me or my character accomplishes nothing.


----------



## Creamu (Jul 5, 2022)

XDel said:


> I stand firm on my position and if you guys want to attack, then I suggest you do it with facts, prove why the information in my avatar is wrong, then we will be having a conversation, but to make accusations about me or my character accomplishes nothing.


Since you are so passionate about this subject, may I ask you about your position of the following?


Creamu said:


> Dawn Betts-Green and wife Anna Green didn’t waste time shoring up their legal paperwork after the decision. They’ve already visited a legal clinic for same-sex families to start the process of making a will.
> 
> *“That way, if they blast us back to the Dark Ages again, we have legal protections for our relationship,” said Betts-Green, who works with an Alabama-based nonprofit that documents the history of LGBTQ people in the South.
> 
> ...


----------



## XDel (Jul 5, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Since you are so passionate about this subject, may I ask you about your position of the following?



Gay couples can't marry unless they marry to the opposite sex, otherwise it is not marriage. Abortion is murder. If we did not live in an age of extreme affluence, we would not have time nor energy to prioritize such philosophies in our life.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

XDel said:


> Gay couples can't marry unless they marry to the opposite sex, otherwise it is not marriage.



What's your reasoning behind this? Is it purely religious?


----------



## SonowRaevius (Jul 6, 2022)

XDel said:


> Gay couples can't marry unless they marry to the opposite sex, otherwise it is not marriage.


mar·riage
/ˈmerij/

_noun

the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship_

Looks like Xdel is wrong again. 


XDel said:


> If we did not live in an age of extreme affluence, we would not have time nor energy to prioritize such philosophies in our life.



What Philosophies? 

Are you really trying to say that treating people with kindness, equality, consideration, and respect is something that should be debated or considered?


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> What's your reasoning behind this? Is it purely religious?


It's a spiritual observation in that you can glimpse aspects of God's nature through the creation. Within creation there are polar opposites. In regards to magnets, like rejects like, but opposites pull together, with electricity you need a positive and negative feed, in regards to pro-creation one of each sex is required, and so on and so forth. This is not just something that Christians have observed over the centuries, but also Egyptians, Africans, Hindus, Native Americans, and so forth. In fact up until the 90's, this observation was also strongly held by WICCANs, or at least it wasn't until the 90's that I noticed that that group began to wander into more Crowley esque tendencies and interpretations of nature. 

Psychologically and emotionally the man must face the woman and the woman must face the man in order to develop. Generally when a person is behaving in a homosexual manner, they are avoiding the growth they require and can only find though facing and coming to terms with the opposite. Likewise, most relationships today are only based upon the physical, or how happy a person makes you, rather than upon sacrifice, humbleness, and mutual growth. This is why straight couples are having more and more kids outside of marriage and are unable to hold a marriage because over the past century, our culture has been altered and we are no longer grounded or rooted in our collective history, nor clear knowledge of it there of.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

XDel said:


> It's a spiritual observation in that you can glimpse aspects of God's nature through the creation. Within creation there are polar opposites. In regards to magnets, like rejects like, but opposites pull together, with electricity you need a positive and negative feed, in regards to pro-creation one of each sex is required, and so on and so forth. This is not just something that Christians have observed over the centuries, but also Egyptians, Africans, Hindus, Native Americans, and so forth. In fact up until the 90's, this observation was also strongly held by WICCANs, or at least it wasn't until the 90's that I noticed that that group began to wander into more Crowley esque tendencies and interpretations of nature.



If we cycle the mentality of this back to a primal state of thinking, then man is no less susceptible to the wanton lust not unlike other animals that also practice homosexuality and related sexual desires. Penguins, dolphins, dogs, monkeys, all have been observed to practice both homo(bi)sexual and, by extension, polygamous relationships and, in some cases, interspecies relationships as well (though personally I find that last part abhorrent in humans). It seems that the biggest thing that separates man from animals in that aspect is the crushing influence of religion, a concept not realized by anything else than man (that we can ascertain). It seems from your comment you feel that gay marriage, and by extension any relationship that isn't inherently man and woman, is an affront only in the sense that it does not cause pro creation, which in itself is an ideal taught by the Christian church in specific (although I'm sure it's prominent to some extent in other religions). 

If my affirmation is correct, then my next question is: Do you believe every government should operate as a theocracy?



XDel said:


> Psychologically and emotionally the man must face the woman and the woman must face the man in order to develop. Generally when a person is behaving in a homosexual manner, they are avoiding the growth they require and can only find though facing and coming to terms with the opposite. Likewise, most relationships today are only based upon the physical, or how happy a person makes you, rather than upon sacrifice, humbleness, and mutual growth. This is why straight couples are having more and more kids outside of marriage and are unable to hold a marriage because over the past century, our culture has been altered and we are no longer grounded or rooted in our collective history, nor clear knowledge of it there of.



Why is the matter of other people's growth that important to you, in particular? Or better yet, at what point do you believe that growth is necessary, and does marriage, or procreation, the only method you see for people to grow? In what ways can growth only be accomplished through heterosexual relationships aside from procreation? 

I recall a lot of stories of the Roman Empire in particular, but others have practiced as well, about the acts of free sex among the higher classes of people (in particular). If you recall the Roman Empire was an incredibly large factor in the modern development of humankind, despite actively engaging in free sex with groups of people of different types: man, woman, hermaphrodite (intersex), white, black, other, so on and so forth. The Egyptians and Greeks practiced these concepts as well, and we owe many of our modern practices to each of these empires, cultures, including but not limited to law, medicine, science, and even religion. I believe that, to say that growth can only be attributed to heterosexual sex and mannerisms, as opposed to homosexual and related sex and mannerisms, is a tad off from any standpoint than that of a religious overtone.

Please don't view this as an attack.


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

SonowRaevius said:


> Man, you sure did a 180 on that "Guys please don't attack me and actually debate me" attitude didn't you?


Clearly I am talking about homosexual marriage and abortion, you are just trying to be clever.


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> If we cycle the mentality of this back to a primal state of thinking, then man is no less susceptible to the wanton lust not unlike other animals that also practice homosexuality and related sexual desires. Penguins, dolphins, dogs, monkeys, all have been observed to practice both homo(bi)sexual and, by extension, polygamous relationships and, in some cases, interspecies relationships as well (though personally I find that last part abhorrent in humans). It seems that the biggest thing that separates man from animals in that aspect is the crushing influence of religion, a concept not realized by anything else than man (that we can ascertain). It seems from your comment you feel that gay marriage, and by extension any relationship that isn't inherently man and woman, is an affront only in the sense that it does not cause pro creation, which in itself is an ideal taught by the Christian church in specific (although I'm sure it's prominent to some extent in other religions).
> 
> If my affirmation is correct, then my next question is: Do you believe every government should operate as a theocracy?
> 
> ...


There is an order to the cosmos that we must abide by if we are to truly live and know what is true from what is false. The fact that civilizations, individuals and such have engaged in hedonistic life styles does not in any way suggest that it aligns with truth and how we should be behaving. The proof of their error can always be found in their proverbial fruits. There was no love there, only lusts, only desires. 

Rome is recognized for being a world economic power, but the miseries that their cultural norms brought upon the people are not often discussed. Not unlike our modern world which is clearly larger and bolder than anything that Rome ever accomplished, we have toys, we have gadgets, and everything at the touch of the finger and yet our individual and collective lives are at a low point, suicide rates are at an all time high, the blood bath of the last century is just mind blowing, and yet we call this progress. The reason being is because we are being conditioned to look at the world through a purely materialist point of view, whilst neglecting the invisible and the subtle.


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

Wilhelm Reich & The Sexual Revolution​


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 6, 2022)

This is why courts granting rights are always a bad idea. This is also what happens when we allow government into parts of our lives where it does not belong. Marriage has always been a religious ceremony carried out by religious institutions. Give marriage back to the churches, synagogues and mosques and get government out of the marriage business.


----------



## SonowRaevius (Jul 6, 2022)

XDel said:


> Clearly I am talking about homosexual marriage and abortion, you are just trying to be clever.



I know quite well what you were talking about, which is why I asked the question that I did, and if you think that was "trying to be clever" then obviously you didn't understand why I asked what I did. 

So I will ask again in a more thorough way so you might understand it a little better. 

Do you, XDel, believe that letting people have the same rights as you and treating them with kindness, humanity, respect, compassion, and equality is a debatable topic, yes or no? 

You're a person of "logic and truth" so you say, so be truthful and tell us what you really think without putting up excuses and hiding behind religion.


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

SonowRaevius said:


> I know quite well what you were talking about, which is why I asked the question that I did, and if you think that was "trying to be clever" then obviously you didn't understand why I asked what I did.
> 
> So I will ask again in a more thorough way so you might understand it a little better.
> 
> ...




Yes, I believe in kindness, humanity, respect, compassion, and equality. In fact part of my religious conviction is that I am also to love my enemy. Though the word "love" has lost its meaning in recent years.


----------



## lokomelo (Jul 6, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Marriage has always been a religious ceremony carried out by religious institutions.


You're completely wrong on that one. The western world form of marriage came from Rome, centuries before Christianity came to be, and it was regulated by law and not the roman polytheist religion at that time. Rome influenced the early Christianity a lot, including the marriage ritual.


----------



## SonowRaevius (Jul 6, 2022)

XDel said:


> Yes, I believe in kindness, humanity, respect, compassion, and equality. In fact part of my religious conviction is that I am also to love my enemy. Though the word "love" has lost its meaning in recent years.


So if you believe in those things then why are you trying to deny someone else the right to have a marriage ceremony? Ceremonies I might add that existed far before Christianity. 

Love may have lost its meaning to you, and I genuinely feel sorry for you that it has, but that doesn't mean love has lost its meaning entirely and to everyone.


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

SonowRaevius said:


> So if you believe in those things then why are you trying to deny someone else the right to have a marriage ceremony? Ceremonies I might add that existed far before Christianity.
> 
> Love may have lost its meaning to you, and I genuinely feel sorry for you that it has, but that doesn't mean love has lost its meaning entirely and to everyone.


Did I imply that love's meaning has been lost unto me? Rather I noted that the meaning of love has been lost in this modern world. 

For example, when a child is doing something wrong that will make his life worse as well as those around him should he persist; do you merely encourage and support his actions, or do you stop him and show him the errors of his ways so that he may avoid the consequences of persisting in such actions? 

As for the marriage ceremony pre-dating Christianity, please keep in mind that Christianity itself predates the era upon which it took it's name. That said, regardless of which religious system predates another, marriage has always been a ceremony reflective of the union of opposites where in the two are made one, both figuratively and literally when there is off spring involved. It was never and has never been about same sex unions. 

Now as for what a person does in the privacy of their bedroom, that is their business and their free will. If a couple wants to live together, then again, that is their free will, but by definition of the purpose of marriage, same sex marriages are technically impossible. It is only the state who has changed the dictionary definition of marriage, though like love, that does not mean that it's original meaning has changed.


----------



## MariArch (Jul 6, 2022)

Xenoblade Chronicles 3 is going to be an awesome game.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

XDel said:


> There is an order to the cosmos that we must abide by if we are to truly live and know what is true from what is false. The fact that civilizations, individuals and such have engaged in hedonistic life styles does not in any way suggest that it aligns with truth and how we should be behaving. The proof of their error can always be found in their proverbial fruits. There was no love there, only lusts, only desires.



So that produces the theory that love is the greatest force of them all, but I still feel that is a construct, as it's not apparent in any other species, again from what we ascertain. I mean, you could argue that any two animals that mate for life "love" each other, but from a biological standpoint, life mates existed well before man's idea of "love". 

It also breeds the idea that love can exist outside a two partner relationship. Humans have the capacity to love many people, obviously in different ways, but if love was the defining factor in growth, not just sex, then why would same sex partners be abhorrent? Or, if two heterosexual partners love each other and can't conceive, is their union and capacity for growth lessened by the fact they can't reproduce? And what about adoption of children, produced by heterosexual couples (mincing words on rape victims and such aside), by said homosexual couples? Is there a lack of love and capacity for growth there?



XDel said:


> Rome is recognized for being a world economic power, but the miseries that their cultural norms brought upon the people are not often discussed. Not unlike our modern world which is clearly larger and bolder than anything that Rome ever accomplished, we have toys, we have gadgets, and everything at the touch of the finger and yet our individual and collective lives are at a low point, suicide rates are at an all time high, the blood bath of the last century is just mind blowing, and yet we call this progress. The reason being is because we are being conditioned to look at the world through a purely materialist point of view, whilst neglecting the invisible and the subtle.



So I can't inherently disagree with this. I too feel the onset of social technology has had quite the negative effect on the modern world for a myriad of reasons. The two that I see as the most heinous would be:

1) it causes people to become desensitized to the many atrocities that happen global wide, which of course causes slippery slopes within itself, and

2) it allows people to voice their opinions on a wide scale that probably shouldn't be allowed to. I'm not saying people don't deserve a voice, but I firmly believe not all voices need to be presented on such a scale. Imagine what the world would be like if Hitler had a Twitter.

However, at it's base, I don't feel abortions are an old world principle that needs to be abolished; at the base of it, abortions are survival techniques, plain and simple. To bring it around to the topic at hand, the Constitution states that every person has a right to a "...pursuit of happiness". Now, we can argue and infer all day long that a baby can or should be afforded those same rights, but from a mother's perspective, that abortion is being done as a survival method to allow her to continue on in her pursuit of happiness. The reasoning behind her choice can be as abhorrent as one wishes it to be, but any reasoning and ones perspective of it only detracts from the base instinct of survival.



MariArch said:


> Xenoblade Chronicles 3 is going to be an awesome game.



God I hope so. I'm definitely looking forward to Star Ocean myself.


----------



## ZeroFX (Jul 6, 2022)

Nice. This thread is bound to be good!


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So that produces the theory that love is the greatest force of them all, but I still feel that is a construct, as it's not apparent in any other species, again from what we ascertain. I mean, you could argue that any two animals that mate for life "love" each other, but from a biological standpoint, life mates existed well before man's idea of "love".


I have pets as well as a life time of experiences that won't allow me to descend into that whole post modernist labyrinth; minotaurs or not. 


I will say this though, even when we don't feel loved, even when we don't feel capable of loving, we must push our selves to act in lovingness towards one another regardless. That does not mean to support a person's every choice and action because sometimes we make bad choices, nor is it about the need to feel  all warm and fuzzy in your tummy for a person, but to care about them enough to be honest with them, to help them when they need help, to mourn with them when they are in mourning, to try  to illuminate their room when they are in darkness, to push them towards goodness, kindness, and selflessness, etc. This of course is the hard path, which is why nobody wants to walk it.  It's easier to take care of our own damn selves, do what we want to do, and never speak an honest work. Easier in the moment anyhow, but not for the long run of couse.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

XDel said:


> I have pets as well as a life time of experiences that won't allow me to descend into that whole post modernist labyrinth; minotaurs or not.
> 
> 
> I will say this though, even when we don't feel loved, even when we don't feel capable of loving, we must push our selves to act in lovingness towards one another regardless. That does not mean to support a person's every choice and action because sometimes we make bad choices, nor is it about the need to feel  all warm and fuzzy in your tummy for a person, but to care about them enough to be honest with them, to help them when they need help, to mourn with them when they are in mourning, to try  to illuminate their room when they are in darkness, to push them towards goodness, kindness, and selflessness, etc. This of course is the hard path, which is why nobody wants to walk it.  It's easier to take care of our own damn selves, do what we want to do, and never speak an honest work. Easier in the moment anyhow, but not for the long run of couse.



So it seems community is a big issue for you, which is great. However, how does that translate to abortion rights for you? If we all need to come together and love one another, wouldn't fostering an environment that allows people to choose keeping the baby moreso than aborting it be a priority, as opposed to enacting laws that only abolish it? After all, love isn't about the warmth you feel inside, it's about ensuring environments breed comfort, progress, inclusion, and enlightenment. It seems that to ridicule or enforce laws that enable restriction only deter from the idea of love; wouldn't it push that narrative more if we allowed people to be what they're comfortable with being, even if it goes against our idealogies? Where at in history have we proven love through coercion and restriction?


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So it seems community is a big issue for you, which is great. However, how does that translate to abortion rights for you? If we all need to come together and love one another, wouldn't fostering an environment that allows people to choose keeping the baby moreso than aborting it be a priority, as opposed to enacting laws that only abolish it? After all, love isn't about the warmth you feel inside, it's about ensuring environments breed comfort, progress, inclusion, and enlightenment. It seems that to ridicule or enforce laws that enable restriction only deter from the idea of love; wouldn't it push that narrative more if we allowed people to be what they're comfortable with being, even if it goes against our idealogies? Where at in history have we proven love through coercion and restriction?


Well no because denying a baby's natural development process inside, let alone outside the womb (murder) is evil, not an act of love, compassion, or anything of the sort. And for me, it is not about the Community, it is about the love for the higher mystery from which we were created. I love the creation because I love the Creator, though believe me, it is not an easy task, and I am not always feeling up to it or in the best of moods, but I know that that is how I am supposed to live and so I strive towards it, clumsy or otherwise.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

XDel said:


> Well no because denying a baby's natural development process inside, let alone outside the womb (murder) is evil, not an act of love, compassion, or anything of the sort. And for me, it is not about the Community, it is about the love for the higher mystery from which we were created. I love the creation because I love the Creator, though believe me, it is not an easy task, and I am not always feeling up to it or in the best of moods, but I know that that is how I am supposed to live and so I strive towards it, clumsy or otherwise.



Why would the Creator allow us to have this opportunity, these options, if we were not meant utilize it?


----------



## SonowRaevius (Jul 6, 2022)

XDel said:


> For example, when a child is doing something wrong that will make his life worse as well as those around him should he persist; do you merely encourage and support his actions, or do you stop him and show him the errors of his ways so that he may avoid the consequences of persisting in such actions?


Of course you would stop him, if what he is doing is truly wrong. 

Would I stop a child from doing something that harms an animal? Yes, but I would explain to them it hurts the animal.

Would I stop a child from stealing or lying? I would an explain why it wrong to do either of those things.
However, given the context here, that is not what you are talking about and trying to say that marriage for lgbt+ people is wrong and you are showing love for them by trying to get them stop it.  There is a huge difference in reprimanding someone for doing something that harms another in some form, and deliberately trying to stop festivities that are a celebration of love for one another.

I fail to see how you can say love has lost its meaning when there are people like love one another to want to be together forever. If you see love as just discipline and reprimanding, then yes, I would think you would see love as less valuable in this world and I again I feel sorry for you.

In saying this though, I am not saying love is or should be blind either, as toxicity and bad traits/habits should be pointed out and people should seek good changes, especially from a relationship of any kind.


XDel said:


> As for the marriage ceremony pre-dating Christianity, please keep in mind that Christianity itself predates the era upon which it took it's name. That said, regardless of which religious system predates another, marriage has always been a ceremony reflective of the union of opposites where in the two are made one, both figuratively and literally when there is off spring involved. It was never and has never been about same sex unions.


There are many ceremonies that date back to Mesopotamian times that joined same sex couples in partnership.

There are also plenty of opposite sex couple that have gotten married and never had children as well, whether by choice or by natures design itself.  So to you does that make that marriage illegitimate as well?

If not, then you must admit that your logic is very much flawed or you are holding double standards.


XDel said:


> same sex marriages are technically impossible.


See for something to be impossible, even in a technical sense, it would mean that it has not, nor will it ever happen.

 Luckily, you aren't in charge of what is and is not possible, nor do you have any real say it what is or is not possible either.



XDel said:


> It is only the state who has changed the dictionary definition of marriage, though like love, that does not mean that it's original meaning has changed.


The definition has changed world wide, yet is you that decide you want to pretend that the world is and should be the same as it was 50 years ago.

I will agree, love's definition hasn't changed in all the millennia that we have understood its meaning. 

How you define it however it something totally different from what love actually is and it is no wonder the meaning/weight of it seems lost to you, when you never really knew what it was to begin with it seems.


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Why would the Creator allow us to have this opportunity, these options, if we were not meant utilize it?


We have the free will to do what ever we please, though we still have to deal with consequences.


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

SonowRaevius said:


> Of course you would stop him, if what he is doing is truly wrong.
> 
> Would I stop a child from doing something that harms an animal? Yes, but I would explain to them it hurts the animal.
> 
> ...



The heart _is_ deceitful above all _things_, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
 -  Jeremiah 17:9


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

XDel said:


> We have the free will to do what ever we please, though we still have to deal with consequences.



And what are the consequences of having, for example, a homosexual relationship?


----------



## videogamefanatic (Jul 6, 2022)

XDel said:


> There are indeed, but it doesn't mean that what they are promoting is true. There are lots of nutty people out there that call them selves all sort of things from Christian, to Buddhist, to Atheist, what is your point?
> 
> As for the link in my avatar, it's not a conspiracy theory but a study of tactics that have been and are being used. You people carry on like there is no such thing as social engineering, marketing, propaganda, and the like, and that your thoughts and opinions are clear and are birthed from the depths of your own original thought; never having been tainted by the influences of the world around you. Until you have faced the truth of your self in the proverbial wilderness, you can never know truth but rather illusion.


It's almost as if free speech is legal, huh? What do we do, outlaw persuasive writing and any kind of advertisement and debate? Just stop dude. You're making yourself look like an idiot.


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> And what are the consequences of having, for example, a homosexual relationship?



What, you mean like infections, STD's and the like? Not just homosexuals, but most people in this post modern era sleep with more than one person over the course of a life time, though STD's and the like are more prominent in the homosexual community.

There is the whole transference of energies, the fact that you can't have kids, the fact that you find your self sexually attracted to the same anatomy as your own, rather than your opposite which you were made to fit with and reproduce with. In spite of the term being FORCED out of the Mental Disorders books by bullying rather than science, homosexuality is still a mental disorder, just the same as bestiality, promiscuity, pedophilia, and so forth. It also robs you of the natural experience of growing along with your opposite in nature, because yes, MEN and WOMEN are very different. Sexual relations isn't the cure for our existential woes.

If you would like some of what the Bible has to say on the subject:

Romans 1: 24-
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I would say this fits the bill because everyone I know that supports this Cult of Woke, carries just this sort of reprobate mind state.

If you would like to refer to Buddhist text, then we have this piece about the conditions of life and the things we yearn for that do not bring lasting happiness:

The Gospel of Buddha, Lection 2:

Look about and contemplate life! [1]
Everything is transient and nothing endures. 
There is birth  and death, growth and decay;
there is combination and separation. [2]

The glory of the world is like a flower:
it stands in full bloom in the morning and fades in the heat of the day. [3]

Wherever you look,  there is a rushing and struggling, and an eager pursuit of pleasure. 
There is a panic flight from pain and death, and hot are the flames of burning desires. 
The world is vanity fair, full of changes and transformations. 
All is Samsara. [4]

Is there nothing permanent in the world? 
Is there in the universal turmoil no resting-place where our troubled heart can find peace? 
Is there nothing everlasting? [5]

Oh,  that  we could have cessation of anxiety, 
that  our  burning desires  would be extinguished! 
When shall the mind become  tranquil and composed? [6]

The Buddha,  our Lord, was grieved at the ills of life. 
He saw the vanity of worldly happiness
and sought salvation in the one thing that will not fade or perish,
but will abide for ever and ever. [7]

Ye  who  long  for  life,  know  that  immortality  is  hidden  intransiency. 
Ye  who wish for happiness without the sting  of  regret,
lead  a  life of righteousness. 
Ye who  yearn  for  riches,  receive treasures that are eternal. 
Truth is wealth,  and a life of truth is happiness. [8]

All  compounds will be dissolved again, 
but  the  verities  which determine all combination and separations
as laws of nature endure forever and aye. 
Bodies fall to dust,  but the truths of the mind  will not be destroyed. [9]

Truth knows neither birth nor death; 
it has no beginning  and  no end. 
Welcome the truth.  The truth is the immortal part of mind. [10]

Establish the truth in your mind,
for the truth is the image of the eternal; 
it portrays the immutable; 
it reveals the everlasting; 
the truth gives unto mortals the boon of immortality. [11]

The Buddha has proclaimed the truth; 
let the truth of the  Buddha dwell  in  your hearts. 
Extinguish in your selves every  desire  that antagonizes the Buddha,
and in the perfection of your spiritual growth you will become like unto him. [12]

That of your heart that cannot or will not develop into Buddha must perish; 
for it is mere illusion and unreal; 
it is the source of your error;
it is the cause of your misery. [13]

You  attain  to  immortality by filling  your  minds  with  truth.
Therefore, become like unto vessles fit to receive the Master's words.
Cleanse yourselves of evil and sanctify your lives. 
There is no other way of reaching truth. [14]

Learn to distinguish between Self and Truth. 
Self is the cause of selfishness and the source of evil; 
truth cleaves to no self; 
it  is universal and leads to justice and righteousness. [15]

Self,  that  which seems to those who love their selves  as  their being, 
is not the eternal,  the everlasting,  the imperishable. 
Seek not self,
but seek the truth. [16]

If  we liberate our souls from our petty selves,  wish no  ill  toothers, 
and become clear as a crystal diamond reflecting the light of truth, 
what  a radiant picture will appear in us mirroring things  as they  are, 
without  the admixture of  burning  desires, 
without  the distortion  of erroneous illusion, 
without the agitation of  clinging and unrest. [17]

Yet ye love self and will not abandon self-love. 
So be  it,  but then,  verily, 
ye should learn to distinguish between the false  self and  the true self. 
The ego with all its egotism is the false  self.
It  is an unreal illusion and a perishable combination. 
He only  who identifies his self with the truth will atain Nirvana; 
and he who has entered Nirvana has attained Buddhahood; 
he has acquired the  highest good;
he has become eternal and immortal. [18]

All compound things shall be dissolved again, 
worlds will break to pieces and our individualities will be scattered;
but the words of theBuddha will remain for ever. [19]

The extinction of self is salvation; 
the annihilation of self  is the condition of enlightenment; 
the blotting out of self is  Nirvana.
Happy  is  he  who has ceased to live for pleasure and  rests  in  the truth. 
Verily his composure and tranquillity of mind are the highest bliss. [20]

Let  us  take  our refuge in the Buddha, 
for  he  has  found  the everlasting in the transient. 
Let us take refuge in that which is the immutable in the changes of existence. 
Let us take our refuge in the truth  that  is established through the enlightenment of  the  Buddha.
Let  us take our refuge in the community of those who seek  the  truth and endeavour to live in the truth. [21]


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

videogamefanatic said:


> It's almost as if free speech is legal, huh? What do we do, outlaw persuasive writing and any kind of advertisement and debate? Just stop dude. You're making yourself look like an idiot.


But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;  - 1 Corinthians 1:27


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

XDel said:


> What, you mean like infections, STD's and the like? Not just homosexuals, but most people in this post modern era sleep with more than one person over the course of a life time, though STD's and the like are more prominent in the homosexual community.
> 
> There is the whole transference of energies, the fact that you can't have kids, the fact that you find your self sexually attracted to the same anatomy as your own, rather than your opposite which you were made to fit with and reproduce with. In spite of the term being FORCED out of the Mental Disorders books by bullying rather than science, homosexuality is still a mental disorder, just the same as bestiality, promiscuity, pedophilia, and so forth. It also robs you of the natural experience of growing along with your opposite in nature, because yes, MEN and WOMEN are very different. Sexual relations isn't the cure for our existential woes.
> 
> ...



Seems a little heavy to reinforce your idea that God hates abortions and homosexuals. Didn't the Christian Bible state that we should love one another and that none shall judge, lest he himself be judged? I won't get into this too much further as it derails from the topic, but i always found it kind of sacrilegious to judge your fellow man as if one was God himself.


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Seems a little heavy to reinforce your idea that God hates abortions and homosexuals. Didn't the Christian Bible state that we should love one another and that none shall judge, lest he himself be judged? I won't get into this too much further as it derails from the topic, but i always found it kind of sacrilegious to judge your fellow man as if one was God himself.


You are quoting from the Gospel of Matthew 7: 1-2

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

Though it goes on to say:

Matthew 7:3-5
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

And then in Matthew 7: 15-20 it reads:


"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Further more there is Ephesians 5:11 which reads:

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."

1 Corinthians 2:15
"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."

And lastly it states that only God knows a person's heart and is judge of all, including judges! We can only know and discern according to a person's actions and words, but are not to hate them, only their actions, and in place of a hard heart, we must pray for them, forgive them, though of course be wise and not allow them to trip us up.

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." - Hebrews 4:12
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; - Matthew 5:44​

As for abortion:


Exodus 20:13
"Though shall not murder"

Exodus 21:22-23
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,"

{“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and vhe shall pay as the wjudges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life,}
​"Leviticus 18:21" (Child Sacrifice)
" And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord."

Luke 1:14-26 (Describing Jon the Baptist as a person, rather than a clump of cells within the womb)

"And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."

Didache 2:3 (1st century Christian text)
"Thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not corrupt boys, thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not deal in magic, thou shalt do no sorcery, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods,"


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

XDel said:


> You are quoting from the Gospel of Matthew 7: 1-2
> 
> "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
> 
> ...



It seems we're in agreement. Do not judge others least ye yourself be judged, as only God can judge his children.



XDel said:


> And then in Matthew 7: 15-20 it reads:
> 
> 
> "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
> Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."



I interpret false prophets as anyone who practices the lord's will as if it were his own. By this quote alone, any evangelist is a false idol as they believe the Lord's children should listen to his (her) word over that of the Lord.



XDel said:


> Further more there is Ephesians 5:11 which reads:
> 
> "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."
> 
> ...



Therefore it's up to God's children to provide love for one another, not discrimination and restriction, because only God can judge his children, and anyone who claims judgement on his behalf is a false idol.



XDel said:


> As for abortion:
> 
> 
> Exodus 20:13
> "Though shall not murder"



That's not about abortion.



XDel said:


> Exodus 21:22-23
> "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,"
> 
> {“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and vhe shall pay as the wjudges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life,}
> ​



If a fine is to be paid for the loss of the child, then it is deemed by God himself that the child is property, otherwise the man should be condemned to hell, which is clearly not the case in this scripture.



XDel said:


> "Leviticus 18:21" (Child Sacrifice)
> " And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord."



An abortion is not a sacrifice.



XDel said:


> Luke 1:14-26 (Describing Jon the Baptist as a person, rather than a clump of cells within the womb)
> 
> "And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
> For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."



The Holy Ghost is the breath of life that filled Jon the Baptist with life while in the womb. Babies aren't capable of breath at least until almost 30 weeks, well beyond the timeframe needed for a majority of abortions.



XDel said:


> Didache 2:3 (1st century Christian text)
> "Thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not corrupt boys, thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not deal in magic, thou shalt do no sorcery, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods,"



Abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible because the word didn't exist then. I'd like to see where this passage comes from. It also sounds off the way the passage reads "Thou shalt not murder" twice.

You've also conveniently left out the original Jewish text, which predates modern Christian principles, in which abortion is viewed as medically necessary at worst. 

The fact of the matter is that any reference to a baby before the third trimester is referenced as property in the Christian Bible, which is actually worse than how people view the unborn by today's standards. One could even argue that people have grown from the early Christian days, in the regard of recognizing a baby as a potential human than property which would be paid in cash upon accidental destruction of.

Furthermore, the Bible as a whole teaches that people should love and praise the life that currently exists before the praise of life yet to be, and that any life that is forfeited before the breath of life is breathed into automatically gains entrance to heaven, which is the ultimate goal of Christians.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 6, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> You're completely wrong on that one. The western world form of marriage came from Rome, centuries before Christianity came to be, and it was regulated by law and not the roman polytheist religion at that time. Rome influenced the early Christianity a lot, including the marriage ritual.


Hate to break it to you, but Christianity is not the only religion in the world. Hindus have been having wedding ceremonies for thousands of years and they have always been between a man and a woman. I guess those brown Indians are just bigots, amirite?


----------



## AmandaRose (Jul 6, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Hindus have been having wedding ceremonies for thousands of years and they have always been between a man and a woman.


Hate to break it to ya but I can provide numerous examples of Hindu weddings with gay couples. Here is one for example. 

https://www.boredpanda.com/traditio...oogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

AmandaRose said:


> Hate to break it to ya but I can provide numerous examples of Hindu weddings with gay couples. Here is one for example.
> 
> https://www.boredpanda.com/traditio...oogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic



And I can show you example of example of more gay Hindu's getting "married", as well as Buddhist, Christians, and so forth. I can provide you with Christian sermons that promote homosexuality and in fact tell you that God wants you to be homosexual and trans, and I can also post sermons that are promoting open marriage, but that doesn't mean that any of these people are in line with the traditions, teaching, etc. that they claim to be a part of.

It's like SyphenFreht's response to SOME of my biblical and Buddhist quotes above where in here interprets them as he wishes to support what ever it is that he wishes to support, which is quite a different activity of a true Truth seeker all together.


----------



## Creamu (Jul 6, 2022)

XDel said:


> And I can show you example of example of more gay Hindu's getting "married", as well as Buddhist, Christians, and so forth. I can provide you with Christian sermons that promote homosexuality and in fact tell you that God wants you to be homosexual and trans, and I can also post sermons that are promoting open marriage, but that doesn't mean that any of these people are in line with the traditions, teaching, etc. that they claim to be a part of.
> 
> It's like SyphenFreht's response to SOME of my biblical and Buddhist quotes above where in here interprets them as he wishes to support what ever it is that he wishes to support, which is quite a different activity of a true Truth seeker all together.


But isn't the bible a highly esoterical work written by very intelligent and talented jews, and chrisitans misinterpret it, due to the misconception that it is literally written by a god?


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> It seems we're in agreement. Do not judge others least ye yourself be judged, as only God can judge his children.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, we are not in agreement, you are just clinging to that one verse and ignoring all the others where it says to judge, where it says to discern, and where it says to reprove wicked things. As I have pointed out, the Bible is quite clear that only God knows a persons' heart and is the final judge upon their life, though in the mean time, while we may not know a person's heart, we can learn a lot about them through their fruits; that being their actions, words, etc. With that in mind we can compare them to scripture and see where they are not scriptural. Where upon we are supposed to call them out for what they are, we are supposed to reprove in truth as we are not supposed to lie, and we are not supposed to turn a blind eye. That said we are not to hate the individual, but hate the evil and illusion that has consumed them, and further more we are to pray for them that they get better. This is the same as a parent's love for their child, and in this case it is about our love for God's truth, and our desire for them to align or re-align with God's truth so that they no longer suffer needlessly by living against the edicts of God Word. 

As for your interpretation of the bit about false prophets... just in it's very statement it suggests that there are non-false prophets and therefore people do and can speak the true will of God. 


You skipped some of my quotes so you could twist what few you didn't skip to mean what you want them to say. That's not how the Bible works. 

 As for the word abortion not existing back in the day... yes, but the act did. Abortion is a modern word used for modern translations to break down the meaning to English readers. If you would like to know the original text then I would direct you to seeking out it's Latin original and learning a few things about Latin. 


Spirit is Breath, The Hold Spirit or Holy Ghost is something different all together. If you were fond of the Bible, which you are not, then you would already know that. It's Christianity 101.


No where does it suggest that a pregnant woman is just carrying "property", the act of creation, recreation, birth, and so on is held very sacred in Christian scripture, this is NOT a pagan or materialist religion. 


I don't know what Jewish text you are referring, then again I am not a Jew so the most Jewish texts I keep familiar with is within the Bible itself.


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

Creamu said:


> But isn't the bible a highly esoterical work written by very intelligent and talented jews, and chrisitans misinterpret it, due to the misconception that it is literally written by a god?


 Yes it is esoteric in the sense that it unfolds as you come to understand it as well as your self better, and yes it is esoteric in that it makes references to astrology and the like within it's pages, but no, I would not say that it's merely the biproduct of intellect and that it has only been mistakenly interpreted to be the inspired words of God, though Christian, Jews, and non-Christians a like misinterpret it daily, yes.


----------



## seany1990 (Jul 6, 2022)

XDel said:


> I stand firm on my position and if you guys want to attack, then I suggest you do it with facts





XDel said:


> It's a spiritual observation in that you can glimpse aspects of God's nature through the creation.


LMFAO


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

XDel said:


> No, we are not in agreement, you are just clinging to that one verse and ignoring all the others where it says to judge, where it says to discern, and where it says to reprove wicked things. As I have pointed out, the Bible is quite clear that only God knows a persons' heart and is the final judge upon their life, though in the mean time, while we may not know a person's heart, we can learn a lot about them through their fruits; that being their actions, words, etc. With that in mind we can compare them to scripture and see where they are not scriptural. Where upon we are supposed to call them out for what they are, we are supposed to reprove in truth as we are not supposed to lie, and we are not supposed to turn a blind eye. That said we are not to hate the individual, but hate the evil and illusion that has consumed them, and further more we are to pray for them that they get better. This is the same as a parent's love for their child, and in this case it is about our love for God's truth, and our desire for them to align or re-align with God's truth so that they no longer suffer needlessly by living against the edicts of God Word.



So if we're supposed to hate the idea and not hate the individuals, then why enact laws of man to punish these people when it's supposed to be up to God to punish his children? When we restrict the freedom of people to live as they see fit, we are judging them in God's place, thereby inferring ourselves as false idols. You may say I'm stuck on one verse, but it seems more apparent that I'm stuck on the ten commandments, rather than misinterpreting the Bible and twisting it's word to fit my own ideals. At the end of the day the Bible preaches love, not subjugation. Or am I  wrong in that assessment?



XDel said:


> As for your interpretation of the bit about false prophets... just in it's very statement it suggests that there are non-false prophets and therefore people do and can speak the true will of God.



Are you a prophet of God? Are American law makers prophets of God?



XDel said:


> You skipped some of my quotes so you could twist what few you didn't skip to mean what you want them to say. That's not how the Bible works.



I don't believe I skipped anything. In fact, I believe I itemized every quote. If I missed one, can you provide it? 

Aren't you cherry picking the Bible to prove your point?



XDel said:


> As for the word abortion not existing back in the day... yes, but the act did. Abortion is a modern word used for modern translations to break down the meaning to English readers. If you would like to know the original text then I would direct you to seeking out it's Latin original and learning a few things about Latin.



You're right, however you have yet to provide any text that specifically refers to the act outside of the Bible confirming that an unborn child is property.



XDel said:


> Spirit is Breath, The Hold Spirit or Holy Ghost is something different all together. If you were fond of the Bible, which you are not, then you would already know that. It's Christianity 101.



Actually, according to the concept of the Holy Trinity, God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all the same thing. Are you sure you understand Christianity? 



XDel said:


> No where does it suggest that a pregnant woman is just carrying "property", the act of creation, recreation, birth, and so on is held very sacred in Christian scripture, this is NOT a pagan or materialist religion.



It's literally in the scripture you provided. I would suggest you read it again.



XDel said:


> I don't know what Jewish text you are referring, then again I am not a Jew so the most Jewish texts I keep familiar with is within the Bible itself.



The Torah.



XDel said:


> It's like SyphenFreht's response to SOME of my biblical and Buddhist quotes above where in here interprets them as he wishes to support what ever it is that he wishes to support, which is quite a different activity of a true Truth seeker all together.



But isn't that what you're doing? Unless you've grown up in the church and have been accepted into the higher society of priests, rabbis and such, you only have the knowledge that you've inferred, not been taught by those who understand the Bible for what it is. 

Even from a philosophical point of view, the original text were transcribed by those closest to God, of which many of the books were named, many centuries ago. Man is fallible; each new edition or rewrite is nothing more than man's interpretation of the original texts, and each new rewrite is a bastardization of the rewrite before it. The newest iteration of text is so far removed from the original ideas that God intended his people to interpret and follow that to follow the current word at it's face could be considered an affront to God himself. You can't interpret an interpretation of an interpretation and expect to still hold to the same original ideals.

