# Let's talk about that federal abortion bill



## Nothereed (Sep 14, 2022)

You know it's funny.
Republicans:
"This is a matter of states rights! just leave it up to the states"
Also Republicans:
"BiG GoVeRmEnT BaD."
Also also Republicans:
"We use big government to ban abortions."

So uh what happened to it being a states rights issue. Oh wait... perhaps it never was.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/13/grahams-abortion-ban-senate-gop-00056423

Let's be frank. The GOP is upset that they got the semi quiet part spelled out loud and clear because lately, speaking the quiet part out loud has been the norm. The quiet part?
It was never about states rights, they just want women to not have a choice or rights on the matter.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

After reading what you wrote, I started shaking.  I got outraged.  I couldn't believe it.

But then, you know, I actually read the article.

"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that questions about the bill should be directed to Graham and that most Republican senators 'prefer this be handled at the state level.' Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) suggested Graham had gone a bit rogue with his latest legislation: 'That wasn’t a conference decision. It was an individual senator’s decision.'"

Even if you can't read very much, POLITICO title "Graham's abortion ban stuns Senate GOP" indicates that this isn't "the republican party".

Congrats, you are more disinformative than the information police, you fucking idiot.


​


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Even if you can't read very much, POLITICO title "Graham's abortion ban stuns Senate GOP" indicates that this isn't "the republican party".


so the Republican party isn't passing anti abortion/anti choice legislature in states? It's not them who overturned nearly 50 years of precedent. It's not them since they're current election candidates removed "Pro life" from their websites.

It's even more disingenuous to refuse to put two and two together. It's not a stretch to say  that they actually would support it.

They just don't support *for now *it since they realized it's tanking their odds of winning. in a current election season. Had this been any other point in time, they would of gone full in. It's pretty well demonstrated with the sudden shifts in their candidates websites.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> so the Republican party isn't passing anti abortion/anti choice legislature in states?



It'd be cool if you waited until I made such an argument before responding to me as if I had.



Nothereed said:


> They just don't support *for now *it since they realized it's tanking their odds of winning. in a current election season. Had this been any other point in time, they would of gone full in.



Speculating they might or would in some non-reality imaginative context is not the same as outright saying that they do, now.

Like, holy shit.  I know you want to be a good person and validate your existence by the fact that worser people exist, but when you take on the mantle of an issue, you deter more people than you would recruit if you were to just shut up.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It'd be cool if you waited until I made such an argument before responding to me as if I had.


If  you realized that that argument was used as a explanation for the later, you would of realized what you just said doesn't apply. It's a rhetorical question.

If party support x thing. Heavily pushes for x thing. Then it's reasonable to assume that something relating to x thing, they also would support.


tabzer said:


> Speculating they might or would in some non-reality imaginative context is not the same as outright saying that they do, now.


Is it really "speculating" when we know the objectives of that party?
Is it really speculating to use previous scenarios and circumstances and how they have gone about them, to infer what they would also support.

It's disingenuous to believe that if a party says "We want to ban abortions" that they would not ban abortions. They tried to ban it on a state level. Tried preventing people from voting on the subject or any protections for it. (see Michigan and them suing over typos)


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

@idiot

Speculation is speculation, and not real news.  You are trying to drum up drama because you lack actual substance. Try again.

If you want to be a conspiracy theorist, then just say so.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 15, 2022)

Nothing but bad faith arguments from tabzer, as usual.  Republicans' goal of a national ban on abortion was plain to see even before the Roe v Wade reversal.  Now their messaging is conflicted simply because that type of authoritarianism is polling badly for midterms.  Graham isn't doing them any favors, but they absolutely deserve to reap what they've sown, so fuck 'em.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Nothing but bad faith arguments from tabzer, as usual.  Republicans' goal of a national ban on abortion was plain to see even before the Roe v Wade reversal.  Now their messaging is conflicted simply because that type of authoritarianism is polling badly for midterms.  Graham isn't doing them any favors, but they absolutely deserve to reap what they've sown, so fuck 'em.



Considering that you already think that misrepresenting facts is okay as long as it helps people to support your cause, there really isn't anything you could say that would be reliable, unless it was an actual citation.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Considering that you already think that misrepresenting facts is okay as long as it helps people to support your cause, there really isn't anything you could say that would be reliable, unless it was an actual citation.


Says the republican trying desperately to protect his party from the consequences of its own words and actions.  It's too late.  People (and especially women) already know who to blame for this shit.


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 15, 2022)

whether or not McConnell turns his nose up or not, this move from Lindsay (Major Trump Ally For Certain) upends Republican talking points, McConnell Might as well have not said anything.  He is nothing compared to The Donald.  The Donald is the ultaimate Trumpman.  McConnell might as well have said "Long Live Dark Brenden" trying to deny Lindsay Graham.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Says the republican trying desperately to protect his party from the consequences of its own words and actions.  It's too late.  People (and especially women) already know who to blame for this shit.



You wish I was a republican.  You wish you knew women.  It would make what you say somewhat digestible.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 15, 2022)

Conservatives want women to be baby producing factories. They want to artificially raise the population so they can have more soldiers to send to war.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Conservatives want women to be baby producing factories. They want to artificially raise the population so they can have more soldiers to send to war.



Isn't there an equilibrium where there are too many babies to arm, or does the money printing machine take care of that?


----------



## SG854 (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Isn't there an equilibrium where there are too many babies to arm, or does the money printing machine take care of that?


With the amount of money the U.S. puts in the military they can arm as many babies as they want.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You wish I was a republican.  You wish you knew women.  It would make what you say somewhat digestible.


If you aren't a republican, that just makes the fact that you spend so much time defending them here all the more pathetic.  And I didn't make the claim that I'm the ultimate ladies man, I simply said they know who to blame for all this abortion ban bullshit.  Polls will tell you the same.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> If you aren't a republican, that just makes the fact that you spend so much time defending them here all the more pathetic.  And I didn't make the claim that I'm the ultimate ladies man, I simply said they know who to blame for all this abortion ban bullshit.  Polls will tell you the same.


I'm not defending them by pointing out "fake news".  You are very invested in your propaganda machine.  The whole "you are with us or you are against us" recruitment style is what keeps the majority of the world disinterested.



SG854 said:


> With the amount of money the U.S. puts in the military they can arm as many babies as they want.



I'm waiting for "money" to finally break.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm not defending them by pointing out "fake news".


You're defending them by trying to muddy the waters.  We all know what the party's platform on abortion is, we've known for decades.  Their candidates running for office spend two weeks trying to scrub their websites of any mention about it, or "soften" their stances on it, and you're willing to take that at face value.  Whether you're playing dumb, or you're just legitimately dumb, it doesn't really matter at this point.  Nobody else is falling for the grift.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> You're defending them by trying to muddy the waters.  We all know what the party's platform on abortion is, we've known for decades.  Their candidates running for office spend two weeks trying to scrub their websites of any mention about it, or "soften" their stances on it, and you're willing to take that at face value.  Whether you're playing dumb, or you're just legitimately dumb, it doesn't really matter at this point.  Nobody else is falling for the grift.



I didn't muddy the waters here. I read a politico article that showed OP's claim is a false one.  I'm on politico's side with this.  I can't speak of the GOP's grand scheme (I'm clearly not as invested in them as you are), but the context of this thread is poorly based.  If you don't want people to read the article and find conflict of data, then probably reword your threads to match reality.  Otherwise, it looks like you feel like you need to lie to accomplish anything, which is very disinteresting.  It also makes you look like you have rabies.  People generally don't like that either.

My advice is profitable.  You already know you aren't going to convince me, and you aren't going to convince other people by engaging me, so why bother?


----------



## Xzi (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you don't want people to read the article and find conflict of data, then probably reword your threads to match reality.


The article matches exactly what I've been saying, that Senate Republicans are mad at Graham because they've _recently_ been trying to shift their messaging. Again though, it's too little too late. The mask was dropped in the days/weeks following Roe's reversal, there's no putting it back on now.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> The article matches exactly what I've been saying, that Senate Republicans are mad at Graham because they've _recently_ been trying to shift their messaging. Again though, it's too little too late. The mask was dropped in the days/weeks following Roe's reversal, there's no putting it back on now.



It doesn't "match" what you or OP have been saying.  In OP's case it directly contradicts it.  In your case, it just doesn't prove it wrong.  At best, it's unrelated.  Realistically, it's a disagreement between what you are saying and what the article actually says.

You want to use the news as a leverage for some sort of narrative, but then you want to say what the news is "really saying".  You are on your own and footing for the democrats because they are the "lesser pedophile".

Start a real party you hobo.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It doesn't "match" what you or OP have been saying.


Uh. What part of
"the Republican party wants to ban abortions"
do you not understand?
Me:"Republicans want to ban abortions, it's clear by their current actions"
Xzi:"Republicans want to ban abortions, it's clear by their rhetoric and past"
citing different aspects of the same reason is called "critical thinking/reasoning"
If you're trying to act that's somehow different,
go home @tabzer you're fooling nobody but yourself.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You want to use the news as a leverage for some sort of narrative, but then you want to say what the news is "really saying".


JFC, it's literally the first sentence of the article.  "Lindsey Graham’s anti-abortion legislation once unified the Republican Party. The 15-week abortion ban he pitched Tuesday had the exact opposite effect."  They were all-in on this shit before midterm polls started souring on them.  That's what it's _really saying._

Yet another quote that reinforces my position: "Coming less than 60 days before the midterms, it’s riled some Republicans, who are watching their once-dominant polling advantage shrink since the _Roe _reversal_."_



tabzer said:


> You are on your own and footing for the democrats because they are the "lesser pedophile".


I'm not footing for anybody, I'm solely calling the Republican party out for being a bunch of hypocritical jackasses.  I can't be blamed for the fact that we only have one party that's an alternative to them in this country.



tabzer said:


> Start a real party you hobo.


No problem, in a post-Citizens' United country that'll only require a few billion dollars.  Surely with all your "success" you'll have no problem lending me that much.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Uh. What part of
> "the Republican party wants to ban abortions"
> do you not understand?
> Me:"Republicans want to ban abortions, it's clear by their current actions"
> ...




Cool.  Let me know when this is true:



Nothereed said:


> Also also Republicans:
> "We use big government to ban abortions."




Everyone already knows that republicans want to ban abortions.  And they do it.  But the whole point of this brand new thread is based on fake information.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> JFC, it's literally the first sentence of the article. "Lindsey Graham’s anti-abortion legislation once unified the Republican Party. The 15-week abortion ban he pitched Tuesday had the exact opposite effect." They were all-in on this shit before midterm polls started souring on them. That's what it's _really saying._
> 
> Yet another quote that reinforces my position: "Coming less than 60 days before the midterms, it’s riled some Republicans, who are watching their once-dominant polling advantage shrink since the _Roe _reversal_."_



So which is it.  Is it unifying the GOP or not?  Are you not cherry picking facts?  Do you want to talk about what is, or do you want to talk about the future.  If you are wanting to talk about the future, it does nobody any good to pretend that it is already true.