For someone who didn't wish to be attacked, your last two posts quoting my words and tagging my name seems to be very attacking. Isn't hypocrisy something that your lord frowns upon as well?


----------



## lokomelo (Jul 6, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Hate to break it to you, but Christianity is not the only religion in the world. Hindus have been having wedding ceremonies for thousands of years and they have always been between a man and a woman. I guess those brown Indians are just bigots, amirite?


What are you talking about? American marriage institution did not came from Hindi rituals, it came straight up from Rome. It was a law based institution, then it was appropriated by early Christians, and centuries later arrived on McDonald's land.


----------



## ZeroT21 (Jul 6, 2022)

We're going back to the days where we can just hang people for sport it seems


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So if we're supposed to hate the idea and not hate the individuals, then why enact laws of man to punish these people when it's supposed to be up to God to punish his children? When we restrict the freedom of people to live as they see fit, we are judging them in God's place, thereby inferring ourselves as false idols. You may say I'm stuck on one verse, but it seems more apparent that I'm stuck on the ten commandments, rather than misinterpreting the Bible and twisting it's word to fit my own ideals. At the end of the day the Bible preaches love, not subjugation. Or am I  wrong in that assessment?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you will recall, Jesus himself did not always speak kind words, not even to his Disciples. There was even an instance where he went into a Jewish temple and being displeased with what he witnessed in there, he fashioned a whip then went into the building kicking over tables and chasing people out. 

I think you are lost on that white, prestine, homo-erotic, shampoo model version of Jesus that we see in pictures everywhere. You know, the one's where he looks like he never faced adversity a day in his life, never suffered, never did a full days work, never walked a mile, etc. Just a kind soft Jesus who means no one any harm and keeps the truth to himself so that no one is offended.  

I can save us both a lot of time. If you want to know what the Bible says, then study it patiently, and sincerely. Be prepared to learn about ancient cultures, be prepared to learn a thing or two about Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, prepare to think you've got an understanding only to read further and realize that you've not got it all worked out quite yet. After all, studying the Bible like having a relationship with the Creator of All, is a process, it is not pragmatic, and it is not easy. 

On the other hand if you just want to pick and choose points to challenge without attempting to sincerely understanding it as a whole; you will find your job easy. 

Besides, you would be a fool to think I have all the answers. I didn't write the Bible and I certainly am not responsible for all of creation. Rather I do the best I can and try to do better as time goes on. I try to embrace the truth even if it offends me, scares, me, or confuses me for a time. And while I am not perfect, I try to aspire towards perfection, and the only way I know it is by instruction from spirit when I am still and have ears to hear and eyes to see, and revelations from scripture that slowly reveal them selves to me as I continue in my studies. 


P.S. Without law and order there would be chaos. It seems that that is what the Woke movement is all about. Do what ever you want, without consequences....

Life ain't like that, and you will eventually hurt others in living as such.  This is reflected in when a parent disciplines their child for doing wrong. They discipline not out of hate, and not because they want to hurt the child, but because they want to get the child's attention and correct them from engaging in further error.


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> What are you talking about? American marriage institution did not came from Hindi rituals, it came straight up from Rome. It was a law based institution, then it was appropriated by early Christians, and centuries later arrived on McDonald's land.


Marriage pre-dates Rome, was not a construct of State, and was also practiced by many of the Native "tribes" of old America. In fact it would be best if the state remained out of marriage because marriage again has spiritual foundation, rather than foundation within the world itself.


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

On a side note, where do atheists get their values from?


----------



## lokomelo (Jul 6, 2022)

XDel said:


> Marriage pre-dates Rome, was not a construct of State, and was also practiced by many of the Native "tribes" of old America. In fact it would be best if the state remained out of marriage because marriage again has spiritual foundation, rather than foundation within the world itself.


It's fun you remember native Americans, because some tribes had same sex religious marriages.


----------



## XDel (Jul 6, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> It's fun you remember native Americans, because some tribes had same sex religious marriages.


Someone has been watching Little Big Man. 
Yes, I am aware of the "twin soul" thing that that one tribe was talking about, and if there is any historical truth to it, then I would say it was a VERY isolated practice.

I'm sure if we had all records of history we may find accounts all over the world where this might have occurred at some time, but we have no records that suggest it was a cultural norm until the present, after Freud, after Wilhelm Reich wrote The Sexual Revolution, after the establishment of the Frankfurt school and critical theory here in the west, after the influence of Herbert Marcuse, post modernism, etc., after Alfred Kinsey wrote his two books on male and female sexuality and made it on the cover of all the popular magazines at the time, and after the medical books on mental health were changed, not by scientific findings, but by force and bullying tactics.

You forget that you and your like subscribe to a secular religion, and your not even familiar with it's authors, what they were like, and what motivated them. In fact half of the heroes of the pride movement were in fact pro pedo.
​


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 6, 2022)

AmandaRose said:


> Hate to break it to ya but I can provide numerous examples of Hindu weddings with gay couples. Here is one for example.
> 
> https://www.boredpanda.com/traditio...oogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic


You should go read original Hindu texts. Marriage was about procreation for thousands of years. Two guys or two women were unable to do that until modern medicine made it possible. Do try and keep up.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 6, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> What are you talking about? American marriage institution did not came from Hindi rituals, it came straight up from Rome. It was a law based institution, then it was appropriated by early Christians, and centuries later arrived on McDonald's land.


I never said anything about any American marriage institution. You do know there is a whole world out there that is not American, right? I mean, you do know this basic fact, right?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 6, 2022)

XDel said:


> Someone has been watching Little Big Man.
> Yes, I am aware of the "twin soul" thing that that one tribe was talking about, and if there is any historical truth to it, then I would say it was a VERY isolated practice.
> 
> I'm sure if we had all records of history we may find accounts all over the world where this might have occurred at some time, but we have no records that suggest it was a cultural norm until the present, after Freud, after Wilhelm Reich wrote The Sexual Revolution, after the establishment of the Frankfurt school and critical theory here in the west, after the influence of Herbert Marcuse, post modernism, etc., after Alfred Kinsey wrote his two books on male and female sexuality and made it on the cover of all the popular magazines at the time, and after the medical books on mental health were changed, not by scientific findings, but by force and bullying tactics.
> ...


They also don't want to come to terms with the fact that Margaret Sanger's whole purpose for Planned Parenthood was to eliminate the black population, which is why over 90% of Planned Parenthood locations are in black neighborhoods. Their heroes are pedos and racists, not to mention authoritarian, but if you show them proof, they will deny it, because they are in a cult.


----------



## smf (Jul 6, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> They also don't want to come to terms with the fact that Margaret Sanger's whole purpose for Planned Parenthood was to eliminate the black population, which is why over 90% of Planned Parenthood locations are in black neighborhoods.


Well if fox news says it, then it must be true...(*)

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsall...-control-the-black-population?t=1657146620972

But whatever the truth, is largely irrelevant. I don't believe anyone in planned parenthood wants to eliminate the black population. Ironically the people posting this kinda of rubbish, do.

(*) sarcasm.


----------



## Iamapirate (Jul 6, 2022)

Xzi said:


> After they get rid of gay marriage, top slippery slope enthusiasts of the republican party will want to get rid of interracial marriage next.  Wonder what Thomas will think about that.


left wingers have to scaremonger because they know abortion is indefensible.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 6, 2022)

Funny how so many of the people that supported the reversal of Roe vs Wade, are the same people that cry at the thought of revisiting the second amendment, and not even necessarily to flat out reverse it, but just to make stricter gun laws in general.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jul 7, 2022)

MikaDubbz said:


> Funny how so many of the people that supported the reversal of Roe vs Wade, are the same people that cry at the thought of revisiting the second amendment, and not even necessarily to flat out reverse it, but just to make stricter gun laws in general.


Exactly they are all for arming evil people with guns that kill. But abortion is somehow concidered evil. Go figure


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 7, 2022)

AmandaRose said:


> Exactly they are all for arming evil people with guns that kill. But abortion is somehow concidered evil. Go figure


Sure, there is definitely that layer of hypocrisy as well.  But I really was just focusing on the hypocrisy of the idea that the second amendment from 2 and a half centuries ago is sacred and can't be touched, but a supreme court ruling from half a century ago is A-OK to be changed, simply because it fits their agenda.

Another way to frame it to really drive home the hypocrisy is, in regard to abortion, they believe that we know better now than we did 50 years ago.  Ok, but then they also believe in regard to guns that we knew better 250 years ago than we know today?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

smf said:


> Well if fox news says it, then it must be true...(*)
> 
> https://www.npr.org/sections/itsall...-control-the-black-population?t=1657146620972
> 
> ...


It doesn't matter what you believe. Explain why 90% are in black neighborhoods, or did NPR neglect that little detail?

I love how leftwingers always point to the scary Fox News boogeyman as their prime argument. Do you honestly think everybody to the right of Stalin watches Fox News? That channel is absolute garbage. They lie almost as much as CNN and MSDNC. It's funny how one channel scares you so much when you have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, NYTimes, WaPo, every other newspaper and local news channel. Not to mention academia, social media, tech giants, Big Pharma, Hollywood, corporate boards, unions, all of Congress and the Presidency. And you still can't win. It must be frustrating.


----------



## XDel (Jul 7, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> They also don't want to come to terms with the fact that Margaret Sanger's whole purpose for Planned Parenthood was to eliminate the black population, which is why over 90% of Planned Parenthood locations are in black neighborhoods. Their heroes are pedos and racists, not to mention authoritarian, but if you show them proof, they will deny it, because they are in a cult.


Many have been given over to a reprobate mind and they can't find any peace in this life; only temporal escapes. Until they wish to end this cycle within them selves, they will continue to see, but not see, and hear but not hear. Unlike the seed that falls on fertile soil, they will never grow up and mature until they begin to realize the folly of their ways, but so long as they fail to see the miracle of life and existence, they will not treasure or realize what they have or could have.

It is said that blacks only make up 18% of the U.S. population, black on black crime and abortion are major contributors to that fact. In my small city, most of the black churches preach for homosexuality and abortion, so I have taken it upon my self to start visiting them and starting up conversations. I've yet to change the path of an entire church, but I have managed to get a mind or two thinking.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

XDel said:


> If you will recall, Jesus himself did not always speak kind words, not even to his Disciples. There was even an instance where he went into a Jewish temple and being displeased with what he witnessed in there, he fashioned a whip then went into the building kicking over tables and chasing people out.



You'll find that there are a lot of instances in the Bible where Jesus and God himself smited and punished due to things like jealousy. I'm sure you recall the passage where God killed those children because they made fun of, I believe, one of the apostles.



XDel said:


> I think you are lost on that white, prestine, homo-erotic, shampoo model version of Jesus that we see in pictures everywhere. You know, the one's where he looks like he never faced adversity a day in his life, never suffered, never did a full days work, never walked a mile, etc. Just a kind soft Jesus who means no one any harm and keeps the truth to himself so that no one is offended.



Not really. I like the nitty gritty Jesus, the one that banged whores and kicked tables over.



XDel said:


> I can save us both a lot of time. If you want to know what the Bible says, then study it patiently, and sincerely. Be prepared to learn about ancient cultures, be prepared to learn a thing or two about Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, prepare to think you've got an understanding only to read further and realize that you've not got it all worked out quite yet. After all, studying the Bible like having a relationship with the Creator of All, is a process, it is not pragmatic, and it is not easy.



I have, for decades. You would think someone who followed the Bible would question it, analyze it, scrutinize it, in an effort to understand it better. God didn't give us the capacity to speculate and pontificate if we were supposed to blindly follow his words. 



XDel said:


> On the other hand if you just want to pick and choose points to challenge without attempting to sincerely understanding it as a whole; you will find your job easy.



But isn't that what you've done? You've posted scripture in the wrong context as proof of your faith and point, and try to claim these points as your own. 



XDel said:


> Besides, you would be a fool to think I have all the answers. I didn't write the Bible and I certainly am not responsible for all of creation. Rather I do the best I can and try to do better as time goes on. I try to embrace the truth even if it offends me, scares, me, or confuses me for a time. And while I am not perfect, I try to aspire towards perfection, and the only way I know it is by instruction from spirit when I am still and have ears to hear and eyes to see, and revelations from scripture that slowly reveal them selves to me as I continue in my studies.



And with the many interpretations of the beginning times in the form of different relationships, how are you sure yours is the truthful one? Because it's one of the most widely spread? Because you grew up being forced fed it's ideals? Because it's convenient?



XDel said:


> P.S. Without law and order there would be chaos. It seems that that is what the Woke movement is all about. Do what ever you want, without consequences....



Or maybe it's having the freedom to be an individual. This is going to be a hard point to contend for you, because conservative Republicans want less government but more theocracy, less freedom and more restriction. It's a hypocritical conundrum, preaching love and diversity while enforcing restriction and exclusion. Your standpoint would be more solid if the current state of Christianity wasn't tyrannical in it's pursuit of control.



XDel said:


> Life ain't like that, and you will eventually hurt others in living as such.  This is reflected in when a parent disciplines their child for doing wrong. They discipline not out of hate, and not because they want to hurt the child, but because they want to get the child's attention and correct them from engaging in further error.



I have yet to hurt anyone living the way I do. I practice self reliance and solidarity, something that's lost upon both Republicans and Christians. The fact that you believe everyone should believe the way you believe because otherwise their unchristian is a direct affront to the same religion you claim to love.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It doesn't matter what you believe. Explain why 90% are in black neighborhoods, or did NPR neglect that little detail?



That's odd, I can't seem to find any statistics to support the propaganda you're spitting. Care to share some sources?


----------



## omgcat (Jul 7, 2022)

XDel said:


> It's a spiritual observation in that you can glimpse aspects of God's nature through the creation. Within creation there are polar opposites. In regards to magnets, like rejects like, but opposites pull together, with electricity you need a positive and negative feed, in regards to pro-creation one of each sex is required, and so on and so forth. This is not just something that Christians have observed over the centuries, but also Egyptians, Africans, Hindus, Native Americans, and so forth. In fact up until the 90's, this observation was also strongly held by WICCANs, or at least it wasn't until the 90's that I noticed that that group began to wander into more Crowley esque tendencies and interpretations of nature.
> 
> Psychologically and emotionally the man must face the woman and the woman must face the man in order to develop. Generally when a person is behaving in a homosexual manner, they are avoiding the growth they require and can only find though facing and coming to terms with the opposite. Likewise, most relationships today are only based upon the physical, or how happy a person makes you, rather than upon sacrifice, humbleness, and mutual growth. This is why straight couples are having more and more kids outside of marriage and are unable to hold a marriage because over the past century, our culture has been altered and we are no longer grounded or rooted in our collective history, nor clear knowledge of it there of.


this flys in the face of biology. plenty of other species have homosexuals that do upkeep and maintenance for their species. for example homosexual doplhins protect mating dolphins from sharks and other attacks during mating season. if you think humans are somehow divine and different from all other species, then you are deluded. we might be at the apex, but we are not broken from our biology. Being gay has an evolutionary advantage in the form of gay aunt/uncle theroy where 25% of your genes get passed on if one of your siblings has a child, so it is still viable.

speaking of not knowing our cultural roots, how are you sure our current religions are the right ones? we have had thousands of them over the hundreds of thousands of years of human development. all i am seeing is pseudo-intellectual bullshit being spewed to back up basically non-existent points. i'm sorry that the world isn't as black and white or clean cut as you want it to be, sex and reproduction are massively complicated, or we wouldn't have xx/xy/xxx/xxy/x0 sex chromosome pairings. or SRY  gene mistranscription from Y->X.


----------



## XDel (Jul 7, 2022)




----------



## videogamefanatic (Jul 7, 2022)

XDel said:


> On a side note, where do atheists get their values from?


Well we certainly don't get our values from a book that says god committed and commanded genocide. Multiple times. But that's old testament, who cares? No christian gives a shit about the OT.

But in the NT, Jesus introduced the concept of hell. If someone was killed in the old testament, that was it, they're just no longer alive, they pretty much no longer exist. But nooooo~~~ jesus just *had* to say people will suffer for all eternity if they don't repent and commit themselves to him or whatever. He tries to sell himself as the solution to a problem that didn't even exist. And of course it's up to interpretation (which doesn't help your case mind you), but John 15:6 seems to call for killing non-Christians so have fun with that one. You'll say it's a bad interpretation, but the problem is just about every command or moral you pull form the bible is up to interpretation. Many of those easy interpretations can be used to justify heinous stuff.

Fuck off with your "at least I have values" bullshit. You know what values I have? "Try not to be a dick." Of course, that's up to interpretation isn't it?

EDIT: He's just linking videos now, lmao


----------



## omgcat (Jul 7, 2022)

videogamefanatic said:


> Well we certainly don't get our values from a book that says god committed and commanded genocide. Multiple times. But that's old testament, who cares? No christian gives a shit about the OT.
> 
> But in the NT, Jesus introduced the concept of hell. If someone was killed in the old testament, that was it, they're just no longer alive, they pretty much no longer exist. But nooooo~~~ jesus just *had* to say people will suffer for all eternity if they don't repent and commit themselves to him or whatever. He tries to sell himself as the solution to a problem that didn't even exist. And of course it's up to interpretation (which doesn't help your case mind you), but John 15:6 seems to call for killing non-Christians so have fun with that one. You'll say it's a bad interpretation, but the problem is just about every command or moral you pull form the bible is up to interpretation. Many of those easy interpretations can be used to justify heinous stuff.
> 
> ...


imagine needing to be told to be a good person, and then threatened so you actually do it.


----------



## omgcat (Jul 7, 2022)

XDel said:


>



where's the compassion for the alive? a 10 year old had to flee her state to get an abortion because she was raped. women who get cancer won't get treated because most chemo treatments kill the child. almost 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, are we going to turn into a surveillance state to punish women?

the craziest part about all this is that the current SCOTUS is removing RvW on the basis that it isn't in the constitution, but by that same token judicial review and the SCOTUS being able to rule things unconstitutional isn't even in the constitution. 

"The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is *not found within the text of the Constitution itself*. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)."


----------



## XDel (Jul 7, 2022)

videogamefanatic said:


> EDIT: He's just linking videos now, lmao


----------



## omgcat (Jul 7, 2022)

videogamefanatic said:


> Well we certainly don't get our values from a book that says god committed and commanded genocide. Multiple times. But that's old testament, who cares? No christian gives a shit about the OT.
> 
> But in the NT, Jesus introduced the concept of hell. If someone was killed in the old testament, that was it, they're just no longer alive, they pretty much no longer exist. But nooooo~~~ jesus just *had* to say people will suffer for all eternity if they don't repent and commit themselves to him or whatever. He tries to sell himself as the solution to a problem that didn't even exist. And of course it's up to interpretation (which doesn't help your case mind you), but John 15:6 seems to call for killing non-Christians so have fun with that one. You'll say it's a bad interpretation, but the problem is just about every command or moral you pull form the bible is up to interpretation. Many of those easy interpretations can be used to justify heinous stuff.
> 
> ...


he's just trying to use squick factor to bludgeon others with a canned opinion. I'm not even sure he is capable of forming his own logical arguments. and as we know, you can't logic someone out of a box they didn't logic themselves into in the first place. in essence the most ironic sheep.

also jesus christ this guy is just posting straight propaganda



> *Daleiden's organization set up a fake biomedical research company, called Biomax Procurement Services. Under this guise, they posed as potential buyers of aborted fetal tissue and organs, and secretly recorded Planned Parenthood officials during meetings.[18] CMP released edited versions of these videos, which it promoted as showing Planned Parenthood officials "price haggling over ‘baby parts'".[19] When the full, unedited, videos became available, they instead showed "a Planned Parenthood executive repeatedly saying its clinics want to cover their costs, not make money, when donating fetal tissue from abortions for scientific research."[11] According to the lawyer for Planned Parenthood, Roger K. Evans, Biomax proposed “sham procurement contracts,” offering $1,600 for liver and thymus fetal tissues.**[20]*
> 
> The videos and allegations attracted widespread media coverage, and re-invigorated the long-term American political abortion debate.[21] Five separate congressional investigations of Planned Parenthood were launched as a result of the videos.[22] A bill to defund Planned Parenthood was proposed, but failed to pass in the Senate on August 3, 2015.[23] Several states cut contracts and funding for Planned Parenthood following the videos, regardless of whether Planned Parenthood provided abortion services in those states.[24] An editorial in _The New England Journal of Medicine_ was highly critical of the Center for Medical Progress, describing the videos as part of a "campaign of misinformation" by an organization that "twist(s) the facts."[25]
> 
> Media Matters for America named The Center for Medical Progress their "Misinformer Of The Year" for 2015.[26]





> Following the September, 2019 criminal hearing, Planned Parenthood and others affected by Daleiden's videos initiated a civil jury trial against Center for Medical Progress affiliates Daleiden, Merritt and also Troy Newman, Albin Rhomberg and Gerardo Adrian Lopez in federal court. They are being accused of fraud, breach of contract, unlawful recording of conversations, civil conspiracy and also violation of federal anti-racketeering law.[42][43]


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2022)

Iamapirate said:


> left wingers have to scaremonger because they know abortion is indefensible.


Abortion is a medical necessity, it's not going away ever.  Outlawing it only makes it less safe.  Trying to force a ten year old to give birth to her rapist's baby, now that's indefensible.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 7, 2022)

MikaDubbz said:


> Funny how so many of the people that supported the reversal of Roe vs Wade, are the same people that cry at the thought of revisiting the second amendment, and not even necessarily to flat out reverse it, but just to make stricter gun laws in general.


Ah America, where guns have more rights than women!


----------



## Iamapirate (Jul 7, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Abortion is a medical necessity, it's not going away ever.  Outlawing it only makes it less safe.  Trying to force a ten year old to give birth to her rapist's baby, now that's indefensible.


Most abortions are done for convenience and don't pretend like you don't know this to be true. People can choose to not engage in casual sex, or to use protection, or to otherwise accept that sex carries the risk of pregnancy. Not wanting or feeling you cannot afford the baby is not license to kill them.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2022)

Iamapirate said:


> Most abortions are done for convenience


Tell me you're twelve without telling me you're twelve.  Abortions are necessary even in several situations where the fetus is already dead (miscarriages).


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> That's odd, I can't seem to find any statistics to support the propaganda you're spitting. Care to share some sources?


It's not odd when your only sources are the corporate media. That's called confirmation bias, laziness and fear of being proven wrong.

Below is a map with every Planned Parenthood in the US with address included and what is the general population in those areas.

Hope this helps clear up some of the propaganda confusion you've been reading.

https://www.protectingblacklife.org/pp_targets/


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

MikaDubbz said:


> Funny how so many of the people that supported the reversal of Roe vs Wade, are the same people that cry at the thought of revisiting the second amendment, and not even necessarily to flat out reverse it, but just to make stricter gun laws in general.


Because abortion is not a constitutional right. The Supreme Court just made that up back in the 70's. The right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights and is nonnegotiable. We see what the left does when they are given an inch. No abortions after 20 weeks turned into abortions up until birth and if the baby survives the procedure, the woman can still decide to kill it. Income tax was initially for the top 1%. Now we all pay. 

If the left would debate honestly, we may be able to find middle ground, but they can't and we won't. You only have yourself to blame advocating for such extreme positions. The left are stupid because you still haven't learned your lesson. Keep advocating for 3rd trimester abortions and grooming kindergartners and see what happens in November.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 7, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Because abortion is not a constitutional right. The Supreme Court just made that up back in the 70's. The right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights and is nonnegotiable. We see what the left does when they are given an inch. No abortions after 20 weeks turned into abortions up until birth and if the baby survives the procedure, the woman can still decide to kill it. Income tax was initially for the top 1%. Now we all pay.
> 
> If the left would debate honestly, we may be able to find middle ground, but they can't and we won't. You only have yourself to blame advocating for such extreme positions. The left are stupid because you still haven't learned your lesson. Keep advocating for 3rd trimester abortions and grooming kindergartners and see what happens in November.


lol whatever backwards logic it takes for you to believe the 'wisdom' of 250 years ago isn't worth revisiting, but that of 50 years ago is.  Also, it's convenient how these people so sure that the constitution is sacred and shouldn't be changed in time, kinda just gloss over the whole 18th amendment lol.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Tell me you're twelve without telling me you're twelve.  Abortions are necessary even in several situations where the fetus is already dead (miscarriages).


I hate to drive an SUV through your parade, but facts don't care about your feelings. This is why the left loses debates. When your argument is based in lies and emotion, facts will destroy it every single time.

Here's a link to a 2005 study. You can read the whole thing or just do a page search for "Table 2". Notice that medical reasons, rape and incest are all at the very bottom of that list with the smallest percentages, because those are not the reasons for the vast majority of abortions in the United States.

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals...ons-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I hate to drive an SUV through your parade, but facts don't care about your feelings. This is why the left loses debates. When your argument is based in lies and emotion, facts will destroy it every single time.
> 
> Here's a link to a 2005 study. You can read the whole thing or just do a page search for "Table 2". Notice that medical reasons, rape and incest are all at the very bottom of that list with the smallest percentages, because those are not the reasons for the vast majority of abortions in the United States.
> 
> https://www.guttmacher.org/journals...ons-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives


Good thing I didn't say those cases constitute the majority of abortions then.  I said abortions are absolutely necessary for those scenarios.  It's completely irrelevant if the reason the majority have abortions is due to economic strain, or even simply because they don't believe they'd make good parent(s).  The state has no right to step between people and their doctors, nor does it have the right to legislate morality/religion.  And that's a fact that doesn't care about your feelings.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Good thing I didn't say those cases constitute the majority of abortions then.  I said abortions are absolutely necessary for those scenarios.  It's completely irrelevant if the reason the majority have abortions is due to economic strain, or even simply because they don't believe they'd make good parent(s).  The state has no right to step between people and their doctors, nor does it have the right to legislate morality/religion.  And that's a fact that doesn't care about your feelings.


The government's job is to provide an environment for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that life is listed first, because without life, your other rights have zero meaning.

We already allow the state to come between us and our doctors. Have you heard of Obamacare? Were you aware that certain prescriptions were being made illegal during Covid? The left had no qualms demonizing doctors over the past 2 years because they went against the official narrative. So your concern about patients and doctors is laughable on it's face.

Overturning a Supreme Court ruling that was based on lies admitted by Roe herself is not legislating. Cope harder.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> The government's job is to provide an environment for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that life is listed first, because without life, your other rights have zero meaning.


This would imply prioritizing fully developed thinking and feeling life over life that cannot exist independent of a female host body.



TraderPatTX said:


> We already allow the state to come between us and our doctors. Have you heard of Obamacare? Were you aware that certain prescriptions were being made illegal during Covid? The left had no qualms demonizing doctors over the past 2 years because they went against the official narrative. So your concern about patients and doctors is laughable on it's face.


Romney/Obamacare is a half-assed attempt at a fix to the scam industry that is healthcare insurance.  It may have forced you to change doctors years back but it does not involve itself beyond that.  Should be obvious by now the only fix to the industry is universal healthcare, but the military-industrial complex will never allow for that.



TraderPatTX said:


> Overturning a Supreme Court ruling that was based on lies admitted by Roe herself is not legislating. Cope harder.


"Yay team police state!"  As if you didn't just lose the constitutional right to privacy as well.  You might be programmed to cheer for this type of shit, but real Americans will only stand for so much trampling on our human rights.  The North kicked your confederate teeth in once already, keep fucking around and find out.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

Xzi said:


> This would imply prioritizing fully developed thinking and feeling life over life that cannot exist independent of a female host body.
> 
> 
> Romney/Obamacare is a half-assed attempt at a fix to the scam industry that is healthcare insurance.  It may have forced you to change doctors years back but it does not involve itself beyond that.  Should be obvious by now the only fix to the industry is universal healthcare, but the military-industrial complex will never allow for that.
> ...


People in a coma would like a word with you.

I had to change doctors in 2010. That was so long ago and has no bearing on today.  Sure, the answer to all of our problems is always more government intrusion in our lives. Govern me harder baby!!

We didn't lose the right to privacy. You just lost the ability to not have to debate abortion, which the left cannot do. People having the ability to elect state legislatures to pass laws they want is more freedom than 9 white guys in black robes handing down bad decisions. You people cry about democracy until you can't debate your position and want the courts to step in. It's almost like everything you say you are for is complete bullshit. You don't care about democracy. You don't care about there being an oligarchy. You just want more centralized power in the federal government. The right wants power restored to the states and people where it belongs.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It's not odd when your only sources are the corporate media. That's called confirmation bias, laziness and fear of being proven wrong.
> 
> Below is a map with every Planned Parenthood in the US with address included and what is the general population in those areas.
> 
> ...



The website in question uses data from 12 years ago, has a Twitter account that hasn't been in use since 2017, and is quite disingenuous. The map might be able to prove the location of abortion clinics, however I feel the statistics behind the location of them compared to minority neighborhoods is off, especially since the website itself hasn't been under consistent upkeep for, quite a while. Also, as the organization behind it stems from Pro Republican sources and ideals, it just breathes disingenuity. 

If you were to pinpoint more accurate details in the way of minority neighborhoods aside from random colored blots with some addresses thrown in there, backed by an unbiased source such as the CDC, I'd be more inclined to believe it. However, seeing as how anyone can Google some addresses and apply them to a map with colored portions of said map and call it statistics, you're going to have to do better.

Please God try to give me a reply with something other than "the informations right in front of you and you're still denying it!"


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> The website in question uses data from 12 years ago, has a Twitter account that hasn't been in use since 2017, and is quite disingenuous. The map might be able to prove the location of abortion clinics, *however I feel* the statistics behind the location of them compared to minority neighborhoods is off, especially since the website itself hasn't been under consistent upkeep for, quite a while. Also, as the organization behind it stems from Pro Republican sources and ideals, it just breathes disingenuity.
> 
> If you were to pinpoint more accurate details in the way of minority neighborhoods aside from random colored blots with some addresses thrown in there, backed by an unbiased source such as the CDC, I'd be more inclined to believe it. However, seeing as how anyone can Google some addresses and apply them to a map with colored portions of said map and call it statistics, you're going to have to do better.
> 
> Please God try to give me a reply with something other than "the informations right in front of you and you're still denying it!"


The bolded and underlined part of your comment is the reason why the left fails debates. It doesn't matter what you feel and I don't care how you feel. Once again, you look to the federal government to tell you what to believe even though they have been caught lying over and over and over again.

Imagine thinking that using Google Maps and actual addresses that are on Planned Parenthood's website is not enough evidence for you. It's more than enough for normal people. Sorry to inform you, but Stephen Colbert will never mention this so you will believe it.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> We didn't lose the right to privacy.


You sure did, read the decision moron.



TraderPatTX said:


> You people cry about democracy until you can't debate your position and want the courts to step in.


I can literally always debate my position, because my position is consistently in favor of more freedoms and liberties.  Yours is in favor of oppression under authority that you believe is granted to you by some imaginary sky daddy.  I was born with freedom from religious tyranny, and I'll die with the same, regardless of what some court of rapists and cultists says.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> The bolded and underlined part of your comment is the reason why the left fails debates. It doesn't matter what you feel and I don't care how you feel. Once again, you look to the federal government to tell you what to believe even though they have been caught lying over and over and over again.
> 
> Imagine thinking that using Google Maps and actual addresses that are on Planned Parenthood's website is not enough evidence for you. It's more than enough for normal people. Sorry to inform you, but Stephen Colbert will never mention this so you will believe it.



But you make it seem like anyone who isn't the government only tells the truth, and that's disingenuous as well. To have the opinion that only the government lies (which is often Republican backed; after all you say the left consistently fails) is naive at best. You post a biased website that hasn't been updated in years to back a biased point and then accuse anyone who disagrees of lying or being manipulated by liars. Bias rarely provides truth, whether you're on the left, the right, or in between. It's like calling me out because I "feel" the statistics are off, but then you only browse sites that show fake statistics that adhere only to the points you think are truthful. The fact of the matter is that you're trying to hold the platform that abortion is an anti minority movement, when there are proven stories of Conservative Republicans utilizing abortions to erase their infidelities.

Try again. 

Imagine thinking you can pull addresses and apply them to a map with made up minority statistics on a website that's all but defunct and trying to pass that off as fact, despite the actual statistics presented being outdated by more than a decade. Even if the statistics were true back then, it's been 12 years. The data is old, irrelevant, and biased toward the Republican control agenda.

Try again. Use something a little more recent, with actual material that back it up besides addresses and colored maps.

I like that you use Stephen Colbert as a reference, considering his role as a comedic actor. I assume you also align with Alex Jones?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

Xzi said:


> You sure did, read the decision moron.
> 
> 
> I can literally always debate my position, because my position is consistently in favor of more freedoms and liberties.  Yours is in favor of the oppression under authority that you believe is granted to you by some imaginary sky daddy.  I was born with freedom from religious tyranny, and I'll die with the same, regardless of what some court of rapists and cultists says.


Personal insults and assumptions are a sure sign of a losing debate position. Please continue assume that I'm some religious zealot since I have never mentioned religion at all. All that the Supreme Court did was verify that abortion is not in the purview of the federal government and is better left up to the states and the people. They upheld the 10th Amendment. You know, one of many amendments the left outright despises. Now the left is forced to debate 3rd trimester abortions and infanticide. Have fun with that, mate.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> ...Sure, the answer to all of our problems is always more government intrusion in our lives.





TraderPatTX said:


> ...Govern me harder baby!!





TraderPatTX said:


> ...You people cry about democracy until you can't debate your position and want the courts to step in. It's almost like everything you say you are for is complete bullshit. You don't care about democracy. You don't care about there being an oligarchy. You just want more centralized power in the federal government.



Awfully hypocritical of you to take this standpoint while also praising the government for appealing to your ideals. Your platform would have a lot more integrity if people like you weren't so flip floppy with your ideals.

You support small government but then celebrate when big government steps in to take away women's rights. You support small government but then celebrate when Christian laws get passed on a federal level. You support small government but then want a Republican president. Seems to be you people should be more anarchist than Democrats, but here we are, highlighting the fact that everyone on the right seems to have little to understanding of politics and cry whenever they get called out on their hypocrisy.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> But you make it seem like anyone who isn't the government only tells the truth, and that's disingenuous as well. To have the opinion that only the government lies (which is often Republican backed; after all you say the left consistently fails) is naive at best. You post a biased website that hasn't been updated in years to back a biased point and then accuse anyone who disagrees of lying or being manipulated by liars. Bias rarely provides truth, whether you're on the left, the right, or in between. It's like calling me out because I "feel" the statistics are off, but then you only browse sites that show fake statistics that adhere only to the points you think are truthful. The fact of the matter is that you're trying to hold the platform that abortion is an anti minority movement, when there are proven stories of Conservative Republicans utilizing abortions to erase their infidelities.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> ...


You make it seem like that only the government and corporate media tell the truth. The corporate media only regurgitates what the government tells them, which is why their ratings are cratering. Seems a little authoritarian to me, but that's what the left likes. Anything to get away from inconvenient debates. You haven't proven how this site is filled with fake information except for how you feel about it. 

There have been more aborted black babies than any other race. You bringing in edge cases of Republicans using abortion doesn't hold water.

How does the "Republican control agenda" even make sense if  more power is given back to the states and the people? You want control to be centralized in DC or better yet, by the UN, far away from the people. Your argument doesn't even make sense.

If I provided something more recent, you would come up with more lame excuses to dismiss it. It's what you do.

Alex Jones is controlled opposition similar to Fox News and Newsmax.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Please continue assume that I'm some religious zealot since I have never mentioned religion at all.


Then you have absolutely no platform to argue on, as abortion is logically a necessity in any developed nation.  The pro-forced birth crowd can only attempt appeals to emotion/religious zealotry.



TraderPatTX said:


> All that the Supreme Court did was verify that abortion is not in the purview of the federal government and is better left up to the states and the people.


Effectively ruling that oppression/religious tyranny inflicted by the states is legal, yes.  You're free to take that lying down like a good little sheeple, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Awfully hypocritical of you to take this standpoint while also praising the government for appealing to your ideals. Your platform would have a lot more integrity if people like you weren't so flip floppy with your ideals.
> 
> You support small government but then celebrate when big government steps in to take away women's rights. You support small government but then celebrate when Christian laws get passed on a federal level. You support small government but then want a Republican president. Seems to be you people should be more anarchist than Democrats, but here we are, highlighting the fact that everyone on the right seems to have little to understanding of politics and cry whenever they get called out on their hypocrisy.


This word salad makes zero sense at all. Nobody has a right to kill another person, regardless of their location, unless in self defense. The issue goes back to the states and you will be forced to debate 3rd trimester abortions, which you cannot. And that's why you are mad.

What Christian law has been passed on the federal level? If you are talking about the Supreme Court decision, that's not a law. Laws are passed by the legislative branch, not the judicial. Take a civics class.

I don't just want a Republican president. I want a president that puts America first. Just like other leaders put their countries first. A Democrat president could do the same. Kennedy tried and was killed for it.

Trust me, you ain't calling me out on anything. All that you are doing is projecting your views onto people you disagree with.

Typical lefty tactic.

Let me tell you what my beliefs are. The Constitution is the law of the land. It should be interpreted as written to have the same meaning as it did by the actual writers. Power should lie with the states close to the people. It's a lot easier for me to go to Tallahassee to protest than it is to go all the way to DC just to be ignored. State representatives also have more incentive to listen to the people since we can just go to their offices locally. It also fosters debate, which the left is horrible at, so I understand why you would want to avoid that. You guys can't even debate Ben Shapiro and he's not even that smart.

Leftist beliefs. Centralized, authoritarian power in DC not answerable to the people. If you can't pass the laws you want, you run to the courts so they can legislate from the bench. It's not very democratic, but the left is never democratic. That's been proven all thru the 20th century from the Soviet Union to China to Cuba to Germany.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Then you have absolutely no platform to argue on, as abortion is logically a necessity in any developed nation.  The pro-forced birth crowd can only attempt appeals to emotion/religious zealotry.
> 
> 
> Effectively ruling that oppression/religious tyranny inflicted by the states is legal, yes.  You're free to take that lying down like a good little sheeple, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to.


There is nothing logical about baby sacrifice. We're not Aztecs praying to some sky god. We just need common sense abortion control. Background checks. Limit to how many you can get. A predetermined waiting period. And it should be taxed. I'm sure you can get behind those suggestions.

Looks like you need to start winning local elections. You're not off to a good start this year but good luck to ya.

Please continue running on abortion and gun control. Those will definitely help you win in November. Your pro-grooming of  kindergarteners will be the icing on the cake.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> You make it seem like that only the government and corporate media tell the truth.



Is that apparent when I posted:


SyphenFreht said:


> ...Bias rarely provides truth, whether you're on the left, the right, or in between.


... Or do you always cherry pick what people say to try and prove your own shaky point?



TraderPatTX said:


> The corporate media only regurgitates what the government tells them, which is why their ratings are cratering. Seems a little authoritarian to me, but that's what the left likes. Anything to get away from inconvenient debates.



You say corporate media as if it weren't overrun by Republicans and Democrats alike.



TraderPatTX said:


> You haven't proven how this site is filled with fake information except for how you feel about it.





SyphenFreht said:


> But you make it seem like anyone who isn't the government only tells the truth, and that's disingenuous as well. To have the opinion that only the government lies (which is often Republican backed; after all you say the left consistently fails) is naive at best. You post a biased website that hasn't been updated in years to back a biased point and then accuse anyone who disagrees of lying or being manipulated by liars. Bias rarely provides truth, whether you're on the left, the right, or in between. It's like calling me out because I "feel" the statistics are off, but then you only browse sites that show fake statistics that adhere only to the points you think are truthful. The fact of the matter is that you're trying to hold the platform that abortion is an anti minority movement, when there are proven stories of Conservative Republicans utilizing abortions to erase their infidelities.
> 
> Imagine thinking you can pull addresses and apply them to a map with made up minority statistics on a website that's all but defunct and trying to pass that off as fact, despite the actual statistics presented being outdated by more than a decade. Even if the statistics were true back then, it's been 12 years. The data is old, irrelevant, and biased toward the Republican control agenda.



It's biased.
It's using outdated data.
It only provides addresses for abortion clinics, not actual minority statistics.
It's defunct.

Try again.



TraderPatTX said:


> There have been more aborted black babies than any other race. You bringing in edge cases of Republicans using abortion doesn't hold water.



According to what? More falsified statistics? You forget that these statistics are also based upon what information people choose to provide. Not to mention the website you posted is the only website that provides said statistics. If you were that adamant about proving your point, you'd choose more than one website that's over a decade old.



TraderPatTX said:


> How does the "Republican control agenda" even make sense if  more power is given back to the states and the people? You want control to be centralized in DC or better yet, by the UN, far away from the people. Your argument doesn't even make sense.



It's easier to control when you can gerrymander Republicans in and lobby politicians using Republican controlled corporations. 

I don't want any kind of overarching government control, but I also don't want control being passed down to an individualistic level; people need to be led, not controlled.

Maybe if you actually understood the positions you were trying to argue, they'd make sense. Maybe look up some actual information instead of what Trump says is ok to educate yourself with.



TraderPatTX said:


> If I provided something more recent, you would come up with more lame excuses to dismiss it. It's what you do.



And there it is. You have nothing else to field so you use personal attacks, like what you accuse @Xzi of, in an attempt to validate that indoctrination you call a voice. Again, if you were actually adamant about what you supposedly believe in, you'd provide more than one outdated source to back your claim.

Try again.



TraderPatTX said:


> Alex Jones is controlled opposition similar to Fox News and Newsmax.



Controlled opposition huh? And Trump's a prophet. Face it, you people took an L when it came out that not even Tucker Carlson believes the shit he shovels; you're grasping at Roe v Wade straws because your time of shining is coming to an end and you have nothing else but your own shitty, backwards, inhumane views to thank for that.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> This word salad makes zero sense at all. Nobody has a right to kill another person, regardless of their location, unless in self defense. The issue goes back to the states and you will be forced to debate 3rd trimester abortions, which you cannot. And that's why you are mad.



I apologize that your lack of education continuously leads you to trying to debate topics you don't understand, but that's clearly no one else's fault but your own at this point.

Show me where abortion is killing a person. Or better yet, if a fetus is a person, then we should advocate it's right to own a gun. After all, it's constitutional, right?

I'm not debating 3rd trimester abortions. I'm debating bodily autonomy and whether the fetus has rights according to the Constitution, which it doesn't. Just because you can't keep up doesn't mean it's everyone else's fault.



TraderPatTX said:


> What Christian law has been passed on the federal level? If you are talking about the Supreme Court decision, that's not a law. Laws are passed by the legislative branch, not the judicial. Take a civics class.



Any law that has it's roots in Christian faith. If you recall, many laws enacted since the foundation of America have been deeply rooted in Christian values and teachings. That's gotten better over the years, but when you get to a state level, you find dozens more currently enacted. When you field state legislature with conservative Republican Christians, then eventually it will become federal law. Until then, you have religious based laws that cover so many states it becomes analogous with federal law.



TraderPatTX said:


> I don't just want a Republican president. I want a president that puts America first. Just like other leaders put their countries first. A Democrat president could do the same. Kennedy tried and was killed for it.



Then don't hold so close to Republican values, or even a bipartisan system. People tend to forget we have more than two political parties.



TraderPatTX said:


> Trust me, you ain't calling me out on anything. All that you are doing is projecting your views onto people you disagree with.
> 
> Typical lefty tactic.



What views am i projecting?



TraderPatTX said:


> Let me tell you what my beliefs are. The Constitution is the law of the land. It should be interpreted as written to have the same meaning as it did by the actual writers. Power should lie with the states close to the people. It's a lot easier for me to go to Tallahassee to protest than it is to go all the way to DC just to be ignored. State representatives also have more incentive to listen to the people since we can just go to their offices locally. It also fosters debate, which the left is horrible at, so I understand why you would want to avoid that. You guys can't even debate Ben Shapiro and he's not even that smart.



By your own admission Ben Shapiro isn't worthy enough to debate, so I'm not sure why that last sentence was relevant. Unless it's to hype your main and only decent argument point, which is that the left can't debate. Which is inconsequential, as I'm not even left aligned. 

Try again.

On the other hand, the constitution might be the law of the land, but we have these pesky things called "Amendments" which allow the people to change the Constitution as needed. But when you (you in general) continuously only recognize a two party system, the "people" becomes a concept that drifts further and further away from the idea that they can change it. That concept isn't going to change as long as people like you (you in specific) keep sitting on this red v blue stance.



TraderPatTX said:


> Leftist beliefs. Centralized, authoritarian power in DC not answerable to the people. If you can't pass the laws you want, you run to the courts so they can legislate from the bench. It's not very democratic, but the left is never democratic. That's been proven all thru the 20th century from the Soviet Union to China to Cuba to Germany.



Which is why I'm not leftist, I believe people should have power over there own body. If the ideals that red v blue wingers had were reversed, you could argue I lean more right than left, but regardless of political affiliation holds similar ideals to mine, my ideals are mine and my own, and I believe people should be in charge of their own bodies. No exceptions. No restrictions. Just bodily autonomy and solidarity. The fact that you feel you or anyone else has to align themselves politically, or even religiously, to hold these ideals only proves that you, and others, have no concept of individualism.

How's that for a word salad?



TraderPatTX said:


> There is nothing logical about baby sacrifice. .



Are you retarded?

I'm sorry, that's probably a little harsh. But for someone who claims they're no religious zealot, that seems to be an awkward stance for you to take considering sacrifices are historically an overwhelming religious vice.

Do you have a point to argue anymore, or are you struggling to remain relevant now that all your points have been exhausted and your true nature has been called out?


----------



## mituzora (Jul 7, 2022)

regarding religious laws, I live in a state where stuff there are plenty of laws due to religion. Despite it being unenforcable due to a supreme court ruling (ha, go figure), you can be charged with criminal sodomy between two consenting same-sex adults.   They're somewhat ridiculous laws mind you, and they typically don't get followed, but they're certainly there and based on religious beliefs.  

Any law/ruling that gets enacted/affected by religious affiliation should be automatically thrown out.  Separation of Church and State, and regarding abortion, I have yet to see in any of these threads that actively post facts about abolishing abortion with non-religious facts.  

Talking alot about "leftist feelings" and all I see are a bunch of upset people because their moral values are being challenged...


----------



## XDel (Jul 7, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It's not odd when your only sources are the corporate media. That's called confirmation bias, laziness and fear of being proven wrong.
> 
> Below is a map with every Planned Parenthood in the US with address included and what is the general population in those areas.
> 
> ...


There is a Planned Parenthood located in Toledo Ohio also. I drove through that part of town, it was all black and looked very low income... all except for the Planned Parenthood building which was quite pristine!

I am happy to report though that there are far more pregnancy care centers in the U.S. than there are abortion clinics, sadly though the left likes to carry on as if they are not there as an option and that Planned Parenthood is the only one they have to turn to.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

XDel said:


> ...sadly though the left likes to carry on as if they are not there as an option and that Planned Parenthood is the only one they have to turn to.



Not really. For someone so adamant about clarity, it's weird that you're only adamant about clarity when it comes to religion


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> There is nothing logical about baby sacrifice. We're not Aztecs praying to some sky god. We just need common sense abortion control. Background checks. Limit to how many you can get. A predetermined waiting period. And it should be taxed. I'm sure you can get behind those suggestions.


Abortion already costs money, but I'm not surprised this all comes down to greenbacks for you in the end.  It's our corporate puppetmasters pulling SCOTUS' strings too, after all.



TraderPatTX said:


> Looks like you need to start winning local elections. You're not off to a good start this year but good luck to ya.


Electoralism doesn't help much in a broken two-party system.  Dems are just controlled opposition.



TraderPatTX said:


> Please continue running on abortion and gun control. Those will definitely help you win in November. Your pro-grooming of kindergarteners will be the icing on the cake.


Meanwhile republicans run on nothing but fear and hatred programmed into them by mainstream media.  It's full-on fascist capitalism versus rainbow (performative) capitalism.  No good options except worker solidarity and unionization.  Also the GOP has several known pedophiles holding federal office right now, so I'd be careful about throwing stones from that glass house of yours.


----------



## XDel (Jul 7, 2022)

Someone in here said that babies were not a sacrifice, when I quoted one of the passages in the Bible where it says not to offer your children to the god Moloch. Though if you think about it, the woman having the abortion is sacrificing the life within her for her own personal gain, so rather than sacrifice the baby for favor from of a god or deity, the baby is a sacrifice on behalf of one's own self interest and the favors that come from having the baby dead and un-dependant upon the mother's care, compassion, patience, and nurturing.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Abortion already costs money, but I'm not surprised this all comes down to greenbacks for you in the end.  It's our corporate puppetmasters pulling SCOTUS' strings too, after all.
> 
> 
> Electoralism doesn't help much in a broken two-party system.  Dems are just controlled opposition.
> ...


How quaint that you still believe we are being ruled by a two party system. We are being ruled by the administrative state. The unelected bureaucrats who bypass Congress and just make up their own rules. Were you even alive during Covid?

Dem politicians are actually getting arrested for being pedos. There's a reason why Epstein visited the Clinton White House so many times. Who do you think make up the bulk of his clientele? I'll tell ya. Dems and RINO's. The very ones fighting against us right now. Not to mention all the drag queens performing for kids are sex offenders and you support that too. I'll even use Snopes to prove my point.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/drag-queen-library-convicted/

You gonna tell me that Ghislaine Maxwell was some kind of right winger too?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Abortion already costs money, but I'm not surprised this all comes down to greenbacks for you in the end.  It's our corporate puppetmasters pulling SCOTUS' strings too, after all.
> 
> 
> Electoralism doesn't help much in a broken two-party system.  Dems are just controlled opposition.
> ...


Says the party who calls anybody to the right of Mao, white supremacists, Nazis, homophobes, transphobes, insurrectionists, racists, sexists and whatever other flavor of the week the media tells you. Then when you don't get your way, you threaten to kill Supreme Court Justices and say racist things about Clarence Thomas, level city blocks, kill policemen, frame Border Patrol agents for crimes that never happened, burn black owned businesses and kill black people in your riots.

You are what you label others as being.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

Xzi said:


> You sure did, read the decision moron.
> 
> 
> I can literally always debate my position, because my position is consistently in favor of more freedoms and liberties.  Yours is in favor of oppression under authority that you believe is granted to you by some imaginary sky daddy.  I was born with freedom from religious tyranny, and I'll die with the same, regardless of what some court of rapists and cultists says.


You haven't debated your position yet. You've only stomped your feet and told me how you feel, like I should care.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-abortion-teen-children-births_n_62c703ffe4b0aa392d3c1d28

https://www.al.com/news/2022/06/mis...legal-for-12-year-old-incest-rape-victim.html

https://apnews.com/article/2022-mid...klahoma-city-7c198e08793337f620e26f2cfcbb7c0f

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kristi-noem-defends-abortion-ban_n_62c27a4ce4b0ffe00a13b164

It's becoming more and more apparent that the only reason Republicans support abortion bans is because they want to get away with raping kids. It's not even religious anymore, it's a front to justify their pedo behavior. 

The Catholic Church, and Christianity as a whole, has run rampant with pedophile cases and allegations that get buried by lobbyists and rape sympathizers, like the Republican party in particular. Anyone who defends this party as a whole justifies rape, pedophilia, and incest, of which the latter makes complete sense considering the hardcore conservative platform they try to uphold. 

Y'all people are sick. Pro choicers might be all for abortion rights, but at least we don't rape the kids. I'd much rather have a woman abort a baby than to see Republicans try to fuck it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> How quaint that you still believe we are being ruled by a two party system.



How quaint that you accuse @Xzi of this several posts after I pointed out how you were doing the same exact thing. Though I guess if you have nothing else to argue, you resort to using the same arguments smarter people do, huh?



XDel said:


> Someone in here said that babies were not a sacrifice, when I quoted one of the passages in the Bible where it says not to offer your children to the god Moloch. Though if you think about it, the woman having the abortion is sacrificing the life within her for her own personal gain, so rather than sacrifice the baby for favor from of a god or deity, the baby is a sacrifice on behalf of one's own self interest and the favors that come from having the baby dead and un-dependant upon the mother's care, compassion, patience, and nurturing.



It's not a sacrifice if it's a survival technique. Sacrifice refers to the appeasement of God.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-abortion-teen-children-births_n_62c703ffe4b0aa392d3c1d28
> 
> https://www.al.com/news/2022/06/mis...legal-for-12-year-old-incest-rape-victim.html
> 
> ...


Imagine thinking being a pedo is drawn along party lines. Newsflash: it's both parties. It is people in power; in executive C-suites, Hollywood, the media. In case you haven't noticed, we are beyond playing team sports. So, you can continue living like it's 2006 and get laughed at wherever you go, or you can wake up to the reality that the entire world is being ran by very evil people who want to dominate all of us. And those people do not adhere to a political party. They play both sides like they do in every war.

https://hnewswire.com/list-of-all-us-politicians-charged-or-convicted/


----------



## XDel (Jul 7, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> How quaint that you accuse @Xzi of this several posts after I pointed out how you were doing the same exact thing. Though I guess if you have nothing else to argue, you resort to using the same arguments smarter people do, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a sacrifice if it's a survival technique. Sacrifice refers to the appeasement of God.


Well according to the humanist/woke movement, we our selves are gods, and if the baby is being sacrifice for our own selfish cause, then we are sacrificing the baby for our selves.

 Secondly, if abortion a survival technique, then how come the baby doesn't survive, and why not? Women are designed by nature to be able to give many births without dying, why do you think you have a mom? Because chances are, she didn't die while giving birth to you. I just wish she would have raised you with an ounce of selflessness and compassion though because now you want future generations robbed at the chance of life that you were granted so as to allegedly increase your chances of survival.  Lame!


----------



## Creamu (Jul 7, 2022)

XDel said:


> Well according to the humanist/woke movement, we our selves are gods, and if the baby is being sacrifice for our own selfish cause, then we are sacrificing the baby for our selves.
> 
> Secondly, if abortion a survival technique, then how come the baby doesn't survive, and why not? Women are designed by nature to be able to give many births without dying, why do you think you have a mom? Because chances are, she didn't die while giving birth to you. I just wish she would have raised you with an ounce of selflessness and compassion though because now you want future generations robbed at the chance of life that you were granted so as to allegedly increase your chances of survival.  Lame!


Because of physical degeneration due to modern lifestyles increasingly more women are not able or have diffculty giving birth.


----------



## XDel (Jul 7, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Because of physical degeneration due to modern lifestyles increasingly more women are not able or have diffculty giving birth.


That's a problem with the individual and the culture at large, not a fault of the baby or of the reproductive process found within nature.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Jul 7, 2022)

The religious right is coming for you. 
Make no doubt about it. 
I've live them calling D&D players devil worshippers and rape music evil. So yep. 
Get ready for the simps and sycophants to argue this one out. Fools.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Imagine thinking being a pedo is drawn along party lines. Newsflash: it's both parties. It is people in power; in executive C-suites, Hollywood, the media. In case you haven't noticed, we are beyond playing team sports. So, you can continue living like it's 2006 and get laughed at wherever you go, or you can wake up to the reality that the entire world is being ran by very evil people who want to dominate all of us. And those people do not adhere to a political party. They play both sides like they do in every war.



Yet several posts ago you're demonizing the left for embracing similar principles. Not once did I mention that it was party affiliated, but last I checked Republicans were the ones trying to push abortion abolishment, not Democrats. Your argument is weak within the confines of the topic at hand; last I checked the topic was Roe v Wade, a republican push for the overturn of abortion rights, not how both parties are gross, which you're actually completely right on. 

Nice way to defend your party affiliation by deflecting the point and essentially moving goalposts. Any care to reference the links I shared or is your continued argument going to be "Well everyone's corrupt, not just Republicans!"?



XDel said:


> Well according to the humanist/woke movement, we our selves are gods, and if the baby is being sacrifice for our own selfish cause, then we are sacrificing the baby for our selves.
> 
> Secondly, if abortion a survival technique, then how come the baby doesn't survive, and why not? Women are designed by nature to be able to give many births without dying, why do you think you have a mom? Because chances are, she didn't die while giving birth to you. I just wish she would have raised you with an ounce of selflessness and compassion though because now you want future generations robbed at the chance of life that you were granted so as to allegedly increase your chances of survival.  Lame!



Man, wouldn't it be nice if everyone was just Christian, huh? 

Your argument about the woke movement would be somewhat relevant if you didn't bastardize it the way you do sacred texts. No one sees themselves as "gods"; they see themselves free from the subjugation of a man made God and embrace the idea of living life to the fullest because they create their own destiny. At no point is it a religion, therefore "sacrifice" is an inconsequential word. What you're really doing is trying to equate a natural survival phenomenon as a religious concept, and that's far from accurate. Even if any semblance of your argument was true, you're still implying that God gave us the capacity to perform abortions at will, which seems odd that he would provide that opportunity for his people if it was something he was against. After all, we're made in his image, no?

Babies do have survival techniques, that's why generally after the first trimester they have a much higher chance at survival than during the first. You also seem to want to deny the situations in which women actively die during childbirth, such as the case with ectopic pregnancies, in which case an abortion would be a valid survival technique. Anything before the first trimester isn't a baby, the second trimester opens the way to becoming a baby, and a fetus generally isn't considered a baby at least until the third trimester, which sits extremely low on the percentage of abortions overall, and typically only exist if the baby is at risk of dying or killing the mother in the process of continued development or eventual birth. 

But why should the mother give her life for the fetus? A mother can give birth to numerous babies over the course of her lifetime once ovulation begins, usually right before her teen years. It seems silly to argue against that idea when one failed pregnancy can still pave the way for many future pregnancies, while a child has to wait at least a decade before it's body begins to form into something that can conceive and carry a child. That last part is important, because the overturn of Roe v Wade makes it completely possible for a man to rape, impregnate, and force a child to live with his consequences, something both the Christian church and Republican party seem to be fond of (although, just to clarify to both you and your rape sympathizer friend above, pedophilia is not indicative of political or religious affiliation, just that both parties seem to revel in the idea of said pedophilia). 

Maybe if your mother did a better job of raising you, you'd learn to have a voice of your own and not regurgitate purposely misinterpreted words of a god that clearly forgot you a long time ago.  Mkay pumpkin?


----------



## XDel (Jul 7, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Yet several posts ago you're demonizing the left for embracing similar principles. Not once did I mention that it was party affiliated, but last I checked Republicans were the ones trying to push abortion abolishment, not Democrats. Your argument is weak within the confines of the topic at hand; last I checked the topic was Roe v Wade, a republican push for the overturn of abortion rights, not how both parties are gross, which you're actually completely right on.
> 
> Nice way to defend your party affiliation by deflecting the point and essentially moving goalposts. Any care to reference the links I shared or is your continued argument going to be "Well everyone's corrupt, not just Republicans!"?
> 
> ...



You're not to honest with your self are you?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 7, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Yet several posts ago you're demonizing the left for embracing similar principles. Not once did I mention that it was party affiliated, but last I checked Republicans were the ones trying to push abortion abolishment, not Democrats. Your argument is weak within the confines of the topic at hand; last I checked the topic was Roe v Wade, a republican push for the overturn of abortion rights, not how both parties are gross, which you're actually completely right on.
> 
> Nice way to defend your party affiliation by deflecting the point and essentially moving goalposts. Any care to reference the links I shared or is your continued argument going to be "Well everyone's corrupt, not just Republicans!"?
> 
> ...


Abortion rights were not overturned. It is still legal in many states. It's obvious the left hates federalism, unless it benefits what they want, but what you are saying is simply not true. Nobody has a right to kill another person outside of self defense. A fetus is a person. It is comprised of human DNA. It has a brain, nervous system, circulatory system, etc. It reacts to outside stimuli like sound and light. Just because you cannot see it, does not mean it is not there. That's why we have ultrasounds. Trying to dehumanize babies is not a winning argument. Especially since we can see with our own eyes. This is what happens when your politicians advocate for 3rd trimester abortions. You end up losing 75% of the country. You did it to yourselves. Now cope and seethe.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ult...sBuQQ_AUoAXoECAMQAw&biw=2048&bih=950&dpr=1.25


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

XDel said:


> You're not to honest with your self are you?



Out of the two of us, I hardly believe I'm the one being dishonest with myself. Although I understand the concept of religion and have made my peace with God, I don't need the morals of a time long dead to influence the person I am today. I have no one to answer to but myself, and you would not believe how liberating it is to have that. Hopefully you find yours one day.


----------



## XDel (Jul 8, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Out of the two of us, I hardly believe I'm the one being dishonest with myself. Although I understand the concept of religion and have made my peace with God, I don't need the morals of a time long dead to influence the person I am today. I have no one to answer to but myself, and you would not believe how liberating it is to have that. Hopefully you find yours one day.


You don't strike me as someone who has found peace. Quite the opposite in fact.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 8, 2022)

XDel said:


> You don't strike me as someone who has found peace. Quite the opposite in fact.


I haven't seen Democrats this mad since their slaves were taken away from them.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 8, 2022)

XDel said:


> You don't strike me as someone who has found peace. Quite the opposite in fact.



You come to the same platform I do and argue just as much. Are you peaceful? 



TraderPatTX said:


> I haven't seen Democrats this mad since their slaves were taken away from them.



Well now they're Republicans, so maybe do a better job of learning history and looking in the mirror?


----------



## XDel (Jul 8, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> You come to the same platform I do and argue just as much. Are you peaceful?


Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. - Matthew 10:34-38


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 8, 2022)

XDel said:


> Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. - Matthew 10:34-38



So you're a sword from God, sent to teach us heathens of our wicked ways? You must a prophet. 

"...he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me"

Huh. So it seems to be that from now on, whenever a woman has an abortion, she should just declare that she's aborting it because she loves god more than her child. I appreciate you setting that precedent. At least now we know your virtues were earned at the hand of man, not by the word of god.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 8, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> You come to the same platform I do and argue just as much. Are you peaceful?
> 
> 
> 
> Well now they're Republicans, so maybe do a better job of learning history and looking in the mirror?


George Wallace was a Democrat. His last term as governor was 1983-87. He was a segregationist until the day he died in 1998. Democrats controlled the South up until the 1990's. Learn history before spouting corporate media nonsense about a fairytale party switch that never happened.


----------



## XDel (Jul 8, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So you're a sword from God, sent to teach us heathens of our wicked ways? You must a prophet.
> 
> "...he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me"
> 
> Huh. So it seems to be that from now on, whenever a woman has an abortion, she should just declare that she's aborting it because she loves god more than her child. I appreciate you setting that precedent. At least now we know your virtues were earned at the hand of man, not by the word of god.


You sure got a silly logic brother! No, the above quote was not me speaking obviously, as I was never a character in the Bible. Those are the words of Jesus. I thought you knew your Bible? Hmmm.

 And obviously, if a woman loves God, she is not going to kill her baby, but rather take care of it as a child of God.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 8, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> George Wallace was a Democrat. His last term as governor was 1983-87. He was a segregationist until the day he died in 1998. Democrats controlled the South up until the 1990's. Learn history before spouting corporate media nonsense about a fairytale party switch that never happened.



Great history lesson, doesn't add anything to the point you're trying to establish aside from the fact that you clearly have an issue with history. 

https://www.livescience.com/34241-d...8QFnoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3KxJQ-6es2P3adUHpRI6eP

https://history.house.gov/Exhibitio...eeping-the-Faith/Party-Realignment--New-Deal/

Here's a couple links you'll ignore because they blatantly disprove your attempt at propaganda and disinformation. If you want to continue this conversation about this topic any further, I implore you to start a new thread and tag me in it. 

You uh, you do know how to do that, right?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 8, 2022)

XDel said:


> You sure got a silly logic brother! No, the above quote was not me speaking obviously, as I was never a character in the Bible. Those are the words of Jesus. I thought you knew your Bible? Hmmm.
> 
> And obviously, if a woman loves God, she is not going to kill her baby, but rather take care of it as a child of God.



Do you know what the term facetious means?

Imagine blindly following a god to the point that you're willing to give up your or someone else's life to appease a man made God. If all life is precious in the eyes of god, then why does a woman's life weigh less than that of something that has yet to be a person? And if the potential of life is your answer, well...

"8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.”

9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother.

10 And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also"


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 8, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Great history lesson, doesn't add anything to the point you're trying to establish aside from the fact that you clearly have an issue with history.
> 
> https://www.livescience.com/34241-d...8QFnoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3KxJQ-6es2P3adUHpRI6eP
> 
> ...


You sent me a dead link and a link to a government website. You just proved my point above that you only believe the government and their corporate media lapdogs. I always enjoy it when the people I'm debating end up proving my points. Thanks, champ.


----------



## XDel (Jul 8, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Do you know what the term facetious means?
> 
> Imagine blindly following a god to the point that you're willing to give up your or someone else's life to appease a man made God. If all life is precious in the eyes of god, then why does a woman's life weigh less than that of something that has yet to be a person? And if the potential of life is your answer, well...
> 
> ...


Onan put his will before God's will and was punished for it. That's the breaks. Cause and effect.

As for having a notion of God, I can't say that I read the Bible then formed my conceptions around that, but the other way around. I had my notions, experiences, and observations, then was introduced to the Bible. As I try to understand it more clearly and more than that, attempt to follow it, I have discovered that the path that it has laid out seems to only bring reward to my life, and when ever I find that I am not following it, I suffer because of it. And so, because of this and various other reasons, I have chosen to stick with it. After all, who am I and what do I know? I could avoid the Bible and bumble through by trial and error, knowing no thing for certain, not even why I hold the values I hold. That is the life of a lab rat and brings more trouble than it is worth. Besides, plenty of athiests and materialists have came before me and demonstrated that  path and none of them ever moved me much or gave me something I could stand firmly on.

You know, the Chinese Communist Party prohibits any sort of religion among its members, because to have religion is to assume a personal notion of God, and to have a notion of God is to have a hierarchy of values, and if that hierarchy of values is not created, maintained, and monitored by the party, then they could become a threat to the party, therefore individualism is a big no no with the C.C.P. and on that note, I think they would have you on board.


----------



## duelistjp (Jul 8, 2022)

as far as if interracial marriage is in the crosshairs with this, the answer is very possibly.  although i doubt any state would ban them even if constitutional protections were removed.  the original decision that said there was a constitutional right to such marriages based their decisions on the idea of substantive due process.  the same principle that was used to decide gay marriage and roe v wade.  the court decided in this decision that substantive due process has no place in judicial decisions which is why they talked about revisiting other cases that relied on it.  if they do it would not surprise me to at least see a challenge to it heard if only to provide a different legal reasoning.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 8, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> You sent me a dead link and a link to a government website. You just proved my point above that you only believe the government and their corporate media lapdogs. I always enjoy it when the people I'm debating end up proving my points. Thanks, champ.



I'm sorry, try this:

https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

So, you're using the fact that I used a government website to show you a history of said government? Even though you provided one link that was defunct and biased through Republican perspective to prove a Republican agenda that has never had any root in fact, and provided a bit about George Wallace that still has no link attached to it? 

Did you want something more peer reviewed? Or better yet, let's look at Republican websites to find an accurate history, because even though you think I feel pedophilia is party alignment and that's silly, you apparently think only Republicans tell the truth and that's not hypocritical. Or naive.

"Corporate media lapdogs". As if Trump wasn't  defrauding and bankrupting corporations himself before he became your God -president.

Good try tho. Wanna do better next time, champ? 



XDel said:


> Onan put his will before God's will and was punished for it. That's the breaks. Cause and effect.



Seems more like a issue with heirs than that, which also seems to be the only reason why god supposedly is against abortions, considering he views them more as property, at least during the first two trimesters. You know, before the breath of life and all.



XDel said:


> As for having a notion of God, I can't say that I read the Bible then formed my conceptions around that, but the other way around. I had my notions, experiences, and observations, then was introduced to the Bible. As I try to understand it more clearly and more than that, attempt to follow it, I have discovered that the path that it has laid out seems to only bring reward to my life, and when ever I find that I am not following it, I suffer because of it. And so, because of this and various other reasons, I have chosen to stick with it. After all, who am I and what do I know? I could avoid the Bible and bumble through by trial and error, knowing no thing for certain, not even why I hold the values I hold. That is the life of a lab rat and brings more trouble than it is worth. Besides, plenty of athiests and materialists have came before me and demonstrated that  path and none of them ever moved me much or gave me something I could stand firmly on.



You know Satan often hides in the guise of good intentions, right? Of course, you could argue the same to me, however I'm not about dehumanizing people in order to prove my god is better than you.



XDel said:


> You know, the Chinese Communist Party prohibits any sort of religion among its members, because to have religion is to assume a personal notion of God, and to have a notion of God is to have a hierarchy of values, and if that hierarchy of values is not created, maintained, and monitored by the party, then they could become a threat to the party, therefore individualism is a big no no with the C.C.P. and on that note, I think they would have you on board.



Ah communism. The basis of Christianity and especially the Garden of Eden, where everyone is equal and subservient to the Lord himself. 

You really don't know the Bible that well besides misinterpretation, do you?


----------



## XDel (Jul 8, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I'm sorry, try this:
> 
> https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html
> 
> ...


1. The Trimester concept was created by the abortionists to defend their position and try to make some life seem less life like so as to dehumanize and make the baby into a "thing" that can be tossed away the same as any other "thing". The Bible never at any points talks about trimesters, nor does it refer to baby's as property, but as life. Hence the reason why the punishment for killing a pregnant woman's baby was a life for a life and not a monetary fine of some sort. You know this. Also I am sure that you are aware that the egg and sperm also require oxygen in order to survive, and again need I remind you that when I pulled out the John the Baptist quote, where in he receives the Holy Ghost aka Spirit in his mother's womb, that it is not referring to his spirit. The Holy Spirit is something else all together. Besides all babies receive their breath in the womb initially. BAD ARGUMENT!

2. But you are clearly dehumanizing babies and more than that, calling for their execution. I'd rather bruise someone's ego over killing a baby any day; besides everyone needs humbled a bit ever now and again else we never know the wrongs of our ways and thinking; we never learn, and never grow.

3. Their was a central Government in the garden of Eden which denounced God, controlled the distribution of goods, labor, and so forth?! Amazing! Can you please point me to the passages in Genesis that describe this?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 8, 2022)

XDel said:


> 1. The Trimester concept was created by the abortionists to defend their position and try to make some life seem less life like so as to dehumanize and make the baby into a "thing" that can be tossed away the same as any other "thing". The Bible never at any points talks about trimesters, nor does it refer to baby's as property, but as life. Hence the reason why the punishment for killing a pregnant woman's baby was a life for a life and not a monetary fine of some sort. You know this. Also I am sure that you are aware that the egg and sperm also require oxygen in order to survive, and again need I remind you that when I pulled out the John the Baptist quote, where in he receives the Holy Ghost aka Spirit in his mother's womb, that it is not referring to his spirit. The Holy Spirit is something else all together. Besides all babies receive their breath in the womb initially. BAD ARGUMENT!



Um, your point about trimesters is completely made up and false. But so is religion, so...

You're still inferring based upon loosely translated text to cherry pick points to align with. Even if I were to submit to the argument that the baby is not property, you're still implying that the life of the baby is worth more than that of the mother. That happens to be the only mention of pregnancy termination in the Bible, and still places the life of the mother as no less than equally important to that of the baby in question. 



XDel said:


> 2. But you are clearly dehumanizing babies and more than that, calling for their execution. I'd rather bruise someone's ego over killing a baby any day; besides everyone needs humbled a bit ever now and again else we never know the wrongs of our ways and thinking; we never learn, and never grow.



At what point does a baby become human? When it's still a clump of cells? When it develops brain activity? When it can breathe on it's own? You want to equate conception with fully formed human life, which is disingenuous at best, as you're implying that it takes two things that are not life to create life. If your stance is that life begins at conception, then you're implying that every mother is God because they take things that aren't alive and breathing life into them. So which is it?



XDel said:


> 3. Their was a central Government in the garden of Eden which denounced God, controlled the distribution of good, labor, and so forth?! Amazing! Can you please point me to the passages in Genesis that describe this?



Do you know what the basic idea of communism is, or can you only describe it in terms of politics?

Yes, yes, class war and equitable rights over property and such, but the mentality behind it is that all people are equal in the eyes of the greater society, which is the basic mentality behind Christianity and the Garden of Eden, in which all people have to be on equitable footing in order to coexist in peace. There can be no hierarchy in the Garden, as only God can exist at the highest level. Strip both concepts of any political affiliation, and you have the same mentality.


----------



## XDel (Jul 8, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Um, your point about trimesters is completely made up and false. But so is religion, so...
> 
> You're still inferring based upon loosely translated text to cherry pick points to align with. Even if I were to submit to the argument that the baby is not property, you're still implying that the life of the baby is worth more than that of the mother. That happens to be the only mention of pregnancy termination in the Bible, and still places the life of the mother as no less than equally important to that of the baby in question.
> 
> ...


At this point I can't read any of your responses without thinking of Wimp Lo from the movie Kung Pow. So from now on, I dub thee Wimp Lo.


----------



## Esjay131 (Jul 8, 2022)

XDel said:


> 1. The Trimester concept was created by the abortionists to defend their position and try to make some life seem less life like so as to dehumanize and make the baby into a "thing" that can be tossed away the same as any other "thing". The Bible never at any points talks about trimesters, nor does it refer to baby's as property, but as life. Hence the reason why the punishment for killing a pregnant woman's baby was a life for a life and not a monetary fine of some sort. You know this. Also I am sure that you are aware that the egg and sperm also require oxygen in order to survive, and again need I remind you that when I pulled out the John the Baptist quote, where in he receives the Holy Ghost aka Spirit in his mother's womb, that it is not referring to his spirit. The Holy Spirit is something else all together. Besides all babies receive their breath in the womb initially. BAD ARGUMENT!
> 
> 2. But you are clearly dehumanizing babies and more than that, calling for their execution. I'd rather bruise someone's ego over killing a baby any day; besides everyone needs humbled a bit ever now and again else we never know the wrongs of our ways and thinking; we never learn, and never grow.
> 
> 3. Their was a central Government in the garden of Eden which denounced God, controlled the distribution of goods, labor, and so forth?! Amazing! Can you please point me to the passages in Genesis that describe this?


Trimesters are because OBs have categorized fetal development. Fetuses aren't babies. The bible is a work of fiction written by man.


----------



## XDel (Jul 8, 2022)

Esjay131 said:


> Trimesters are because OBs have categorized fetal development. Fetuses aren't babies. The bible is a work of fiction written by man.



OK, in response to Wimp Lo Jr.
For what purpose were the stages of development divided into three trimesters may I ask? What is the origin story behind that?

And if trimesters are categories of fetal development, then what are they developing into? It doesn't just magically transform from a non-baby into a baby because someone came along and assigned a theoretical classification in a desperate attempt to keep their conscious clear. For instance, if I were to kill a pregnant woman, no matter what "trimester" she was in, I would be charged with double homicide. So why could I not just tell the judge that he has no place judging anyone because the Bible says so (allegedly) first and foremost, and further more why should I be charged with double homicide let alone a single homicide when clearly the mother and her baby are both just clumps of cells. In fact we are all clumps of cells.


 All books, records, etc. have been written by humanity, so by your logic I must presume that they are all wrong?

Note in how this medical video they continue to refer to the baby as a baby.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 8, 2022)

Esjay131 said:


> Trimesters are because OBs have categorized fetal development. Fetuses aren't babies. The bible is a work of fiction written by man.


Fetuses are babies in a particular location. There's no magic portal where a bundle of cells transforms into a fully formed infant during birth. For being the "Party of Science", you people really hate science.


----------



## Iamapirate (Jul 8, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Tell me you're twelve without telling me you're twelve.  Abortions are necessary even in several situations where the fetus is already dead (miscarriages).


You respond to fact with insults and name calling. Prove it wrong. Prove that most abortions *aren't* convenient abortions of a viable fetus.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 8, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I'm sorry, try this:
> 
> https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html
> 
> ...


It doesn't take into account that the Democrat Party of the 1860's were pro-slavery, pro-segregation and anti-black and minority. Fast forward to the 1960's, and the Democrat Party was forced to be quiet about being pro-slavery, but they continued being pro-segregation and anti-black and minority. Fast forward again to 2022, and the same Democrat Party is defending a procedure that has eliminated 70 million black babies and segregating the races into "safe spaces" in colleges and universities. The core Democrat value of pro-slavery, pro-segregation and anti-black and minority is the foundation of the party since it's inception.

Why do you constantly mention Trump? Weird.


----------



## XDel (Jul 8, 2022)

Iamapirate said:


> You respond to fact with insults and name calling. Prove it wrong. Prove that most abortions *aren't* convenient abortions of a viable fetus.


Welcome to Ad hominem central. I tried to tell them but they seem unable to comprehend. It's WEIRD!!!


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 8, 2022)

Iamapirate said:


> You respond to fact with insults and name calling. Prove it wrong. Prove that most abortions *aren't* convenient abortions of a viable fetus.


Viability of a foetus usually means you can't abort at that point. So there is your answer.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Jul 8, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It doesn't take into account that the Democrat Party of the 1860's were pro-slavery, pro-segregation and anti-black and minority. Fast forward to the 1960's, and the Democrat Party was forced to be quiet about being pro-slavery, but they continued being pro-segregation and anti-black and minority. Fast forward again to 2022, and the same Democrat Party is defending a procedure that has eliminated 70 million black babies and segregating the races into "safe spaces" in colleges and universities. The core Democrat value of pro-slavery, pro-segregation and anti-black and minority is the foundation of the party since it's inception.
> 
> Why do you constantly mention Trump? Weird.


No.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 8, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> No.


It's amazing how these people "reason", justifying their spin with incoherence and lies.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jul 8, 2022)

XDel said:


> I stand firm on my position and if you guys want to attack, then I suggest you do it with facts, prove why the information in my avatar is wrong, then we will be having a conversation, but to make accusations about me or my character accomplishes nothing.


If you want facts then start with yourself. Explain, with facts, why gay marriage is different from hetero marriage.
Also explain, with facts, how Abortion is murder.
Citing the bible, or some conspiranoid "philosopher", isn't stating facts.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 8, 2022)

Acid_Snake said:


> If you want facts then start with yourself. Explain, with facts, why gay marriage is different from hetero marriage.
> Also explain, with facts, how Abortion is murder.
> Citing the bible, or some conspiranoid "philosopher", isn't stating facts.


Hetero marriage is different because hetero sex normally results with children. That was the purpose of marriage for thousands of years.

Abortion is murder because somebody dies every single time. It is pre-meditated and not by accident. Just like when a criminal kills a pregnant lady, often the criminal will be charged with double homicide. It's already law and is not controversial.

Also, you don't get to specify where people get their facts. Only authoritarians pull shit like that.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 8, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's amazing how these people "reason", justifying their spin with incoherence and lies.