Xzi said:


> I'm not footing for anybody, I'm solely calling the Republican party out for being a bunch of hypocritical jackasses. I can't be blamed for the fact that we only have one party that's an alternative to them in this country.



"I'm not footing for the democratic party."  "I'm footing for the democratic party because I have no choice."  You are conflicted.



Xzi said:


> No problem, in a post-Citizens' United country that'll only require a few billion dollars. Surely with all your "success" you'll have no problem lending me that much.



"I'll just vote for pedophiles because it is inconvenient to represent my interests."

Starting your own party doesn't cost billions of dollars, and the point of a democracy isn't to win at all costs.  It's to create methods of truly representing the interests of people.  Even if you lose an election, you are still on paper, you are demonstrating an interest, you are creating a following.

You are truly pathetic and you love it.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Cool. Let me know when this is true:
> 
> 
> Nothereed said:
> ...





tabzer said:


> _Everyone already knows that republicans want to ban abortions_. *And they do it. **B**ut the whole point of this brand new thread is based on fake information.*


Tabzer the contortionist.
Trying to speedrun disproving yourself in the same post? that's a new record.

Tabzer:"They don't use big government. They just haven't used it yet! and that's the fake news! I'd admit they would ban abortion. But they haven't done it yet!"


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> "I'll just vote for pedophiles because it is inconvenient to represent my interests."


Source that xzi would do that? Or are you just baslessly attacking people again because your feelings got hurt.
I presume the latter.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Tabzer the contortionist.
> Trying to speedrun disproving yourself in the same post? that's a new record.



Aren't you conveniently ignoring the part where you lied and the only point that I presented a disagreement?



Nothereed said:


> Also also Republicans:
> "We use big government to ban abortions."



Being anti-republican doesn't stop you from being a liar or a pos.



Nothereed said:


> Source that xzi would do that? Or are you just baslessly attacking people again because your feelings got hurt.



There's already a thread where Xzi is justifying Biden as president because Trump "has '_more'_ evidence of being a pedophile."


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> There's already a thread where Xzi is justifying Biden as president because Trump "has more evidence of being a pedophile."


So let me get this straight.
You would want to attack someone, that has _less_ evidence?
huh... interesting.
That reminds me of a thread.


tabzer said:


> Some people think it is reasonable to assume someone is guilty, not only based on statistics, but a false misrepresentation of them (ie.  5% of claims are false, so therefore 95% of men rape women).


Tabzer eating his own words when?
You have less evidence that Biden is a pedo, and more evidence that Trump is. And yet, you want to prosecute Biden, and protect Trump...
So uh, what part of misrepresentation are we talking here Tabzer? The kind that only applies when it's convenient?


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Aren't you conveniently ignoring the part where you lied and the only point that I presented a disagreement?


More like you trying to twist words. Which would be awfully convenient if you just ignored the part where I told you it made sense. oh wait. You already did conveniently miss it.
here is that part by the way.


Nothereed said:


> Uh. What part of
> "the Republican party wants to ban abortions"
> do you not understand?
> Me:"Republicans want to ban abortions, it's clear by their current actions"
> ...


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> You would want to attack someone, that has _less_ evidence?
> huh... interesting.
> That reminds me of a thread.



Okay, this is getting interesting.  You are revealing the threshold of your literacy in ways that you haven't before.

Accused pedophiles should be investigated, no matter their political affiliation.  @idiot.



Nothereed said:


> Tabzer eating his own words when?
> You have less evidence that Biden is a pedo, and more evidence that Trump is. And yet, you want to prosecute Biden, and protect Trump...
> So uh, what part of misrepresentation are we talking here Tabzer? The kind that only applies when it's convenient?



It is not reasonable to assume someone is guilty based on statistics, but on facts.

Can you enlighten me on where you see an actual contradiction?

Edit: Okay so you think people are Biden supporters or Trump supporters.  Whether 10,000 4chan threads constitute as more evidence than direct video could be debatable.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> More like you trying to twist words. Which would be awfully convenient if you just ignored the part where I told you it made sense. oh wait. You already did conveniently miss it.
> here is that part by the way.


  Can you show us where that replaces what the OP already said?


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Accused pedophile*s should be investigated,* no matter their political affiliation. @idiot.


But your saying that not all rape accusations should be taken as seriously.

Don't worry, get dinged by yourself a second time



tabzer said:


> Oh my gosh. I, too, think it is morally wrong to broadcast an *accusation as "news". Wth?*






tabzer said:


> Can you show us where that replaces what the OP already said?


I am the op @idiot.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> But your saying that not all rape accusations should be taken as seriously.



All rape accusations should be taken seriously and investigated.  Assuming someone is guilty because of statistics is dumb.  Learn to read, reed.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> So which is it. Is it unifying the GOP or not?


Previously, yes.  Now, no.  At least not explicitly, they still support it implicitly.  Almost like they're spineless liars or something.  



tabzer said:


> "I'm not footing for the democratic party." "I'm footing for the democratic party because I have no choice." You are conflicted.


Bashing Republicans =/= talking up Democrats.  All I've done in this thread is the former.



tabzer said:


> Starting your own party doesn't cost billions of dollars, and the point of a democracy isn't to win at all costs. It's to create methods of truly representing the interests of people. Even if you lose an election, you are still on paper, you are demonstrating an interest, you are creating a following.


In that case, the DSA is already an existing thing that I support both monetarily and vocally.  As is unionization.



tabzer said:


> There's already a thread where Xzi is justifying Biden as president because Trump "has '_more'_ evidence of being a pedophile."


There's not enough evidence to convict either of them, so it's a moot point.  I was simply demonstrating another person's double-standard in that regard.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It is not reasonable to assume someone is guilty based on statistics, but on facts.


You conveniently ignoring that Trump had ties to Epstein. You conveniently ignoring sexual comments about his own daughter and all the very sketchy shit he has done with her. Conveniently leaving out the fact that he already treats women like shit in general, so why would we expect him to treat younger ones normal. The only sign we have that Biden might be a pedophile, is his awkard interactions with kids. Investigate the more likely pedo first, or hell do both.


tabzer said:


> Assuming someone is guilty because of statistics is dumb


So in other words, *awfully *convenient for you to ignore the facts mr tabzer.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> I am the op @idiot.



Contextually, original post.  Why @ yourself?


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Previously, yes. Now, no. At least not explicitly, they still support it implicitly. Almost like they're spineless liars or something.



Maybe we are gearing up for another mythical party switch.



Xzi said:


> Bashing Republicans =/= talking up Democrats. All I've done in this thread is the former.



You literally just inferred that you supported democrats because you have no other choice.  Lol.



Xzi said:


> In that case, the DSA is already an existing thing that I support both monetarily and vocally. As is unionization.



Did you vote for them, or Biden?



Xzi said:


> There's not enough evidence to convict either of them, so it's a moot point. I was simply demonstrating another person's double-standard in that regard.



You explicitly argued that Trump had more evidence against him instead of arguing that it was a moot point, so I don't buy it.



Nothereed said:


> You conveniently ignoring that Trump had ties to Epstein. You conveniently ignoring sexual comments about his own daughter and all the very sketchy shit he has done with her. Conveniently leaving out the fact that he already treats women like shit in general, so why would we expect him. The only sign we have that Biden might be a pedophile, is his interactions with children



I'm not ignoring any of that.  If you want to tell me how that relates to how Republicans are using big government to ban abortion (they're not), or to anything I've said, then I'd be happy to oblige.  You obviously missed the point that you are rationalizing "lesser pedophilia" by using the comparison as an argument.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Maybe we are gearing up for another mythical party switch.


The hell does that have to do with Republicans trying to cover their tracks on support for a national abortion ban?



tabzer said:


> You literally just inferenced that you supported democrats because you have no other choice. Lol.


No, I said there's one alternative party with a presence on the national level.  That's it.



tabzer said:


> Did you vote for them, or Biden?


The DSA did not have a candidate running for president.  I wrote in Bernie, if you must know.



tabzer said:


> You explicitly argued that Trump had more evidence against him instead of arguing that it was a moot point, so I don't buy it.


Right, and I also stated that I have no problem calling out both Biden and Trump for inappropriate behavior.  The guy I was talking to was only willing to call out one of them, thus the double standard I was demonstrating for readers.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> The hell does that have to do with Republicans trying to cover their tracks on support for a national abortion ban?



You say they are trying to cover their tracks, but they could be trying to make a change.  Both claims don't rationalize the disinformational OP.



Xzi said:


> No, I said there's one alternative party with a presence on the national level. That's it.



You said that in response to me saying that you are footing the Democrats.  It could only be interpreted as an excuse.



Xzi said:


> The DSA did not have a candidate running for president. I wrote in Bernie, if you must know.



Ok, I respect you a little more now despite the real possibility of you lying.  (But still, after he threw you under the bus?)


----------



## Xzi (Sep 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You say they are trying to cover their tracks, but they could be trying to make a change.


In which case they'd make a change to the party's official policy platform, not some minor performative mental gymnastics on the individual level, and not right before midterms.  Graham just didn't get the memo in time.



tabzer said:


> You said that in response to me saying that you are footing the Democrats. It could only be interpreted as an excuse.


I said I can't be blamed for the two-party system, which remains true.  Neither party is representative of working class interests, but only one of them has been actively hostile toward the working class in recent years. 

As has been mentioned previously in this thread, abortion bans are all about reducing our leverage over capitalists and providing more bodies for the meat grinder (military industrial complex).  Provide better material conditions and social safety nets, a higher birth rate naturally follows.  You can't put the cart before the horse though, and stripping people of individual rights and liberties will always be met with backlash.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 15, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> You know it's funny.
> Republicans:
> "This is a matter of states rights! just leave it up to the states"
> Also Republicans:
> ...



well, maybe the dems shouldve been a little bit more cooperative with guns, after all, if your guy, mr. 81 million claims no amendment is absolute, then abortion is minor league shit, dont like it? dont have sex, same argument as dont have a gun.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> In which case they'd make a change to the party's official policy platform, not some minor performative mental gymnastics on the individual level, and not right before midterms. Graham just didn't get the memo in time.



That's speculative at best and deviates from the original claim that even Politico won't make.



Xzi said:


> I said I can't be blamed for the two-party system, which remains true.  Neither party is representative of working class interests, but only one of them has been actively hostile toward the working class in recent years.



Yeah, and it sounds like an excuse--and now you are making more excuses.  I know republicans ARE being met with backlash.  That's not news.  It's fake news to suggest that this "FEDERAL ABORTION BILL" is the Republican Party banning abortion on a national level.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Sep 15, 2022)

Best to let people choose, do they keep it, or do they abort it.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 15, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> You conveniently ignoring that Trump had ties to Epstein. You conveniently ignoring sexual comments about his own daughter and all the very sketchy shit he has done with her. Conveniently leaving out the fact that he already treats women like shit in general, so why would we expect him to treat younger ones normal. The only sign we have that Biden might be a pedophile, is his awkard interactions with kids. Investigate the more likely pedo first, or hell do both.
> 
> So in other words, *awfully *convenient for you to ignore the facts mr tabzer.


What ties to Epstein does Trump have besides being the only person who gave testimony that led to his 2008 arrest and buying a house out from under him? It's amazing how this thread is not even about Trump but you just can't get him off of your mind.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 15, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well, maybe the dems shouldve been a little bit more cooperative with guns, after all, if your guy, mr. 81 million claims no amendment is absolute, then abortion is minor league shit, dont like it? dont have sex, same argument as dont have a gun.


It also doesn't help that the left keeps advocating for abortion at 9 months, but they can't help their extremism.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 15, 2022)

Bodily autonomy is cooler than the irrational outbursts of the right.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 16, 2022)

Pretty good article on this by a Univ. Tenn. law professor whose blog I read, Glenn Reynolds. Professor Reynolds is very conservative in a libertarian way, same as me. If anything he's much more intensely right-leaning than I am. And what his article says is something Lindsay Graham probably already knows ... it's unconstitutional. Not within the scope of Congress' enumerated powers.

https://nypost.com/2022/09/15/congress-doesnt-have-the-power-to-legislate-on-abortion/


----------



## MariArch (Sep 16, 2022)

Spoiler














This is a child at 15 weeks btw. If people saw what was being killed the vast majority of people would agree that you shouldn't be able to kill it. But of course we hide the truth behind euphemisms and media bullshit.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 16, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


welp get ready to experience a whole new level of hell. most fetal defects can only get checked at 18/20 weeks, and PLENTY of them can make the life of the mothers and child a litteral living hell. just look at the lady who had to fly to NY to abort her skull-less child. sure the mothers life wasn't in danger, but the child has no skull, there is no saving it. there are thousands of other examples and women are going to suffer. OBGYNs are going to start quitting, women are going to go get back ally abortions, and the maternal mortality rate will sky rocket. I can't wait to see the mom who needs to CRUSH HER CHILDS ACTUAL HEAD during childbirth because it has no skull, or they take it out and watch it's head flop until the brain crushes itself under it's own weight anyways. you people are monsters.


----------



## MariArch (Sep 16, 2022)

omgcat said:


> welp get ready to experience a whole new level of hell. most fetal defects can only get checked at 18/20 weeks, and PLENTY of them can make the life of the mothers and child a litteral living hell. just look at the lady who had to fly to NY to abort her skull-less child. sure the mothers life wasn't in danger, but the child has no skull, there is no saving it. there are thousands of other examples and women are going to suffer. OBGYNs are going to start quitting, women are going to go get back ally abortions, and the maternal mortality rate will sky rocket. I can't wait to see the mom who needs to CRUSH HER CHILDS ACTUAL HEAD during childbirth because it has no skull, or they take it out and watch it's head flop until the brain crushes itself under it's own weight anyways. you people are monsters.


Sir. The .1% of cases does not justify the other 99.9%. And anyways, people doing evil stuff illegally doesn't mean we should legalize said evil action. And there's exceptions for stuff like ectopic pregnancy. But of course abortionists can't help but argue in bad faith.


----------



## City (Sep 16, 2022)

Is it really that much of a controversial idea that you shouldn't have an abortion past the 4th month or something?



omgcat said:


> welp get ready to experience a whole new level of hell. most fetal defects can only get checked at 18/20 weeks, and PLENTY of them can make the life of the mothers and child a litteral living hell. just look at the lady who had to fly to NY to abort her skull-less child. sure the mothers life wasn't in danger, but the child has no skull, there is no saving it. there are thousands of other examples and women are going to suffer. OBGYNs are going to start quitting, women are going to go get back ally abortions, and the maternal mortality rate will sky rocket. I can't wait to see the mom who needs to CRUSH HER CHILDS ACTUAL HEAD during childbirth because it has no skull, or they take it out and watch it's head flop until the brain crushes itself under it's own weight anyways. you people are monsters.


Chances of Anencephaly are currently 1 out of 4600. Currently in the US alone there are roughly 10k of newborns and 2.5k abortions every day. You're telling me that 25% of these abortions are due to illness? Get the fuck out of here.


And while I'm here, I want to toss my $0.02 on the argument that men shouldn't comment on these issues because "it doesn't matter to them". Let's pretend for a moment that some women absolutely didn't abort their baby because it dared to grow a penis and let's also pretend that it totally doesn't take a woman AND a man to make a baby. If women would be so kind to shut the fuck up regarding issues that are only related to men, I'll be the first one to do my part and look the other way.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> And what his article says is something Lindsay Graham probably already knows ... it's unconstitutional. Not within the scope of Congress' enumerated powers.


Knows it's unconstitutional but doesn't care and pushes for it anyway...Trumpism in a nutshell.


----------



## MariArch (Sep 16, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Knows it's unconstitutional but doesn't care and pushes for it anyway...Trumpism in a nutshell.


Bruh deadass SCOTUS has ignored the 10th amendment of the constitution to come up with a fake right to abortion and a fake right to same sex marriage . And the democrats talk of packing the Supreme Court on a regular basis. anyone with half a brain knows that’s just so they can bypass the amendment process and green light a whole hell of a lot more stuff that goes against our constitution (ie gun bans). But yeah, conservatives are the ones who don’t care.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Bruh deadass SCOTUS has ignored the 10th amendment of the constitution to come up with a fake right to abortion and a fake right to same sex marriage . And the democrats talk of packing the Supreme Court on a regular basis. anyone with half a brain knows that’s just so they can bypass the amendment process and green light a whole hell of a lot more stuff that goes against our constitution (ie gun bans). But yeah, conservatives are the ones who don’t care.


Expansion of rights is what the constitution was always meant to be used for.  Not an authoritarian crackdown on freedoms.  Nobody's trying to repeal the second amendment, but there are people trying to tell women that the state gets to determine the extent of control they have over their own bodies.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 16, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Bodily autonomy is cooler than the irrational outbursts of the right.



Source on irrational outburst? we got what we wanted why would we have outbursts


----------



## MariArch (Sep 16, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Expansion of rights is what the constitution was always meant to be used for.  Not an authoritarian crackdown on freedoms.  Nobody's trying to repeal the second amendment, but there are people trying to tell women that the state gets to determine the extent of control they have over their own bodies.


No. Actually the constitution was never meant to be used for that. The constitution lays out very basic fundamental rights that are protected country wide and leaves the rest to be governed on a state by state basis. Hence why it’s so hard to amend the constitution, because it’s meant to stay the same unless the vast majority of states agree to said changes. The whole point of the constitution being so barebones is to not consolidate power from the top down. Using Supreme Court members to do mental gymnastics to come up with rights that weren’t there in the first place is an explicit attempt to bypass our amendment process. Everyone and their mom knows that you wouldn’t have gotten the votes to add right to an abortion or right to gay marriage to the constitution at the time that these decisions were made. Liberal judges just felt the need to shove it down our throats and remove accountability on these issues and many others from the voters on a state level


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2022)

MariArch said:


> No. Actually the constitution was never meant to be used for that.


I guess a modern conservative would have to hold that position, but the vast majority of founding fathers would disagree with you.  The constitution was always intended to be a living document.  It's only since reconstruction and the civil rights movement that a bunch of dickweeds have tried to make it harder to expand the scope of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.  Thus it's only since that point that we've begun to creep ever closer toward oligarchy and fascism, which any real American will oppose to their dying breath.  Freedom FROM religion is just as important, if not more so than freedom OF religion.  Christofascists BTFO.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 16, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How long will that thing survive without the mother? As long as it's not autonomous it should not be placed over the bodily autonomy of the mother, period.

Bodily autonomy for every other person is absolute. If you don't want any part of your body used for any reason by a third party you are allowed to deny it. The government can't force you to donate blood, organs, or anything else to save another person's life, so why are we making an exception for woman and force them to donate their blood, womb, and potential well-being towards a clump of cells?

The uterus belongs to the mother absolutely, not the fetus.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 16, 2022)

It's a dumb argument, to claim that a uterus is not for a baby.  If you create a life, it is reasonable to assume responsibility for it.  Trying to make absolute laws will never work because they don't accurately reflect nature.


----------



## MariArch (Sep 16, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I guess a modern conservative would have to hold that position, but the vast majority of founding fathers would disagree with you.  The constitution was always intended to be a living document.  It's only since reconstruction and the civil rights movement that a bunch of dickweeds have tried to make it harder to expand the scope of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.  Thus it's only since that point that we've begun to creep ever closer toward oligarchy and fascism, which any real American will oppose to their dying breath.  Freedom FROM religion is just as important, if not more so than freedom OF religion.  Christofascists BTFO.


What are you even talking about? The founding fathers established the constitution whilst taking into consideration the bullshit the consolidation of power to the top that they underwent under the british monarchy. It’s always been the case that you needed a vast majority of the legislator or states in favor to pass an amendment, it’s literally written into the constitution. And anyways, for the longest of time a states constitution superseded the federal constitution, it’s only until the courts again gave power to the top that this has been the norm. And please, explain to me how telling states that they can make their own laws on issues is fascism lmao. Y’all gaslight like no tomorrow.


----------



## N7Kopper (Sep 16, 2022)

Damn, so many people are against babies' rights to choose. This must be how William Wilberforce felt when he was trying to abolish slavery in Britain. And then a few decades later, Britain declared war on slavery and slapped Europe and the USA around until they followed suit.

First you are ignored, then ridiculed, then opposed, then violently opposed, then some socialist revises history to paint you as the sole perpetrators of the crime you spent your empire fighting.

Abortions are not banned from being televised because people are squeamish about gore. It is because seeing the murdered babies and traumatised parents would make people so sick that the pro-aborts would never be able to paint themselves as pro-choice again.



MariArch said:


> What are you even talking about? The founding fathers established the constitution whilst taking into consideration the bullshit the consolidation of power to the top that they underwent under the british monarchy. It’s always been the case that you needed a vast majority of the legislator or states in favor to pass an amendment, it’s literally written into the constitution. And anyways, for the longest of time a states constitution superseded the federal constitution, it’s only until the courts again gave power to the top that this has been the norm. And please, explain to me how telling states that they can make their own laws on issues is fascism lmao. Y’all gaslight like no tomorrow.