Where's the lie? Surely you can point one out.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 8, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It doesn't take into account that the Democrat Party of the 1860's were pro-slavery, pro-segregation and anti-black and minority. Fast forward to the 1960's, and the Democrat Party was forced to be quiet about being pro-slavery, but they continued being pro-segregation and anti-black and minority. Fast forward again to 2022, and the same Democrat Party is defending a procedure that has eliminated 70 million black babies and segregating the races into "safe spaces" in colleges and universities. The core Democrat value of pro-slavery, pro-segregation and anti-black and minority is the foundation of the party since it's inception.
> 
> Why do you constantly mention Trump? Weird.



Because it doesn't matter what the Democratic was or wasn't back in the 1800's. What matters is how they act now. You've spent more time trying to derail then actually arguing any point you think you have toward the source material, I can only assume because you know you're wrong, have nothing viable to add to the conversation, and only have personal attacks and misdirection left in your arsenal. That's the problem with arguing with Republicans; you can lay facts right down in their faces, but because they're worried more about how they feel, it doesn't matter. You offer nothing to back up any claim you've made thus far besides one link that offers nothing but falsified speculation and this tangent about a two party system that you've already tried to ridicule others for bringing up. Face it; you have no idea what you're talking about, you keep crying over the death of babies neither you nor your party actually care about, and the only reason why you're still hanging around is post count. 

You whine so hard that the Democratic party is pro slavery, but then come at me because I think I'm implying only the Republican party is pro pedo, as if you had a platform on which to argue that anyway. As if both parties weren't pro slavery and anti black, minority in general. Yes, we know that both parties are terrible and filled with racists, but because you're too ignorant to understand, the topic at hand is yet again how the Roe v Wade overturn is Republican backed. Maybe because you're too busy name dropping (Stephen Colbert?) and then trying to catch someone else up for using the same tactic you utilize, because God help if you if you post something that isn't hypocritical in nature. 

Unless you have anything further to add to the actual thread at hand, you should probably take a break and learn a few things, like what hypocrisy is, and what a fetus is, because based on all of your responses, you have no voice, no opinion of your own, no identity, just hatred for anything that doesn't glorify raping children and oppressing women.

Try again, champ.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 8, 2022)

XDel said:


> OK, in response to Wimp Lo Jr.
> For what purpose were the stages of development divided into three trimesters may I ask? What is the origin story behind that?



I'm not a doctor, so the only way I can answer this faithfully is by linking you articles to WebMD, LiveScienceJournel, and other similar websites. But that isn't the point, is it? Your point is to continuously highlight how everything we know is a fabrication because the only thing that matters is your misinterpretation of a sacred text you simply have shown countless times you don't know how to comprehend or even utilize to back your points, which unless I missed something, has also been your only point of contention.

You keep replying as if God wants us to take his words as absolute law, which if you actually had any understanding of your faith, you'd know that the whole of the Bible is to understand it metaphorically and to live your life "Christ like", the guy who helped and healed the sick, who hung out with whores, and taught love, understanding, and acceptance.

You've shown none of that in any of your responses. You've shown the ugly side of Christianity, where man has taken these concepts and used them to subjugate, control, oppress, and invalidate people. With every post you push people further and further away from Christianity's original ideals and instead fill them with contempt and confusion. You're no prophet, you're no scholar, and you're certainly not doing Jesus any favors misinterpreting his will and words. At the end times, when god judges us for what's in our hearts, do you really think he'll think less of the woman who aborts to save her own life than you, someone who's maliciously twisting his words for their own sense of false superiority? God despises those who judge on his behalf, and here we have several pages of you doing just that.

So much for your argument of not wanting to be attacked, huh? Coming from Wimp Lo Jr himself. If you weren't such a blatant hypocrite, you'd be funny.



XDel said:


> And if trimesters are categories of fetal development, then what are they developing into? It doesn't just magically transform from a non-baby into a baby because someone came along and assigned a theoretical classification in a desperate attempt to keep their conscious clear. For instance, if I were to kill a pregnant woman, no matter what "trimester" she was in, I would be charged with double homicide. So why could I not just tell the judge that he has no place judging anyone because the Bible says so (allegedly) first and foremost, and further more why should I be charged with double homicide let alone a single homicide when clearly the mother and her baby are both just clumps of cells. In fact we are all clumps of cells.



Fetuses develop into babies. No one's arguing that, not even the most adamant of pro choicers.

Why? Because America isn't a theocracy and most people are in with that. Where's my proof in "most"? Well, we currently don't have one, so there's that.

You argue science as if God didn't give us the capacity to think on such an elevated level. God made us in his image, but then expects us to operate at a lower level of intelligence and never question, or reason, or pontificate? With all this capacity for knowledge we're supposed to just take these man made interpretations of his words as law? You're laughable.

Trimesters refers to development. The fact that they're not highlighted in the Bible does not equate to a solid platform. The Internet wasn't in the Bible either, yet here we are. Which is funny, cuz last I checked an atheist invented the Internet, and here you're using it to push a dying pro religious agenda because you have no understanding of biology, human development, science in general, or even philosophy. All you have is what's been taught to you, by over religious zealots in a bad parental position, that you use to justify the poignancy of the Bible, all without realizing that, duh, of course the Bible aligns with your principles, because you were taught them at an early age. You know, how human development works.



XDel said:


> All books, records, etc. have been written by humanity, so by your logic I must presume that they are all wrong?
> 
> Note in how this medical video they continue to refer to the baby as a baby.




No, only the ones that bastardize sacred texts for their own personal misuse. Come at me with that when you've read something other than the King James Bible. You even said yourself you've never familiarized yourself with the Torah, so how can you have any clarity when it comes to your own religion? Fact of the matter is, you're comfortable with what you've been taught, so much that you align your identity with it, which is probably why you're afraid to deviate from the norm.

You also continue to refer to babies as babies. Maybe if you posted a video other people will buy the drivel you drop.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 8, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Where's the lie? Surely you can point one out.



Your whole premise is a lie that somehow abortion is some sort of ethnic cleansing project. Or maybe that is something you hope?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 8, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Because it doesn't matter what the Democratic was or wasn't back in the 1800's. What matters is how they act now. You've spent more time trying to derail then actually arguing any point you think you have toward the source material, I can only assume because you know you're wrong, have nothing viable to add to the conversation, and only have personal attacks and misdirection left in your arsenal. That's the problem with arguing with Republicans; you can lay facts right down in their faces, but because they're worried more about how they feel, it doesn't matter. You offer nothing to back up any claim you've made thus far besides one link that offers nothing but falsified speculation and this tangent about a two party system that you've already tried to ridicule others for bringing up. Face it; you have no idea what you're talking about, you keep crying over the death of babies neither you nor your party actually care about, and the only reason why you're still hanging around is post count.
> 
> You whine so hard that the Democratic party is pro slavery, but then come at me because I think I'm implying only the Republican party is pro pedo, as if you had a platform on which to argue that anyway. As if both parties weren't pro slavery and anti black, minority in general. Yes, we know that both parties are terrible and filled with racists, but because you're too ignorant to understand, the topic at hand is yet again how the Roe v Wade overturn is Republican backed. Maybe because you're too busy name dropping (Stephen Colbert?) and then trying to catch someone else up for using the same tactic you utilize, because God help if you if you post something that isn't hypocritical in nature.
> 
> ...


It matters because the Democrat Party have never changed, despite the media propaganda of some magical massive party switch in either the 1930's, 1960's or 1970's. The left can't even agree on their own lies, which is why people do not tune in to the media anymore and people do not believe the left and Democrat Party anymore. The only thing that's changed is the Democrat Party has traded the KKK for KLANtifa as their foot soldiers. It's no wonder there are so many similarities between the two groups.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 8, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It matters because the Democrat Party have never changed, despite the media propaganda of some magical massive party switch in either the 1930's, 1960's or 1970's. The left can't even agree on their own lies, which is why people do not tune in to the media anymore and people do not believe the left and Democrat Party anymore. The only thing that's changed is the Democrat Party has traded the KKK for KLANtifa as their foot soldiers. It's no wonder there are so many similarities between the two groups.



No, it doesn't matter, especially since you've been more worried about arguing that point to discredit my arguments moreso than actually debating the topic at hand. You can distort history all you want to supposedly meet your ideals, but the fact is this historical fact has been proven tenfold and more. You still seem to be stuck on the fact that the Democratic party is still relevant, despite that it's progressives and independents that are fighting against abortion rights, not the left. 

Again, we have you blatantly pointing out that you firmly believe in a two party system despite disingenuously attacking others for implication.

Again we have you solidifying your position as being alt right and in favor of overarching government, despite your malicious attacking of others for similar inference.

And again we have you clearly misdirecting the topic and information at hand to further push this false ethnic cleansing ideal, because you can't argue the source material anymore and have nothing left but purposefully trying to alter historical fact in order to discredit someone's stance because your stance has crumbled. I've even provided links, one of which was dead and therefore reposted properly, that proves your theory wrong. Call the one bias all you want, it's literally no different from the site you posted, except mine still has continued maintenance and traffic, and actually has relevant fact as opposed to a website that uses addresses and a 4 year olds attempt at MS Paint to push a false agenda.

I'd say "Try again", again, but your attempts are lackluster at best, blatantly misinforming at worst.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 8, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> How quaint that you still believe we are being ruled by a two party system. We are being ruled by the administrative state. The unelected bureaucrats who bypass Congress and just make up their own rules. Were you even alive during Covid?


Corporations control both parties, so in essence they are one.  And yes, I lived through Trump's total failure in handling the pandemic.  No rent/mortgage freezes, no help for the average working person whatsoever.  The rich got richer and the poor got poorer, as intended.



TraderPatTX said:


> There's a reason why Epstein visited the Clinton White House so many times.


There's also a reason he was murdered under the supervision of Trump's attorney general.  Couldn't have that type of dirt on the then-president made public, now could we?



Iamapirate said:


> You respond to fact with insults and name calling. Prove it wrong. Prove that most abortions *aren't* convenient abortions of a viable fetus.


Firstly, you're asking me to prove a negative, and secondly, anybody who's been around a pregnant woman for more than ten minutes knows it's not fucking convenient.  Nor is life under capitalism in general.  If you want to reduce the number of abortions, it's as simple as improving material conditions for both mothers and their babies, rather than abandoning the whole concept of being "pro-life" as soon as birth occurs.  Short of that, women will continue seeking abortions even if that means having to travel to another state or another country to get one, which is again, not convenient.  They'll do this because being poor in America is a death sentence, and they'd rather be ostracized/persecuted by a bunch of religious nutjobs than condemn both themselves and their newborn to such a fate.

Fascist policy is only good at generating more desperation/human suffering.  It can only create new problems, never solve the existing ones.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Jul 8, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I haven't seen Democrats this mad since their slaves were taken away from them.



No.
You are an idiot.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 9, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Corporations control both parties, so in essence they are one.  And yes, I lived through Trump's total failure in handling the pandemic.  No rent/mortgage freezes, no help for the average working person whatsoever.  The rich got richer and the poor got poorer, as intended.
> 
> 
> There's also a reason he was murdered under the supervision of Trump's attorney general.  Couldn't have that type of dirt on the then-president made public, now could we?
> ...


The rich got richer and poor got poorer because blue states shut down their economies. People were forced to order goods online, mostly thru Amazon. Would you like to guess which party Jeff Bezos supports? 

Guess which corporations control the Democrat Party. You guessed it, the ones who made billions forcing people to inject their product by government mandates. And you supported it wholeheartedly. So you don't get to play that you are somehow different from other leftists, progressives and Democrats. They are all the same with the same goals. Complete authoritarianism and globalism. You hate this country and the Constitution. You show it every day.


----------



## Stealphie (Jul 9, 2022)

If this thread wasn't about the LGBT community, but, literally any other minority, it would've been locked already.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jul 10, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Hetero marriage is different because hetero sex normally results with children. That was the purpose of marriage for thousands of years.
> 
> Abortion is murder because somebody dies every single time. It is pre-meditated and not by accident. Just like when a criminal kills a pregnant lady, often the criminal will be charged with double homicide. It's already law and is not controversial.
> 
> Also, you don't get to specify where people get their facts. Only authoritarians pull shit like that.


The purpose of marriage is to have children? Are you that stupid?
I don't suppose you believe dogs get married too don't you?
I haven't seen a single animal having marriage to procreate. Maybe in your virtual world they do.
Also marriage doesn't have thousands of years, it's the result of religion.
Got any actual fact that isn't based on the Bible?

I swear I can never know who dumber, the woke or the religious nutjobs.
It's like you guys are constantly fighting to see who makes your political side more laughable.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 10, 2022)

Acid_Snake said:


> The purpose of marriage is to have children? Are you that stupid?


Fan of rhetorical questions lmao


----------



## smf (Jul 10, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It doesn't take into account that the Democrat Party of the 1860's were pro-slavery, pro-segregation and anti-black and minority. Fast forward to the 1960's, and the Democrat Party was forced to be quiet about being pro-slavery, but they continued being pro-segregation and anti-black and minority. Fast forward again to 2022, and the same Democrat Party is defending a procedure that has eliminated 70 million black babies and segregating the races into "safe spaces" in colleges and universities. The core Democrat value of pro-slavery, pro-segregation and anti-black and minority is the foundation of the party since it's inception.
> 
> Why do you constantly mention Trump? Weird.


I'm pretty sure none of those people from the democrat party of 1860's are still alive.

Your "clever" ploy of trying to link events from 162 years ago to today, to try to take criticism away from a criminal who was in the white house until very recently and has so far evaded punishment, is pretty transparent though.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 10, 2022)

Acid_Snake said:


> The purpose of marriage is to have children? Are you that stupid?
> I don't suppose you believe dogs get married too don't you?
> I haven't seen a single animal having marriage to procreate. Maybe in your virtual world they do.
> Also marriage doesn't have thousands of years, it's the result of religion.
> ...


First of all, I never mentioned the Bible. One of my previous comments specified the Hindu religion, but people here are only interested in attacking Christianity, because that is easy. What would be so stunning and so brave is if you went after Islam, which bans LGBTQLMNOP+ entirely and is punishable by death, but you ain't ready for that conversation.

Animals don't get married. For one, they can't recite vows, and two most animals lack the ability to wear rings.

An earlier argument said that marriage is not the result of religion, so take it up with your brain dead twin leftist up above. That was the reason I mentioned Hinduism.

I don't know if no leftist here can read or if all of you are really programmed by the corporate media to say the same thing every time, but I have not once ever mentioned Christianity or the Bible. All of my arguments have been based in history and science. This is why I can't even tell you people apart anymore. You all comment the using the same words and phrases with the same lame attacks. The left is actually boring to talk to now. The only fun part is watching you cry all over these threads.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 10, 2022)

smf said:


> I'm pretty sure none of those people from the democrat party of 1860's are still alive.
> 
> Your "clever" ploy of trying to link events from 162 years ago to today, to try to take criticism away from a criminal who was in the white house until very recently and has so far evaded punishment, is pretty transparent though.


Yes, the bad orange man. The "criminal" who keeps evading punishment, even after 5+ years of investigations by multiple entities from the DOJ/FBI to the SDNY to the IRS to Georgia. Who are these people investigating him? The Keystone Cops? 

It's amazing he keeps escaping "justice" and keeps playing golf and holding rallies almost every single week. The guy is not even worried. Oh wait, don't tell me. The J6 committee will get him for sure, amirite. I thoroughly enjoyed hearing the story of how Trump managed to wrestle a Secret Service agent half his age and years of combat training with his under sized hands while inside of the cramped quarters of the Beast, I mean, the presidential SUV. You guys spent years saying Trump was frail. He couldn't drink water or walk down a ramp, but now he's taking out Secret Service agents. 

You people are so obsessed with him, you don't even care about the runaway inflation and gas prices. Which is why no solutions are being offered. It's gonna be fun watching you all melt down in November.


----------



## smf (Jul 10, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> riminal" who keeps evading punishment, even after 5+ years of investigations by multiple entities from the DOJ/FBI to the SDNY to the IRS to Georgia. Who are these people investigating him? The Keystone Cops?


In the end, they only managed to get Al Capone on tax evasion.

Trump paid off a lot of his victims of fraud before he entered the white house.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 10, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> You people are so obsessed with him, you don't even care about the runaway inflation and gas prices. Which is why no solutions are being offered. It's gonna be fun watching you all melt down in November.



It's fun to see you call lefties "obsessed" when you people will fall over yourselves voting for him again.

Or defend his incitation of the J6 debacle (I can't even call it an insurrection in good faith. It was a bunch of morons crying at the Capitol)

Or constantly have Biden's name in your mouth when it comes to things that don't have anything to do with him. Like, inflation. Like, gas prices in general. For someone who accuses everyone of having a hard on for the government, you sure like to blame the government for everything when it isn't Republican ran. And for someone who talks down to others about their "corporate megalords" or whatever you called them earlier, you sure do defend them a lot in an effort to blame another shitty presidential figurehead. 

Lucy, you got an awful lot of 'splainin' to do.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 10, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> What's the issue against gay marriage with you in particular? I've seen you mention before that it's an agenda; I'm curious to know what you think this agenda entails. Is it only an affront to your religion or is there something deeper?


XDel is just a hateful conspiracy nutjob.

As for the topic, it has never been about stopping with just Roe V Wade, it's always been about dragging the world back to the worst times. It's always been about controlling people because Conservatives and Fascists hate freedom that isn't on their terms. They hate that LGBT+ people are living their lives. They hate that women have any kind of body anatomy. They hate that the world has become a better place and that better place isn't the hateful future they were hoping for.


----------



## Creamu (Jul 10, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> XDel is just a hateful conspiracy nutjob.
> 
> As for the topic, it has never been about stopping with just Roe V Wade, it's always been about dragging the world back to the worst times. It's always been about controlling people because Conservatives and Fascists hate freedom that isn't on their terms. They hate that LGBT+ people are living their lives. They hate that women have any kind of body anatomy. They hate that the world has become a better place and that better place isn't the hateful future they were hoping for.


But why do they hate so much?


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

Creamu said:


> But why do they hate so much?


I have guesses and know that answer is subjective to each person. Most is just a fear or hatred of change.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> XDel is just a hateful conspiracy nutjob.



 I got that from the last time we conversed lol. He's so confused with his own religion he has a hard time understanding anyone else's views.



The Catboy said:


> As for the topic, it has never been about stopping with just Roe V Wade, it's always been about dragging the world back to the worst times. It's always been about controlling people because Conservatives and Fascists hate freedom that isn't on their terms. They hate that LGBT+ people are living their lives. They hate that women have any kind of body anatomy. They hate that the world has become a better place and that better place isn't the hateful future they were hoping for.



Exactly. And they have a penchant for altering history to meet their needs. They're slowly coming to a decline, however and they know it. That's why they've been so adamant and aggressive; the world, at least from what I've experienced, is slowly becoming a better place when it comes to people realizing their own value, and those who wish to control can't stand that. It's progressiveness on a global scale.


----------



## Jambione (Jul 11, 2022)

I happen to feel that liberals are so misguided and confused.  Its really sad, because I feel they are (most of the time) good people, but just brain washed as to the reality of life.  That way since childhood, due to schools, media and culture.

Roe V. Wade was bad law.  It should be overturned, and left to the states.  Other culture issues should be the same.  IE same sex marriage.  That is the point of federalism.  Thank God for that.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

Jambione said:


> I happen to feel that liberals are so misguided and confused.  Its really sad, because I feel they are (most of the time) good people, but just brain washed as to the reality of life.  That way since childhood, due to schools, media and culture.
> 
> Roe V. Wade was bad law.  It should be overturned, and left to the states.  Other culture issues should be the same.  IE same sex marriage.  That is the point of federalism.  Thank God for that.


Care to elaborate? What is that Liberals are misguided and confused about?
Why was Roe V Wade a bad law? Why should people’s marriages be limited by the states instead of just being accepted? What about heterosexual marriage and interracial marriage, should those be limited by the state?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

XDel said:


> There are indeed, but it doesn't mean that what they are promoting is true. There are lots of nutty people out there that call them selves all sort of things from Christian, to Buddhist, to Atheist, what is your point?
> 
> As for the link in my avatar, it's not a conspiracy theory but a study of tactics that have been and are being used. You people carry on like there is no such thing as social engineering, marketing, propaganda, and the like, and that your thoughts and opinions are clear and are birthed from the depths of your own original thought; never having been tainted by the influences of the world around you. Until you have faced the truth of your self in the proverbial wilderness, you can never know truth but rather illusion.


hey i hope you weren't religious when you wrote this because it'd be really funny


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

smf said:


> In the end, they only managed to get Al Capone on tax evasion.
> 
> Trump paid off a lot of his victims of fraud before he entered the white house.


LOL!! That's why he's still playing golf and holding rallies. Next you're gonna tell me that he assaulted a Secret Service agent and took control of the presidential SUV. LOL!! Remember when Michael Avenatti was gonna bring Trump down? Whatever happened to him? How about that pee pee tape? How's that workin' out for ya?

Are the walls closing in around dRumpf or is this the beginning of the end for him?


----------



## omgcat (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> First of all, I never mentioned the Bible. One of my previous comments specified the Hindu religion, but people here are only interested in attacking Christianity, because that is easy. What would be so stunning and so brave is if you went after Islam, which bans LGBTQLMNOP+ entirely and is punishable by death, but you ain't ready for that conversation.


umm, there isn't a Islamic force in America trying to overturn the right to gay marriage. i'll worry about Islam once Islam is a problem in America. what IS a problem is all of the white nationalist christofascist attacks in America.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Hetero marriage is different because hetero sex normally results with children. That was the purpose of marriage for thousands of years.


Heterosexual marriage isn't different from same-sex marriage. Having kids is not the only purpose for marriage, there have been countless different reasons for marriages. Everything from connecting tribes, uniting kingdoms, expanding family workforces, and even just because people love each other. Same-sex marriage has also been a large part of history and not just in recent decades.


TraderPatTX said:


> Abortion is murder because somebody dies every single time. It is pre-meditated and not by accident. Just like when a criminal kills a pregnant lady, often the criminal will be charged with double homicide. It's already law and is not controversial.


Abortions are still going to happen regardless of your stance on the matter. Legality only kept abortions safe and in the offices of doctors.  As are same-sex marriages, for that matter. No amount of fussing is going to stop these things, they are just going to happen elsewhere.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

omgcat said:


> umm, there isn't a Islamic force in America trying to overturn the right to gay marriage. i'll worry about Islam once Islam is a problem in America. what IS a problem is all of the white nationalist christofascist attacks in America.


You should go visit Michigan.

Also, define fascist, because it doesn't mean people you disagree with. There is an actual definition to it that involves totalitarianism. We are thrilled that abortion is being sent back to the states to be voted on because we are a constitutional republic and the Supreme Court should not be in the business of creating rights. Our rights are already outlined in the Constitution. The left are the ones who want 9 unelected people to created law in this country. I'd rather have state legislatures create law since we actually vote for those people.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Heterosexual marriage isn't different from same-sex marriage. Having kids is not the only purpose for marriage, there have been countless different reasons for marriages. Everything from connecting tribes, uniting kingdoms, expanding family workforces, and even just because people love each other. Same-sex marriage has also been a large part of history and not just in recent decades.
> 
> Abortions are still going to happen regardless of your stance on the matter. Legality only kept abortions safe and in the offices of doctors.  As are same-sex marriages, for that matter. No amount of fussing is going to stop these things, they are just going to happen elsewhere.


I never said it was the only purpose. Just the main purpose. Marriages connecting tribes and uniting kingdoms were heterosexual marriages too because the couple were required to create heirs. Do you even read, bro?

Dr. Gosnell enters the chat.

https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...ls-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

Define safe. You word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## omgcat (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> You should go visit Michigan.
> 
> Also, define fascist, because it doesn't mean people you disagree with. There is an actual definition to it that involves totalitarianism. We are thrilled that abortion is being sent back to the states to be voted on because we are a constitutional republic and the Supreme Court should not be in the business of creating rights. Our rights are already outlined in the Constitution. The left are the ones who want 9 unelected people to created law in this country. I'd rather have state legislatures create law since we actually vote for those people.





> Definition of _fascism_​
> 1. often capitalized *: *a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
> 
> 
> *Christian fascism* is a far-right political ideology that denotes the intersection between fascism and Christianity, encompassing the fascistic, totalitarian, and imperialistic aspects of the Christian Church.


when people have had the right to something for nearly 50 years and it gets arbitrarily ripped away by a partisan set of judges, people are going to lose their shit. one of the biggest issues is that the supreme court justices (specifically Thomas) are ASKING for people to bring cases to them so they can overturn previous rulings. This means we have judges who already have a decision made up BEFORE a case is brought to them. Thomas mentioned Griswold vs. Connecticut (right to contraception), Lawerence v. Texas (sodomy laws, e.g. two consenting adults, gay or otherwise, being able to have oral or anal sex), and Obergefell v. Hodges which bars states from banning gay marriage.

the stripping of women's right to choose, the coming return of sodomy laws, and the removal of access to contraceptives is basically forcing Christian religious values on a non-religious country, basically establishing a core religion in the USA even though the 1st amendment doesn't allow such. we are starting to see active and stochastic terrorism based on "stop the woke" and anti-trans/gay sentiment.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I never said it was the only purpose. Just the main purpose. Marriages connecting tribes and uniting kingdoms were heterosexual marriages too because the couple were required to create heirs. Do you even read, bro?
> 
> Dr. Gosnell enters the chat.
> 
> ...


You seem to really be fixated on this idea that people aren’t reading your posts. I read your post and I replied to it. As for your article, those illegal abortions and practices, this is stated in the article. Unfortunately illegal practices still continue and people still get hurt by them. But that’s a minority while Roe v Wade was still in effect. Under Roe v Wade, we saw a drastic drop in abortion related death, including many years where deaths caused by illegal abortions were zero. We’ve also seen a drastic drop in deaths during legal abortions.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm#T15_down
Simply put, abortions have gotten cleaner and safer since it was moved out of dirty motels to professional environments. As I stated before, abortions are going to continue to happen. I would much rather see individual having abortion come back home alive. Also same-sex marriage is still the same as heterosexual marriage.


----------



## MartyDreamy (Jul 11, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> As I stated before, abortions are going to continue to happen. I would much rather see individual having abortion come back home alive. Also same-sex marriage is still the same as heterosexual marriage.


^^^^^^ THIS!!!!!

keep your hands out of OUR body and OUR marriages!!!!


----------



## Creamu (Jul 11, 2022)

MartyDreamy said:


> keep your hands out of OUR body and OUR marriages!!!!


What about needles?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

omgcat said:


> when people have had the right to something for nearly 50 years and it gets arbitrarily ripped away by a partisan set of judges, people are going to lose their shit. one of the biggest issues is that the supreme court justices (specifically Thomas) are ASKING for people to bring cases to them so they can overturn previous rulings. This means we have judges who already have a decision made up BEFORE a case is brought to them. Thomas mentioned Griswold vs. Connecticut (right to contraception), Lawerence v. Texas (sodomy laws, e.g. two consenting adults, gay or otherwise, being able to have oral or anal sex), and Obergefell v. Hodges which bars states from banning gay marriage.
> 
> the stripping of women's right to choose, the coming return of sodomy laws, and the removal of access to contraceptives is basically forcing Christian religious values on a non-religious country, basically establishing a core religion in the USA even though the 1st amendment doesn't allow such. we are starting to see active and stochastic terrorism based on "stop the woke" and anti-trans/gay sentiment.


No rights got stripped. The only thing that has changed is now the left has to actually debate their positions on 3rd trimester abortions. You know you can't do it and that is why all of you are all over social media and web forums crying about it.

In fact, the right to life got upheld and that supersedes whatever other right you think you had for the last 50 years.

The rest of your comment is just fear mongering because that's all you have left.

Oh my, somebody made a map, yet the left is firebombing pregnancy centers.

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/abortion-activists-firebomb-another-pro-life-office/

Not to mention assassination attempts on Supreme Court justices.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Justice-Kavanaugh-convinced-turn-sister.html

But that's ok because people are just "losing their shit", amirite?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

hmm


----------



## AmandaRose (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> No rights got stripped. The only thing that has changed is now the left has to actually debate their positions on 3rd trimester abortions. You know you can't do it and that is why all of you are all over social media and web forums crying about it.
> 
> In fact, the right to life got upheld and that supersedes whatever other right you think you had for the last 50 years.
> 
> ...


Haha the minute you start posting links to the Daily Mail is the minute you lose an argument. Everyone in Britain knows its famous for its right wing fake stories and for failing to actually check any facts it claims.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

AmandaRose said:


> Haha the minute you start posting links to the Daily Mail is the minute you lose an argument. Everyone in Britain knows its famous for its right wing fake stories and for failing to actually check any facts it claims.
> 
> View attachment 317559


You would think if situations like they're talking about were so widespread, they'd be able to find more sources than ones that regularly *make shit up for clicks.*


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> View attachment 317556
> 
> hmm


Oh, I forgot, only leftwing sources are absolute truth. This is why the left doesn't know anything. You refuse to read both sides, which is why you get angry when events happen because you don't understand what is going on.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

AmandaRose said:


> Haha the minute you start posting links to the Daily Mail is the minute you lose an argument. Everyone in Britain knows its famous for its right wing fake stories and for failing to actually check any facts it claims.
> 
> View attachment 317559


Took me an additional 5 seconds to find a leftwing source. You people are so lazy. I really wish you would learn how to use the internet.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nicholas-roske-brett-kavanaugh-attempted-assassination/


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Oh, I forgot, only leftwing sources are absolute truth. This is why the left doesn't know anything. You refuse to read both sides, which is why you get angry when events happen because you don't understand what is going on.


...?







Cope.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> ...?
> View attachment 317560
> View attachment 317561
> 
> Cope.


Awesome, you can draw pictures. Congratulations.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Awesome, you can draw pictures. Congratulations.


Not an argument. The same sources you whine about, that you call fake news, are scored similarly to your own. Sooooooooooooo....


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Not an argument. The same sources you whine about, that you call fake news, are scored similarly to your own. Sooooooooooooo....


So everyone has a bias. Congratulations, Captain Obvious. You've cracked the code.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> The rich got richer and poor got poorer because blue states shut down their economies.


And red states sacrificed their grandparents to appease an economy which doesn't work for them anyway.  Point is the federal government did nothing for anybody except the millionaires and billionaires who were able to exploit the PPP loan program.  Plenty of countries shut down their economies but came back out of the pandemic strong because they at the very least froze rent and mortgage payments.



TraderPatTX said:


> Guess which corporations control the Democrat Party. You guessed it, the ones who made billions forcing people to inject their product by government mandates.


You're delusional if you think big pharma corps don't hold sway over both parties to some extent.  Trump desperately wanted credit for the vaccines.  Regardless, they worked as advertised, otherwise every one of the world's governments would've demanded their money back.



TraderPatTX said:


> So you don't get to play that you are somehow different from other leftists, progressives and Democrats. They are all the same with the same goals. Complete authoritarianism and globalism.


Idiocy.  You realize that anarchists are leftists, yes?  About as polar opposite to authoritarianism as you can possibly get.



TraderPatTX said:


> You hate this country and the Constitution. You show it every day.


I do hate that General Sherman stopped short in cleansing the US of its confederate disease.  If he hadn't then I wouldn't have to debate the merits of hanging on to all our constitutional rights with hypocrites like you who want to strip them away one by one.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

Xzi said:


> And red states sacrificed their grandparents to appease an economy which doesn't work for them anyway.  Point is the federal government did nothing for anybody except the millionaires and billionaires who were able to exploit the PPP loan program.  Plenty of countries shut down their economies but came back out of the pandemic strong because they at the very least froze rent and mortgage payments.
> 
> 
> You're delusional if you think big pharma corps don't hold sway over both parties to some extent.  Trump desperately wanted credit for the vaccines.  Regardless, they worked as advertised, otherwise every one of the world's governments would've demanded their money back.
> ...


Actually it was blue states who sacrificed grandparents by putting sick people into nursing homes.

The left supported the PPP loan program. I did not. All government programs like that are rife with corruption.

There's the both sides argument when the left can't defend something. So predictable.

Anarchists want zero governmnet. Leftists want complete government control. The left uses anarchists to destroy a current government so they can implement fascism or communism.

You hate that your positions get challenged and you can't defend them. Makes sense. I don't envy you at all.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Actually it was blue states who sacrificed grandparents by putting sick people into nursing homes.
> 
> The left supported the PPP loan program. I did not. All government programs like that are rife with corruption.
> 
> ...



You're the only one here who consistently can't meet arguments presented toward you. When you run out of things to say you ignore people or try to attack them with impersonal reasoning and argument dissection. The fact of the matter is the only links you've provided were biased and based on false statistics, v which is the epitome of indoctrination; you're literally no better than Ghislaine Maxwell in using someone else's propaganda as your own voice in an effort at .. What? Recruitment? General discord? Whatever your attempt at this point is, is pathetic. You sit there crying about libs crying while licking boots of the same people you claim to demonize. 

Your stance is hypocritical.
Your arguments are hypocritical.
Your affiliation is hypocritical. 

Please post something substantiated.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

The right has no morals, they're just told what to think and instantly follow it.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> The right has no morals, they're just told what to think and instantly follow it.


The projection is strong with this one.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> The projection is strong with this one.


Can you show me a dem platform that supports anarcho syndicalism?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> You're the only one here who consistently can't meet arguments presented toward you. When you run out of things to say you ignore people or try to attack them with impersonal reasoning and argument dissection. The fact of the matter is the only links you've provided were biased and based on false statistics, v which is the epitome of indoctrination; you're literally no better than Ghislaine Maxwell in using someone else's propaganda as your own voice in an effort at .. What? Recruitment? General discord? Whatever your attempt at this point is, is pathetic. You sit there crying about libs crying while licking boots of the same people you claim to demonize.
> 
> Your stance is hypocritical.
> Your arguments are hypocritical.
> ...


Attack people... blah blah blah... biased links... blah blah blah... false statistics... blah blah blah... licking boots... blah blah blah.

Cry and seethe more.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Attack people... blah blah blah... biased links... blah blah blah... false statistics... blah blah blah... licking boots... blah blah blah.
> 
> Cry and seethe more.



You're the one who keeps whining bud. When's the last time you posted something relevant to abortions instead of skirting your inability to confidently debate by derailing?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> You're the one who keeps whining bud. When's the last time you posted something relevant to abortions instead of skirting your inability to confidently debate by derailing?


I've stated my opinion on abortion. Every leftist here can't debate it. That's not on me, that's on you.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I've stated my opinion on abortion. Every leftist here can't debate it. That's not on me, that's on you.


Well it's moreso the fact your positions are incoherent. In one stance, you're for bodily autonomy relative to harmless vaccination, and then suddenly when it's abortion, an issue that doesn't even concern you since you don't have a womb, you get all twisted about how it "needs to be banned" and so on.

My position's easy and needs no mental gymnastics. Bodily autonomy should be codified into law, or else the government can use it as a vector to oppress people with. Simple!

Now, explain to me why you think bodily autonomy should be limited by the government. Let's go.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Well it's moreso the fact your positions are incoherent. In one stance, you're for bodily autonomy relative to harmless vaccination, and then suddenly when it's abortion, an issue that doesn't even concern you since you don't have a womb, you get all twisted about how it "needs to be banned" and so on.
> 
> My position's easy and needs no mental gymnastics. Bodily autonomy should be codified into law, or else the government can use it as a vector to oppress people with. Simple!
> 
> Now, explain to me why you think bodily autonomy should be limited by the government. Let's go.


Men can get pregnant too. Don't be a bigot.

You do have bodily autonomy, until somebody's right to life comes into play. Your rights end where somebody else's begins.  You have a right to life, until you break into my home and attack me. Then you forfeit your right to life because my right to self defense takes precedence.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I've stated my opinion on abortion. Every leftist here can't debate it. That's not on me, that's on you.



We have debated it. You're the one who runs and hides when lambasted for posting irrelevant crap, bad links, personal attacks, and general hypocrisy when all of your main points of debate fall through. Show one post you've made that someone hasn't argued into obsoletion.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> We have debated it. You're the one who runs and hides when lambasted for posting irrelevant crap, bad links, personal attacks, and general hypocrisy when all of your main points of debate fall through. Show one post you've made that someone hasn't argued into obsoletion.


Just because I don't spend 24 hours a day here does not mean I'm hiding. It just means I have a life. You should feel honored that I choose to spend time with you on here at all.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Men can get pregnant too. Don't be a bigot.
> 
> You do have bodily autonomy, until somebody's right to life comes into play. Your rights end where somebody else's begins.  You have a right to life, until you break into my home and attack me. Then you forfeit your right to life because my right to self defense takes precedence.


So, this isn't an answer to my question. Let's try asking again!

Now, explain to me why you think bodily autonomy should be limited by the government. Let's go.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Actually it was blue states who sacrificed grandparents by putting sick people into nursing homes.


Some, yes, I'm not going to deny that mistakes were made and a whole lot of people died as a result, across the entire nation.  Trump disbanded the federal pandemic response team one year into his term, so that was a doozy of a fuck-up for sure.



TraderPatTX said:


> The left supported the PPP loan program. I did not. All government programs like that are rife with corruption.


It was a Trump program which worked as intended, and I'm sure you supported him at the time.  Likely you still do.



TraderPatTX said:


> There's the both sides argument when the left can't defend something. So predictable.


Both sides are capitalist and don't represent the interests of anybody except the elites.  Now you're starting to get it.  Even George Washington warned us that a two party system would be trash, and here we are.



TraderPatTX said:


> Anarchists want zero governmnet. Leftists want complete government control. The left uses anarchists to destroy a current government so they can implement fascism or communism.


There's plenty of infighting between communists and anarchists for that very reason.  These days I'm leaning more toward the anarchy side of things myself, with some socialism mixed in.  Honestly though I'd take even communism over the christo-fascist shithole that righties want to turn this country into.  They could just move to Russia right now to experience that type of "utopia" anyway.



TraderPatTX said:


> You hate that your positions get challenged and you can't defend them. Makes sense. I don't envy you at all.


Nothing you've said has challenged my beliefs or views on anything.  You're stuck in the past and you want this country in a constant state of stagnation and decay to match that regressive boomer mindset.  You'll be in the rearview mirror soon enough, along with all the sociopathic oligarchs that you worship.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> So, this isn't an answer to my question. Let's try asking again!
> 
> Now, explain to me why you think bodily autonomy should be limited by the government. Let's go.


I've already explained my position. Explain to me why babies do not have the right to life. What crime did they commit?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I've already explained my position. Explain to me why babies do not have the right to life. What crime did they commit?


Should the government force you to donate blood to someone you don't want to?

TL Note: This is a rhetorical question, trying to change the subject is just concession :^)


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Just because I don't spend 24 hours a day here does not mean I'm hiding. It just means I have a life. You should feel honored that I choose to spend time with you on here at all.



Your real world life and the amount of time you spend in it vs here is not even remotely what I was talking about.

Even amid a flurry of back and forths you have with various other users you've yet to dissuade any argument you can't logically debate, and it's not just mine. You frequently ignore facts and links by others while trying to push your own. You frequently ignore others' questions and then try to ridicule people when you don't think they've answered yours. You know exactly what I'm talking about; don't play dumb.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Your real world life and the amount of time you spend in it vs here is not even remotely what I was talking about.
> 
> Even amid a flurry of back and forths you have with various other users you've yet to dissuade any argument you can't logically debate, and it's not just mine. You frequently ignore facts and links by others while trying to push your own. You frequently ignore others' questions and then try to ridicule people when you don't think they've answered yours. You know exactly what I'm talking about; don't play dumb.


The right are afraid of debate because they can't virtue signal in it. Sad!!


----------



## MartyDreamy (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I've already explained my position. Explain to me why babies do not have the right to life. What crime did they commit?