The US Bill of Rights was actually an answer to the US Articles of Confederation, which gave states carte blanche to act as they wanted. This is why a third of the population rebelled against the government and fought for British rule - which was Constitutionally bound by the same documents it is today.

The Loyalists were largely pacified by it in 1787, and the war ended not long after. It established the federal government in much the same role as the Houses of Parliament - holding the States/Colonies accountable to the Constitution. (The Declaration of Independence was written and signed by the governments of the colonies - undermining the Right of Rebellion of the British Subject by taking it upon the governments of the 13 colonies - a major Loyalist complaint at the time)

But that doesn't change the fact that whoever called you a fascist is following Alinsky's Rules for Radicals - call your opponent what you yourself are. The modern federalisation push is - much like UK Republicans attacking the Crown - an effort to centralise unaccountable power.


----------



## MariArch (Sep 16, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> How long will that thing survive without the mother? As long as it's not autonomous it should not be placed over the bodily autonomy of the mother, period.
> 
> Bodily autonomy for every other person is absolute. If you don't want any part of your body used for any reason by a third party you are allowed to deny it. The government can't force you to donate blood, organs, or anything else to save another person's life, so why are we making an exception for woman and force them to donate their blood, womb, and potential well-being towards a clump of cells?
> 
> The uterus belongs to the mother absolutely, not the fetus.


Yes, I know the left doesn’t believe in being responsible for your own actions, but a human life with potential, especially that life being your own child, absolutely means that you are responsible for keeping it alive and healthy. You won’t convince any rational human otherwise that this isn’t a human.

Yes, a woman’s uterus belongs to them, but the child inside of them is a being in and of itself that   deserves protection. Just because you were too stupid not to use protection, or not to use plan b, or not to have sex if you’re poor as hell, or any other number of excuses, doesn’t revoke a child’s right to life.


----------



## MariArch (Sep 16, 2022)

N7Kopper said:


> Damn, so many people are against babies' rights to choose. This must be how William Wilberforce felt when he was trying to abolish slavery in Britain. And then a few decades later, Britain declared war on slavery and slapped Europe and the USA around until they followed suit.
> 
> First you are ignored, then ridiculed, then opposed, then violently opposed, then some socialist revises history to paint you as the sole perpetrators of the crime you spent your empire fighting.
> 
> Abortions are not banned from being televised because people are squeamish about gore. It is because seeing the murdered babies and traumatised parents would make people so sick that the pro-aborts would never be able to paint themselvesas pro-choice again.


Once these arguments go from stupid quips and light hearted euphemisms to actually showing the bodies that of the murdered, abortionists look really ugly really quick. If the media was honest, they’d show the dark side of this industry, but that of course is not the case, as they actively run cover for the ‘pro choice’ agenda


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2022)

MariArch said:


> The founding fathers established the constitution whilst taking into consideration the bullshit the consolidation of power to the top that they underwent under the british monarchy.


Correct, "consolidation of power" in the sense that the monarchy was more likely to strip away freedoms than expand them.  Now conservatives want to do the same thing, and worship authoritarian dictators like Putin who exemplify modern fascism.



MariArch said:


> And please, explain to me how telling states that they can make their own laws on issues is fascism lmao.


The state interjecting itself into interpersonal relationships and/or a patient's private interactions with their doctor is absolutely fascism.  "Making their own laws" does not inherently mean they have to be ethical/moral laws or even laws that uphold American values and ideals.  Being anti-abortion means being pro-debt slavery, and supporting a police state to enforce such a policy is even more moronic.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 16, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Yes, I know the left doesn’t believe in being responsible for your own actions, but a human life with potential, especially that life being your own child, absolutely means that you are responsible for keeping it alive and healthy. You won’t convince any rational human otherwise that this isn’t a human.
> 
> Yes, a woman’s uterus belongs to them, but the child inside of them is a being in and of itself that   deserves protection. Just because you were too stupid not to use protection, or not to use plan b, or not to have sex if you’re poor as hell, or any other number of excuses, doesn’t revoke a child’s right to life.


The child has every right to life, but that does not exceed the woman's right to decide over her own body. If the fetus can't survive outside of the mother's uterus that is the problem of the fetus, not the mother's.
This is exactly how it is with every other instance of two people, if a person can't survive without an organ transplant or blood transfusion then that is not the problem of any other person that would be a viable organ or blood donor. Even in death a person's autonomy can not be infringed on by taking viable organs against their will.

Also putting the well being of a potential person above the well being of an actual person is perverse to the maximum, which is exactly what this is for you, the woman is less of a person than a clump of cells that might not ever make it to being a real person in the first place. Yet it is somehow worth more to you than an actual person. Disgusting logic by you so called "pro-lifers".


----------



## MariArch (Sep 16, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Correct, "consolidation of power" in the sense that the monarchy was more likely to strip away freedoms than expand them.  Now conservatives want to do the same thing, and worship authoritarian dictators like Putin who exemplify modern fascism.
> 
> 
> The state interjecting itself into interpersonal relationships and/or a patient's private interactions with their doctor is absolutely fascism.  "Making their own laws" does not inherently mean they have to be ethical/moral laws or even laws that uphold American values and ideals.  Being anti-abortion means being pro-debt slavery, and supporting a police state to enforce such a policy is even more moronic.


… no, they split off because they weren’t being legislated on by a parliament and king that were across the damn ocean and didn’t take into account the needs of them as a single entity. If anything, the recent conservative decision is strengthening the system of federalism that our country was based upon by giving more control to people to decide their own laws in their own states. Idaho and Utah can make their own laws on abortion whilst California and New York can make their own laws. 

No. Sorry. But protecting an innocent humans right to life is absolutely the job of the rule of law. I could give a damn about a woman’s private affairs with their doctor… unless they’re conspiring to murder someone that doesn’t have any protections themselves whilst being vulnerable. 

As for this pro debt slavery bullshit. That is a purely economical eugenics/anti personal responsibility argument that I will not indulge. Pure stupidity. We can have a conversation about providing support to families in need all day, but when you suggest that killing the child is the proper solution… no


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2022)

N7Kopper said:


> Damn, so many people are against babies' rights to choose.


This is why the anti-abortion argument falls apart so easily.  If fetuses had the faculties and all the information necessary to make such a decision, a lot of them would choose to go back to the void/heaven/whatever instead of dealing with neglectful or abusive parents who never intended to become pregnant in the first place.  Not to mention our foster care system is even worse than that.

You want more people to give birth to babies that come from accidental/unwanted pregnancies?  Ensure they can fucking afford it, simple as that.  Nah though, y'all wanna keep minimum wage at $7.25 and ensure people can't even afford housing instead, because "SoCiAliSM ScAwY."  Playing right into every billionaire's hands, including the ones you claim to hate like George Soros.


----------



## MariArch (Sep 16, 2022)

Xzi said:


> This is why the anti-abortion argument falls apart so easily.  If fetuses had the faculties and all the information necessary to make such a decision, a lot of them would choose to go back to the void/heaven/whatever instead of dealing with neglectful or abusive parents who never intended to become pregnant in the first place.  Not to mention our foster care system is even worse than that.You want more people to give birth to babies that come from accidental/unwanted pregnancies?  Ensure they can fucking afford it, simple as that.  Nah though, y'all wanna keep minimum wage at $7.25 and ensure people can't even afford housing instead, because "SoCiAliSM ScAwY."  Playing right into every billionaire's hands, including the ones you claim to hate like George Soros.



This is pure stupidity lmao.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2022)

MariArch said:


> … no, they split off because they weren’t being legislated on by a parliament and king that were across the damn ocean and didn’t take into account the needs of them as a single entity.


So you continue to make my case for me.  You're trying to take choices away from the individual and allow the state to force a single option on everybody, just as the kings of old did.



MariArch said:


> We can have a conversation about providing support to families in need all day, but when you suggest that killing the child is the proper solution… no


A fetus is not a child, and if you can't understand the distinction from a biological standpoint, you really have no business voicing your ignorant opinion on this matter at all.


----------



## MariArch (Sep 16, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> The child has every right to life, but that does not exceed the woman's right to decide over her own body. If the fetus can't survive outside of the mother's uterus that is the problem of the fetus, not the mother's.
> This is exactly how it is with every other instance of two people, if a person can't survive without an organ transplant or blood transfusion then that is not the problem of any other person that would be a viable organ or blood donor. Even in death a person's autonomy can not be infringed on by taking viable organs against their will.
> 
> Also putting the well being of a potential person above the well being of an actual person is perverse to the maximum, which is exactly what this is for you, the woman is less of a person than a clump of cells that might not ever make it to being a real person in the first place. Yet it is somehow worth more to you than an actual person. Disgusting logic by you so called "pro-lifers".


So you just admitted that the child is in fact a person. With that nomenclature, I have one response to you: a mother has a duty to protect their child, I could give two damns if you have to be uncomfortable for 9 months, it doesn’t give you the right to kill your child.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2022)

MariArch said:


> This is pure stupidity lmao.


It's pure stupidity to believe a fetus has any opinion whatsoever on "wanting to be born."  It instinctively feeds on the nutrients its mother provides, and that's all.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 16, 2022)

Abortion is based tbh.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2022)

Let's be straight here: Christian conservatives who have never even read the bible want to try to force the morals and ethics they pulled out of their asses on everybody else.  If they had actually read the bible, they'd know the Old Testament has a how-to guide for performing abortions, and the New Testament provides no opinion on it whatsoever.  Abortions were common during the era it was written, so we can only presume your god thinks they're just fine and dandy.

Oh, and let's not forget that Jesus was Jewish, which would doubly imply that abortion should be both permitted and sanctioned by anyone who actually follows Christ's teachings instead of only being a poser.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 16, 2022)

omgcat said:


> welp get ready to experience a whole new level of hell. most fetal defects can only get checked at 18/20 weeks, and PLENTY of them can make the life of the mothers and child a litteral living hell. just look at the lady who had to fly to NY to abort her skull-less child. sure the mothers life wasn't in danger, but the child has no skull, there is no saving it. there are thousands of other examples and women are going to suffer. OBGYNs are going to start quitting, women are going to go get back ally abortions, and the maternal mortality rate will sky rocket. I can't wait to see the mom who needs to CRUSH HER CHILDS ACTUAL HEAD during childbirth because it has no skull, or they take it out and watch it's head flop until the brain crushes itself under it's own weight anyways. you people are monsters.


The left always have to use edge cases that happen in 0.01% of pregnancies for their argument for abortion on demand. I miss the days when the argument was to make it legal but rare, but the left has gone so extreme that nobody is buying it anymore so you have to search high and low for anecdotal evidence to push the narrative. I actually used to be pro-choice until the left went off the deep end.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 16, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> The child has every right to life, but that does not exceed the woman's right to decide over her own body. If the fetus can't survive outside of the mother's uterus that is the problem of the fetus, not the mother's.
> This is exactly how it is with every other instance of two people, if a person can't survive without an organ transplant or blood transfusion then that is not the problem of any other person that would be a viable organ or blood donor. Even in death a person's autonomy can not be infringed on by taking viable organs against their will.
> 
> Also putting the well being of a potential person above the well being of an actual person is perverse to the maximum, which is exactly what this is for you, the woman is less of a person than a clump of cells that might not ever make it to being a real person in the first place. Yet it is somehow worth more to you than an actual person. Disgusting logic by you so called "pro-lifers".


The right to life supersedes all other rights. What would be the purpose of free speech if you are not alive? Not much of a point to having the right to a speedy trial if you are already dead. Smh


----------



## sombrerosonic (Sep 16, 2022)

It really depeneds on when you think the baby is alive. do you think it happens with conception or when its out of the womb. So.... what do you all think? Out of the womb or when conception happens


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 16, 2022)

MariArch said:


> So you just admitted that the child is in fact a person. With that nomenclature, I have one response to you: a mother has a duty to protect their child, I could give two damns if you have to be uncomfortable for 9 months, it doesn’t give you the right to kill your child.


Sorry, I was using words you'd understand since I have a feeling you wouldn't grasp the differences between zygote, embryo, fetus, and child, so I used a simple word for you.

And no, the mother doesn't. If a child that was born is about to die and can only be rescued by a transplant from the mother the mother has every right to say no, it's literally part of the US law. Your entire argument is one of ignorance and exploitation.


TraderPatTX said:


> The right to life supersedes all other rights. What would be the purpose of free speech if you are not alive? Not much of a point to having the right to a speedy trial if you are already dead. Smh


Then I am betting you are in favor of making organ donations mandatory, for example everyone can live a happy and fulfilled life with only one kidney, yet people die regularly because no viable donor is willing to part with one.



sombrerosonic said:


> It really depeneds on when you think the baby is alive. do you think it happens with conception or when its out of the womb. So.... what do you all think? Out of the womb or when conception happens


The moment the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb on its own (not withstanding medical help like helping it breathe, that's obviously fine). Before that marker it's no more than a parasite that requires a host to exist.


----------



## Glyptofane (Sep 16, 2022)

Not this shit again...


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> Not this shit again...


This shit will go on forever, because without fake moral outrage, Republicans have absolutely nothing to campaign on.  Other than the Southern Strategy, anyway, but they generally want to pretend that doesn't exist.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 16, 2022)

Xzi said:


> This shit will go on forever, because without fake moral outrage, Republicans have absolutely nothing to campaign on.  Other than the Southern Strategy, anyway, but they generally want to pretend that doesn't exist.


As long as there is someone who doesn't like being oppressed, the Republicans will exist and drum up excuses as to why they should be.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Sep 16, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> As long as there is someone who doesn't like being oppressed, the Republicans will exist and drum up excuses as to why they should be.


so everyone in the world? cause nobody likes to be opressed.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 16, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> The left always have to use edge cases that happen in 0.01% of pregnancies for their argument for abortion on demand. I miss the days when the argument was to make it legal but rare, but the left has gone so extreme that nobody is buying it anymore so you have to search high and low for anecdotal evidence to push the narrative. I actually used to be pro-choice until the left went off the deep end.


severe birth defects have a background rate of 3%, not .01% imagine being off by 300 times dude. since you are math disadvantaged i'll convert it to fractions, so 1 in 33. there are about 6,369,000 births in the USA each year, and with a background rate of 3% we end of with 191,070 high risk pregnancies per year. seems to me you are using feelings, not facts in your arguments and probably should stop.

i wonder why Texas isn't releasing the maternal mortality rate until after the midterms.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> Before that marker it's no more than a parasite that requires a host to exist.



Things like this really puts this "argument" in perspective.


----------



## City (Sep 17, 2022)

omgcat said:


> severe birth defects have a background rate of 3%, not .01% imagine being off by 300 times dude. since you are math disadvantaged i'll convert it to fractions, so 1 in 33. there are about 6,369,000 births in the USA each year, and with a background rate of 3% we end of with 191,070 high risk pregnancies per year. seems to me you are using feelings, not facts in your arguments and probably should stop.
> 
> i wonder why Texas isn't releasing the maternal mortality rate until after the midterms.


Except that many of those defects are treatable.

Not to mention that's not how statistic works. You can't get a bunch of highly implausible events together and come up with a % to get at least one of those. The most common defect from that list seems to be clubfoot, roughly 1 in 600.


----------



## Glyptofane (Sep 17, 2022)

Xzi said:


> This shit will go on forever, because without fake moral outrage, Republicans have absolutely nothing to campaign on.  Other than the Southern Strategy, anyway, but they generally want to pretend that doesn't exist.


I loathe the traitorous GOP establishment and their gimmick politics, but there are also already like a dozen fairly recent threads on the primitive virtues of ritual child sacrifice.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Things like this really puts this "argument" in perspective.


I could cite multiple papers for you how the fetus supresses the mother's immune system, how it changes the hormonal balance of her body to suit its own needs, and how this process sometimes nearly kills the mother, just like parasites tend to do, but considering your well demonstrated educational disadvantage that would be a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## City (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> I could cite multiple papers for you how the fetus supresses the mother's immune system, how it changes the hormonal balance of her body to suit its own needs, and how this process sometimes nearly kills the mother, just like parasites tend to do, but considering your well demonstrated educational disadvantage that would be a waste of everyone's time.


OMG GUYS FETUSES ARE ALT-RIGHT CONFIRMED UPDOOTS TO THE LEFT TY


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 17, 2022)

City said:


> OMG GUYS FETUSES ARE ALT-RIGHT CONFIRMED UPDOOTS TO THE LEFT TY


Please don't make exceedingly low effort posts in a serious conversation.



RAHelllord said:


> I could cite multiple papers for you how the fetus supresses the mother's immune system, how it changes the hormonal balance of her body to suit its own needs, and how this process sometimes nearly kills the mother, just like parasites tend to do, but considering your well demonstrated educational disadvantage that would be a waste of everyone's time.


I think that's the fundamental flaw in this entire debate, the right is just so culturally lacking in empathy by design. There's a reason why the majority of this debate is being dictated by people who've never been pregnant. I wish there was a way to basically require these psychos have to go through every stage of pregnancy, labor included, before they were allowed to vote against abortion. I really don't think people should be allowed to restrict the rights and freedoms of people whose struggles they know nothing about.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> I could cite multiple papers for you how the fetus supresses the mother's immune system, how it changes the hormonal balance of her body to suit its own needs, and how this process sometimes nearly kills the mother, just like parasites tend to do, but considering your well demonstrated educational disadvantage that would be a waste of everyone's time.



Have you spoken to your mom recently, parasite?



LainaGabranth said:


> Please don't make exceedingly low effort posts in a serious conversation.


Lol.  Are you getting serious now?

I think that's the fundamental flaw in this entire debate, the left is just so culturally lacking in empathy by design. There's a reason why the majority of this debate is being dictated by people who've never been pregnant. I wish there was a way to basically require these psychos have to go through every stage of pregnancy, labor included, before they were allowed to vote for abortion. I really don't think people should be allowed to murder babies.

The way to win this debate is re-classing humanity as a parasite then you can feel better about your nihilism.  For every 1 LainaGabranth there are a thousands of women who have the opportunity to feel differently.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> Then I am betting you are in favor of making organ donations mandatory, for example everyone can live a happy and fulfilled life with only one kidney, yet people die regularly because no viable donor is willing to part with one.


Show me one person who is not an organ donor because they specifically want other people to die.

Plus, you completely avoided my question. What is the point of freedom of speech if you are dead? I don't accept talking points as answers.

Let me know when you want to have a serious grown up discussion.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Have you spoken to your mom recently, parasite?


Just today in fact, and as a child that almost killed her on the way out I can assure you she's a fucking idiot at times.
Have you made your mom's life easier recently? Or are you only using her when it's convenient for yourself?


tabzer said:


> The way to win this debate is re-classing humanity as a parasite then you can feel better about your nihilism.  For every 1 LainaGabranth there are a thousands of women who have the opportunity to feel differently.


And differently they will feel as they go through pregnancy and have morning sickness for about 8 months, their bodies change to better serve the fetus, and maybe even they get to suffer complications as they go along, to then be saddled with at least 18 years of responsibility. It's like we want people to have a choice on whether or not they want these things to happen to them instead of forcing them onto people.

Also great job at equating fetuses to all of humanity, at least with yourself you definitely haven't made it far beyond that developmental stage. Certainly makes sense to think that's all there is from your point of view.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 17, 2022)

omgcat said:


> severe birth defects have a background rate of 3%, not .01% imagine being off by 300 times dude. since you are math disadvantaged i'll convert it to fractions, so 1 in 33. there are about 6,369,000 births in the USA each year, and with a background rate of 3% we end of with 191,070 high risk pregnancies per year. seems to me you are using feelings, not facts in your arguments and probably should stop.
> 
> i wonder why Texas isn't releasing the maternal mortality rate until after the midterms.


So 97% of births are healthy and normal and the left wants to use 3% to advocate for 9 month abortions. I just want you to be clear about this. And what is severe birth defects? Downs syndrome? Those people can live normal, happy lives. Asbergers children? A child missing a hand or arm? If you take those out of the 3%, your percentage will go much lower. So what is the real reason why the left advocates for 9 month abortions? Because it's not women's health. Dr. Gosnell proves that is a fallacy.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 17, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Show me one person who is not an organ donor because they specifically want other people to die.
> 
> Plus, you completely avoided my question. What is the point of freedom of speech if you are dead? I don't accept talking points as answers.
> 
> Let me know when you want to have a serious grown up discussion.


Fetuses aren't people, there will be no grown up discussion possible with you until reality checks in and you realize that potential people aren't real people.

Let me know how you protect the freedom of speech of your sperm that's constantly dying in your testicles or a sock. Those are all definitely, absolutely real people and you're taking their freedom of speech every single day.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> And differently they will feel as they go through pregnancy and have morning sickness for about 8 months,


Do some research. Women do not have morning sickness for 8 months.


RAHelllord said:


> their bodies change to better serve the fetus, and maybe even they get to suffer complications as they go along, to then be saddled with at least 18 years of responsibility. It's like we want people to have a choice on whether or not they want these things to happen to them instead of forcing them onto people.


So if you get a dog and then decide you don't want it anymore, do you just kill it or do you give it up for adoption?


----------



## simsimsim (Sep 17, 2022)

As someone who's leaning right/conservative on many issues, the American GOP sure feels like a hypocritical cult at best, an outright evil organization at worst.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> Fetuses aren't people, there will be no grown up discussion possible with you until reality checks in and you realize that potential people aren't real people.