Because most of the times, when the "babies" are aborted, they're not babies. They're some cells.
Also, what if the baby is not a wanted baby
Example: rape, poor family
Would you still let the "baby" live, with traumas for coming from a rape, in foster houses/orphanage because their parents can't keep them
And don't use the excuses like "keep your legs closed next time" or "use the pill" because you don't know how much the pill can hurt a woman body.

All the people saying "don't abort them, we will keep them!", do they know how many children are waiting to find a family?


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Actually it was blue states who sacrificed grandparents by putting sick people into nursing homes.
> 
> The left supported the PPP loan program. I did not. All government programs like that are rife with corruption.
> 
> ...


Say you don’t know anything about politics without telling me


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Your real world life and the amount of time you spend in it vs here is not even remotely what I was talking about.
> 
> Even amid a flurry of back and forths you have with various other users you've yet to dissuade any argument you can't logically debate, and it's not just mine. You frequently ignore facts and links by others while trying to push your own. You frequently ignore others' questions and then try to ridicule people when you don't think they've answered yours. You know exactly what I'm talking about; don't play dumb.


Oh, you think I'm trying to dissuade you? That's silly. You're part of the 4-6%. Why would I waste my time doing that?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

MartyDreamy said:


> Because most of the times, when the "babies" are aborted, they're not babies. They're some cells.
> Also, what if the baby is not a wanted baby
> Example: rape, poor family
> Would you still let the "baby" live, with traumas for coming from a rape, in foster houses/orphanage because their parents can't keep them
> ...


A DNA sample would prove you wrong instantly.

A baby does not carry the traumas of rape of the mother. There have been thousands of people born from rape who lived full, rewarding lives loved by their mothers.

Keep firebombing pregnancy centers who are helping mothers.

Stop with the talking points. We all know abortion is not about women who were raped. Those abortions count for less than 10% of total abortions performed nationwide. You also wouldn't be performing 3rd trimester on a woman who was raped. That makes zero sense.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Oh, you think I'm trying to dissuade you? That's silly. You're part of the 4-6%. Why would I waste my time doing that?



You clearly didn't comprehend what you read. Do you know what dissuade even means?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> A DNA sample would prove you wrong instantly.
> 
> A baby does not carry the traumas of rape of the mother. There have been thousands of people born from rape who lived full, rewarding lives loved by their mothers.
> 
> ...


Actually the trauma can manifest itself through the child in things like neglect, or the socioeconomic conditions of the parent. For example, a lot of parents looking at his or her child after being raped are proooooooobably not going to be all "Ooohhh, I'm so thankful to have a kid!"

I mean, if you're in favor of the state saying rape victims have to raise their rapists kid, that's pretty strangely authoritarian for a would-be anti-authoritarian. Sad!


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> A DNA sample would prove you wrong instantly.



Hey sperm has DNA.



TraderPatTX said:


> A baby does not carry the traumas of rape of the mother.



That hasn't been proven explicitly one way or the other. 



TraderPatTX said:


> Keep firebombing pregnancy centers who are helping mothers.



Ok. At least it keeps the topic at hand at the forefront of everyone's minds. 



TraderPatTX said:


> Stop with the talking points. We all know abortion is not about women who were raped.



Correct. It's about controlling the blacks, and only the blacks. /s



TraderPatTX said:


> Those abortions count for less than 10% of total abortions performed nationwide. You also wouldn't be performing 3rd trimester on a woman who was raped. That makes zero sense.



But if all lives mattered, then you wouldn't be so quick to denigrate the lives of the women who were raped or otherwise victimized. Because you continually dehumanize women in the face of forcing birth is why no one takes your platform seriously. You want to enact a blanket law, you need to ensure that the fringe cases are dealt with meticulously, or you're going to have that pushback.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Actually the trauma can manifest itself through the child in things like neglect, or the socioeconomic conditions of the parent. For example, a lot of parents looking at his or her child after being raped are proooooooobably not going to be all "Ooohhh, I'm so thankful to have a kid!"
> 
> I mean, if you're in favor of the state saying rape victims have to raise their rapists kid, that's pretty strangely authoritarian for a would-be anti-authoritarian. Sad!


If you have to use the word proooooooobably in your argument, then you have lost the debate. I don't care about your feelings. There is no way you can prove your first paragaraph and your second paragraph is assuming a belief system on me. Didn't I just get yelled at for doing that to somebody earlier and here you are doing it to me. Wow.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> There is no way you can prove your first paragaraph and your second paragraph is assuming a belief system on me.



1. No, it's been backed with science. Would you like some references?

2. And the fact that you think abortions should be banned is also a belief system. Are your hands dirty, carrying the pot from which you call the kettle black?



TraderPatTX said:


> Didn't I just get yelled at for doing that to somebody earlier and here you are doing it to me. Wow.



Are you crying?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> If you have to use the word proooooooobably in your argument, then you have lost the debate. I don't care about your feelings. There is no way you can prove your first paragaraph and your second paragraph is assuming a belief system on me. Didn't I just get yelled at for doing that to somebody earlier and here you are doing it to me. Wow.


Not an argument. Cope harder.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 12, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> If you have to use the word proooooooobably in your argument, then you have lost the debate. I don't care about your feelings. There is no way you can prove your first paragaraph and your second paragraph is assuming a belief system on me. Didn't I just get yelled at for doing that to somebody earlier and here you are doing it to me. Wow.


Please touch some grass and stay away from women. Actually, get some therapy.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 12, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Please touch some grass and stay away from women. Actually, get some therapy.


I'm probably the only woman he's spoken to in like four years, and that's horrifying.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 12, 2022)

The Title is a mess


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 12, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I'm probably the only woman he's spoken to in like four years, and that's horrifying.


Looks like I am gonna stay a femboy, I am sorry you have have to keep the burden of being the only woman he’s spoken to


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 12, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Looks like I am gonna stay a femboy, I am sorry you have have to keep the burden of being the only woman he’s spoken to


C'est la vie.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 12, 2022)

he's shy around females


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 12, 2022)

SG854 said:


> he's shy around females


I mean same. I found being an adorable catboy helps. I am still shy but girls like the cat ears. So just be born a cat folk and become a catboy


----------



## MartyDreamy (Jul 12, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I'm probably the only woman he's spoken to in like four years, and that's horrifying.


Well, it's me and you then haha
Really, I still can't understand by what right men must necessarily control a woman's body.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 12, 2022)

MartyDreamy said:


> Well, it's me and you then haha
> Really, I still can't understand by what right men must necessarily control a woman's body.


I think it's some cultural thing, if women aren't second to right wing men then said men will get extremely insecure. Historically speaking it seems like fascism has to have someone to oppress or else they'll think too hard about how bad the system is.


----------



## MartyDreamy (Jul 12, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I think it's some cultural thing, if women aren't second to right wing men then said men will get extremely insecure. Historically speaking it seems like fascism has to have someone to oppress or else they'll think too hard about how bad the system is.


Hell yea, you're 100% right about fascism. Bad thing is that here in Italy a lot of people still think that Fascism was a good thing. Jesus Christ.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 12, 2022)

Round one of proving babies are not more important than their hosts:

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-admin-...UKpLeA4zmZDtHhDCFTRdGeM0W_Z6ZzSh_sEbv6WN_E4CL

Let's see Republicans whine about it now.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 12, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Round one of proving babies are not more important than their hosts:
> 
> https://news.yahoo.com/biden-admin-...UKpLeA4zmZDtHhDCFTRdGeM0W_Z6ZzSh_sEbv6WN_E4CL
> 
> Let's see Republicans whine about it now.


Republicans don’t care about people


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 12, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Republicans don’t care about people



I can tell. 5 hours later and no pushback. Weak ass alt right wingers


----------



## tabzer (Jul 13, 2022)

From the article:

"Currently, even the states with the most stringent bans on abortion do allow exceptions when the health of a mother is at risk, though the threat of prosecution has created confusion for some doctors."

"The department says its guidance doesn't reflect new policy, but merely reminds doctors and providers of their existing obligations under federal law."

“The Biden Administration’s statement of existing law today is about nothing more than maintaining the false narrative that women’s lives are in danger in order to appease his base.”

Who are you expecting to push back and why?  The interpretations I see are either political grand-standing or clarification about the law.  Neither of those are really a challenge or an encroachment.  From where I am sitting, the argument about abortion isn't about women's lives vs children's lives.  It was about women's "rights" vs children's lives.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> 1. No, it's been backed with science. Would you like some references?
> 
> 2. And the fact that you think abortions should be banned is also a belief system. Are your hands dirty, carrying the pot from which you call the kettle black?
> 
> ...


Abortion kills a life every single time. That's not a belief system, that is science. The party of science who can't define a woman, doesn't understand DNA and biology. Color me shocked.

Just pointing out you hypocrisy. Isn't that what you like to try to point out in my comments and fail every time?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Abortion kills a life every single time. That's not a belief system, that is science. The party of science who can't define a woman, doesn't understand DNA and biology. Color me shocked.
> 
> Just pointing out you hypocrisy. Isn't that what you like to try to point out in my comments and fail every time?


Lmfao, does contraception kill a life too? What about nocturnal emissions? When's that gonna get called "murder?" Abortion isn't murder since it's not being done to something sentient.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

MartyDreamy said:


> Well, it's me and you then haha
> Really, I still can't understand by what right men must necessarily control a woman's body.


Men can get pregnant too. Don't be a bigot.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Men can get pregnant too. Don't be a bigot.


While this is true, it's blatant that you're only being facetious about it. Wish you were smart enough to hold real opinions.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Lmfao, does contraception kill a life too? What about nocturnal emissions? When's that gonna get called "murder?" Abortion isn't murder since it's not being done to something sentient.


You people must have failed science in school. A sperm and an egg on their own is only half of the needed DNA to create a person. I really wish you people would read more so you don't look as stupid when you are commenting on here. Smh

https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/conception-how-it-works


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Abortion kills a life every single time.


Asserting your bodily autonomy and denying someone your kidney kills a life every single time. That doesn't mean it's murder.



TraderPatTX said:


> The party of science who can't define a woman,


We can define a woman. It's just that conservatives incorrectly and dangerously deny that some women (trans women) exist.



TraderPatTX said:


> doesn't understand DNA and biology.


The conservatives are the ones who deny the basic foundations of biology, geology, cosmology, etc.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> You people must have failed science in school. A sperm and an egg on their own is only half of the needed DNA to create a person. I really wish you people would read more so you don't look as stupid when you are commenting on here. Smh
> 
> https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/conception-how-it-works


See but the problem is you aren't consistent. The government cannot force you to give blood. They cannot force you to give organs. They cannot forcibly violate your bodily autonomy for ANYTHING...Except pregnancy. With anti-abortion rulings, the Government can now force you against your will to carry a fetus to full term against your will.

So either, you support the idea of forcing people to give blood and organs against their will, or you're against abortion. I advise you to be careful on biting the bullet and saying yes. You never know how far that'll go. Who knows! Maybe forced medical testing on you, without your consent. Or even...Spooky vaccine mandates!!


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Asserting your bodily autonomy and denying someone your kidney kills a life every single time. That doesn't mean it's murder.
> 
> 
> We can define a woman. It's just that conservatives incorrectly and dangerously deny that some women (trans women) exist.
> ...


Your organ transplant that you love to use is the dumbest argument since your seatbelt saves my life argument you dumbasses thought up during Covid to justify forcing everybody to use masks.

You can't take an unborn baby's kidney either because the baby has bodily autonomy also.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Your organ transplant that you love to use is the dumbest argument since your seatbelt saves my life argument you dumbasses thought up during Covid to justify forcing everybody to use masks.
> 
> You can't take an unborn baby's kidney either because the baby has bodily autonomy also.


So this isn't an answer to their post, you just had a schizo meltdown. Try focusing. I'll reiterate the proposition for you again, mind your cognitive dissonance this time.

If you are the only available donor for a patient who will die otherwise, and you do not want to donate an organ to this person, this person dies. Should you be charged with murder? If not, why?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Your organ transplant that you love to use is the dumbest argument since your seatbelt saves my life argument you dumbasses thought up during Covid to justify forcing everybody to use masks.


You keep saying that, but it's hard to pay attention when you won't provide a good justification as to why.



TraderPatTX said:


> You can't take an unborn baby's kidney either because the baby has bodily autonomy also.


Cool. Good thing I didn't argue anything about wanting to take fetal kidneys.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 13, 2022)

The right will not answer the question of organ autonomy, they can only dodge, because either they have to cede abortion rights back to people, or they open up a world where the "evil leftist democrats" that don't exist would be theoretically able to force them to donate organs against their will.

But I would love if some intellectual righty could prove me wrong!


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> So this isn't an answer to their post, you just had a schizo meltdown. Try focusing. I'll reiterate the proposition for you again, mind your cognitive dissonance this time.
> 
> If you are the only available donor for a patient who will die otherwise, and you do not want to donate an organ to this person, this person dies. Should you be charged with murder? If not, why?


Replace me with unborn baby in your stupid "what if" scenario. Read it again, very slowly. If you still don't get it, read slower. If you still fail to grasp it, delete your account here and cancel your internet service.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You keep saying that, but it's hard to pay attention when you won't provide a good justification as to why.
> 
> 
> Cool. Good thing I didn't argue anything about wanting to take fetal kidneys.


How does a clump of cells have kidneys? Weird how all of the left's arguments are destroyed by you. What are you, some kind of alt right fascist?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Replace me with unborn baby in your stupid "what if" scenario. Read it again, very slowly. If you still don't get it, read slower. If you still fail to grasp it, delete your account here and cancel your internet service.


Bodily autonomy doesn't mean you have a right to another person's body.



TraderPatTX said:


> How does a clump of cells have kidneys?


I, uh, never said they do. You're the one who brought them up. Are you okay?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Bodily autonomy doesn't mean you have a right to another person's body.
> 
> 
> I, uh, never said they do. You're the one who brought them up. Are you okay?


So sorry that you do not understand nature and how things work in the natural world.

You leftists do this all the time. I call out one of your insane beliefs that all of you worship and your only response is, "I never said this".

The abortion dogma states that fetuses are just clump of cells and that is how the left justifies killing humans. You must dehumanize groups, just like that German guy with the funny mustache and bad comb over that the left claims to hate, but you all seem to employ his same tactics. Weird.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 13, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> If you are the only available donor for a patient who will die otherwise, and you do not want to donate an organ to this person, this person dies. Should you be charged with murder? If not, why?


One possible explanation is that of responsibility. Unless you caused this person's disease (e.g. as an employer who knowingly exposed the employee to conditions that would result in organ failure), you are not responsible for the situation and are under no obligation to fix it. Since the parents are directly responsibile for the creation of a new human, they do have some level of responsibility to the life they created. Key unanswered questions include:


What level of responsibility do they have?
At what point in the pregnancy are the responsibilties created?
How do you weigh those responsibilities against the woman's right to decide if she wants children?
What circumstances, if any, can change these relationships between competing maternal and fetal interests?

The anti-abortion camp is apparently terrible at making rational arguments, but some rational arguments do exist.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> One possible explanation is that of responsibility. Unless you caused this person's disease (e.g. as an employer who knowingly exposed the employee to conditions that would result in organ failure), you are not responsible for the situation and are under no obligation to fix it. Since the parents are directly responsibile for the creation of a new human, they do have some level of responsibility to the life they created. Key unanswered questions include:
> 
> 
> What level of responsibility do they have?
> ...


I asked what is the difference physically, mentally and emotionally between a fetus at 8.75 months and a 2 day old infant.

The response I got was, "I never said anything about a fetus at 8.75 months".

The pro-death cult can't answer rational arguments because all of their arguments are derived from emotion, not rationality.

It'll be interesting to see if you get a coherent response from the cult.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> The abortion dogma states that fetuses are just clump of cells and that is how the left justifies killing humans.


The fetus could be a fully formed human adult, and it wouldn't matter with regard to the topic of bodily autonomy.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 13, 2022)

The kidney transplant metaphor treats the embryo as an independent/autonomous entity and assumes that said embryo is being unreasonable to a woman by needing her as a mother.  It didn't have a choice in its bodily autonomy.  It was forced to exist and to need the mother.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The kidney transplant metaphor treats the embryo as an independent/autonomous entity.


That's if we're being generous. Depending on how far along a pregnancy is, I wouldn't even grant it that.



tabzer said:


> and assumes that said embryo is being unreasonable to a woman by needing her as a mother.


The person who is pregnant should have a right to bodily autonomy, regardless.



tabzer said:


> It didn't have a choice in its bodily autonomy.  It was forced to exist and to need the mother.


Generally speaking, nobody chooses to be dependent on another person's body for survival.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Replace me with unborn baby in your stupid "what if" scenario. Read it again, very slowly. If you still don't get it, read slower. If you still fail to grasp it, delete your account here and cancel your internet service.


Coping is not an argument. Here's the question again.

If you are the only available donor for a patient who will die otherwise, and you do not want to donate an organ to this person, this person dies. Should you be charged with murder? If not, why?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 13, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The kidney transplant metaphor treats the embryo as an independent/autonomous entity and assumes that said embryo is being unreasonable to a woman by needing her as a mother.  It didn't have a choice in its bodily autonomy.  It was forced to exist and to need the mother.


The person in the hospital didn't have a choice in needing a transplant. They were forced into it by circumstances regarding the injury. Ergo, you *must* give them the necessary organ regardless of your objection.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 13, 2022)

Lacius said:


> That's if we're being generous. Depending on how far along a pregnancy is, I wouldn't even grant it that



That's not being generous.  Your analogy likens an embryo to an autonomous being at the embryo's detriment.  Pay attention.



Lacius said:


> The person who is pregnant should have a right to bodily autonomy, regardless.



That's a belief unsympathetic to the embryo.



LainaGabranth said:


> The person in the hospital didn't have a choice in needing a transplant. They were forced into it by circumstances regarding the injury. Ergo, you *must* give them the necessary organ regardless of your objection.



It's not assumed that the a person who needs a transplant did or did not put themselves into that situation.  If someone else put them into that situation they would be culpable to some degree.  If you'd like to make the counter argument to how culpability and recourse ought to be measured then that would make you appear less disengenious.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 13, 2022)

So, what you're saying is, the government should be allowed to force you, against your will, to be donate your organs to someone?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Your analogy likens an embryo to an autonomous being at the embryo's detriment.


My analogy doesn't care if an embryo is an autonomous being, since it's irrelevant.



tabzer said:


> That's a belief unsympathetic to the embryo.


Sucks. An embryo doesn't get special rights that we wouldn't even afford to real people.



tabzer said:


> It's not assumed that the a person who needs a transplant did or did not put themselves into that situation.  If someone else put them into that situation they would be culpable to some degree.  If you'd like to make the counter argument to how culpability and recourse ought to be measured then that would make you appear less disengenious.


Whether or not Person A put Person B into a situation is irrelevant.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 13, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> So, what you're saying is, the government should be allowed to force you, against your will, to be donate your organs to someone?



I'm not saying that at all.



Lacius said:


> My analogy doesn't care if an embryo is an autonomous being, since it's irrelevant.



Irrelevant to you, which makes the analogy self-serving and not an argument.



Lacius said:


> Sucks. An embryo doesn't get special rights that we wouldn't even afford to real people.



That's wholly disengenious.  If you'd pretend that murder was on the table you wouldn't be having this conversation.  A parent's duty to the welfare of their children?  Is that sentiment wasted on you as well?



Lacius said:


> Whether or not Person A put Person B into a situation is irrelevant.



It's not relevant because it breaks your analogy, duh.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> The pro-death cult can't answer rational arguments because all of their arguments are derived from emotion, not rationality.


Ask yourself: "If my opponents are the ones making irrational arguments based in emotion, then why am I the one calling them a pro-death cult?" You cannot have a debate until you are willing to entertain the possibility that the opposition might have at least one valid point to make. If you want people to listen to you, consider not calling them evil, as a start.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 13, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Here's the question again.
> 
> If you are the only available donor for a patient who will die otherwise, and you do not want to donate an organ to this person, this person dies. Should you be charged with murder? If not, why?


I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway, since I think my previous answer still applies. The reason the government cannot compel people to donate organs is based in responsibility, not in bodily autonomy. Yes, the government would have to violate your bodily autonomy in order to mandate organ donations, but that is not the primary reason why the government cannot issue the mandate. Consider this slightly altered scenario:

A patient will die without a new medical procedure that he cannot afford. You have enough money to pay for the procedure, but you refuse to pay. When the patient dies, should you be charged with murder?

If the sole reason why the government cannot mandate organ donations is that it would violate your bodily autonomy, then the government should be able to force you to help in this scenario, since helping doesn't violate your bodily autonomy. If, on the other hand, the government cannot compel you to solve other people's problems, because they're not your responsibility, then the government can't compel you to pay for somebody else's medical treatment any more than it can compel you to donate an organ.

I therefore submit that bodily autonomy is not the primary principle being tested by the forced organ donation example.

(Note that this example is rooted in the for-profit healthcare system in the US. Can the government force you to pay for other people's healthcare by taxing you and then redistributing the money? In nearly every other developed country, the answer is yes, but the example is about paying for a specific procedure out of pocket, not universal healthcare.)


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Irrelevant to you, which makes the analogy self-serving and not an argument.


No, irrelevant to the analogy. Whether or not an organism is an "autonomous being" is irrelevant to whether or not it should have a right to someone else's body.



tabzer said:


> That's wholly disengenious.  If you'd pretend that murder was on the table you wouldn't be having this conversation.  A parent's duty to the welfare of their children?  Is that sentiment wasted on you as well?


People are not required by law to donate their organs to their biological children, so an embryo doesn't get special rights that we wouldn't even afford to real people.

The only thing that's disingenuous here is your pearl-clutching.



tabzer said:


> It's not relevant because it breaks your analogy, duh.


It isn't relevant because we don't require people to donate organs to their biological children, regardless of whether or not those children were made willfully. Hell, we don't require people to donate organs to their biological children, even if the parents willfully create their offspring, and even knowing there was a likelihood that the child would get sick and need a transplant.

I don't believe your last post was made in good faith. It was bad, even for you.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway, since I think my previous answer still applies. The reason the government cannot compel people to donate organs is based in responsibility, not in bodily autonomy.


No, it's bodily autonomy.



AleronIves said:


> A patient will die without a new medical procedure that he cannot afford. You have enough money to pay for the procedure, but you refuse to pay. When the patient dies, should you be charged with murder?
> 
> If the sole reason why the government cannot mandate organ donations is that it would violate your bodily autonomy, then the government should be able to force you to help in this scenario, since helping doesn't violate your bodily autonomy. If, on the other hand, the government cannot compel you to solve other people's problems, because they're not your responsibility, then the government can't compel you to pay for somebody else's medical treatment any more than it can compel you to donate an organ.


As you admitted in your post, we already use tax dollars for other people's medical care, lol. A person's bodily autonomy rights don't extend to their wallet.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 13, 2022)

Lacius said:


> No, it's bodily autonomy.


You believe that the government has the right to compel one person to pay another person's medical bill? Even in countries that have universal healthcare, the government cannot do that. The government collects taxes and spends a portion of the money on healthcare, but it does not force one person to pay the full cost upfront at the time of another person's medical procedure.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 13, 2022)

tabzer said:


> From the article:
> 
> "Currently, even the states with the most stringent bans on abortion do allow exceptions when the health of a mother is at risk, though the threat of prosecution has created confusion for some doctors."
> 
> ...



Mostly alt righters who either don't read very well or ones who believe a child should live despite every circumstance available. Take in point this guy, though it's not highlighted in the post I'm responding to:



TraderPatTX said:


> Abortion kills a life every single time. That's not a belief system, that is science. The party of science who can't define a woman, doesn't understand DNA and biology. Color me shocked.
> 
> Just pointing out you hypocrisy. Isn't that what you like to try to point out in my comments and fail every time?



I'm sorry, where's the hypocrisy? We're all well aware that abortion can both end and prevent lives; the part you're trying to disagree with is exactly as I said:

Believing (see the word I used?) that abortion rights should be abolished, is a belief system. 

If you can't comprehend what you're reading well enough to formulate an accurate and articulate response, you're free to ignore me for another few posts. I don't mind.


----------



## XDel (Jul 13, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I'm sorry, where's the hypocrisy? We're all well aware that abortion can both end and prevent lives; the part you're trying to disagree with is exactly as I said:
> 
> Believing (see the word I used?) that abortion rights should be abolished, is a belief system.
> 
> If you can't comprehend what you're reading well enough to formulate an accurate and articulate response, you're free to ignore me for another few posts. I don't mind.


You kids and your double think techniques.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 13, 2022)

XDel said:


> You kids and your double think techniques.



Ok, point out the double think then.


----------



## XDel (Jul 13, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Ok, point out the double think then.


presupposition

You start out the gate proclaiming that abortion is a right and that to think otherwise is a belief system, or opinion, when in fact, the question "Is Abortion Murder?", has a yes or no answer. Modern science as well as all of recorded history, has regarded the miracle that takes place between a sperm and an egg as life. If I kill a pregnant woman I get a double homocide. You know these things but are crafting your statements so as to try to trick the reader into believing that it is an established fact that abortions are a right, the key word being "right", meaning that it would then be covered by the constitution if you can get the masses to adopt that wording habit without thinking into it much.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 13, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Mostly alt righters who either don't read very well or ones who believe a child should live despite every circumstance available.


To be fair, both sides are taking absolutist positions:

Anti-abortion camp: Fetal rights are supreme! The woman has no rights!
Pro-abortion camp: The woman's rights are supreme! The fetus has no rights!

It's impossible to reconcile these positions, so the only practical solution is compromise. If your goal is intellectual purity, then there will never be a solution, and the debate will continue forever.



SyphenFreht said:


> Believing (see the word I used?) that abortion rights should be abolished, is a belief system.


Believing that abortion rights should exist is also a belief system. The very idea of "rights" involves a belief system, since we're talking about rules created by the human imagination.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 13, 2022)

Lacius said:


> No, irrelevant to the analogy. Whether or not an organism is an "autonomous being" is irrelevant to whether or not it should have a right to someone else's body.



It's irrelevant to you.  You made the analogy, lol.  If a life is forced into a situation, then it would only be moral to see that it has a way out of that, into an equal or better situation.  Your phrasing makes it sound like a baby came up to you and said, "give me your kidney or go to jail."



Lacius said:


> People are not required by law to donate their organs to their biological children, so an embryo doesn't get special rights that we wouldn't even afford to real people.
> 
> The only thing that's disingenuous here is your pearl-clutching.



Your phrasing "An embryo doesn't get special rights that we wouldn't even afford to real people" insinuates that an embryo has rights that are afforded to "real people".   If the sole issue is "bodily autonomy", then a woman should not have the right to get pregnant in the first place, because it violates the potential life that doesn't have a choice in the matter.  The organ transplant analogy is incapable of representing procreation and "bodily autonomy" isn't real.  



Lacius said:


> It isn't relevant because we don't require people to donate organs to their biological children, regardless of whether or not those children were made willfully. Hell, we don't require people to donate organs to their biological children, even if the parents willfully create their offspring, and even knowing there was a likelihood that the child would get sick and need a transplant.



You made a crappy analogy.  Referring to it and applying it dogmatically doesn't change that.  It only marginalizes pregnancy and procreation.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 13, 2022)

XDel said:


> You start out the gate proclaiming that abortion is a right and that to think otherwise is a belief system, or opinion, when in fact, the question "Is Abortion Murder?", has a yes or no answer. Modern science as well as all of recorded history, has regarded the miracle that take place between a sperm and an egg as life. If I kill a pregnant woman I get a double homocide. You know these things but are crafting your statements so as to try to trick the reader into believing that it is an established fact that abortions are a right, the key word being "right", meaning that it would then be covered by the constitution if you can get the masses to adopt that wording habit without thinking into it much.



Ok, so where is the double think in believing that abortion is a right, a belief system, saying that abortion abolishment is also a belief system, and otherwise inferring at the least that the right to abortion is a right to survival? All of these things I've stated before, separate and together, but now all of a sudden it's double think? Because you find that you can't force people to think the way you want them by badgering them with religious anecdotes or appealing to emotion? If all you have to offer is an attempt at deconstructing my argument to save your own integrity, maybe you should rethink your tactic.

I wouldn't go so far as to appeal to the Abortion is Murder rhetoric because, as what's been very evidently established, most of us arguing for abortion rights understand that abortions cause death and prevent life, as I started above, the main point of contention is whether this loss of life is more important than the loss of life in the mother (it isn't). 

Furthermore, you can continue to argue all you want about what's murder and what isn't, the fact of the matter is no matter how you justify it or word it, you can't argue the rights of the fetus without admitting you're also arguing control over women. If you didn't wish to have control over women, you wouldn't be behind enacting laws that restrict what they can do with their bodies. 

But then again, you're Christian, so I can't say I'm surprised that you wish to subjugate and oppress. That's all Christians have been doing since they realized they could get away with it and essentially be another form of governing body.



AleronIves said:


> To be fair, both sides are taking absolutist positions:
> 
> Anti-abortion camp: Fetal rights are supreme! The woman has no rights!
> Pro-abortion camp: The woman's rights are supreme! The fetus has no rights!
> ...



The funny thing is, I'm all for compromise. However, the compromise isn't going to come from determining when a woman should be allowed to have an abortion, it's going to come from improving the quality of life and ensuring the continued pursuit of happiness once pregnancy is attained. That won't kill all abortions (I know what I did there), but I bet if more people had peace of mind after finding out they were pregnant, there'd be far less abortions to worry about. In reciprocal, when rapes and incest victims come forward, we need better punishment, since mitigation toward these events before they happen is hard to push. 



AleronIves said:


> Believing that abortion rights should exist is also a belief system. The very idea of "rights" involves a belief system, since we're talking about rules created by the human imagination.



I know. I believe I explained myself above, but we'll see if the other guy gets it. 

My money is on no.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 13, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If the sole issue is "bodily autonomy", then a woman should not have the right to get pregnant in the first place, because it violates the potential life that doesn't have a choice in the matter.  The organ transplant analogy is incapable of representing procreation and "bodily autonomy" isn't real.


It isn't that bodily autonomy isn't real so much as it's not the only issue at play, and trying to reduce the complexities of creating new human life into a single issue is a gross oversimplification based on the assumption that a fetus never has any rights (or at least no rights that could possibly compete against the woman's rights), and thus the woman's rights reign supreme in all situations.



SyphenFreht said:


> the compromise isn't going to come from determining when a woman should be allowed to have an abortion, it's going to come from improving the quality of life and ensuring the continued pursuit of happiness once pregnancy is attained.


I agree in principle that the best way to reduce abortions in the short term is to give women more control over their reproductive health. Women who have more control over when they get pregnant are less likely to want or need abortions. Unfortunately, some women will still get pregnant when they didn't want to, and so there still have to be rules regarding when abortion is allowed and when it isn't. Both sides must realise that "always" and "never" are not on the table, since the other side will never allow it. Of course, neither side will recognise this without first recognising that the other side has legitimate concerns and isn't just "evil".


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Explain to me why babies do not have the right to life. What crime did they commit?


okay, so what crime did a fetus commit when the pregnant person get's arrested? Surely they shouldn't be in prison with the mother.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 13, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I agree in principle that the best way to reduce abortions in the short term is to give women more control over their reproductive health. Women who have more control over when they get pregnant are less likely to want or need abortions. Unfortunately, some women will still get pregnant when they didn't want to, and so there still have to be rules regarding when abortion is allowed and when it isn't. Both sides must realise that "always" and "never" are not on the table, since the other side will never allow it. Of course, neither side will recognise this without first recognising that the other side has legitimate concerns and isn't just "evil".


I'm sorry but... I'm going to put you on blast here.
 The other side the "pro life" crowd. Heavily misconstrues the facts of the situation.
One of their first arguments, is that mothers were getting "late abortions" abortions so late, that it was a child.
These types of abortions historically are rare. Why? Because if you carried it that far, most doctors aren't going to abort, unless your life is on the line last second.
Most abortions happen around 9 weeks, and that's because that's the moment the person in question realizes they are pregnant. By nine weeks, there is still no major brain function. nerves can develop by then. But not exactly any mental compacity or awareness.
The "pro life" crowd. Has banned abortions after 6 weeks, when a women doesn't get's any major indicators that she may be pregnant.
Not only is this straight up unfair towards the person in question, who before they can take any major action, just has to "deal with it" or risk getting a felony, and loosing the ability to vote.
Their position also fails to understand that we can't prove that a person "did sex right" and used proper protection. Unless we want to monitor what goes in all people's bedrooms (which I believe all of us wouldn't want that) then it's better to keep the door open instead of closing it.

Finally the last argument they don't understand, is autonomy. When we're comparing a fetus to a kidney, and proving this is bad for bodily autonomy. It's not in the sense of direct comparison. But the broad implicating strokes. If the government can tell what I have to do with a specific part within my body, what's stopping them from doing other autonomy violations.

So, I'm going go ahead and use an example they constantly fear about. Vaccines.

Not getting vaccinated, is usually handled civilly. If your employer requires it (private businesses) you can get fired for it. But that's the businesses choice. The government can fine you for not being vaccinated. However, that's not a criminal offense. It's not on a long standing record. It's a civil one. Violating bodily autonomy, and regulating it, allows for states to *criminally* prosecute. Hence why many states are putting felony charges for people getting an abortion. As a reminder, you cannot vote if your a felon in a lot of states.

That same crowd seems to not understand, that enabling the government to regulate other bodily functions or statuses sets up a preceedent the goverment can be used against them.
 To regulate that, would empower them to straight up actually regulate your vaccine status, against their autonomy, loosing rights if they refuse to do so, and rights being encroached on. Either they're aware of the future their creating, or blindly following in it in their own echo chamber of rhetoric, not realizing the consequences their creating.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> You believe that the government has the right to compel one person to pay another person's medical bill? Even in countries that have universal healthcare, the government cannot do that. The government collects taxes and spends a portion of the money on healthcare, but it does not force one person to pay the full cost upfront at the time of another person's medical procedure.


You're arguing a distinction without a difference. The government can, in fact, compel you to pay for other people's medical care in the form of taxes. Before Roe was overturned, it could not violate a person's bodily autonomy rights.



tabzer said:


> If a life is forced into a situation, then it would only be moral to see that it has a way out of that, into an equal or better situation.


Per this logic, all parents must be required by law to donate kidneys to their children if/when the need arises.

Also, whether or not something is immoral doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal.



tabzer said:


> Your phrasing makes it sound like a baby came up to you and said, "give me your kidney or go to jail."


If a person doesn't want to be pregnant, but the state is forcing them to remain pregnant under penalty of jail time, then yeah, that's comparatively what's happening.



tabzer said:


> Your phrasing "An embryo doesn't get special rights that we wouldn't even afford to real people" insinuates that an embryo has rights that are afforded to "real people".


First, I said earlier that I wouldn't even give an embryo rights that normal people get depending on how far along the pregnancy is.

Second, my point this entire time in this and the other thread has been that even IF we recognize a fetus as a person with all the same rights as a normal human being, that wouldn't magically give it the right to violate another person's bodily autonomy. That would be a special right that transcends any other real person's rights. Whether or not the fetus is conscious, and whether or not it depends on the womb for survival, are irrelevant. I am a conscious person, but if I depend on your body for survival, that doesn't give me a legal right to it. If you decide to deny me access to your body, that's just too bad for me.

You act like you haven't heard me explain this a thousand times already.



tabzer said:


> If the sole issue is "bodily autonomy", then a woman should not have the right to get pregnant in the first place, because it violates the potential life that doesn't have a choice in the matter.


A person should have the right to do whatever they want with their body.



tabzer said:


> The organ transplant analogy is incapable of representing procreation


Yeah it is. I did it with the "kidneys for biological offspring" variation (not that it was needed), lol.



tabzer said:


> You made a crappy analogy.  Referring to it and applying it dogmatically doesn't change that.


Be sure to tag me if/when you decide to justify this comment with actual reasoning.



tabzer said:


> It only marginalizes pregnancy and procreation.


No it doesn't. You just don't seem to care that some people don't want to be pregnant, and you don't seem to care about bodily autonomy rights.



tabzer said:


> and "bodily autonomy" isn't real.


If you don't think a person should have a right to bodily autonomy, then that means you're okay with the state compelling you to donate a kidney.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> First of all, I never mentioned the Bible. One of my previous comments specified the Hindu religion, but people here are only interested in attacking Christianity, because that is easy. What would be so stunning and so brave is if you went after Islam, which bans LGBTQLMNOP+ entirely and is punishable by death, but you ain't ready for that conversation.
> 
> Animals don't get married. For one, they can't recite vows, and two most animals lack the ability to wear rings.
> 
> ...


FIrst of all, I didn't attack Christianity, I'm a Christian myself. I only pointed out that using religion to make laws is something we did back in the dark ages, and we stop doing it (separation of state and church) for good reasons.

Humans are animals, I don't know where you get the idea that we're something special. All our bodily functions are given by nature the same way as any other animal. Our reproductive organs are no different from that of a lion or a donkey, there's nothing about our anatomy that suggests you need marriage to reproduce.

Marriage itself is also a private contract between two individuals. Whether you prefer that contract to be done under one specific religion, or you don't want that contract to have anything to do with religion, is all up to the individuals getting married, not up to you and certaintly not up to the government to decide.
The sole idea that homosexuals need government permission to get married is in itself a dangerous path. Everyone should be able to get married regardless of their sexual orientation or race, and regardless of if the government likes it or not.

I don't know why you consider me a leftist, since I'm an avid Trump suporter and I HATE socialism with every inch of my body.
I'm not a conservative though, more of libertarian.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 13, 2022)

Hmm, so someone should be forced to carry a fetus against their will for the sake of the fetus' "life," yeeeeet...no one can be forced to get a vaccine for the sake of other people's lives, because...?

What, because they're actually alive and aren't a fetus? lmao.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 13, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> To be fair, both sides are taking absolutist positions:
> 
> Anti-abortion camp: Fetal rights are supreme! The woman has no rights!
> Pro-abortion camp: The woman's rights are supreme! The fetus has no rights!
> ...


The reason bodily autonomy rights crowd is absolute on this is that the trans stuff wasn't a fucking singing canary to people like it should have been. When rights were (and still are) being taken from trans people left and right by the increasingly psychotic right, liberals didn't give a shit and leftists kept consistently saying "If they can regulate this, they'll come for abortion next." This is an absolute issue, because bodily autonomy rights are an absolute that cannot be met in the center on. This is why centrists are so openly loathed and mocked.

Well next thing you know, despite several libs on twitter and prominent liberal commentators on youtube, twitter, and twitch all going "Duhhhhh, no they won't, not under Biden," guess what? They came for abortion next.

Contrary to the over emotional outbursts of the right, this isn't explicitly about people wanting the ability to have abortions as much as they want for every reason. It's about limiting government overreach into the last bastion of bodily autonomy: your fucking body. If the government has the ability to regulate what you do with your womb, *ALL* bodily autonomy rights are on the table for them to devour now.

There is no moderate position on this, and there never will be until the right realizes the destructive precedent they're creating, one they'll only realize is dangerous once a leftist president gets into power and uses it against them. No one should be forced to birth a child they don't fucking want, and yet now you see cases where people as young as 11 goddamn years old are being forced to, just because a bunch of useless people believe their way of life is the best for everyone, even if they don't know it yet. That girl is probably going to have irreversible damage done to her for the rest of her life, physically and psychologically, and god forbid if she's forced to carry that child and it's even properly *developed* it'll have a miserable life with a shit environment, a mother that will likely come to resent it, and no access to proper care unless it's put up for adoption or taken in by someone else.