What is the difference between a 9 month old fetus and a 1 day old baby?


RAHelllord said:


> Let me know how you protect the freedom of speech of your sperm that's constantly dying in your testicles or a sock. Those are all definitely, absolutely real people and you're taking their freedom of speech every single day.


My sperm does not have the full DNA of a unique human. It takes a sperm and an egg to create life. Why do I have to explain basic human biology to you?


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 17, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> What is the difference between a 9 month old fetus and a 1 day old baby?


Oh look, a moved goal post. 99% of all abortions happen before the second trimester, the remaining 1% only happen because the pregnancy becomes unviable during a later trimester. Try coming up with a real argument instead.
Nobody aborts a fetus a day before natural birth, nobody. Because that's not how abortions work, at that point it's an induced birth, not an abortion.
I'm confident you will be able to figure out what this means on your own, if not ask planned parenthood.


TraderPatTX said:


> My sperm does not have the full DNA of a unique human. It takes a sperm and an egg to create life. Why do I have to explain basic human biology to you?


There's enough DNA in every single sperm to make a fully functioning and healthy human, it just needs to be duplicated, it's also distinct from your own DNA and no two of your own sperm have identical DNA strands. And yet even then a full set of DNA inside a zygote doesn't make a human by itself, or right away. Why don't you know how a zygote develops into a fetus and then eventually becomes a person?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 17, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Expansion of rights is what the constitution was always meant to be used for.  Not an authoritarian crackdown on freedoms.  Nobody's trying to repeal the second amendment, but there are people trying to tell women that the state gets to determine the extent of control they have over their own bodies.



Well, this is just flat out wrong, the most popular president of all time just said recently " no amendment is absolute" if thats true about an amendment, what does that mean for abortions? maybe getting him in over the orange man was a bad idea.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> Just today in fact, and as a child that almost killed her on the way out I can assure you she's a fucking idiot at times.



Lol. "You should have aborted me, mom.  You fucking idiot"

How did I know that this is a pretense for your whole argument?



RAHelllord said:


> Have you made your mom's life easier recently? Or are you only using her when it's convenient for yourself?



I'm not the one making the human = parasite argument, lol



RAHelllord said:


> Also great job at equating fetuses to all of humanity,



I didn't.  It is, however, true that no matter the stage of development, a human is a human.  Dehumanization is literally what you are doing in your "just a parasite" self-loathing projection.

Let's listen to "hell-lord" about meaningful insights on life.  How cliché.  You don't even need to say anything for your opinion to be understood.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Lol. "You should have aborted me, mom.  You fucking idiot"
> 
> How did I know that this is a pretense for your whole argument?


It's not a pretense, but I am fully aware that your reading comprehension won't allow you to extract anything beyond the surface meaning.

Also telling you're directly thinking in selfish terms about how I would approach this situation. I wouldn't have been mad at her if she put her own well-being first instead of risking her life for myself. This just in: I don't want other people to suffer for me. Seemingly a concept you are entirely unfamiliar with.
But more directly she should have gotten a c-section instead of pushing me out the old fashioned way, I was a big chonker back then and my mom is very much not big. Again, you going directly for the most selfish way of thinking about this is incredibly telling on yourself and your inability to have any real empathy.


tabzer said:


> I'm not the one making the human = parasite argument, lol


No, that's literally what you said. Whereas my point is that fetuses aren't people and instead only have characteristics of parasites while they're fetuses. Multiple descriptors can apply to something at once, a concept you are still struggling with. Those same descriptors can also stop applying when the conditions change.


tabzer said:


> I didn't.  It is, however, true that no matter the stage of development, a human is a human.  Dehumanization is literally what you are doing in your "just a parasite" self-loathing projection.


This is going to shock you so be sure to sit down and maybe ask for help from an English teacher: Fetuses aren't people, and you can't claim dehumanization is bad and then deny the mother's humanity by restricting their ability to chose.
There is no dehumanization going on on my side because the woman's humanity is the crux of the discussion. The fetus is allowed to do whatever it wants, except subjugate or dictate over the woman. If you are truly giving both parties fully equal rights the outcome is that the woman should be allowed to deny the use of her body to anyone, including a fetus. The fetus can not be placed over the woman or else you are dehumanizing the woman, by denying her the ability to decide over her own body and fate.

But sure, I'm self-loathing because I'm having empathy for actual people being forced to make choices they aren't comfortable with because a bunch of dudes think they know more about the subject than the people it actually affects. You're projecting a lot here if the only reasons you can come up with people would want safe abortions are related to selfishness or self-loathing.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> I wouldn't have been mad at her if she put her own well-being first instead of risking her life for myself.



"I wouldn't be mad if my mother had aborted me."

Lol.  Existential self-loathing.



RAHelllord said:


> No, that's literally what you said. Whereas my point is that fetuses aren't people and instead only have characteristics of parasites while they're fetuses. Multiple descriptors can apply to something at once, a concept you are still struggling with. Those same descriptors can also stop applying when the conditions change.



I didn't argue that humans are parasites.  You said a fetus is "no more than a parasite that requires a host to exist" which is cringe edgelord shit.  A (human) fetus is human.  Shifting the focus to them not being classified independent people is besides the point, as you seem to default a necessity of human progeny as a negative thing.  It's the ultimate ad hominem.  Don't like the argument.  Kill it.  Hide the fact that you are killing it behind "it's not even real".

I'm not arguing that pregnancy or abortion should or should not be forced.  I'm making the argument that your rationalization is sociopathic.  Hiding behind the idea that you are being empathetic by ham-fisting this emo nihilistic garbage is a farce.

Gloat more about "reading comprehension".


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 17, 2022)

snipped because early send


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> "I wouldn't be mad if my mother had aborted me."
> 
> Lol. Existential self-loathing.


the quote you are replying to:
" I wouldn't have been mad at her if she put her own well-being first instead of risking her life for myself. "

I wouldn't be mad if my mom choose to abort me if her life was at risk. Are you saying that mothers should _try_ to provide birth, even if a condition increases the odds of death during childbirth?

The mother knows what to do with her own body. It is afterall HER body.
Go home Tabzer.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> snipped because early send



"Reading Comprehension"

If you want to argue that he wasn't referring to the abortion of him/her/itself, as a parasite, you got lost.  You are going to have to contribute more than "nuhuh".



Nothereed said:


> I wouldn't be mad if my mom choose to abort me if her life was at risk.



Keep saying this, without seeing the irony.  I'll wait until you get it, Schrödinger's soapbox.



Nothereed said:


> Are you saying that mothers should _try_ to provide birth, even if a condition increases the odds of death during childbirth?



You are responding to this "I'm not arguing that pregnancy or abortion should or should not be forced. I'm making the argument that your rationalization is sociopathic."

With "Are you saying that mothers should... (blah blah blah).



Nothereed said:


> The mother knows what to do with her own body. It is afterall HER body.



Yet here you are supporting the existence of the patriarchy with the hubris that it is in the position to.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you want to argue that he wasn't referring to the abortion of him/her/itself, as a parasite, you got lost.


No I'm not, because he has a point, it does act a bit like a parasite. They stated that it has some behaviors similar to a parasite.


RAHelllord said:


> could cite multiple papers for you how the fetus supresses the mother's immune system, how it changes the hormonal balance of her body to suit its own needs, and how this process sometimes nearly kills the mother


And yet you ignored that for your own feelings.




tabzer said:


> You are going to have to contribute more than "nuhuh".


You don't get to play that card when half of your shit is a goddamn "nuhuh" with extra steps sprinkled in.


tabzer said:


> Lol. "You should have aborted me, mom. You fucking idiot"
> 
> How did I know that this is a pretense for your whole argument?


How much you have to goal post shift to attempt to "win" an argument.

All I've seen is you make dumb-ass statements, get grilled over it. And then you hide in your little cubbie, pretending that your smarter than everyone else. And that any person that calls you out on your bullshit can't possibly be wrong.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> No I'm not, because he has a point, it does act a bit like a parasite. They stated that it has some behaviors similar to a parasite.



Great, now check my points.



Nothereed said:


> And yet you ignored that for your own feelings.



I didn't ignore it.  It wasn't relevent.



Nothereed said:


> You don't get to play that card when half of your shit is a goddamn "nuhuh" with extra steps sprinkled in.



nuhuh



Nothereed said:


> How much you have to goal post shift to attempt to "win" an argument.



I didn't shift the goalpost from "human" to "person" to avoid confronting the humanity of a developing life.  What "argument" do you think I am trying to "win"?  



Nothereed said:


> All I've seen is you make dumbass statements, get grilled over it. And then you hide in your little cubbie, pretending that your smarter than everyone else. And that any person that calls you out on your bullshit can't possibly be wrong.



Then you aren't very smart.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> "I wouldn't be mad if my mother had aborted me."
> 
> Lol.  Existential self-loathing.


Telling that your only response is that you can't comprehend having empathy for others.

"I can't imagine seeing people as having the same worth as myself." This is how you sound like, a narcissistic, self-centered loser devoid of empathy for other people, viewing everything in life through a lens of self-service and an analysis about how much value you can extract from others before they rid themselves of you.

I enjoy my life more than you do because I ensure I am not a burden on others and give as plentiful as I receive, and I will never be negative towards a person when the other person is not in a position to help me. Unlike you, apparently, who makes it very clear that other people should only exist to serve you, and only you.

Do keep telling yourself that my attitude is born from a position of self-loathing, because it's the only excuse you will be able to come up with before you'll have to realize that mutual respect and empathy requires enough introspection to not force people into doing things they don't want to do.

I respect people's full autonomy and boundaries, you respect people's usefulness towards yourself.


tabzer said:


> I didn't argue that humans are parasites.  You said a fetus is "no more than a parasite that requires a host to exist" which is cringe edgelord shit.  A (human) fetus is human.  Shifting the focus to them not being classified independent people is besides the point, as you seem to default a necessity of human progeny as a negative thing.  It's the ultimate ad hominem.  Don't like the argument.  Kill it.  Hide the fact that you are killing it behind "it's not even real".


And completely ignoring the role of the woman and how the fetus impacts her existence, completely dehumanizing the woman to the status of nothing more but a vessel that must comply or else they're a murderer for not providing the vessel.

Literal edgelord shit from a boy that will never have to give up their own body to please a corpus of people based on their feelings.


tabzer said:


> I'm not arguing that pregnancy or abortion should or should not be forced.  I'm making the argument that your rationalization is sociopathic.  Hiding behind the idea that you are being empathetic by ham-fisting this emo nihilistic garbage is a farce.
> 
> Gloat more about "reading comprehension".