This is, and I mean this with no hyperbole or exaggeration, unironically the future of this country if bodily autonomy is not codified into law at an absolute maximum, absolutist position. You cannot, under any circumstances, meet people on the middle on this because it is fundamentally a yes or no question: should people have the right to decide what they do with their wombs or not?




Lacius said:


> Per this logic, all parents must be required by law to donate kidneys to their children if/when the need arises.


We are unironically heading in that direction and it scares the fucking shit out of me.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 13, 2022)

why is there no automatic double post patching and why can't i delete my fucking post


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The fetus could be a fully formed human adult, and it wouldn't matter with regard to the topic of bodily autonomy.


So it really isn't about viability. I always knew that was lie.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> So it really isn't about viability. I always knew that was lie.


I've been consistent that a pregnant person should be able to end a pregnancy whenever they want, regardless of how far along they are. However, if the fetus is viable, that's a birth, not an abortion.

Nice try at a "gotcha" though.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Coping is not an argument. Here's the question again.
> 
> If you are the only available donor for a patient who will die otherwise, and you do not want to donate an organ to this person, this person dies. Should you be charged with murder? If not, why?


Did I shoot or harm this person in any way where they would need an organ transplant? If not, I do not bear any responsibility.

Let's take this a step further. If there are two people who need a kidney, you have to choose which to give it to. One is a family member and one is a complete stranger. Who do you give it to? And is it murder of the other person who did not get your kidney? 

You see why "what if" games are dumb? They do not add to a debate at all. Same with the you wearing your seatbelt will save my life when the left was forcing masks on people.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Did I shoot or harm this person in any way where they would need an organ transplant? If not, I do not bear any responsibility.
> 
> Let's take this a step further. If there are two people who need a kidney, you have to choose which to give it to. One is a family member and one is a complete stranger. Who do you give it to? And is it murder of the other person who did not get your kidney?
> 
> You see why "what if" games are dumb? They do not add to a debate at all. Same with the you wearing your seatbelt will save my life when the left was forcing masks on people.


So, the funny thing about this is your inability to answer it shows the cognitive dissonance of your position, and I think it's really funny that you think what if scenarios don't have relevance. Cope all you want, you know I'm right: you do not value bodily autonomy, only your dogma.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Hmm, so someone should be forced to carry a fetus against their will for the sake of the fetus' "life," yeeeeet...no one can be forced to get a vaccine for the sake of other people's lives, because...?
> 
> What, because they're actually alive and aren't a fetus? lmao.


There are laws against forcing people to inject experimental vaccines. That stemmed from the Nuremburg Trials because Nazi doctors did gruesome experiments on people and the left wants to do the same thing now. The kicker is you call everybody you disagree with fascist. The irony is not lost here.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Ask yourself: "If my opponents are the ones making irrational arguments based in emotion, then why am I the one calling them a pro-death cult?" You cannot have a debate until you are willing to entertain the possibility that the opposition might have at least one valid point to make. If you want people to listen to you, consider not calling them evil, as a start.


Not sure if you have noticed, but the opposition has been calling everyone they disagree with everything from racist to fascist and white supremacist for decades. They even call black people they disagree with white supremacist. How does one debate people like that? 

At least they've earned the label pro-death cult. There is no other logical reasoning for celebrating 70 million murdered black babies in the last fifty years. They celebrate genocide against a particular race and call us racist. We can have a real debate when they knock it off with the projection.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> The kicker is you call everybody you disagree with fascist. The irony is not lost here.


Prove it.


----------



## mituzora (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> There are laws against forcing people to inject experimental vaccines. That stemmed from the Nuremburg Trials because Nazi doctors did gruesome experiments on people and the left wants to do the same thing now. The kicker is you call everybody you disagree with fascist. The irony is not lost here.


Way to change the subject from Abortions to Vaccines.  go figure.  But I suppose it goes towards body autonomy.

AFAIK, there has been zero laws put on the books about forcing these "experimental" vaccines in any capacity.  It's up to the place of business, or private entity to allow someone unvaccinated or not to go into their premises (but because there's business who refuse to serve your stupid ass, then it's the government's fault right?).  and I guarantee you that there's more leftists out there who while they think you're stupid as hell that you aren't getting vaccinated, don't want to force that burden on someone.

Also, it's funny how you'll get bent out of shape if it has something to do with YOUR body, but you won't even remotely consider a person with a fetus's body.  I've stated many times before, pregnancy (and many other contraceptives) can and will fuck someone's body up, but you're telling these people that they have to fuck their body up so they can either give birth to a human who would otherwise not remember a damn thing, or risk permanently damaging their body so they can enjoy a healthy sexual life.  That's kinda fucked up.

EDIT:  also, yes, I understand that abortion can come with complications as well, I'm not naive, but the fact of the matter is that you argued with vaccines, and how they shouldn't be forced, yet you're going to force someone to go through something that can cause major damage to their body to satiate your beliefs.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> There are laws against forcing people to inject experimental vaccines. That stemmed from the Nuremburg Trials because Nazi doctors did gruesome experiments on people and the left wants to do the same thing now. The kicker is you call everybody you disagree with fascist. The irony is not lost here.



HEY BUDDY DO YOU KNOW WHY THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST THAT!? HUH!?

But seriously. *BoDiLy AuToNoMy* 

That's literally why America can't push vaccines except in cases of military or public schools. But here we are, arguing whether bodily autonomy exists outside of vaccinations (it does) and if so, if the bodily autonomy of one outweighs the first (it doesn't). 

"But that's hypocrisy! You just said ... And the mothers BA doesn't outweigh the baby's... MumbleWhineGrr"

Funny thing is, if your side admitted to the idea of bodily autonomy, you'd have a much stronger point of debate than the tired crap y'all have been pushing. 

Even then, though, as the woman's bodily autonomy was already established before pregnancy, it basically gets first come first serve. 

I see we ignored my post about controlling women. But it's ok; everyone else saw it. You get to that whenever you're comfortable, 'Kay pumpkin?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 13, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> HEY BUDDY DO YOU KNOW WHY THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST THAT!? HUH!?
> 
> But seriously. *BoDiLy AuToNoMy*
> 
> ...


I love watching this coward get angrier and selectively ignore your posts when he squirms too much. God righties are fucking embarrassing.


----------



## mituzora (Jul 13, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I love watching this coward get angrier and selectively ignore your posts when he squirms too much. God righties are fucking embarrassing.


I love how when anybody calls this person out, they have such a weak rebuttal that I can't even remotely take them seriously.  Pretty much anything beyond one or two posts have been essentially attacking the person instead of the argument.

it's entertaining.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 13, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Per this logic, all parents must be required by law to donate kidneys to their children if/when the need arises.



A parent who is capable of donating a kidney probably would.  It would probably happen so much more often than not, that nobody would think to make it a law.  However, how likely will a parent who has a genetic kidney disease survive a transplant, make a kid, and have something left over to give them?

Only when your television or SNS advertises a controversy, with some sort of political agenda in mind, would a law be necessary.



Lacius said:


> Also, whether or not something is immoral doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal.



Why should things be legal or illegal?




Lacius said:


> If a person doesn't want to be pregnant, but the state is forcing them to remain pregnant under penalty of jail time, then yeah, that's comparatively what's happening.



The state making laws on abortion =/= a fetus running the show.



Lacius said:


> First, I said earlier that I wouldn't even give an embryo rights that normal people get depending on how far along the pregnancy is.
> 
> Second, my point this entire time in this and the other thread has been that even IF we recognize a fetus as a person with all the same rights as a normal human being, that wouldn't magically give it the right to violate another person's bodily autonomy. That would be a special right that transcends any other real person's rights. Whether or not the fetus is conscious, and whether or not it depends on the womb for survival, are irrelevant. I am a conscious person, but if I depend on your body for survival, that doesn't give me a legal right to it. If you decide to deny me access to your body, that's just too bad for me.
> 
> You act like you haven't heard me explain this a thousand times already.



There are many classes of organisms that have rights designed specifically to the nature of their condition, for the purpose of preserving their lives.  What you suggest is that because an embryo needs to live inside a womb, that you should be able to do so too, because otherwise, it is not fair.



Lacius said:


> A person should have the right to do whatever they want with their body.



Except a baby.



Lacius said:


> Yeah it is. I did it with the "kidneys for biological offspring" variation (not that it was needed), lol.



Where does organ transplant create a life?



Lacius said:


> Be sure to tag me if/when you decide to justify this comment with actual reasoning.



I tell you the analogy is broken, because it doesn't account for the interests of those you pose it as an argument for.  You say it's not, because the analogy says so.



Lacius said:


> No it doesn't. You just don't seem to care that some people don't want to be pregnant, and you don't seem to care about bodily autonomy rights.



That's whataboutism. 



Lacius said:


> If you don't think a person should have a right to bodily autonomy, then that means you're okay with the state compelling you to donate a kidney.



Bodily autonomy is unobtainable because it defies reality (ie men as gods).  It's an ideal with unlimited space to shift goalposts.  If the state feels the need to compel me to do something I would do anyway, I'd scoff at the idea that there is a need for such a law.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

mituzora said:


> Way to change the subject from Abortions to Vaccines.  go figure.  But I suppose it goes towards body autonomy.
> 
> AFAIK, there has been zero laws put on the books about forcing these "experimental" vaccines in any capacity.  It's up to the place of business, or private entity to allow someone unvaccinated or not to go into their premises (but because there's business who refuse to serve your stupid ass, then it's the government's fault right?).  and I guarantee you that there's more leftists out there who while they think you're stupid as hell that you aren't getting vaccinated, don't want to force that burden on someone.
> 
> ...


It's not changing the subject when I'm showing the left's multiple examples of authoritarianism.

You are worried about major damage to people's bodies but advocate for body mutilation of "trans" kids which leads to higher suicide rates. Is there no limit to the left's irony?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

tabzer said:


> A parent who is capable of donating a kidney probably would.


And a person who gets pregnant would probably keep it. Who cares? We are talking about what should or shouldn't be legal.



tabzer said:


> Only when your television or SNS advertises a controversy, with some sort of political agenda in mind, would a law be necessary.


The state laws making abortion illegal are, uh, laws. I guess you think those should be repealed then. I am glad we are on the same page.



tabzer said:


> The state making laws on abortion =/= a fetus running the show.


Correct. If you, uh, read my analogy, you will note that the person "running the show" in both examples is the government. The government stops a pregnant person from exercising their bodily autonomy rights and getting an abortion, and the government forces one to donate a kidney. Keep up.



tabzer said:


> There are many classes of organisms that have rights designed specifically to the nature of their condition, for the purpose of preserving their lives.


Only if someone else's bodily autonomy isn't violated.



tabzer said:


> What you suggest is that because an embryo needs to live inside a womb, that you should be able to do so too, because otherwise, it is not fair.


Lol, what is this nonsense? Nobody said anything about having a right to a womb. I've only said the opposite.



tabzer said:


> Except a baby.


Pretending for a second that babies are given all the rights of a person, then yes, including babies. However, personhood doesn't grant someone the right to another person's body. That would be a special right that, until now, didn't exist.



tabzer said:


> Where does organ transplant create a life?


The organ transplant keeps someone alive, just like the womb keeps a fetus alive.



tabzer said:


> That's whataboutism.


No, it isn't. Are you even trying anymore?



tabzer said:


> Bodily autonomy is unobtainable because it defies reality (ie men as gods).  It's an ideal with unlimited space to shift goalposts.  If the state feels the need to compel me to do something I would do anyway, I'd scoff at the idea that there is a need for such a law.


If you don't believe people should have a right to bodily autonomy, then you believe you can be compelled by law to donate a kidney. It's as simple as that.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It's not changing the subject when I'm showing the left's multiple examples of authoritarianism.
> 
> You are worried about major damage to people's bodies but advocate for body mutilation of "trans" kids which leads to higher suicide rates. Is there no limit to the left's irony?


Actually, SRS isn't available to minors or anyone who isn't determined of sound mind. Also, the suicide rates are explicitly just because of harassment and bigotry, SRS in adults actually heavily lowers rates of suicide, as well as mental states that lead to it such as depression, bodily dysphoria, and so on. The data is concluded on this, you lose.


----------



## MartyDreamy (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Men can get pregnant too. Don't be a bigot.


I don't know why you continue to say "don't be a bigot, men can get pregnant too."
No shit sherlock, that's not the point of this discussion. 
The point is that you continue to say that a mass of cells needs to have more rights than a fucking human. 
I think you missed some biology classes. Since I believe you're a man (or amab, or a person without a fucking uterus) why the hell should you have a hurtful opinion about something that doesn't matter to you?
What will you do if in the future, a person that you love, a wife, or a friend, is in a bad situation and wants to abort for their safety? 
The only opinion that matters is the opinion of the person who wants to abort. And since you guys scream every day "my body, my choice" about vaccines, we could say the same thing about abortion. My body, my choice to abort.


----------



## AncientBoi (Jul 13, 2022)

I'm only commenting on the "Same Sex" part from the start of this thread.

Leave us the FUQ alone!


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Prove it.


Prove what? That the left calls anybody they disagree with alt right fascists? Do you honestly believe that average people have never heard this before? Go through the responses to my comments here for proof.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Actually, SRS isn't available to minors or anyone who isn't determined of sound mind. Also, the suicide rates are explicitly just because of harassment and bigotry, SRS in adults actually heavily lowers rates of suicide, as well as mental states that lead to it such as depression, bodily dysphoria, and so on. The data is concluded on this, you lose.


Prove it.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

MartyDreamy said:


> I don't know why you continue to say "don't be a bigot, men can get pregnant too."
> No shit sherlock, that's not the point of this discussion.
> The point is that you continue to say that a mass of cells needs to have more rights than a fucking human.
> I think you missed some biology classes. Since I believe you're a man (or amab, or a person without a fucking uterus) why the hell should you have a hurtful opinion about something that doesn't matter to you?
> ...


Not more rights. Just equal rights. Why don't you want equality for all?

Actually, you screamed "my body, my choice" for decades until Covid hit and you threw it all out the window. The hypocrisy lands squarely on the left.

Most states have exceptions to their abortion laws, but you must be too lazy to look it up.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> It's fun to see you call lefties "obsessed" when you people will fall over yourselves voting for him again.
> 
> Or defend his incitation of the J6 debacle (I can't even call it an insurrection in good faith. It was a bunch of morons crying at the Capitol)
> 
> ...


Trump isn't president anymore and you seem to really miss him. Also, he didn't incite anything. There was a second stage setup at the Supreme Court that people were expected to go to. So that blows up the left's talking points that this was all planned.

I can't blame Republicans for current gas prices when they were $1.87 when a Republican was president. If a Republican president shut down pipelines and oil and gas leases, I would blame him. That didn't happen.

Hope that was enough 'splainin' and that you were able to follow along and understand.


----------



## MartyDreamy (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Actually, you screamed "my body, my choice" for decades until Covid hit and you threw it all out the window. The hypocrisy lands squarely on the left.


"you" who? Also what lol, your reply doesn't make any sense. I am not anti Vax or that shit lmao 


TraderPatTX said:


> Not more rights. Just equal rights. Why don't you want equality for all?


It's not equal rights since the mass of cells has apparently more rights than a living person. 


TraderPatTX said:


> Most states have exceptions to their abortion laws, but you must be too lazy to look it up.


Not lazy, I know that they have exceptions in MOST states. What about the states that completely ban abortion?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Prove it.



https://www.plannedparenthood.org/p...monte/patient-resources/gender-affirming-care

Straight from the horse's mouth, Planned Parenthood explicitly states that it does not provide gender reassignment surgeries to anyone under the age of 18 without parental consent, of which 16 is the minimum allowable age. Again, from the company itself. 


https://fenwayhealth.org/new-study-...-psychological-distress-or-suicidal-ideation/

This study shows that there's actually a 42% decrease in overall suicide rates among post op recipients. 



TraderPatTX said:


> Not more rights. Just equal rights.



They can have rights when they're born. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thecon...ion-decisions-than-during-19th-century-185947



TraderPatTX said:


> Actually, you screamed "my body, my choice" for decades until Covid hit and you threw it all out the window. The hypocrisy lands squarely on the left.



No it was still my body, my choice. COVID was a public health issue that, by the way, your incompetent man baby of a president chose to do not much about, affected way more people over a much smaller span of time than abortion does.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

MartyDreamy said:


> "you" who? Also what lol, your reply doesn't make any sense. I am not anti Vax or that shit lmao
> 
> It's not equal rights since the mass of cells has apparently more rights than a living person.
> 
> Not lazy, I know that they have exceptions in MOST states. What about the states that completely ban abortion?


Everybody has an equal right to life. The left does not believe in that most basic of right because it may be inconvenient to having a good time.

Since the US was founded on federalism, people are free to move to whatever state they desire. In fact, people are doing it now as they are leaving California and New York. But the left is lazy and want to impose their religious beliefs on everybody else through the courts instead of allowing the people to have a voice and vote on such matters in their state legislatures.

Regardless, it's a done deal. Stop crying about it and accept it, or go state to state and pass laws legalizing abortion. Your choice.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Trump isn't president anymore and you seem to really miss him. Also, he didn't incite anything. There was a second stage setup at the Supreme Court that people were expected to go to. So that blows up the left's talking points that this was all planned.



None of this is based on reality. You began the name dropping with your Colbert reference like a whole 'nother thread ago. Quit whining about people slurring Orange Bad Man when the only reason why he's relevant is because the whole Roe v Wade debacle was intended as a distraction to the Jan 6th hearings that he helped orchestrate. It doesn't matter that he isn't president; a lot of the bigotry we see coming from the alt right today is still fallout from him getting elected, not to mention all the crap he stills try to push. 

Like more voter fraud nonsense:

https://madison.com/news/local/govt...cle_828da401-6fbf-5098-aca5-27410fe811e9.html



TraderPatTX said:


> I can't blame Republicans for current gas prices when they were $1.87 when a Republican was president. If a Republican president shut down pipelines and oil and gas leases, I would blame him. That didn't happen.



And this shows how little political knowledge you actually have. 

Riddle me this: if the Keystone Pipeline was so viable as a solution to oil, why did Trump do nothing about it while he was in office?

And if gas prices being high is a result of Biden, why are they suddenly starting a slow drip down? 



TraderPatTX said:


> Hope that was enough 'splainin' and that you were able to follow along and understand.



Well considering you explained nothing and instead relied on further misinformation and unreliable context to pad your post count, I'd say you failed.


----------



## mituzora (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Not more rights. Just equal rights. Why don't you want equality for all?
> 
> Actually, you screamed "my body, my choice" for decades until Covid hit and you threw it all out the window. The hypocrisy lands squarely on the left.
> 
> Most states have exceptions to their abortion laws, but you must be too lazy to look it up.


As I stated before but you clearly didn't read, or gave a crap to read:

Most "Leftists" I know don't give a shit if you vaccinate or not.  Sure the vocal minority is all like "Oh you need to get vaccinated" but most of them are in the same mindset that if you don't want to get vaccinated, that's fine, but don't expect go to into places of business who are clearly using their rights to tell you to GTFO if you aren't vaccinated.  that's not a mandatory vaccination, that's just a business using their rights to deny you service.  Same premise,  their body, their choice;  their business, their choice.

It's like you rightists all bitching about censorship on Facebook(which mind you, left leaning people aren't happy about either), when it is their given right as a private entity to censor your posts.  you signed that TOS when you signed up, so you have to abide by their rules.  and if you don't like it, you're 100 percent entitled to drop the platform and use something else.  

you can't have it one way or the other, but apparently you think it's okay impose constraints just because it's a uterus...


----------



## mituzora (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> But the left is lazy and want to impose their religious beliefs on everybody else through the courts instead of allowing the people to have a voice and vote on such matters in their state legislatures.


Says the person who is trying to impose their religious beliefs on people with uterus's choice.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Everybody has an equal right to life.



Yes but the requirement is that they're people. Can fetuses legally buy and own guns?



TraderPatTX said:


> But the left is lazy and want to impose their religious beliefs...



What uh, what religious beliefs you referring to there, buddy?



TraderPatTX said:


> ... or go state to state and pass laws legalizing abortion



That's what we're doing, Kemosabe. Kinda smacks your quote about lefties being lazy above tho, doesn't it?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Everybody has an equal right to life. The left does not believe in that most basic of right because it may be inconvenient to having a good time.


Everyone has an equal right to bodily autonomy, but not a right to use someone else's body.

Come back when you understand.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> None of this is based on reality. You began the name dropping with your Colbert reference like a whole 'nother thread ago. Quit whining about people slurring Orange Bad Man when the only reason why he's relevant is because the whole Roe v Wade debacle was intended as a distraction to the Jan 6th hearings that he helped orchestrate. It doesn't matter that he isn't president; a lot of the bigotry we see coming from the alt right today is still fallout from him getting elected, not to mention all the crap he stills try to push.
> 
> Like more voter fraud nonsense:
> 
> ...


Gas prices are dipping because Biden is releasing form the Strategic Oil Reserves. It's a temporary fix, especially since he is selling oil to the Chinese company connected to Hunter Biden. All he has to do was nothing when he came into office and we wouldn't be in this mess. But the Green Energy Lobby dictates policy now and they want expensive gas so their solar panels and windmills look better. Even Obama said that fuel would have to necessarily skyrocket when he was in office. Do you people even listen to your own politicians when they speak? None of this is an accident and this isn't because Biden is stupid even though he is in obvious mental decline. His handlers know what they are doing.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 13, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Everyone has an equal right to bodily autonomy, but not a right to use someone else's body.
> 
> Come back when you understand.


The right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy. If you have no life, why would you need bodily autonomy?

Come back when you understand that.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> The right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy. If you have no life, why would you need bodily autonomy?
> 
> Come back when you understand that.


If life supercedes bodily autonomy, then that means you're okay with the state forcing you to donate an organ to save someone's life, lol.

You haven't thought this through.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 13, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Gas prices are dipping because Biden is releasing form the Strategic Oil Reserves. It's a temporary fix, especially since he is selling oil to the Chinese company connected to Hunter Biden. All he has to do was nothing when he came into office and we wouldn't be in this mess. But the Green Energy Lobby dictates policy now and they want expensive gas so their solar panels and windmills look better. Even Obama said that fuel would have to necessarily skyrocket when he was in office. Do you people even listen to your own politicians when they speak? None of this is an accident and this isn't because Biden is stupid even though he is in obvious mental decline. His handlers know what they are doing.



So if it's Green Energy Lobby pushing solar panels and windmills through price gouging in gas, wouldn't that be a problem that ran rampant well before Biden's presidency? And if so, why didn't Trump fix that when he wasn't signing off on the Keystone Pipeline? You keep blaming the left side for all of America's problems while idolizing the right, but then revert back to calling people out for supposedly supporting the government and corporate media when your arguments fail. 

It's also baffling that you seem to think the sudden rise in delivery and rideshare services are inexplicably not a majority of the blame. Like I shouldn't have to ask, but... Do you understand what supply and demand is? 

Expensive gas is annoying af; everyone's pissed off about it, and to further fan the flames in your favor: 

https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-BIDEN/POLL/nmopagnqapa/

55% of Americans don't favor Biden, and I'm pretty sure I glanced a yahoo article that stated something alongside the lines of 74% of Democrats don't care for him. What doesn't make sense is how you think a president would come into office and literally sabotage every moment of said presidency. I'll admit even Trump had some good policies and ideas, but all this continuous blame on one president or another for actions that are clearly beyond their control is naive at best.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 13, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Before Roe was overturned, it could not violate a person's bodily autonomy rights.


Yes, it could. Are you saying the government could not ban certain drugs under Roe? AFAIK Roe created a right to abortion based on a right to privacy, but it did not extend that privacy right to issues other than abortion.



LainaGabranth said:


> Hmm, so someone should be forced to carry a fetus against their will for the sake of the fetus' "life," yeeeeet...no one can be forced to get a vaccine for the sake of other people's lives, because...?


This is an interesting point. The government has thus far been able to violate people's bodily autonomy by mandating vaccines (for polio, measles, mumps, rubella, etc.) in order to attend school. In the absolutist view of bodily autonomy, does this mean you think all vaccine mandates should be repealed, since violating bodily autonomy for any reason, including for public health, is unacceptable?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Yes, it could. Are you saying the government could not ban certain drugs under Roe? AFAIK Roe created a right to abortion based on a right to privacy, but it did not extend that privacy right to issues other than abortion.


I was snidely referencing abortion access and the right's hypocritical claim that bodily autonomy is meaningless if another life is at stake. Other than that, everything you said is fair, and I don't disagree with you. I think just about all drugs should be legalized.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 13, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> It isn't that bodily autonomy isn't real so much as it's not the only issue at play, and trying to reduce the complexities of creating new human life into a single issue is a gross oversimplification based on the assumption that a fetus never has any rights (or at least no rights that could possibly compete against the woman's rights), and thus the woman's rights reign supreme in all situations.


A fetus has less rights then a Black Person lol. And less rights then a Women.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 13, 2022)

@Lacius

I will also put the question to you: do you think all vaccine mandates should be repealed, since they violate bodily autonomy?


----------



## SG854 (Jul 13, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Yes, it could. Are you saying the government could not ban certain drugs under Roe? AFAIK Roe created a right to abortion based on a right to privacy, but it did not extend that privacy right to issues other than abortion.
> 
> 
> This is an interesting point. The government has thus far been able to violate people's bodily autonomy by mandating vaccines (for polio, measles, mumps, rubella, etc.) in order to attend school. In the absolutist view of bodily autonomy, does this mean you think all vaccine mandates should be repealed, since violating bodily autonomy for any reason, including for public health, is unacceptable?


Government tends to violate bodily autonomy whenever they feel like it. Vaccine Mandates. War Draft. Men's body used as front line canon fodder in war or face jail time and/or fine. Prostitution is illegal in places.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> @Lacius
> 
> I will also put the question to you: do you think all vaccine mandates should be repealed, since they violate bodily autonomy?


A vaccine mandate doesn't violate bodily autonomy unless the government is making it illegal to not be vaccinated. For example, if proof of vaccination is required to enter a nursing home, you have the option of not entering the nursing home.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Government tends to violate bodily autonomy whenever they feel like it. Vaccine Mandates. War Draft. Men's body used as front line canon fodder in war or face jail time and/or fine. Prostitution is illegal in places.


Vaccine mandates don't violate bodily autonomy. I at least sort of agree with you about the draft and prostitution. I'm for legal prostitution, but one could argue that it's the exchange of money that's illegal, not the sex, and therefore not a violation of bodily autonomy.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 13, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> If the government has the ability to regulate what you do with your womb, *ALL* bodily autonomy rights are on the table for them to devour now.


The problem with this line of thinking is that although the uterus is part of your body, the fetus inside it is not part of your body. It is a separate entity with its own body that happens to be inside your body. Since the fetus is a separate entity, this opens a host of questions regarding what rights it might have, when those rights are granted, and how to weigh those rights against the woman's.

It's also difficult to say that the fetus violates your bodily autonomy, since you essentially invited it to take up residence in your uterus by having unprotected sex. Even if we ignore this and say that the key issue is that of bodily autonomy, you have to weigh the woman's right to bodily autonomy against the fetus's right to bodily autonomy, as having an abortion will kill it, and killing its body violates its bodily autonomy. If you claim that the fetus has no such right, yet once it's born, the baby *will* have that right, then you must establish a rule to determine when the fetus gains bodily autonomy rights, since your claim is that it doesn't have them from the beginning.

These problems are messy, so I think a much cleaner approach is to avoid the topic of bodily autonomy and instead focus on the topic of parental consent. If a fetus has a right to life, that right must have been bestowed by its parents, as they made the choice to create it. If a pregnancy occurs when both parents did not give consent, either because of contraceptive failure or because of rape, then it would follow that the fetus does not have a right to life, because both parents did not create it on purpose. As such, we could conclude that they have the right to kill the fetus, since they never gave it the right to life by consenting to its creation.

This seems like a much cleaner rationale to me as to why abortion must be allowed, as compared to the messy business of trying to weigh the bodily autonomy rights of two different parties. If you establish that the parents have the right to decide whether to have children and to stop the process of an unintended pregnancy as a result, then the bodily autonomy problems are automatically resolved: the fetus never had any rights to begin with, because both parents didn't consent to its creation, so killing it is permissible. Since it's impossible to prove that a pregnancy resulted from contraceptive failure and not unprotected sex, abortion must be allowed for everyone.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> The problem with this line of thinking is that although the uterus is part of your body, the fetus inside it is not part of your body. It is a separate entity with its own body that happens to be inside your body. Since the fetus is a separate entity, this opens a host of questions regarding what rights it might have, when those rights are granted, and how to weigh those rights against the woman's.


Unless we are granting new rights that we don't give to anybody else, nothing you brought up is remotely relevant.



AleronIves said:


> It's also difficult to say that the fetus violates your bodily autonomy, since you essentially invited it to take up residence in your uterus by having unprotected sex.


People get pregnant during protected sex too sometimes. Sometimes, the sex isn't even consensual.

Consent to have sex is not necessarily consent to get pregnant. Consent to get pregnant is not necessarily consent to stay pregnant. So, it doesn't matter.



AleronIves said:


> Even if we ignore this and say that the key issue is that of bodily autonomy, you have to weigh the woman's right to bodily autonomy against the fetus's right to bodily autonomy, as having an abortion will kill it, and killing its body violates its bodily autonomy. If you claim that the fetus has no such right, yet once it's born, the baby will have that right, then you must establish a rule to determine when the fetus gains bodily autonomy rights, since your claim is that it doesn't have them from the beginning.


I wish people would actually learn what bodily autonomy is and isn't. It is not the right to anybody else's body: only your own. Even if we grant a fetus full bodily autonomy rights, it'd be irrelevant to whether or not a woman can have an abortion. Hell, we could grant a zygote full bodily autonomy rights at the moment of conception (I don't), and it wouldn't matter.



AleronIves said:


> These problems are messy, so I think a much cleaner approach is to avoid the topic of bodily autonomy and instead focus on the topic of parental consent.


Bodily autonomy is the entire issue, lol.

Respectfully, it's only messy for those suffering from cognitive dissonance after being presented with the fact that in a consistent world, a loss of bodily autonomy rights for pregnant people is a loss of bodily autonomy rights for everyone.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 13, 2022)

Lacius said:


> A vaccine mandate doesn't violate bodily autonomy unless the government is making it illegal to not be vaccinated. For example, if proof of vaccination is required to enter a nursing home, you have the option of not entering the nursing home.


In that case, an abortion ban doesn't violate bodily autonomy, because you still have the choice to not get pregnant by avoiding sex.

I'm not saying this is a good solution. I'm saying that if we use your logic, government regulations do not violate bodily autonomy as long as you still have a choice to not put yourself in that situation, so neither vaccine mandates nor abortion bans violate bodily autonomy, as you still have a choice in the matter. It's just not the choice you wanted to have.

The point is not whether you have other options. The point is whether the government can violate your bodily autonomy in the name of promoting some other goal, whether it's protecting residents of nursing homes or residents of uteruses.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> In that case, an abortion ban doesn't violate bodily autonomy, because you still have the choice to not get pregnant by avoiding sex.


With respect, that was a pretty stupid response on your part. Whether or not you have a choice to get pregnant is irrelevant to whether or not an abortion ban is a violation of bodily autonomy.

"It isn't a violation of bodily autonomy because you could just not want to do that to your body." Lol.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 13, 2022)

Lacius said:


> People get pregnant during protected sex too sometimes. Sometimes, the sex isn't even consensual.


I addressed this in the second half of my post, which you conveniently ignored.



Lacius said:


> Bodily autonomy is the entire issue, lol.


That's only your opinion. The fact that you're willing to ignore other elements of the situation doesn't mean they don't exist. You just don't care about them, which is why your arguments will never convince the anti-abortion camp.



Lacius said:


> With respect, that was a pretty stupid response on your part.


It only seems stupid, because you don't understand your own argument.



Lacius said:


> "It isn't a violation of bodily autonomy because you could just not want to do that to your body."


What? Your point was that the government doesn't violate bodily autonomy as long as you have some other choice in the matter that prevents you from entering the situation where the mandate applies to you. If I don't want to get vaccinated, and vaccination is required to enter nursing homes, then I can choose to not enter nursing homes. This has nothing to do with whether the government can mandate vaccinations as a requirement to enter nursing homes in the first place.

Using your logic, not getting pregnant is a way to avoid the effects of an abortion ban, so the abortion ban isn't violating your bodily autonomy, either. This is nonsense, so your argument is nonsense. Having a method to avoid being affected by a government mandate has nothing to do with whether the government has the right to issue that mandate.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 13, 2022)

Why is it that so many cis man just suggests not having sex? Why don't yourself a vasectomy instead? Why is it always about controlling the bodies of AFABs but cis men can just walk around without limits? Do you know how often an AFAB can get pregnant? Once a year, if nothing goes wrong. Do you know how many people cis men can impregnate? Like 2 a day, every single day of the year. Why aren't cis men limited?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> That's only your opinion.


Unless you want to live in a world where the state can impose laws restricting bodily autonomy in the name of saving a life, it's your opinion and everybody else's opinion too.



AleronIves said:


> What? Your point was that the government doesn't violate bodily autonomy as long as you have some other choice in the matter that prevents you from entering the situation where the mandate applies to you.


No, that wasn't my point. My point was that something is not a violation of one's bodily autonomy rights as long as the person is free to do or not do whatever they want to their body without somebody suffering legal punishment. If a person cannot get a legal abortion, that's a violation of their bodily autonomy rights. If someone doesn't want to get vaccinated, that isn't a violation of their bodily autonomy as long as they are allowed to legally be unvaccinated.

Whether or not a person has the choice to get pregnant beforehand is wholly irrelevant to whether or not restricting access to legal abortion is a violation of bodily autonomy rights. If you take off your stubborn hat for a moment, you'll understand and you will stop making a fool of yourself.

"Tattoo removals can be illegal and it wouldn't be a violation of bodily autonomy because a person could have just chosen beforehand to not get a tattoo."

"Medical treatments for shark bites can be illegal and not a violation of bodily autonomy because people don't have to get in the ocean."

Lol.



AleronIves said:


> Using your logic, not getting pregnant is a way to avoid the effects of an abortion ban, so the abortion ban isn't violating your bodily autonomy, either. This is nonsense, so your argument is nonsense. Having a method to avoid being affected by a government mandate has nothing to do with whether the government has the right to issue that mandate.


See above. Even with the aforementioned "vaccine mandates," a person can legally be unvaccinated if they want to make that stupid decision. With anti-abortion laws, a pregnant person cannot legally get an abortion. Anyone who looks at this objectively can see one is a violation of bodily autonomy, and the other is not.



The Catboy said:


> Why is it that so many cis man just suggests not having sex? Why don't yourself a vasectomy instead? Why is it always about controlling the bodies of AFABs but cis men can just walk around without limits? Do you know how often an AFAB can get pregnant? Once a year, if nothing goes wrong. Do you know how many people cis men can impregnate? Like 2 a day, every single day of the year. Why aren't cis men limited?


Somehow, it always comes around to somebody accidentally admitting that it's about sex.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jul 13, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Why is it that so many cis man just suggests not having sex? Why don't yourself a vasectomy instead? Why is it always about controlling the bodies of AFABs but cis men can just walk around without limits? Do you know how often an AFAB can get pregnant? Once a year, if nothing goes wrong. Do you know how many people cis men can impregnate? Like 2 a day, every single day of the year. Why aren't cis men limited?



I'm not sure what a cis man is, but because having sex can get you pregnant is why its brought up. If makes sense if you don't want to get pregnant that you don't have sex. I don't see why the left doesn't think people can't control their impulses and desires ... you know, act like an adult and take responsibility for your actions.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 13, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not sure what a cis man is, but because having sex can get you pregnant is why its brought up. If makes sense if you don't want to get pregnant that you don't have sex. I don't see why the left doesn't think people can't control their impulses and desires ... you know, act like an adult and take responsibility for your actions.


A cis man or cisgender man is a man who was born a guy and agrees that they are a guy. As for the point of my post, is that it's wrong that the conversation only focuses on the group of people who can get only produce one child a year while ignoring the group that can impregnate multiple people a day. Why is the entire conversation about controlling women but never about limiting men's roles in reproduction?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not sure what a cis man is, but because having sex can get you pregnant is why its brought up. If makes sense if you don't want to get pregnant that you don't have sex. I don't see why the left doesn't think people can't control their impulses and desires ... you know, act like an adult and take responsibility for your actions.





The Catboy said:


> A cis man or cisgender man is a man who was born a guy and agrees that they are a guy. As for the point of my post, is that it's wrong that the conversation only focuses on the group of people who can get only produce one child a year while ignoring the group that can impregnate multiple people a day. Why is the entire conversation about controlling women but never about limiting men's roles in reproduction?


If the new precedent is bodily autonomy rights can be violated if it prevents the death of fetuses, then mandatory vasectomies are fair game. Hell, any kind of reproductive sex being illegal becomes fair game.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 13, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If the new precedent is bodily autonomy rights can be violated if it prevents the death of fetuses, then mandatory vasectomies are fair game. Hell, any kind of reproductive sex being illegal becomes fair game.


Are you saying that limiting the rights of men should be fair game? Because I am about it! I think men should have their rights limited just as much as women have them limited. If that's not something they want, then why the fuck do they do it to everyone else?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Are you saying that limiting the rights of men should be fair game? Because I am about it! I think men should have their rights limited just as much as women have them limited. If that's not something they want, then why the fuck do they do it to everyone else?


I normally wouldn't be for violating anybody's bodily autonomy rights, but it seems like fair game to me in this new world of ours. Mandated vasectomies also seem more efficient than anything else, if the goal is to reduce the number of abortions.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 14, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I normally wouldn't be for violating anybody's bodily autonomy rights, but it seems like fair game to me in this new world of ours. Mandated vasectomies also seem more efficient than anything else, if the goal is to reduce the number of abortions.


I am not for it either but if we are in the business of limiting women/AFABs, LGBT+ folks, minorities, and so on, then why not extend that to cis men? It should be perfectly fine to do so.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 14, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Why is it that so many cis man just suggests not having sex?


Please don't straw man me. I brought that up as a way to refute Lacius's argument, not because it's actually a good idea. The whole point is that it's a bad idea, so an argument that could lead to such a conclusion is a bad argument.



Lacius said:


> Unless you want to live in a world where the state can impose laws restricting bodily autonomy in the name of saving a life


We already live in that world. The government bans certain drugs and assisted suicide, as we've already discussed.



Lacius said:


> No, that wasn't my point. My point was that something is not a violation of one's bodily autonomy rights as long as the person is free to do or not do whatever they want to their body without somebody suffering legal punishment. If a person cannot get a legal abortion, that's a violation of their bodily autonomy rights. If someone doesn't want to get vaccinated, that isn't a violation of their bodily autonomy as long as they are allowed to legally be unvaccinated.


I apologise for misconstruing your point, but I still think it's wrong. Your requirements for violations of bodily autonomy are too narrow. Requiring people to do one thing with their body in order to do something else is still a violation of bodily autonomy, even if the government doesn't have specific legal punishments in place for violating the rule.

If the government requires you to get a vaccine to go to a public school, the government has still mandated an intrusion into your bodily autonomy as a precondition for school attendance. The fact that the government won't send you to prison for breaking the law and attending a public school without getting vaccinated doesn't change the fact that the law violates your bodily autonomy.



Lacius said:


> If you take off your stubborn hat for a moment, you'll understand and you will stop making a fool of yourself.


You've been making the same flawed kidney argument for at least two months, had it refuted by multiple people, and refuse to make any concessions, yet I'm the stubborn one here? Also, making ad hominem attacks doesn't help your argument.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jul 14, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> A cis man or cisgender man is a man who was born a guy and agrees that they are a guy. As for the point of my post, is that it's wrong that the conversation only focuses on the group of people who can get only produce one child a year while ignoring the group that can impregnate multiple people a day. Why is the entire conversation about controlling women but never about limiting men's roles in reproduction?