There is nothing sociopathic about putting the life of an existing person over the maybe of a person. There is everything sociopathic about placing a possibility over an actuality and then hiding the decision to dehumanize woman behind a thinly veiled attempt of moral superiority.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> Telling that your only response is that you can't comprehend having empathy for others.
> 
> "I can't imagine seeing people as having the same worth as myself." This is how you sound like, a narcissistic, self-centered loser devoid of empathy for other people, viewing everything in life through a lens of self-service and an analysis about how much value you can extract from others before they rid themselves of you.
> 
> ...



I have empathy, which is why I was able to determine your attempt to frame pregnancy as a negative thing as reflection of your own sense of self-worth.  You think you are proving me wrong by talking great about yourself and trying to make me look a specific way, but to me, it just looks you are trying hard to compensate for something and are hurt.  You are making claims that cannot be possibly substantiated.  You seem to think that because I disagree with something you said, and think of you as conceited, it must mean that I am the exact opposite of how you think (or attempt to project) of yourself.  Also, the idea that you think that you would even be in the position to be mad at your mother for aborting you further suggests lack of self-awareness.  



RAHelllord said:


> And completely ignoring the role of the woman and how the fetus impacts her existence, completely dehumanizing the woman to the status of nothing more but a vessel that must comply or else they're a murderer for not providing the vessel.
> 
> Literal edgelord shit from a boy that will never have to give up their own body to please a corpus of people based on their feelings.



I'm not ignoring women nor am I saying what they should or should not do.  I'm arguing that your rationalization of abortion is sociopathic where abortions aren't necessarily sociopathic.  Your attempt to imitate me is flattering though. 



RAHelllord said:


> There is nothing sociopathic about putting the life of an existing person over the maybe of a person. There is everything sociopathic about placing a possibility over an actuality and then hiding the decision to dehumanize woman behind a thinly veiled attempt of moral superiority.



Nice word salad.  I see you have your work cut out for you.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I have empathy, which is why I was able to determine your attempt to frame pregnancy as a negative thing as reflection of your own sense of self-worth.  You think you are proving me wrong by talking great about yourself and trying to make me look a specific way, but to me, it just looks you are trying hard to compensate for something and are hurt.  You are making claims that cannot be possibly substantiated.  You seem to think that because I disagree with something you said, and think of you as conceited, it must mean that I am the exact opposite of how you think (or attempt to project) of yourself.


You lack the empathy to differentiate how a woman would feel between a wanted and an unwanted pregnancy. A wanted child is not parasitic by nature as the woman has consented for the use of her body for the growth of an embryo into a child. An unwanted pregnancy is one without consent, and thus parasitic by nature as now the fetus is using the woman's body against her will.
It's like how words have meaning and the same set of actions can have entirely different connotations depending on the circumstances.

And no, it can be very much substantiated from your views on a wide variety of topics like your views on vaccines, abortions, and the plethora of other social and political topics you've given your opinion on, which are all available to read for anyone so inclined.


tabzer said:


> Also, the idea that you think that you would even be in the position to be mad at your mother for aborting you further suggests lack of self-awareness.


Simple hypothetical situations going over your head and being hand waved away with a "But it can't be a REAL situation, so it doesn't matter." is really just what I am expecting from you at this point.

As an aside, the inability to put yourself into the shoes of other people and situations that are foreign to you, be they imagined or real, and consider impacts of decisions from another person's point of view is a sign of lack of developed empathy, or even sociopathy.


tabzer said:


> I'm not ignoring women nor am I saying what they should or should not do.  I'm arguing that your rationalization of abortion is sociopathic where abortions aren't necessarily sociopathic.  Your attempt to imitate me is flattering though.


My rationalization is, and has been, that the woman as a whole (including her life and bodily autonomy) outweigh a third person's feelings on whether or not she should be forced against her will to give her body up to nurture more life. The fetus's rights do not outweigh the woman's rights. If the fetus is unwanted it's a parasite by the literal definition of the word.

If you read into this that I am ignoring the rights or feelings of an unwanted fetus out of a source of self-loathing you should take a long, hard look into the mirror, because they have been fully accounted for and are stacked against the woman's rights and feelings. And what do you know it is the ethical choice in all situations that the person having the last word is the person that already fully exists, has a life, and owns the womb, and not the collection of cells that has not yet reached a stage of development to be autonomous even in the most generous of interpretations.

This would also be something you'd know if you'd actually make an argument in good faith, like considering that abortions simply don't happen when the fetus is developed enough to be able to have feelings, or is capable of survival outside of a uterus, or that nobody aborts a pregnancy that is desired.


tabzer said:


> Nice word salad.  I see you have your work cut out for you.


Ask an English teacher to explain them to you.


----------



## City (Sep 17, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Please don't make exceedingly low effort posts in a serious conversation.
> 
> 
> I think that's the fundamental flaw in this entire debate, the right is just so culturally lacking in empathy by design. There's a reason why the majority of this debate is being dictated by people who've never been pregnant. I wish there was a way to basically require these psychos have to go through every stage of pregnancy, labor included, before they were allowed to vote against abortion. I really don't think people should be allowed to restrict the rights and freedoms of people whose struggles they know nothing about.


​


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> You lack the empathy to differentiate how a woman would feel between a wanted and an unwanted pregnancy. A wanted child is not parasitic by nature as the woman has consented for the use of her body for the growth of an embryo into a child. An unwanted pregnancy is one without consent, and thus parasitic by nature as now the fetus is using the woman's body against her will.
> It's like how words have meaning and the same set of actions can have entirely different connotations depending on the circumstances.



You are forcing a claim that you cannot substantiate based on my taking issue with this statement:

"The moment the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb on its own (not withstanding medical help like helping it breathe, that's obviously fine). Before that marker it's no more than a parasite that requires a host to exist."

My ability to empathize with women isn't related to my issue with this messaging.  If anything, you are using the existence of women as a shield from your inconsistency.  If you were as empathetic as you claim to be, then you would simply apologize for being wrong instead of doubling down on attacking the human qualities of developing people.  I'm sure more women than not would be repulsed by your branding, even if they feel like an abortion is the best choice for them. 



RAHelllord said:


> And no, it can be very much substantiated from your views on a wide variety of topics like your views on vaccines, abortions, and the plethora of other social and political topics you've given your opinion on, which are all available to read for anyone so inclined.



Considering that you aren't able to provide an example of how "my views" on vaccines lack empathy, or what "my view" on abortion is, or anything else... I am going to assume that you read what I say, elsewhere, like you read what I say here.  You see me disagreeing with your superficial talking points as a threat that enables "the other side", so you attribute everything that you see as negative onto me.  It's ironic because it's not empathetic at all and it means that you are not being honest with yourself.  It's a symptom of being bipolar.



RAHelllord said:


> Simple hypothetical situations going over your head and being hand waved away with a "But it can't be a REAL situation, so it doesn't matter." is really just what I am expecting from you at this point.
> 
> As an aside, the inability to put yourself into the shoes of other people and situations that are foreign to you, be they imagined or real, and consider impacts of decisions from another person's point of view is a sign of lack of developed empathy, or even sociopathy.



Wishing you were aborted is a cowardly way to stumble through life.  Imaging impossible scenarios where you are the good guy is really how people like you cope.  I am able to play pretend anytime I want, but dehumanizing babies to feel better about abortion is not empathetic, nor in service of women.  Pretending you are your own mother aborting yourself, and then forgiving her is just a deeply seated misogynistic fantasy.



RAHelllord said:


> Ask an English teacher to explain them to you.



Oh I understand it.  It just reads like a schizo's attempt to rationalize their shenanigans.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> [...]If you were as empathetic as you claim to be, then you would simply apologize for being wrong[...]


LMAO

No, no I will not apologize for "being wrong" when I am not. You read more meaning into the sentence than I put there. You see the word parasite in relation to fetuses and immediately feel compelled to add the meaning that it's a measure of worth or "humanity" based on your feelings, and not an apt descriptor of a strict set of attributes.

Or in simpler words even you can understand: It's used as a biological term, not an insult.


tabzer said:


> Considering that you aren't able to provide an example of how "my views" on vaccines lack empathy, or what "my view" on abortion is, or anything else... I am going to assume that you read what I say, elsewhere, like you read what I say here.  You see me disagreeing with your superficial talking points as a threat that enables "the other side", so you attribute everything that you see as negative onto me.  It's ironic because it's not empathetic at all and it means that you are not being honest with yourself.  It's a symptom of being bipolar.


Because last time we talked quoting you did anything? Nah mate. I know for a fact that nothing what I say is a superficial talking point but based on reading a mix of actual papers written by actual doctors and researchers in the field, as well as actually talking to woman and gynecologists directly.

You're also apparently larping as a psychotherapist now in your ever growing list of farcical knowledge.


tabzer said:


> Wishing you were aborted is a cowardly way to stumble through life.  Imaging impossible scenarios where you are the good guy is really how people like you cope.  I am able to play pretend anytime I want, but dehumanizing babies to feel better about abortion is not empathetic, nor in service of women.  Pretending you are your own mother aborting yourself, and then forgiving her is just a deeply seated misogynistic fantasy.


I love that you're still clinging to the straw that I must hate my life and that everything I do must thus be from a position of self-loathing. It's definitely, absolutely not a reflection of yourself being projected onto me.

No, I have not imagined myself as my mom aborting me, I have made an objective statement that she made an ill-advised choice that could have been prevented and I made a statement in response that it would not matter to me if she had either aborted me or not given said information. You inserting the meaning that this must be done as a form of self-inflicted guilt-trip is the sort of moral grandstanding you repeatedly try to give your arguments merit, and it's sad.

You are a sad, little man and it shines through in everything you say on this forum. The words I use are correct for the context, you giving them extra meaning based on your feelings does not change anything I say or makes anything I say invalid. It just makes you look sad.


tabzer said:


> Oh I understand it.  It just reads like a schizo's attempt to rationalize their shenanigans.


I am now apparently a bi-polar, shizophrenic, sociopath for knowing complex words and being able to string them together in complex ways. Do you have any other pearls of wisdom to share?

That's an idiom if it wasn't clear, I don't want any actual pearls.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> LMAO
> 
> No, no I will not apologize for "being wrong" when I am not. You read more meaning into the sentence than I put there. You see the word parasite in relation to fetuses and immediately feel compelled to add the meaning that it's a measure of worth or "humanity" based on your feelings, and not an apt descriptor of a strict set of attributes.
> 
> Or in simpler words even you can understand: It's used as a biological term, not an insult.



Keep paddling those waters.  Parasite is not a biological term to describe a fetus unless you are being disingenuous and dehumanizing.



RAHelllord said:


> Because last time we talked quoting you did anything? Nah mate. I know for a fact that nothing what I say is a superficial talking point but based on reading a mix of actual papers written by actual doctors and researchers in the field, as well as actually talking to woman and gynecologists directly.