I've never denied it takes a women and man to create a baby. The father is responsible too. It's odd that a lefty acknowledges the fathers role in the pregnancy because most leftist claim that the father has no say in whether or not his baby is aborted.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 14, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Please don't straw man me. I brought that up as a way to refute Lacius's argument, not because it's actually a good idea. The whole point is that it's a bad idea, so an argument that could lead to such a conclusion is a bad argument.


I didn't quote you because it wasn't just about what you said. I will say that it did spark my reason to make my post but it was not directed at your post because I didn't really care to get involved in that part of the conversation.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 14, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> it was not directed at your post because I didn't really care to get involved in that part of the conversation.


I appreciate that, but since a) "that part" of the conversation appears to be the entire conversation for the last few pages, and b) I'm the only one who brought up the subject in those pages (unless I missed another relevant post), it was reasonable to conclude that your post was directed at me, even though I was making the point that any argument that leads to such a flawed conclusion as "just don't have sex, then" is a bad argument. Further qualification that your post was not related to the recent conversation would have been appreciated, but I accept your explanation, nonetheless.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 14, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I appreciate that, but since a) "that part" of the conversation appears to be the entire conversation for the last few pages, and b) I'm the only one who brought up the subject in those pages (unless I missed another relevant post), it was reasonable to conclude that your post was directed at me, even though I was making the point that any argument that leads to such a flawed conclusion as "just don't have sex, then" is a bad argument. Further qualification that your post was not related to the recent conversation would have been appreciated, but I accept your explanation, nonetheless.


I do apologize for making you feel targeted. I've been meaning to make that post for several weeks now but kept pushing it off until your post reminded me to copy/paste it from my Google Docs. This really was more of a matter of me not really reading the room and deciding it was time for my soapbox. I will try to make sure I don't do that kind of shit again.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 14, 2022)

Yes, in a public discussion thread it is often hard to find an ideal place to interject a point that is relevant to the overall discussion but not to the discussion in the last few pages. I accept your apology, although I wasn't expecting one. It was just a simple misunderstanding.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 14, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Why is it that so many cis man just suggests not having sex? Why don't yourself a vasectomy instead? Why is it always about controlling the bodies of AFABs but cis men can just walk around without limits? Do you know how often an AFAB can get pregnant? Once a year, if nothing goes wrong. Do you know how many people cis men can impregnate? Like 2 a day, every single day of the year. Why aren't cis men limited?


Probably because the cis men suggesting it are not having sex themselves. So there's no need to get vasectomy.

Not having sex is probably good advice on the man. More so on the man to avoid child support. A woman has the choice of wanting a child or not. But a man doesn't. A man has no say over a women's body. And can be forced to take care of a kid he does not want as long as abortion rights pass. As much as people hate this answer and say it's a stupid answer "abstinence" is the best approach to avoid all this mess, there is no other solution.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 14, 2022)

I think we should make new vaccines just to mandate their injection. They don't even do anything, we just mandate them. Go big or go home, as I say.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If life supercedes bodily autonomy, then that means you're okay with the state forcing you to donate an organ to save someone's life, lol.
> 
> You haven't thought this through.


Nobody is even talking about organs. I can't believe that you don't see how utterly stupid this makes you look, but please, by all means, continue. This is right up there with you wearing a seatbelt somehow saves my life. It's just one dumb argument after another with you people. Go drink your Kool-Aid and take your 7th booster and stop whining. The decision has been made and there's nothing you can do about it except sit here and cry about it.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Nobody is even talking about organs.


We are, however, talking about bodily autonomy rights, so I suggest you learn what an analogy is before calling other people stupid.



TraderPatTX said:


> The decision has been made and there's nothing you can do about it except sit here and cry about it.


This isn't even close to true.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 14, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Why is it that so many cis man just suggests not having sex?


Now that we've cleared up the misunderstanding, I'll try to answer your original question. The "don't have sex" argument seems to stem from the idea that sex is a "dirty" act that only exists for purposes of procreation, and since society expects us to suppress bad behaviour, people should restrain themselves from having sex.

Of course, this is nonsense, since sex is a natural biological process shared by all animals and is mandatory to prevent the extinction of a species, so the idea that it's somehow evil or wrong makes no sense. Bioligical processes are neither good nor evil; they are just a fact of life.

We also know that sex drive is a natural bodily function intended to ensure that sexual activity is given priority among all other possible activities, so that species are certain to make time for it. This extends to humans as well, so the idea that people can suppress their sexual urges indefinitely is not only unrealistic but harmful, as you can't expect people to deny such a fundamental aspect of their humanity forever.

The idea that sex is only for procreation is also untrue, as homo sapiens isn't the only species that engages in recreational sex.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So if it's Green Energy Lobby pushing solar panels and windmills through price gouging in gas, wouldn't that be a problem that ran rampant well before Biden's presidency? And if so, why didn't Trump fix that when he wasn't signing off on the Keystone Pipeline? You keep blaming the left side for all of America's problems while idolizing the right, but then revert back to calling people out for supposedly supporting the government and corporate media when your arguments fail.
> 
> It's also baffling that you seem to think the sudden rise in delivery and rideshare services are inexplicably not a majority of the blame. Like I shouldn't have to ask, but... Do you understand what supply and demand is?
> 
> ...


I see from your responses that a lot of things are baffling to you.

The fact is, Biden said the buck stops with him, but them blames Putin for gas prices that were rising before Russia went into Ukraine. He blames Republicans, who don't run any part of the federal government. He blames the gas stations who barely make profit off of gas in the first place. He blames the oil companies because they have to buy expensive oil from Saudi Arabia and Russia instead of drilling here like we were during the bad orange man days.

So yeah, cutting supply during rising demand creates higher costs. Who cut supply? Resident Pedo Peter. You act like I'm the only one blaming him. The right, center and left are blaming here. It's damn near universal. And to top it off, his idiot wife compared latinos to breakfast tacos. We are living in bizzaro world now.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

Lacius said:


> We are, however, talking about bodily autonomy rights, so I suggest you learn what an analogy is before calling other people stupid.
> 
> 
> This isn't even close to true.


All I'm seeing here is wave after wave of tears. Not a lot of coping, but quite a bit of seething. I'm gonna get used to seeing this for the rest of the year and the next.

What else are you gonna do? Try to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh again?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> the father has no say in whether or not his baby is aborted.


The father has no say in whether or not a person has an abortion. Why would he? It isn't his body.



AleronIves said:


> We already live in that world. The government bans certain drugs and assisted suicide, as we've already discussed.


Is that the world you want to live in? Because it's the same world where pregnant people can't get an abortion and the state can take one of your kidneys.

"Let me show you how a world without bodily autonomy rights isn't bad by listing a bunch of bad things about it."



AleronIves said:


> Your requirements for violations of bodily autonomy are too narrow. Requiring people to do one thing with their body in order to do something else is still a violation of bodily autonomy, even if the government doesn't have specific legal punishments in place for violating the rule.
> 
> If the government requires you to get a vaccine to go to a public school, the government has still mandated an intrusion into your bodily autonomy as a precondition for school attendance. The fact that the government won't send you to prison for breaking the law and attending a public school without getting vaccinated doesn't change the fact that the law violates your bodily autonomy.


In the interest of things like public health and decency, certain privileges come with certain requirements. Want to go to public school? Get vaccinated. Want to interact with people in a public place? Wear clothes. These aren't violations of bodily autonomy rights because you don't have a right to a privilege. You don't, for example, have the right to infect a bunch of school children with your diseases.

Pregnant people literally cannot obtain a legal abortion in some states. That's a violation of bodily autonomy.



AleronIves said:


> You've been making the same flawed kidney argument for at least two months, had it refuted by multiple people,


It hasn't been refuted, lol. If I describe a situation in which the state violates a person's right to bodily autonomy in the name of saving a life, but you can't tell if I'm describing an abortion law or a organ donation law, then the analogy isn't flawed. You're confusing flawed for inconvenient.



AleronIves said:


> and refuse to make any concessions, yet I'm the stubborn one here?


Yep. I don't want to live in a world where I or anyone else doesn't have bodily autonomy. There's no middle ground here, unfortunately.



AleronIves said:


> Also, making ad hominem attacks doesn't help your argument.


I didn't say your argument was wrong because you are stubborn or because you're a fool. I rightfully said you're making a fool of yourself because you're being stubborn. Getting "ad hominem" wrong doesn't help your argument.



TraderPatTX said:


> All I'm seeing here is wave after wave of tears. Not a lot of coping, but quite a bit of seething. I'm gonna get used to seeing this for the rest of the year and the next.
> 
> What else are you gonna do? Try to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh again?


All I've done is explain how bodily autonomy rights work and why more than 60% of Americans believe people should have access to legal abortion.

As for what to do about anti-abortion laws, there's advocacy, education, political action, legislative action, executive action, and working around state laws.

Regarding Kavanaugh, do we have a motive? That's a real question, because I'm not aware of it. If you want to talk about real snowflake tears, we can talk about the actual assassinations of abortion doctors with motives that have actually been established. Your call.

Edit: For the record, and I hope it goes without saying, I don't condone assassination attempts. I don't think either side of the debate does.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The father has no say in whether or not a person has an abortion. Why would he? It isn't his body.
> 
> 
> Is that the world you want to live in? Because it's the same world where pregnant people can't get an abortion and the state can take one of your kidneys.
> ...


And I've explained to you that bodily autonomy doesn't mean shit if you are dead. So the right to life has to come first, then body autonomy and all of your other rights comes afterwards. I'm sorry that you hate nature so much, but it is what it is.

For your information, the father should have a say. It is his kid with his DNA. Being inside or outside of the womb does not matter.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> And I've explained to you that bodily autonomy doesn't mean shit if you are dead. So the right to life has to come first, then body autonomy and all of your other rights comes afterwards. I'm sorry that you hate nature so much, but it is what it is.


A right to bodily autonomy is not a right to another person's body. If a right to life comes first when it comes to legislation, then you would support a law that mandates donating kidneys to save lives.



TraderPatTX said:


> For your information, the father should have a say. It is his kid with his DNA.


Whether or not an embryo/fetus has half of an external person's DNA is irrelevant to whether or not he should be able to make choices about another person's body.

If a woman gives birth to a child that the father doesn't know about, the child needs a kidney, but only the father is a compatible match, it doesn't mean the mother (or state) should be able to force the father to donate a kidney, does it?



TraderPatTX said:


> Being inside or outside of the womb does not matter.


If it doesn't matter, let a pregnant person remove an embryo/fetus from their womb.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

Lacius said:


> A right to bodily autonomy is not a right to another person's body. If a right to life comes first when it comes to legislation, then you would support a law that mandates donating kidneys to save lives.
> 
> 
> Whether or not an embryo/fetus has half of an external person's DNA is irrelevant to whether or not he should be able to make choices about another person's body.
> ...


So if people can't make decisions about other people's bodies, what gives anybody the right to make a choice about a baby's body in the womb? Does their body not matter? I guess black babies don't matter to you do they? They are not even human in your eyes. Right?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> So if people can't make decisions about other people's bodies, what gives anybody the right to make a choice about a baby's body in the womb? Does their body not matter?


Even if we say a fetus's body matters and the fetus gets just as many rights as you or me, that wouldn't give it a right to another person's body, since neither of us has a right to anybody else's body.

Even if we pretend we both wholly value a fetus's life, it's irrelevant for the reason I just explained, just like how a person who needs a kidney transplant doesn't get to force a kidney donation from you.



TraderPatTX said:


> I guess black babies don't matter to you do they? They are not even human in your eyes. Right?


Uh, those are your words.

If I asked my coworker how his day was, and he said "Perfectly normal. I definitely didn't kill my neighbor" unprompted, I'm going to think he might have killed his neighbor, at least a lot more than if he hadn't brought it up. Your unprompted comment about Black people raises questions about your feelings on race.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Even if we say a fetus's body matters and the fetus gets just as many rights as you or me, that wouldn't give it a right to another person's body, since neither of us has a right to anybody else's body.
> 
> Even if we pretend we both wholly value a fetus's life, it's irrelevant for the reason I just explained, just like how a person who needs a kidney transplant doesn't get to force a kidney donation from you.
> 
> ...


So you want the government to place differing values on different people. Interesting. I don't think I've seen that since the 1860's, but you go ahead and run with that.

Why wouldn't a fetus with a beating heart, working brain and functioning kidneys have as much right as a person with the same features?

Since 70 million black babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade, it doesn't take a great leap to see how much you value black babies. You do celebrate that number after all. That's why you are on here defending the practice. You want to see more.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I see from your responses that a lot of things are baffling to you.



I bet.



TraderPatTX said:


> The fact is, Biden said the buck stops with him, but them blames Putin for gas prices that were rising before Russia went into Ukraine. He blames Republicans, who don't run any part of the federal government. He blames the gas stations who barely make profit off of gas in the first place. He blames the oil companies because they have to buy expensive oil from Saudi Arabia and Russia instead of drilling here like we were during the bad orange man days.



Yeah, and Trump said he'd put Hilary in jail, and evidently neither happened. 

So, there are *no* Republicans in the government? Not one? Not even like, half the Supreme Court Justices? No one in the federal government is a Republican? 

But what happens when we run out of oil? Do you understand that it's a natural, finite resource, or is that more leftist propaganda to force everyone into buying Elon Musk's Teslas and eco friendly lightbulbs?



TraderPatTX said:


> So yeah, cutting supply during rising demand creates higher costs. Who cut supply? Resident Pedo Peter. You act like I'm the only one blaming him. The right, center and left are blaming here. It's damn near universal. And to top it off, his idiot wife compared latinos to breakfast tacos. We are living in bizzaro world now.



By cutting supply, are you referring to the Keystone Pipeline that was never in use? Or maybe the tightened relations we had during Trump's presidency? Or the pulling out of the middle east that began during Trump's presidency? Or the lack of oil that was caused by the Russian-Ukrainian war? 

By stating that I act like you're the only one blaming him, have you read over where I stated in not a big fan of him either, or possibly you missed the link I posted that showed his rising disfavor? You keep cherry picking out of context statements and ideals to continually back your outlandish lash outs, you're just going to continue embarrassing yourself.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 14, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Is that the world you want to live in? Because it's the same world where pregnant people can't get an abortion and the state can take one of your kidneys.


This seems like a slippery slope argument. The fact that the government violates your bodily autonomy in one way does not automatically mean that it can do so in another way.



Lacius said:


> "Let me show you how a world without bodily autonomy rights isn't bad by listing a bunch of bad things about it."


I didn't say that it wasn't bad. I said that it already existed, so the idea that not allowing absolute bodily autonomy when it comes to pregnancy will open the door to a world where the government can violate bodily autonomy in the name of saving a life is not true. The government already opened that door a long time ago.



Lacius said:


> In the interest of things like public health and decency, certain privileges come with certain requirements. Want to go to public school? Get vaccinated.


American children are required to attend school, and since not every family has the money to afford private schools, public schools exist to ensure all children receive an education. That sounds like a right to me. The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights also states that education is a right, and the US signed the declaration, so it would seem that the US government agrees.



Lacius said:


> I don't want to live in a world where I or anyone else doesn't have bodily autonomy. There's no middle ground here, unfortunately.


I disagree. The answer to the compulsory vaccination question is easy, in my view. Is it a violation of bodily autonomy? Yes. Is that violation of bodily autonomy worth it? Yes. Bodily autonomy rights are not absolute; the government just needs a compelling reason to violate them, such as the promotion of public health. I am more than willing to give up a small measure of my bodily autonomy -- and for the government to force you to give up some of yours -- in the name of promoting public health. The alternative is a world where everyone has more bodily autonomy, but more children will be crippled by polio and killed by measles. I think the minor infringement of bodily autonomy rights required to mandate vaccinations is more than made up for by the improvement to public health, and I am quite content to live in a world where such a compromise can exist.

The fact that I accept a violation of bodily autonomy rights in one case does not mean I will necessarily accept it in another, however. As one example, I don't think the government has a compelling reason to forbid the use of recreational drugs, so I agree with you that such laws should be repealed, because bodily autonomy rights are more important than potential reasons for banning recreational drugs. I do think the government has a compelling reason to violate bodily autonomy rights when it comes to vaccine mandates, so I accept those laws.

Since you have already stated that you consider bodily autonomy to be absolute, I don't expect you to agree. I'm just pointing out that not everybody agrees that bodily autonomy is absolute or that it should be.



Lacius said:


> I rightfully said you're making a fool of yourself because you're being stubborn.


Saying an argument is foolish is one thing. Saying a person is "making a fool of himself" for making an argument is an ad hominem attack. You can attack ideas but not the people who make them. That's one of the primary rules of debate, and you're straddling the line in an attempt to claim that you didn't cross it.



Lacius said:


> more than 60% of Americans believe people should have access to legal abortion.


That's an ad populum fallacy. The percentage of Americans who think abortion should be legal is irrelevant.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I bet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hillary not being in jail is not affecting the 9.1% inflation rate or high gas prices.

Supreme Court Justices do not make law or run the administrative state. Take a civics class so you can understand the functions of the branches of government. Damn dude. Talk about embarrassing oneself. 

They've been talking about peak oil since the 70's. Same with all the climate change predictions, they never come true. Only braindead leftists still believe anything coming from the climate cult.

I'm talking about the oil leases that Biden canceled. You know, the one thing the left doesn't want to talk about because it actually affects supply and prices. Russian-Ukrainian war, lol. Gas prices were rising before that even started. Don't be stupid.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/biden-suspends-oil-and-gas-drilling-in-series-of.html

The only person making a fool of ximself here is you. You are not the brightest of the people who have spent the last few weeks sparring with me.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 14, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I've never denied it takes a women and man to create a baby. The father is responsible too. It's odd that a lefty acknowledges the fathers role in the pregnancy because most leftist claim that the father has no say in whether or not his baby is aborted.


That’s literally not what I said. I asked why there’s no laws limiting men? Why aren’t there laws limiting men’s ability to reproduce? Why aren’t there laws stopping men from impregnating multiple partners? It seems like all of the focus is on women and their bodies but they can only get pregnant at a minimum of once per year. A dude to knock up multiple women. Seems strange that women are the ones being restricted by the law.
It’s impressive how the only example you can think of still strips the mother of their rights to have an abortion.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I guess black babies don't matter to you do they? They are not even human in your eyes. Right?


Who said this and when did they say this? Seems like you are trying to say something about yourself and projecting that onto others


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Who said this and when did they say this? Seems like you are trying to say something about yourself and projecting that onto others


Your actions speaks volumes. You support a cause that has killed 70 million black babies. There is no denying that. Hitler would be so proud of you people for continuing his life's work.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Your actions speaks volumes. You support a cause that has killed 70 million black babies. There is no denying that. Hitler would be so proud of you people for continuing his life's work.


Oh, you are trying this shit because you’ve run out of arguments. This is just sad.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Oh, you are trying this shit because you’ve run out of arguments. This is just sad.


My argument that the right to life is the supreme right and comes before any other has never been challenged. Feel free to argue how body autonomy rights are needed if you are dead. I'll wait.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 14, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Oh, you are trying this shit because you’ve run out of arguments. This is just sad.


Well yeah, the right has to resort to personal attacks when they can't affirm why someone has to be forced to carry a child against their will.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> My argument that the right to life is the supreme right and comes before any other has never been challenged. Feel free to argue how body autonomy rights are needed if you are dead. I'll wait.


Oh, I am just done with you from this post out. It’s clear you are arguing in bad faith and just going to ignore every argument you can’t counter. It’s also clear that you are going to project and inject your bullshit into the conversation as a sad attempt to control the conversation. That’s just sad and obvious, also not worth my time to care about you when I know you what you are doing.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Oh, I am just done with you from this post out. It’s clear you are arguing in bad faith and just going to ignore every argument you can’t counter. It’s also clear that you are going to project and inject your bullshit into the conversation as a sad attempt to control the conversation. That’s just sad and obvious, also not worth my time to care about you when I know you what you are doing.


That's what I thought. You can't counter my argument so you are gonna get pissy, grab your ball and go home. Bye Felicia. Next time, you don't have to announce your exit. Just get up and walk out. Nobody cares.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Well yeah, the right has to resort to personal attacks when they can't affirm why someone has to be forced to carry a child against their will.


I'll keep that in mind every time I get called a fascist and white supremacist. I'm not sure if it's possible for the left to project any harder than you are now, but I'm sure you find a way.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 14, 2022)

So anyways, abortion is a human right, and that's based.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I'll keep that in mind every time I get called a fascist and white supremacist. I'm not sure if it's possible for the left to project any harder than you are now, but I'm sure you find a way.


No one has ever been called a fascist or white nationalist just for disagreeing with someone.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> No one has ever been called a fascist or white nationalist just for disagreeing with someone.


Have you been living in a cave these past 6 years or were you not alive during this period?


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 14, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> So anyways, abortion is a human right, and that's based.


This^ abortion is a human right, same-sex marriage is a human right, and trans rights are human rights.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Have you been living in a cave these past 6 years or were you not alive during this period?


Nope, I'm just correct. No one has been called a white nationalist or a fascist for having a different opinion. Ever.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Nope, I'm just correct. No one has been called a white nationalist or a fascist for having a different opinion. Ever.


Who are the "anti-fascist" struggling against then?


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 14, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Nope, I'm just correct. No one has been called a white nationalist or a fascist for having a different opinion. Ever.


But a lot of people sharing a suspiciously large amount of neo-Nazi and White Nationalist talking points sure claim it happens a lot


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Who are the "anti-fascist" struggling against then?


The sentence "People are not called fascists for disagreeing with them" does not mean "There are no fascists." Trump, for example, openly played to nationalism, racial essentialism, the othering of dissent, and hyper authoritarianism, all of which are the biggest points in the titular 14 fascism.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rsc/Editorials/fascism.html

So, antifa was fighting against fascist groups, such as the Proud Boys, who openly *support* these policies.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 14, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> The sentence "People are not called fascists for disagreeing with them" does not mean "There are no fascists." Trump, for example, openly played to nationalism, racial essentialism, the othering of dissent, and hyper authoritarianism, all of which are the biggest points in the titular 14 fascism.
> 
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rsc/Editorials/fascism.html
> 
> So, antifa was fighting against fascist groups, such as the Proud Boys, who openly *support* these policies.


I bet the next thing he’s going to post is another attempt to control the conversation and spin the narrative in his favor. He’s as predictable as the other that spew out the same shit


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 14, 2022)

Calling it now, this will be his dumbass response.



TraderPatTX said:


> SEE? SEE? IT SAYS ELECTION FRAUD, THAT MEANS JOE BIDEN IS LITERALLY HITLER!!


----------



## smf (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> The decision has been made and there's nothing you can do about it except sit here and cry about it.


This reminds me of the time that Trump wanted the vote counting because they had counted more Trump votes than Biden Votes. You don't get to call time on *anything*

50 years ago they decided that Roe vs Wade was valid, then some bitter and twisted people cried about it for 50 years and the worst US president ever loaded the supreme court with some miscreants and now it's not.

If there was something your lot could do, then there is something that we can do.

A minority can't force the majority to change, no matter how triggered you are.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 14, 2022)

smf said:


> This reminds me of the time that Trump wanted the vote counting because they had counted more Trump votes than Biden Votes. You don't get to call time on *anything*
> 
> 50 years ago they decided that Roe vs Wade was valid, then some bitter and twisted people cried about it for 50 years and the worst US president ever loaded the supreme court with some miscreants and now it's not.
> 
> ...


This. Righties said "Trump's gonna win, there's nothing you can do!"

Look at that. He lost a fair election.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 14, 2022)

The only thing I am learning from this thread is that maybe men need their rights limited.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Hillary not being in jail is not affecting the 9.1% inflation rate or high gas prices.



Then don't whine about Biden not getting the job done and try to pass it off as a win, considering the gas prices in particular have been fluctuating for years, not just the past year. 



TraderPatTX said:


> Supreme Court Justices do not make law or run the administrative state. Take a civics class so you can understand the functions of the branches of government. Damn dude. Talk about embarrassing oneself.



Who's embarrassed? You literally said there are no Republicans running the government, even after the Republican led Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade. It's almost like you have no idea what politics are and how they work.



TraderPatTX said:


> They've been talking about peak oil since the 70's. Same with all the climate change predictions, they never come true. Only braindead leftists still believe anything coming from the climate cult.



So climate change is a farce? You sure you're equipped to handle the L from that conversation? You can't even keep up with the abortion debate.



TraderPatTX said:


> I'm talking about the oil leases that Biden canceled. You know, the one thing the left doesn't want to talk about because it actually affects supply and prices. Russian-Ukrainian war, lol. Gas prices were rising before that even started. Don't be stupid.
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/biden-suspends-oil-and-gas-drilling-in-series-of.html



I don't mind talking about oil leases. Let's talk about it. 

Oil is a finite resource and something needs to be developed before we run out. 

Thoughts?

Yes, I'm aware gas prices were increasing before the Ukrainian -Russian war. That's why I highlighted several examples instead of just that. 

There you go cherry picking again, as if no one else could read what I posted and see you dodge facts like you're in a Matrix movie.



TraderPatTX said:


> The only person making a fool of ximself here is you. You are not the brightest of the people who have spent the last few weeks sparring with me.



No, probably not the brightest, but judging on your inability to deal with actual facts and 75% of the questions posited to you, I can at least confidently say I'm a hell of a lot brighter than you.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> The sentence "People are not called fascists for disagreeing with them" does not mean "There are no fascists." Trump, for example, openly played to nationalism, racial essentialism, the othering of dissent, and hyper authoritarianism, all of which are the biggest points in the titular 14 fascism.
> 
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rsc/Editorials/fascism.html
> 
> So, antifa was fighting against fascist groups, such as the Proud Boys, who openly *support* these policies.


Being a nationalist does not make one a fascist. Every country's citizens want what is best for their country, except for the American left. You guys are the outlier.

The rest of your dribble never happened.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

smf said:


> This reminds me of the time that Trump wanted the vote counting because they had counted more Trump votes than Biden Votes. You don't get to call time on *anything*
> 
> 50 years ago they decided that Roe vs Wade was valid, then some bitter and twisted people cried about it for 50 years and the worst US president ever loaded the supreme court with some miscreants and now it's not.
> 
> ...


It's funny how the most triggered people on this thread keep saying that others are triggered.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Then don't whine about Biden not getting the job done and try to pass it off as a win, considering the gas prices in particular have been fluctuating for years, not just the past year.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Supreme Court does not run the government. That would be the Executive and Legislative branches. The Judicial is just there to keep the other two in check and prevent the authoritarianism the left craves.

Been hearing about ice free arctic almost my entire life. Still hasn't happened. In fact, not a single prediction has come true. Weird.

I'm all for developing new technologies for energy. Solar panels and windmills are not it. And right now, China has the market cornered on rare earth minerals used to make batteries. I'd like for you to persuade me why it is a good idea to become even more beholden to the CCP than we already are.

You mentioned Ukraine. The Resident blames high gas prices on that situation, even calling it Putin's Gas Tax. I have to assume you believe it's true.

I've dealt with every question posed to me. If I inadvertently missed one, you can chalk it up to me normally coming on here to over 10 alerts with multiple "questions" or flat out stupid remarks. Not necessarily from you so don't take it personally.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It's funny how the most triggered people on this thread keep saying that others are triggered.



So uh, you?



TraderPatTX said:


> The Supreme Court does not run the government. That would be the Executive and Legislative branches. The Judicial is just there to keep the other two in check and prevent the authoritarianism the left craves.



Well it's a good thing no one said the Supreme Court runs the government. You said there are no Republicans running the government. I pointed out that there are Republicans everywhere, including the Supreme Court, which is relevant cuz they were important recently. For some reason.. 



TraderPatTX said:


> Been hearing about ice free arctic almost my entire life. Still hasn't happened. In fact, not a single prediction has come true. Weird.



Oh man, much like Christianity. Except the difference is the science is there to back up the progression, even though the end result hasn't happened up. It's like, currently developing and stuff. 



TraderPatTX said:


> I'm all for developing new technologies for energy. Solar panels and windmills are not it. And right now, China has the market cornered on rare earth minerals used to make batteries. I'd like for you to persuade me why it is a good idea to become even more beholden to the CCP than we already are.



So what do you suggest? Nuclear? Even if wind and solar weren't optimal, those resources will never run out, unlike oil. Science is currently still working on improving these technologies, which have been hampered over the years due to lobbying by oil companies specifically, among others by abroad. You guys wanna continue depending on oil until we run out without supporting any foray into other alternatives, what then? Unless you're directly working on research into oil alternatives, you don't really have much to go on in the way of denying anything that's been presented.



TraderPatTX said:


> You mentioned Ukraine. The Resident blames high gas prices on that situation, even calling it Putin's Gas Tax. I have to assume you believe it's true.



Not really. I'm not so naive as to place the blame of a global wide oil issue on the president of one nation that's barely been in office for two years. I'm not implying Biden is hands free, but it's a pretty close minded thing to assume he's the only one to blame and not even use any kind of deductive reasoning to enlighten your way of thinking.



TraderPatTX said:


> I've dealt with every question posed to me. If I inadvertently missed one, you can chalk it up to me normally coming on here to over 10 alerts with multiple "questions" or flat out stupid remarks. Not necessarily from you so don't take it personally.



I don't take anything on here personally, but I appreciate the sentiment. 

But that's why a few of you are getting told to "keep up". Try only taking one or two conversations on at a time. It's easier to control and you won't have to worry about defending your position based on conjecture you haven't seen. Just a little advice.


----------



## smf (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It's funny how the most triggered people on this thread keep saying that others are triggered.


Yes, it is funny how you are the most triggered person and keep saying that others are triggered.

Even more funny, is that you you would bring it up.



TraderPatTX said:


> Solar panels and windmills are not it.


Please tell us why, I could do with a laugh.

Though you would have to go some to top Trump...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/15/why-trump-hates-wind-turbines/



TraderPatTX said:


> Been hearing about ice free arctic almost my entire life. Still hasn't happened. In fact, not a single prediction has come true. Weird.


So the melting polar ice caps, which you can visibly see, are not an indication to you that they will eventually all melt.

You want to wait until it's too late to do anything about it, before you do anything about it?

That is kinda like saying, there is no evidence that dropping a plugged in toaster into your bath will kill you because you haven't dropped the toaster in the bath yet.


----------



## OuahOuah (Jul 14, 2022)

XDel said:


> Gay couples can't marry unless they marry to the opposite sex, otherwise it is not marriage. Abortion is murder. If we did not live in an age of extreme affluence, we would not have time nor energy to prioritize such philosophies in our life.


So you're just homophobic and sect member.
Many words to just tell this.


----------



## seany1990 (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> The rest of your dribble never happened.


Why do you make this claim sir? Is it because it's detrimental to your argument?
Also bone apple tea


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So uh, you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you want a Supreme Court to just make up laws and rights, the only answer I have for you is to start winning elections. It seems lately, every time the left wins one, you guys get more upset. I remember in 2018 when the Dems won the House and you people were so happy until you figured out that the Senate was the key. Now that you've won all of Congress and the Presidency, you still can't win. That's gotta be frustrating, but I can totally relate. Reminds me of 2010 and 2016 getting stabbed in the back by RINO's.

Comparing one religion to another is not the gotcha you think it is.

I'm talking about a technology that has not been developed yet, but nuclear would be a huge help right now. I bet Germany is wishing they had nuclear plants now that Russia isn't selling them natural gas anymore. I wouldn't be surprised if they revolt this winter.

We have more oil than any single country in the world. Once that spigot was turned off, a large percentage of available oil dramatically dropped. Less supply, more demand = higher prices. It's not hard to figure out, but I keep having to explain this simple detail of Econ 101 to you. Why?

Except if I didn't answer every loon on here, I'd get accused of avoiding facts or something. The guy going on and on about kidneys is really entertaining though, but I think I finally shut him up so it's getting a little easier to manage. I've even started commenting on actual tech threads here, lol.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

smf said:


> Yes, it is funny how you are the most triggered person and keep saying that others are triggered.
> 
> Even more funny, is that you you would bring it up.
> 
> ...


I've never accused anybody of being triggered, but continue living in your fantasy world.

For one, the sun is not always shining and they are still very inefficient. Wind mills only last for a few years and then they are buried in landfills because fiberglass is not recyclable. They also kill birds and the wind is also not always blowing. But batteries, you say. Yes, let's be beholden to the one country that has cornered the rare earth mineral market used to make batteries, China. Not sure about you, but I would rather not be even more dependent on a government that runs actual concentration camps. Your mileage may vary.

https://coloradosun.com/2020/02/26/wind-turbine-blades-colorado-landfills/

https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/arctic-sea-ice-second-highest-18-years-end-2021-rrc/

The problems with climate science are one, they deny that the climate is always changing and two, the climate is cyclical. It's been both warmer and colder than it is now in Earth's past, even during human domination of the planet.

You all have been chicken little for so long and we've seen so many predictions come and go, that nobody really cares anymore. We just want cheap gas and cheap food, or we will all end up like Sri Lanka.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> The problems with climate science


Um... This thread is about the ramifications of the SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade, not climate science. Please don't get another thread locked by going way off topic.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 14, 2022)

XDel said:


> Gay couples can't marry unless they marry to the opposite sex, otherwise it is not marriage. Abortion is murder. If we did not live in an age of extreme affluence, we would not have time nor energy to prioritize such philosophies in our life.


What philosophies are you talking about? Philosophy has nothing to do with legal arrangement of marriage. Same-sex couples are getting married and whatever philosophy or reality you are living in doesn’t change that. Abortion is also not murder, it’s a medical practice and human right. Your philosophy doesn’t change that nor is it ok to force anyone to follow whatever philosophy you are following.


----------



## lokomelo (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I've never accused anybody of being triggered, but continue living in your fantasy world.
> 
> For one, the sun is not always shining and they are still very inefficient. Wind mills only last for a few years and then they are buried in landfills because fiberglass is not recyclable. They also kill birds and the wind is also not always blowing. But batteries, you say. Yes, let's be beholden to the one country that has cornered the rare earth mineral market used to make batteries, China. Not sure about you, but I would rather not be even more dependent on a government that runs actual concentration camps. Your mileage may vary.
> 
> ...


Yes, climate is cyclical. The temperature will raise due to human intervention, then life will become less and less viable to our species, then our number will fall dramatically, and then the emissions will go down and the earth will cool once again. Fight against oil and carbon emissions is not an earth problem, it is a mankind problem.

Edit: I forgot to comment about Siri Lanka, well they invaded public buildings, so it is the same that happened in the USA, but they did it in a massive scale, that's the difference.

Also, to USA become Siri Lanka, it needs to get waaaaaay better. Sure, USA have the money, but the cultural heritage and the landscapes from Siri Lanka are light years better.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Um... This thread is about the ramifications of the SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade, not climate science. Please don't get another thread locked by going way off topic.


It was in response to somebody else.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> Yes, climate is cyclical. The temperature will raise due to human intervention, then life will become less and less viable to our species, then our number will fall dramatically, and then the emissions will go down and the earth will cool once again. Fight against oil and carbon emissions is not an earth problem, it is a mankind problem.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to comment about Siri Lanka, well they invaded public buildings, so it is the same that happened in the USA, but they did it in a massive scale, that's the difference.
> 
> Also, to USA become Siri Lanka, it needs to get waaaaaay better. Sure, USA have the money, but the cultural heritage and the landscapes from Siri Lanka are light years better.


This is off topic, but you obviously have no idea what is going on over there right now.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 14, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I think we should make new vaccines just to mandate their injection. They don't even do anything, we just mandate them. Go big or go home, as I say.


Team up with Dr. Oz and he can advertise it as energy booster shot weight loss.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 14, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> Yes, climate is cyclical. The temperature will raise due to human intervention, then life will become less and less viable to our species, then our number will fall dramatically, and then the emissions will go down and the earth will cool once again. Fight against oil and carbon emissions is not an earth problem, it is a mankind problem.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to comment about Siri Lanka, well they invaded public buildings, so it is the same that happened in the USA, but they did it in a massive scale, that's the difference.
> 
> Also, to USA become Siri Lanka, it needs to get waaaaaay better. Sure, USA have the money, but the cultural heritage and the landscapes from Siri Lanka are light years better.


With Climate Change it'll be harder to play the Nintendo Switch outdoors. I can't last in extreme heat without overheating and putting itself to sleep.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 14, 2022)

SG854 said:


> With Climate Change it'll be harder to play the Nintendo Switch outdoors. I can't last in extreme heat without overheating and putting itself to sleep.


I think what annoys me the most about this post is that some people genuinely would not understand the devastating impact of climate change without it.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Being a nationalist does not make one a fascist. Every country's citizens want what is best for their country, except for the American left. You guys are the outlier.
> 
> The rest of your dribble never happened.


I actually am against nationalism personally but I did not, actually, say that nationalism is fascism. I see why you're on the right, your education must have been very poor. Shame you support the people responsible for that.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 14, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> If you want a Supreme Court to just make up laws and rights, the only answer I have for you is to start winning elections. It seems lately, every time the left wins one, you guys get more upset. I remember in 2018 when the Dems won the House and you people were so happy until you figured out that the Senate was the key. Now that you've won all of Congress and the Presidency, you still can't win. That's gotta be frustrating, but I can totally relate. Reminds me of 2010 and 2016 getting stabbed in the back by RINO's.
> 
> Comparing one religion to another is not the gotcha you think it is.
> 
> ...



Nobody said about anything about the Supreme Court having absolute rule over anything. I even went out of my way to ensure I wasn't implying it.

I didn't compare religions, I compared the idealogy behind certain Christian principles such as prediction to that of what you're claiming science predicts. I would go over that part again.

What technology? Do you have any relevant ideas that could help?

Because you have yet to realize that just because we have oil that doesn't mean it's infinite. Why do I have to explain that concept to you?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 14, 2022)

Maybe the checks and balances don't work when one of the checks can make the balances favor them? Just a thought.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I actually am against nationalism personally but I did not, actually, say that nationalism is fascism. I see why you're on the right, your education must have been very poor. Shame you support the people responsible for that.


Everybody knows the, what does the left call it, dog whistle when you call somebody a nationalist, you really mean fascist.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 14, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Nobody said about anything about the Supreme Court having absolute rule over anything. I even went out of my way to ensure I wasn't implying it.
> 
> I didn't compare religions, I compared the idealogy behind certain Christian principles such as prediction to that of what you're claiming science predicts. I would go over that part again.
> 
> ...


You're mad because the left doesn't control one out of three branches of government because your ideology demands you have complete control.  There lies why the left is so salty on here. Every time you guys win an election, it never quite feels like you are winning. I totally get it. 

Climate science is a religion, similar to other religions. You have a creation story, you have your religious leaders like Dr. Fauci, and you have an end of the world if we don't repent story.

I'm not that kind of engineer, but there are some pretty smart people out there that could do something. That person could have been born already, but they might have been aborted. Shame.

I am well aware that oil is a finite resource. I never said it was infinite. You once again assumed and projected your belief system onto me. Typical religious fanaticism there.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> You're mad because the left doesn't control one out of three branches of government because your ideology demands you have complete control.  There lies why the left is so salty on here. Every time you guys win an election, it never quite feels like you are winning. I totally get it.
> 
> Climate science is a religion, similar to other religions. You have a creation story, you have your religious leaders like Dr. Fauci, and you have an end of the world if we don't repent story.
> 
> ...


Climate Science can be 100% proven wrong. It still snows. Liberals get pwned.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Everybody knows the, what does the left call it, dog whistle when you call somebody a nationalist, you really mean fascist.


Please tell the class what "dog whistle" means. Because when I use two different terms with distinct differences from each other, that's not a dog whistle for one to mean the other.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Climate Science can be 100% proven wrong. It still snows. Liberals get pwned.


We've seen it can't be proven right over decades. Kind of like saying abortion is healthcare. Slogans is not science.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> You're mad because the left doesn't control one out of three branches of government because your ideology demands you have complete control.  There lies why the left is so salty on here. Every time you guys win an election, it never quite feels like you are winning. I totally get it.



Is that apparent in an the times I've mentioned that both blues and reds are terrible and the numerous references I've made to this not being a bipartisan government? You must be confusing some of the players on here cuz you're barking up the wrong tree again.

For someone who calls out lefties for not being happy with a win you sure turn a blind eye to the right going after contraceptives and non white non heterosexual marriages next. 



TraderPatTX said:


> Climate science is a religion, similar to other religions. You have a creation story, you have your religious leaders like Dr. Fauci, and you have an end of the world if we don't repent story.



I'm sorry, can you run that by me again? I heard something that was borderline psychotic, and I'm really trying to believe you're an actual human being. 



TraderPatTX said:


> I'm not that kind of engineer, but there are some pretty smart people out there that could do something. That person could have been born already, but they might have been aborted. Shame.



But yet you speak like you think you're an engineer. 

Oh, and the next Hitler might have aborted as well. How sad that is for you. 



TraderPatTX said:


> I am well aware that oil is a finite resource. I never said it was infinite. You once again assumed and projected your belief system onto me. Typical religious fanaticism there.



Not once did I assume. In fact, my first post response about oil to you I even assumed that you know oil isn't finite, in my questioning of you thinking it's viable to keep using until we run out. 

How can miss you that? And you can't blame it on all the "nutjobs" you respond to; after a while, you choose to keep doing it.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Is that apparent in an the times I've mentioned that both blues and reds are terrible and the numerous references I've made to this not being a bipartisan government? You must be confusing some of the players on here cuz you're barking up the wrong tree again.
> 
> For someone who calls out lefties for not being happy with a win you sure turn a blind eye to the right going after contraceptives and non white non heterosexual marriages next.
> 
> ...


Nobody is going after non white marriages. That's just the left scaremongering because you losing so badly.

Personal attack because you have nothing else.

I don't see you coming up with any bright ideas. Why is all up to me? Because I'm smarter?

I'm not the authoritarian one. That would be those on the left. I'm perfectly happy decentralizing authority to the states like the country was designed from the beginning.

What important question would you like me to answer? I'll answer it if it makes you stop whining about the lack of attention I give you.


----------



## ScaryHobbit (Jul 15, 2022)

Wanna know the real irony of all this SCOTUS Gay Marriage talk?

In the end, the only thing that is actually being fought over and affected - is TAX BENEFITS.
There's absolutely nothing keeping a gay or lesbian couple from coming out into the open, declare they are "married", and then go off and do whatever they want.
SCOTUS rulings only affect _whether they can file taxes as a couple_. That's it.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

ScaryHobbit said:


> Wanna know the real irony of all this SCOTUS Gay Marriage talk?
> 
> In the end, the only thing that is actually being fought over and affected - is TAX BENEFITS.
> There's absolutely nothing keeping a gay or lesbian couple from coming out into the open, declare they are "married", and then go off and do whatever they want.
> SCOTUS rulings only affect _whether they can file taxes as a couple_. That's it.


A lot of people really like to have to get permission from the state just to live life how they want. It's baffling.


----------



## XDel (Jul 15, 2022)

OuahOuah said:


> So you're just homophobic and sect member.
> Many words to just tell this.


Well no, I have friends who are into that gay shit, and they don't scare me, though I do make them wash their hands before we shake. In fact having a distaste for homosexual activity came naturally to the majority of people before it became yet another corporately funded, global religious trend, though this one is special in that we all MUST celebrate it for a month, else we'll get assigned labels like you are applying to me right now.

As for the origins of the term homophobic. That came with John E. Fryer (Dr. Anonymous) and friends, who dressed up as peacocks and shit and raided a bi-yearly meeting where it is determined what should be updated in the medical book for mental disorders. Needless to say, the protesters failed to provide any sort of scientific evidence for their claims, but they did invent a word to combat the negative connotation that the world "homosexual" held within the books, and that word, or claim rather, was "homophobic" in that they claimed that every single solitary doctor who had observed homosexuality as a disorder, was in fact just being a backwards, religious bigot, and they needed to get up with the times, and draw upon the philosophical works of Willhelm Reich, Sigmund Freud, Dr. John Money, and  Alfred Kinsey, and the like, which they them selves passed as scientific fact without any facts to stand upon.

As for a sect member? No, I don't believe my interpretation of scripture could be categorized as unorthodoxed or heretical, though I know of a lot of rainbow churches that are! These days they make for the majority of churches it would seem. So if anything, you, them, and your kind are the sect members.


----------



## XDel (Jul 15, 2022)

ScaryHobbit said:


> Wanna know the real irony of all this SCOTUS Gay Marriage talk?
> 
> In the end, the only thing that is actually being fought over and affected - is TAX BENEFITS.
> There's absolutely nothing keeping a gay or lesbian couple from coming out into the open, declare they are "married", and then go off and do whatever they want.
> SCOTUS rulings only affect _whether they can file taxes as a couple_. That's it.


 Some states, like Ohio I believe, used to have laws where if a couple of friends or what ever lived together for a number of years, that they could reap some of the same benefits as a married couples. Granted I would prefer the state stay out of marriage, family, education, etc. all together, but if this is about money, then give the gays that,  and let the gays continue to be masturbation partners rather than pretend that they are a man and a woman unified in marriage; mimicking aspects natural order and divine design.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 15, 2022)

OuahOuah said:


> So you're just homophobic and sect member.
> Many words to just tell this.





XDel said:


> Yes



There, you don't have to read his cope textwall. Irrational fear is what causes people to concoct conspiracy theories like a "subversive gay agenda" that "seeks to turn everyone gay" and other stupid shit. I cannot for the life of me imagine ever being paranoid enough to think that someone's sexuality or identity is some memetic lifestyle virus.


----------



## XDel (Jul 15, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> There, you don't have to read his cope textwall. Irrational fear is what causes people to concoct conspiracy theories like a "subversive gay agenda" that "seeks to turn everyone gay" and other stupid shit. I cannot for the life of me imagine ever being paranoid enough to think that someone's sexuality or identity is some memetic lifestyle virus.


It's not my problem if you lack imagination, let alone the will to look up and research the names and references I drop. Everyone's got a local Library and University from which they can get loans and inter library loans, and there is much content available on the internet, such as this gem that I uploaded the other day, I ordered it from a University for $120 for the sake of getting the information out there and shared. 

That said, as much as I like to pick fun on you kids, you really don't understand the depth of unhappiness which you are all swimming in. It would be a stretch to call your selves "gay" because none of you strike me as particularly happy. You get a whole month as a holiday, the whole world cheers you on, you can have your marriage and gay cake to, homo erotica in main stream entertainment and commercials, you can have it all, but still deep in your heart you know that still something is lacking, or perhaps something has been added that shouldn't be there.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 15, 2022)

XDel said:


> It's not my problem if you lack imagination, let alone the will to look up and research the names and references I drop. Everyone's got a local Library and University from which they can get loans and inter library loans, and there is much content available on the internet, such as this gem that I uploaded the other day, I ordered it from a University for $120 for the sake of getting the information out there and shared.
> 
> That said, as much as I like to pick fun on you kids, you really don't understand the depth of unhappiness which you are all swimming in. It would be a stretch to call your selves "gay" because none of you strike me as particularly happy. You get a whole month as a holiday, the whole world cheers you on, you can have your marriage and gay cake to, homo erotica in main stream entertainment and commercials, you can have it all, but still deep in your heart you know that still something is lacking, or perhaps something has been added that shouldn't be there.


hahahahahahahahah holy fucking shit

i cannot imagine, genuinely, the magnitude of copium you've had to huff to post something like "UH, UH, YOU *HOMOS* AREN'T *REALLY* HAPPY," this is /v/ shit. Gonna start calling it "nu-happy" while you're at it? LMFAO


----------



## XDel (Jul 15, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> hahahahahahahahah holy fucking shit
> 
> i cannot imagine, genuinely, the magnitude of copium you've had to huff to post something like "UH, UH, YOU *HOMOS* AREN'T *REALLY* HAPPY," this is /v/ shit. Gonna start calling it "nu-happy" while you're at it? LMFAO


 Judging by your reaction, I'm going to presume I hit a little too close to the mark. 

Did you know that anti-freeze has a taste that dogs can't seem to resist, and yet when they've had their fill, they go to sleep and awake no more.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 15, 2022)

XDel said:


> Judging by your reaction, I'm going to presume I hit a little too close to the mark.
> 
> Did you know that anti-freeze has a taste that dogs can't seem to resist, and yet when they've had their fill, they go to sleep and awake no more.


Huff that copium more brother. The gays are here to stay.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> There, you don't have to read his cope textwall. Irrational fear is what causes people to concoct conspiracy theories like a "subversive gay agenda" that "seeks to turn everyone gay" and other stupid shit. I cannot for the life of me imagine ever being paranoid enough to think that someone's sexuality or identity is some memetic lifestyle virus.


Now tell us about the conspiracy theory that Justice Thomas is going after inter-racial marriages.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 15, 2022)

XDel said:


> Judging by your reaction, I'm going to presume I hit a little too close to the mark.
> 
> Did you know that anti-freeze has a taste that dogs can't seem to resist, and yet when they've had their fill, they go to sleep and awake no more.


Have you considered that you are just a hateful conspiracy nutjob?


----------



## XDel (Jul 15, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Huff that copium more brother. The gays are here to stay.


Homosexuality, just like alcoholism, bestiality, pedophilia, and so forth have all been here for quite some time now. You type as if you've opened my eyes to some bold new reality where in you are the hero and victim all at the same time! Contrary to Christ was not a victim, but who Gave Himself even though he feared it and begged for it to be taken from him if possible. And people still spit on his name.


----------



## XDel (Jul 15, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Have you considered that you are just a hateful conspiracy nutjob?


Yes, it's a prerequisite of being a Christian actually. If you don't have your foundations in order, how can you expect to build a house?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 15, 2022)

XDel said:


> Homosexuality, just like alcoholism, bestiality, pedophilia, and so forth have all been here for quite some time now. You type as if you've opened my eyes to some bold new reality where in you are the hero and victim all at the same time! Contrary to Christ was not a victim, but who Gave Himself even though he feared it and begged for it to be taken from him if possible. And people still spit on his name.


0% chance this weirdo isn't some psychotic groyper type


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Nobody is going after non white marriages. That's just the left scaremongering because you losing so badly.



https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256

Thomas argued that SCOTUS should review both same sex marriages and contraceptives due to substantive due process, the same legal reason why Roe v Wade got overturned, and the same legal reason why his, and all, interracial marriage is currently legal. For now. 



TraderPatTX said:


> Personal attack because you have nothing else.



Where?



TraderPatTX said:


> I don't see you coming up with any bright ideas. Why is all up to me? Because I'm smarter?



No, because I don't actively deny the science. I don't take every article as gospel, but I know that I don't know enough about alternative fuels to vehemently argue against the current widely accepted science. 



TraderPatTX said:


> I'm not the authoritarian one. That would be those on the left. I'm perfectly happy decentralizing authority to the states like the country was designed from the beginning.



Then why praise big government for nationwide blanket laws and needless overturns? Seems a bit hypocritical to praise the same concept you're slamming.



TraderPatTX said:


> What important question would you like me to answer? I'll answer it if it makes you stop whining about the lack of attention I give you.



Who's whining? I made a comment in jest, once, quite a few posts ago, and whatever you think you're referring to actually is just me telling you to read a little better, cuz you're still having a hard time formulating actual responses to anything besides denial and tongue in cheek stabs at the left, which I still find ironic due to you supposedly being anti big government and not one to take sides. Weird.



TraderPatTX said:


> A lot of people really like to have to get permission from the state just to live life how they want. It's baffling.



Nice comment, considering you want the state, and the government as a whole, to meddle in abortion rights.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 15, 2022)

XDel said:


> Yes, it's a prerequisite of being a Christian actually. If you don't have your foundations in order, how can you expect to build a house?



Well if what they say about Christianity taking all their mysticism from pagan rituals, I guess the answer would be just to take someone else's house. 

Wimp Lo, with your friendly reminder that religion is a man made construct made to control weaker people in areas the government can't.

Christianity would be a lot easier to jump into of it didn't bastardize Egyptian and Norse concepts to pad it's own jaded view.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256
> 
> Thomas argued that SCOTUS should review both same sex marriages and contraceptives due to substantive due process, the same legal reason why Roe v Wade got overturned, and the same legal reason why his, and all, interracial marriage is currently legal. For now.
> 
> ...


You use a leftwing scaremongering site to try and prove your point? That's a bold move Cotton.

The government is supposed to protect life and freedoms. That's literally their main job.

There's a difference between denying science and questioning science. You might want to learn the difference.

A law was challenged, the courts took it up and made a decision. That's how it works in this country. Are you even from here, because there is so much you do not understand.

You keep whining that I'm ignoring parts of your comments. I was trying to address it so you'll stop whining.

The job of government is supposed to be to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights supersede your imagined abortion "rights".


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> You use a leftwing scaremongering site to try and prove your point? That's a bold move Cotton.



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...kQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2eN_ZX02uv5jsaXq-Ghf-r

Ok, here's the actual ruling itself where it states the reasoning was due process. 



TraderPatTX said:


> The government is supposed to protect life and freedoms. That's literally their main job.



Except in the cases of women, correct? 



TraderPatTX said:


> There's a difference between denying science and questioning science. You might want to learn the difference.



I'm the one questioning science, you're the one denying it. What's the issue here?



TraderPatTX said:


> A law was challenged, the courts took it up and made a decision. That's how it works in this country. Are you even from here, because there is so much you do not understand.



So you lick boots when they subjugate people you despise, huh? That's, kinda shitty bud.



TraderPatTX said:


> You keep whining that I'm ignoring parts of your comments. I was trying to address it so you'll stop whining.



Again, where's the whining? All I've done is point out that you can't read very well. 



TraderPatTX said:


> The job of government is supposed to be to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights supersede your imagined abortion "rights".



Because the moms no longer have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gotcha. Glad to know where your stance is on women as a whole.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...kQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2eN_ZX02uv5jsaXq-Ghf-r
> 
> Ok, here's the actual ruling itself where it states the reasoning was due process.
> 
> ...


Women's lives are typically not in danger from pregnancies. That is such a rarity in modern medicine that it's a statistical anomoly.

You think men menstruate and get pregnant. You wouldn't know science if it slapped you on the ass and called you daddy.

Nobody is being subjugated. In fact, millions have been freed to actually live now.

Nobody is taking women's lives away, except for Dr. Gosnell. He took a lot of women's lives away. Not to mention all of the babies born that he killed afterward.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> You think men menstruate and get pregnant. You wouldn't know science if it slapped you on the ass and called you daddy.


Well, actually, they can, soooooooo.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 15, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Well, actually, they can, soooooooo.


Of course he’s transphobic, because he has to be the same generic 40-year-old guy online. Boring, hateful, egotistical, and detached from the current world


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Women's lives are typically not in danger from pregnancies. That is such a rarity in modern medicine that it's a statistical anomoly.



Doesn't matter. By enacting or repealing blanket laws that, in this case protected all women from government retaliation, you've now damned that same statistical anomaly, a current life, in favor of a potential one. That's called control. 



TraderPatTX said:


> You think men menstruate and get pregnant. You wouldn't know science if it slapped you on the ass and called you daddy.



Where have I stated that in particular? Your whataboutism would've gone undetected if I had actually even implied that. Good try though. 



TraderPatTX said:


> Nobody is being subjugated. In fact, millions have been freed to actually live now.



Except the women who need abortions in light of a life ending pregnancy? Like that 10 year old who could've died as a result of the pregnancy? 



TraderPatTX said:


> Nobody is taking women's lives away, except for Dr. Gosnell. He took a lot of women's lives away. Not to mention all of the babies born that he killed afterward.



Man, what an asshole. Too bad he didn't tattoo numbers on them and send em to camps first.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 15, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Of course he’s transphobic, because he has to be the same generic 40-year-old guy online. Boring, hateful, egotistical, and detached from the current world


For real, the right are so goddamn boring. I swear every one of them in this thread are the exact same person just from how little personality they have collectively.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Well, actually, they can, soooooooo.


Men with Y chromosomes cannot menstuate or get pregnant. That's basic biology even a 5 year old understands.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Men with Y chromosomes cannot menstuate or get pregnant. That's basic biology even a 5 year old understands.


cope, men can still get pregnant :^)


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Doesn't matter. By enacting or repealing blanket laws that, in this case protected all women from government retaliation, you've now damned that same statistical anomaly, a current life, in favor of a potential one. That's called control.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You mean the 10 year old who could have gotten an abortion in Ohio because they have an exemption for danger to the mother's life?

You do know that she was also raped by an illegal alien and neither abortion clinics in Ohio or Indiana reported the crime to the authorities, which is against the law.

So Biden's open borders led to her rape and pregnancy. Congratulations, this is called owning yourself and you did an admirable job. Give yourself a pat on the back.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> You mean the 10 year old who could have gotten an abortion in Ohio because they have an exemption for danger to the mother's life?



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Qjjh6BAggEAI&usg=AOvVaw0mPwKods13VjoTGMAZCHlE

According to your hate group, this wasn't considered an abortion, even it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...



TraderPatTX said:


> You do know that she was also raped by an illegal alien



In what way, in your eyes, is that relevant? Please answer carefully.



TraderPatTX said:


> ...and neither abortion clinics in Ohio or Indiana reported the crime to the authorities, which is against the law.



I can't speak for Indiana and Ohio, but a lot of states leave that option up to the parents. I'm not sure entirely how that works out or is supposed to, but if they were truly guilty of this, that's reprehensible. 

I'm curious why you think it's important they tell the authorities when I'm sure the parents alerted them first. 



TraderPatTX said:


> So Biden's open borders led to her rape and pregnancy. Congratulations, this is called owning yourself and you did an admirable job. Give yourself a pat on the back.



What open borders? Is it behind the wall Trump never built? If you're going to argue immigration alongside this, you better go back as far as Bush and maybe even further.


----------



## XDel (Jul 15, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Well if what they say about Christianity taking all their mysticism from pagan rituals, I guess the answer would be just to take someone else's house.
> 
> Wimp Lo, with your friendly reminder that religion is a man made construct made to control weaker people in areas the government can't.
> 
> Christianity would be a lot easier to jump into of it didn't bastardize Egyptian and Norse concepts to pad it's own jaded view.


I believe  what you are referring to is Roman Catholicism, not Christianity as a whole. Catholics need to read their Bible better because yes, they are following pagan rituals and traditions. 

Marx was wrong, it is not religion that is the opiate for the masses, but Pseudo Science/Ideology not unlike that which he preached and is still being preached in one form or another by corporations on high at this point, as well as kids like you on GBATemp, yet you don't even realize the cult you are within.

Yes, religion is a man made construct, it in itself is not God nor the relationship with God, nor is it understanding. 

Your vision is still low resolution Wimp Lo.


----------



## XDel (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> You mean the 10 year old who could have gotten an abortion in Ohio because they have an exemption for danger to the mother's life?
> 
> You do know that she was also raped by an illegal alien and neither abortion clinics in Ohio or Indiana reported the crime to the authorities, which is against the law.
> 
> So Biden's open borders led to her rape and pregnancy. Congratulations, this is called owning yourself and you did an admirable job. Give yourself a pat on the back.


Did someone FINALLY ask how she got pregnant and by who? All I ever heard about is how a 10 year old got pregnant somehow and now because of Trump, she has to catch a ride to the next state to get rid of it, but no one seems concerned where the kid came from to begin with, no concern what so ever. It's as if they were more excited to have a pregnant 10 year old to use for political purposes and emotional leverlage rather than having concerned about the 10 year old her self.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 15, 2022)

XDel said:


> I believe  what you are referring to is Roman Catholicism, not Christianity as a whole. Catholics need to read their Bible better because yes, they are following pagan rituals and traditions.



One is an umbrella religion for the other and at this point is almost interchangable in the West. Doesn't matter in the long run; all these Israeli based religions all stem from the same source. It's all misinterpretation anyway. 



XDel said:


> Marx was wrong, it is not religion that is the opiate for the masses, but Pseudo Science/Ideology not unlike that which he preached and is still being preached in one form or another by corporations on high at this point, as well as kids like you on GBATemp, yet you don't even realize the cult you are within.



The cult of science? The same cult that gave you the platform to spew your vile religious rhetoric on? That cult?



XDel said:


> Yes, religion is a man made construct, it in itself is not God nor the relationship with God, nor is it understanding.
> 
> Your vision is still low resolution Wimp Lo.



Is it really tho? Considering your scope of religious history is close minded at best?



XDel said:


> Did someone FINALLY ask how she got pregnant and by who? All I ever heard about is how a 10 year old got pregnant somehow and now because of Trump, she has to catch a ride to the next state to get rid of it, but no one seems concerned where the kid came from to begin with, no concern what so ever. It's as if they were more excited to have a pregnant 10 year old to use for political purposes and emotional leverlage rather than having concerned about the 10 year old her self.



Is the what and why relevant in her right to abort it? Sounds a little sus two grown "men" are more interested in how she got pregnant than how she dealt with it. 

Hey, you guys aren't RINOs are you?


----------



## XDel (Jul 15, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> One is an umbrella religion for the other and at this point is almost interchangable in the West. Doesn't matter in the long run; all these Israeli based religions all stem from the same source. It's all misinterpretation anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wimp Lo, you are doing it again, FYI...


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Men with Y chromosomes cannot menstuate or get pregnant. That's basic biology even a 5 year old understands.


Biologists don’t stop at “basic biology” because basic biology is just used to introduce people to the subject. Actual sex biology is complicated and messy, nowhere near binary. There are XY cis women who menstruate and get pregnant. There are XX cis men who can impregnate others. There are XXY individuals, XӼ people, and countless other genetic combinations. Just because basic biology can be taught to a 5-year-old, doesn’t mean it’s an accurate representation of biology. I understand that you are just going to keep being shitty because you don’t care to actually learn anything but reality and actual science has progressed passed your shit.


XDel said:


> Did someone FINALLY ask how she got pregnant and by who? All I ever heard about is how a 10 year old got pregnant somehow and now because of Trump, she has to catch a ride to the next state to get rid of it, but no one seems concerned where the kid came from to begin with, no concern what so ever. It's as if they were more excited to have a pregnant 10 year old to use for political purposes and emotional leverlage rather than having concerned about the 10 year old her self.


Ok, you seem like an actual creep. All you hear about is how a 10 year was raped and forced to drive to another state to get an abortion. It’s creepy how you think this is a political ploy over the reality of how fucked up the entire situation is and how fucked up it is that the state was going to force a child to carry out a pregnancy.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 15, 2022)

XDel said:


> Wimp Lo, you are doing it again, FYI...




Pointing out your religious flaws and noting your lack of argumentative awareness?

Shame on me.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 15, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> The cult of science? The same cult that gave you the platform to spew your vile religious rhetoric on? That cult?


It always amuses me when pseudo intellectual theists, who are *only* theists just because they want to be mad about minorities existing try to argue any strongly held belief system is "religious" or a "cult." Truth as a concept by these definitions would be a religion, but no one argues you're "religious" because you think things are true.

Just another empty smear tactic by the party of incest and violence I guess.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SQDydzDyAK0&ved=2ahUKEwjhscnJx_v4AhVplmoFHQp4CjwQjjh6BAggEAI&usg=AOvVaw0mPwKods13VjoTGMAZCHlE
> 
> According to your hate group, this wasn't considered an abortion, even it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
> 
> ...


How sure are you that the parents alerted the authorities of her rape? It's not like you provided proof.

It is a crime in Ohio and Indiana to not report crimes. I know the left has become soft on crime, but are you so soft that you don't think it's important that a rape of a 10 year old is not reported? Is that really the position you wanna take?

You mean the wall that was stuck in legal limbo for years and not started until late in his term and now we are paying companies every month to not build it? That wall?

I'm just talking specifically about the 10 year old girl that you brought up yourself. Talking about Bush's stupid immigration policies is off topic and not relevant. Don't start moving goalposts now.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Biologists don’t stop at “basic biology” because basic biology is just used to introduce people to the subject. Actual sex biology is complicated and messy, nowhere near binary. There are XY cis women who menstruate and get pregnant. There are XX cis men who can impregnate others. There are XXY individuals, XӼ people, and countless other genetic combinations. Just because basic biology can be taught to a 5-year-old, doesn’t mean it’s an accurate representation of biology. I understand that you are just going to keep being shitty because you don’t care to actually learn anything but reality and actual science has progressed passed your shit.
> 
> Ok, you seem like an actual creep. All you hear about is how a 10 year was raped and forced to drive to another state to get an abortion. It’s creepy how you think this is a political ploy over the reality of how fucked up the entire situation is and how fucked up it is that the state was going to force a child to carry out a pregnancy.


99% of the population is XX and XY. XX can get pregnant and XY do not get pregnant. 

You are ignorant of Ohio law. They have an exception that she qualified for. And both abortion clinics in Ohio and Indiana failed to report the rape to authorities which they have to by law. The fact that she was raped by an illegal alien is also ignored by you because it exposes other failed policies of this "administration".

Epic.fail.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> 99% of the population is XX and XY. XX can get pregnant and XY do not get pregnant.
> 
> You are ignorant of Ohio law. They have an exception that she qualified for. And both abortion clinics in Ohio and Indiana failed to report the rape to authorities which they have to by law. The fact that she was raped by an illegal alien is also ignored by you because it exposes other failed policies of this "administration".
> 
> Epic.fail.


First, source to your first statement. How do you know that 99% are binary? How often are people tested for this? Is this part of regular testing? The simple answers are no, you don’t actually know that and there isn’t a source you can cite. Equally it doesn’t matter because trans men are men and they can menstruate and give birth. Your bullshit doesn’t change that and transphobia doesn’t stop trans people from existing. 
And my point has nothing to do with that. It’s fucked up that we live in a system where anyone should feel the need to travel for a safe abortion. That’s the only thing that matters in this case and it’s fucked up that “pro-lifers” argue semantics over this. It’s also fucked up that that there needs to be special causes for people to get a safe abortion.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 15, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> First, source to your first statement. How do you know that 99% are binary? How often are people tested for this? Is this part of regular testing? The simple answers are no, you don’t actually know that and there isn’t a source you can cite. Equally it doesn’t matter because trans men are men and they can menstruate and give birth. Your bullshit doesn’t change that and transphobia doesn’t stop trans people from existing.
> And my point has nothing to do with that. It’s fucked up that we live in a system where anyone should feel the need to travel for a safe abortion. That’s the only thing that matters in this case and it’s fucked up that “pro-lifers” argue semantics over this. It’s also fucked up that that there needs to be special causes for people to get a safe abortion.


The only reason he's focusing on this prosecution and the ethnicity of the rapist is because he wants a soapbox. Embarrassing behavior.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> First, source to your first statement. How do you know that 99% are binary? How often are people tested for this? Is this part of regular testing? The simple answers are no, you don’t actually know that and there isn’t a source you can cite. Equally it doesn’t matter because trans men are men and they can menstruate and give birth. Your bullshit doesn’t change that and transphobia doesn’t stop trans people from existing.
> And my point has nothing to do with that. It’s fucked up that we live in a system where anyone should feel the need to travel for a safe abortion. That’s the only thing that matters in this case and it’s fucked up that “pro-lifers” argue semantics over this. It’s also fucked up that that there needs to be special causes for people to get a safe abortion.


Trans men are not men because they do not possess a Y chromosome. I'm sorry that you hate science.

I'm also sorry that you can kill babies at will. Actually, I'm not sorry but at least you can rest easy knowing that this Supreme Court is more diverse than the one that legalized abortions. Diversity is our strength, you know.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 15, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> The only reason he's focusing on this prosecution and the ethnicity of the rapist is because he wants a soapbox. Embarrassing behavior.


It’s the same attempts to control the conversation. That’s all the right ever does, attempt to control the conversation through any means and make everyone as shitty as they are. I look forward to the better future that will happen. Unfortunately for them, people are getting better and nicer.


----------



## XDel (Jul 15, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Pointing out your religious flaws and noting your lack of argumentative awareness?
> 
> Shame on me.


Provide me with names, dates, locations, the foundations of your ideas.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> How sure are you that the parents alerted the authorities of her rape? It's not like you provided proof.



I'm not, that's why I was curious, and aaaasked.

How misleading of you to continuously try to attack my platform when I've clearly established my points and asked appropriate questions. No wonder your ridiculous arguments constantly fail. 



TraderPatTX said:


> It is a crime in Ohio and Indiana to not report crimes. I know the left has become soft on crime, but are you so soft that you don't think it's important that a rape of a 10 year old is not reported? Is that really the position you wanna take?



I wholeheartedly believe it should have been reported, and even stated that if they weren't reported that that was reprehensible. Do you know what that means? 



TraderPatTX said:


> You mean the wall that was stuck in legal limbo for years and not started until late in his term and now we are paying companies every month to not build it? That wall?



Yeah. You'd think Trump would be a little more than powerless, what with all the executive actions he's ordered. 220, remember?



TraderPatTX said:


> I'm just talking specifically about the 10 year old girl that you brought up yourself. Talking about Bush's stupid immigration policies is off topic and not relevant. Don't start moving goalposts now.



You. Brought up. That it was specifically. Done by. An illegal alien. You did. 

How can you introduce immigration into your argument and then accuse someone of moving goalposts when they counter it? 

How?


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Trans men are not men because they do not possess a Y chromosome. I'm sorry that you hate science.
> 
> I'm also sorry that you can kill babies at will. Actually, I'm not sorry but at least you can rest easy knowing that this Supreme Court is more diverse than the one that legalized abortions. Diversity is our strength, you know.


Transphobia isn’t cool and is wrong according to actual science over the past couple of decades now
These are peer-reviewed studies that shows science is very much in trans people’s favor
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10843193/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18980961/
https://eje.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/eje/155/suppl_1/1550107.xml
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19341803/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20562024/
https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)30695-0/pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6400230/
This is just a fraction of the research. Do you have anything to back up your bullshit or is just “basic biology” because you refuse to change from your bullshit.
Abortion isn’t murder, it’s an important medical practice and a right. I don’t care what a stacked Supreme Court says on the matter. I am pro-choice because I am not an arrogant idiot. Abortions are going to happen regardless of yours or my opinion and I would much rather them be done safely and by professionals. We’ve had this song and dance before, so it’s clear once again what you are trying to do.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 15, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Transphobia isn’t cool and is wrong according to actual science over the past couple of decades now
> These are peer-reviewed studies that shows science is very much in trans people’s favor
> http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/
> ...


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 15, 2022)

XDel said:


> Provide me with names, dates, locations, the foundations of your ideas.



Which ones in particular? If I were to post all of them, we'd be here all day.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 15, 2022)

XDel said:


> Provide me with names, dates, locations, the foundations of your ideas.


lol, you asking for a source. You can’t even provide sources to any of the nonsense you post and shit you believe. You are the same person who believes the most unhinged conspiracies at face value.


----------



## XDel (Jul 15, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> lol, you asking for a source. You can’t even provide sources to any of the nonsense you post and shit you believe. You are the same person who believes the most unhinged conspiracies at face value.


I suggest you re-read my posts then. Avatar aside, which has resources of its own, I have named and cited a lot, you guys just make assumptions about what the material is abd never  bother to investigate it


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 15, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> lol, you asking for a source. You can’t even provide sources to any of the nonsense you post and shit you believe. You are the same person who believes the most unhinged conspiracies at face value.


The ultimate redpill against dipshit theists is that foundation is not necessary as a concept in philosophy and theory


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 15, 2022)

XDel said:


> I suggest you re-read my posts then. Avatar aside, which has resources of its own, I have named and cited a lot, you guys just make assumptions about what the material is abd never  bother to investigate it


I have read your posts and I’ve check your “sources.” I also fact-checked the sources you’ve posted in the past and shown how they were absolute garbage. The site in your avatar is just another homophobic conspiracy site that tries to pass itself off as anything other that.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 15, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I have read your posts and I’ve check your “sources.” I also fact-checked the sources you’ve posted in the past and shown how they were absolute garbage. The site in your avatar is just another homophobic conspiracy site that tries to pass itself off as anything other that.


Let me guess. The LGBTQ+ (and it likely spends a lot of time seething about the "T") are subversive, culture destroying parasites according to the site, and it cites the fall of Rome, and mistranslated scriptures about cities destroyed by earthquakes as proof that two gay people getting married somehow dismantles society from the inside?

Because judging by his rhetoric he seems like your usual dime-a-dozen homophobe type. It'd explain why he's so bad at arguing.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 15, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Let me guess. The LGBTQ+ (and it likely spends a lot of time seething about the "T") are subversive, culture destroying parasites according to the site, and it cites the fall of Rome, and mistranslated scriptures about cities destroyed by earthquakes as proof that two gay people getting married somehow dismantles society from the inside?
> 
> Because judging by his rhetoric he seems like your usual dime-a-dozen homophobe type. It'd explain why he's so bad at arguing.



The problem is, I don't think he himself is homophobic; all his responses seem to be preprogrammed religious rhetoric. I feel like he could have the capacity for understanding and compassion, but it's been so corroded by Christian propaganda and hatred it's not worth saving anymore. 

Any self proclaimed Christian that defies "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" has no business preaching Christian rhetoric.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 15, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> The problem is, I don't think he himself is homophobic; all his responses seem to be preprogrammed religious rhetoric. I feel like he could have the capacity for understanding and compassion, but it's been so corroded by Christian propaganda and hatred it's not worth saving anymore.
> 
> Any self proclaimed Christian that defies "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" has no business preaching Christian rhetoric.


I wish that was the case but he is actually extremely homophobic. His previous avatars and signatures were propaganda pushing that the LGBT+ are perverts preying on kids. He has a history of sharing conspiracies about the LGBT+. He's actually a hateful as fuck person.


LainaGabranth said:


> Let me guess. The LGBTQ+ (and it likely spends a lot of time seething about the "T") are subversive, culture destroying parasites according to the site, and it cites the fall of Rome, and mistranslated scriptures about cities destroyed by earthquakes as proof that two gay people getting married somehow dismantles society from the inside?
> 
> Because judging by his rhetoric he seems like your usual dime-a-dozen homophobe type. It'd explain why he's so bad at arguing.


It's a ramble of thinly veiled homophobia pretending that it's just about raising "concerns about gay activism."


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 15, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> The problem is, I don't think he himself is homophobic; all his responses seem to be preprogrammed religious rhetoric. I feel like he could have the capacity for understanding and compassion, but it's been so corroded by Christian propaganda and hatred it's not worth saving anymore.
> 
> Any self proclaimed Christian that defies "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" has no business preaching Christian rhetoric.


This is why I believe in my own esoteric religion until proven otherwise. You can believe in and have a spiritual relationship with a higher power without fabricating shit to whine about minorities with.



The Catboy said:


> It's a ramble of thinly veiled homophobia pretending that it's just about raising "concerns about gay activism."


Well in that case I'll just be an even louder activist. Homophobes can either pipe down or get with the times.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 15, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I wish that was the case but he is actually extremely homophobic. His previous avatars and signatures were propaganda pushing that the LGBT+ are perverts preying on kids. He has a history of sharing conspiracies about the LGBT+. He's actually a hateful as fuck person.



That's detestable. I'm curious to see how he spins this:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-party-10-year-olds-birth_n_62d0cfd0e4b0e140ec7901cc

...into something he thinks is favorable. Apparently the article in question highlights a few of the recent Republican responses toward the 10 year old rape victim with such ideas that she should've continued carrying the pregnancy, one life shouldn't be wasted to protect another, that the 10 year old should see this as an opportunity to embrace parenthood:

"James Bopp, a conservative lawyer who has written model legislation encouraging states to ban abortion in all cases except to save the life of the pregnant person... 

..."She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,” Bopp told Politico Tuesday."

...because now who cares how young girls get pregnant? 

How can it be made more clear that the current majority of the conservative Republican party want to legalize pedophilia?  I feel like the only reason you hear stories like this happening is because girls get pregnant; I'm curious how many boys are trafficked through the party with no semblance of retaliation because it's easier to hide the deed when your victim can't get pregnant.


----------



## XDel (Jul 15, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I have read your posts and I’ve check your “sources.” I also fact-checked the sources you’ve posted in the past and shown how they were absolute garbage. The site in your avatar is just another homophobic conspiracy site that tries to pass itself off as anything other that.


Oh, OK, I guess I'm an idiot, what the hell have I got caught up in?!? How can I redeem myself?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 15, 2022)

All I'm saying is those righties who keep painting the LGBTQ+ as groomers keep getting caught doing weird shit with kids, sooooooooooooooooooooo...


----------



## DEMONGreninjaPG (Jul 15, 2022)

oh my fucking god what the fuck is happening here


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 15, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> All I'm saying is those righties who keep painting the LGBTQ+ as groomers keep getting caught doing weird shit with kids, sooooooooooooooooooooo...


Shoe recently made a video that brings up the fact that the same kinds of people also see it as ok for an adult woman to sleep with young boys


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 15, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Shoe recently made a video that brings up the fact that the same kinds of people also see it as ok for an adult woman to sleep with young boys



Yeah I really hate the cisheteronormativity in general culture atm, because when a guy preys on underaged students it's seen as bad, and it is *EXTREMELY *goddamn bad, but when a woman preys on underaged male students it's always joked about. Sick of this shit, because kids are scarred for life by these people and weirdos online keep making it out to be a joke. They can't easily find support groups or understanding because of it.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 15, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Yeah I really hate the cisheteronormativity in general culture atm, because when a guy preys on underaged students it's seen as bad, and it is *EXTREMELY *goddamn bad, but when a woman preys on underaged male students it's always joked about. Sick of this shit, because kids are scarred for life by these people and weirdos online keep making it out to be a joke. They can't easily find support groups or understanding because of it.


South Park made a joke about that. With Kyle's little Brothers teacher.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 15, 2022)




----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 16, 2022)

SG854 said:


> South Park made a joke about that. With Kyle's little Brothers teacher.


Yeah, I remember when that episode aired, even when I was younger I was like "wtf, that's gross" 
Even if I get that was the joke, it's still weird to "joke" about.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 16, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Yeah, I remember when that episode aired, even when I was younger I was like "wtf, that's gross"
> Even if I get that was the joke, it's still weird to "joke" about.


I when South Park does it its usually a criticism of our culture.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 16, 2022)

SG854 said:


> I when South Park does it its usually a criticism of our culture.





SG854 said:


>




Leave it to South Park to offer an actually insightful satire of the current state of affairs when dealing with toxicity like this. I've always been back and forth with South Park myself; sometimes the low brow humor is a little overdone for my tastes, but I guess sometimes in order to get people to understand the point you have to be brutally blunt.


----------



## lokomelo (Jul 16, 2022)

SG854 said:


> I when South Park does it its usually a criticism of our culture.


It was really bad taste on that one. I understand that they are exposing something bad, witch do not means that they are endorsing it, but there are people out there struggling because suffered (or is already suffering) sexual abuse. Talking about it is important, but joking about it? I don't know.

I'm just saying from what I saw on this clip, I don't know if the full episode gives a conclusion or a context of some sort.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 16, 2022)

Derailed/closed


----------