Nice back story.  I'll wait on a paper describing a fetus as "no more than a parasite that requires a host to exist" from Dr. Fedora.  Meanwhile, we can rely on your beliefs.



RAHelllord said:


> You're also apparently larping as a psychotherapist now in your ever growing list of farcical knowledge.



Haha, you hope. 



RAHelllord said:


> I love that you're still clinging to the straw that I must hate my life and that everything I do must thus be from a position of self-loathing. It's definitely, absolutely not a reflection of yourself being projected onto me.



Not everything you do is from a position of self-loathing.  I sincerely believe that you are capable of experiencing bouts of genuine happiness and self-confidence.  "Fetuses are parasites" and "I'd forgive my mother for aborting me" are not those moments.



RAHelllord said:


> No, I have not imagined myself as my mom aborting me, I have made an objective statement that she made an ill-advised choice that could have been prevented and I made a statement in response that it would not matter to me if she had either aborted me or not given said information. You inserting the meaning that this must be done as a form of self-inflicted guilt-trip is the sort of moral grandstanding you repeatedly try to give your arguments merit, and it's sad.



Are you being objective?  Did your mother die or live to regret her decision?   Feel free to lie to me.  Suggesting that you are in a position to react to your mother's decision to abort you bypasses the clear point that abortion does not derive consent from the developing child.  By saying you wouldn't be mad, as if you had a choice, you are speaking on behalf of your mother (as if she needed her child's approval, or even worse, your opinion is more important) and yourself as a fetus (and "wholly rational"), and by extension of the argument, other fetuses.  You literally aren't being objective, lol.  You are trying to bury the more common, and more sincere, talking points. 



RAHelllord said:


> You are a sad, little man and it shines through in everything you say on this forum. The words I use are correct for the context, you giving them extra meaning based on your feelings does not change anything I say or makes anything I say invalid. It just makes you look sad.



I can live with you thinking that I am "a sad, little man".  It's not exactly consistent with how you want to project yourself, but it is totally consistent with the way I have you pegged.



RAHelllord said:


> I am now apparently a bi-polar, shizophrenic, sociopath for knowing complex words and being able to string them together in complex ways. Do you have any other pearls of wisdom to share?



Knowing complex words is different than using them to obfuscate the plain.  You don't like the fact that I took issue with specific things that you said, because they are truly embarrassing.  Unfortunately, you don't see reward in admitting that you are wrong, and that's not something that I can teach you directly.  I have many pearls, but I want to only offer up what would be received.  You've already demonstrated that you eat the ones that I do offer.

That being said, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder share similar genetic etiology.  In many forms of diagnoses (keep in mind I provided none), it can be a competition of which is prevalent.  Calling a human stage of progeny "parasitic" is plainly sociopathic.



RAHelllord said:


> That's an idiom if it wasn't clear, I don't want any actual pearls.



Don't lie.  Everyone wants pearls.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 17, 2022)

If we can transmit the fetus to the metaverse they can forever be protected by the evil abortionists.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 17, 2022)

SG854 said:


> If we can transmit the fetus to the metaverse they can forever be protected by the evil abortionists.


You joke but I wouldn't be surprised if people start trying to put births on the blockchain or some dumb shit. Can't wait for the blockchain fad to die already.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> You joke but I wouldn't be surprised if people start trying to put births on the blockchain or some dumb shit. Can't wait for the blockchain fad to die already.



People already have done that and blockchain is going to stay.  Can't speak of what qualifies as "fad" though.  Did the internet fad ever die?


----------



## SG854 (Sep 17, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> You joke but I wouldn't be surprised if people start trying to put births on the blockchain or some dumb shit. Can't wait for the blockchain fad to die already.


Implanting a fetus to the block chain is something I can get behind. 

So we can know the one true fetus and not reproduction Festuses that abortionists will love to delete over and over.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 17, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Implanting a fetus to the block chain is something I can get behind.
> 
> So we can know the one true fetus and not reproduction Festuses that abortionists will love to delete over and over.


Can't wait for the new age of human trafficking: Right clicking people's babies' NFTs.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Implanting a fetus to the block chain is something I can get behind.
> 
> So we can know the one true fetus and not reproduction Festuses that abortionists will love to delete over and over.



That would be the difference of heaven and hell.



LainaGabranth said:


> Right clicking



More effort please.

You guys are onto something, though.  If people would break Ethereum with lolcats who knows what damage slavebabies NFT would do.  It might even bait the fed into fortifying crypto as a legitimate currency.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 17, 2022)

NFT Babies with mods and loot boxes. Will be purchased by Microsoft for full fetus ownership. No NFT baby for Sony.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

Will aborting be a matter of "losing" my wallet or will there be a token burn protocol?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 17, 2022)

SG854 said:


> NFT Babies with mods and loot boxes. Will be purchased by Microsoft for full fetus ownership. No NFT baby for Sony.


Can't wait for the hellworld where people get mad about the race of their baby in a lootbox. Imagine the genetic lottery gachas.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Will aborting be a matter of "losing" my wallet or will there be a token burn protocol?


Why not join the metaverse and find out. We will open your third eye. You will know true truth.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Can't wait for the hellworld where people get mad about the race of their baby in a lootbox. Imagine the genetic lottery gachas.



It'd be a good outlet for imaginary racists to outlet their frustrations of not being real.



SG854 said:


> Why not join the metaverse and find out. We will open your third eye. You will know true truth.


I would but it's Zuckerberg as Chucky offering me the opportunity.  Is it safe?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> Oh look, a moved goal post. 99% of all abortions happen before the second trimester, the remaining 1% only happen because the pregnancy becomes unviable during a later trimester. Try coming up with a real argument instead.
> Nobody aborts a fetus a day before natural birth, nobody.


Those who speak in absolutes are 99% wrong.


RAHelllord said:


> Because that's not how abortions work, at that point it's an induced birth, not an abortion.
> I'm confident you will be able to figure out what this means on your own, if not ask planned parenthood.


It's not moving the goalposts when Democrat politicians try to pass laws allowing abortions at 9 months. The left have become too extreme for 75% of the country.


RAHelllord said:


> There's enough DNA in every single sperm to make a fully functioning and healthy human, it just needs to be duplicated, it's also distinct from your own DNA and no two of your own sperm have identical DNA strands. And yet even then a full set of DNA inside a zygote doesn't make a human by itself, or right away. Why don't you know how a zygote develops into a fetus and then eventually becomes a person?


A sperm will never grow into anything besides sperm. An egg will never grow into anything other than an egg. An egg fertilized by sperm has all the DNA information it needs to grow. 

Once again, what is the difference between a fetus and a person? You can't answer that question and still retain your main argument. That is why you avoid it. You call babies parasites when in reality, babies and the mother live in a symbiotic relationship. Pregnant women have a boosted immune system to protect both mother and child. That is why pregnant women have stronger immune responses to colds and flus. A woman's body will do whatever it takes to protect the life growing inside of her.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 17, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It's not moving the goalposts when Democrat politicians try to pass laws allowing abortions at 9 months. The left have become too extreme for 75% of the country.


Surely you have a source of this other than your ass.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Surely you have a source of this other than your ass.


When someone's ass is more substantial than your shitposts, I cannot see this as sincere LMAO


----------



## City (Sep 17, 2022)

Our forum clown has derailed yet another serious thread. What a surprise.


I'd like to know from pro-lifers and pro-choicers if they would be fine with a limit on the time of the fetus to abort or if you just want to ban/allow any.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Keep paddling those waters.  Parasite is not a biological term to describe a fetus unless you are being disingenuous and dehumanizing.


Single word confuses person on the internet, causing perceived entitlement to emotional outrage.


tabzer said:


> Nice back story.  I'll wait on a paper describing a fetus as "no more than a parasite that requires a host to exist" from Dr. Fedora.  Meanwhile, we can rely on your beliefs.
> 
> Haha, you hope.
> 
> ...


I wish I could invent meaning as freely from reality as you do from what I say, truly you live in a blessed world of your own creation.


tabzer said:


> I can live with you thinking that I am "a sad, little man".  It's not exactly consistent with how you want to project yourself, but it is totally consistent with the way I have you pegged.


Ah yes, the "No U" defense.


tabzer said:


> Knowing complex words is different than using them to obfuscate the plain.  You don't like the fact that I took issue with specific things that you said, because they are truly embarrassing.  Unfortunately, you don't see reward in admitting that you are wrong, and that's not something that I can teach you directly.  I have many pearls, but I want to only offer up what would be received.  You've already demonstrated that you eat the ones that I do offer.


To you writing in cursive is probably also obfuscation of the plain. If you're happy with making tiny little castles out of small building blocks then by all means, more power to you. Some of us enjoy grander, flowing structures and it's not my fault that it takes you more effort to work your way through it.

Getting to your level is now eating up your pearls of wisdom. Intricacies of language are dead and buried.

If I want to be wrong I'll adopt your stance, I can promise you that much.


tabzer said:


> That being said, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder share similar genetic etiology.  In many forms of diagnoses (keep in mind I provided none), it can be a competition of which is prevalent.  Calling a human stage of progeny "parasitic" is plainly sociopathic.


Right, you listened to Jordan Peterson once and saw the inside of a psych 101 classroom in passing and now think the secrets of the human psyche are unraveled to you. Next you'll probably tell me what my lobster birthstone is.


tabzer said:


> Don't lie.  Everyone wants pearls.


You can dispose of your mollusc trash yourself, this is a flint household only.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 17, 2022)

City said:


> Our forum clown has derailed yet another serious thread. What a surprise.
> 
> 
> I'd like to know from pro-lifers and pro-choicers if they would be fine with a limit on the time of the fetus to abort or if you just want to ban/allow any.


 I don't really think a hard time limit can actually be set, but ultimately I'd draw the line at the later term. That said, I also know that there's plenty of exception cases, and I don't really feel like it's right for me to restrict when and where someone can have an abortion just because I'm not comfortable with it. That also said, I don't feel right letting people terminate something that's fully grown and a month or so away from delivery.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> Snip


I like this post specifically because it really shows how bad tabzer is at debate. Pedantry, optics, and personal attacks are the trifecta of his style, no real arguments or rationality though.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> Single word confuses person on the internet, causing perceived entitlement to emotional outrage.



Yes.  The word parasite is so confusing and it traumatizes me.  In case you didn't know, I used to be a parasite, but I am happy with my mother not aborting me.  She saved my life from her own decisions.



RAHelllord said:


> I wish I could invent meaning as freely from reality as you do from what I say, truly you live in a blessed world of your own creation.



You realize you have something to learn.  That's progress I guess.



RAHelllord said:


> Ah yes, the "No U" defense.



Just a bit more than that.  More like, "yes, and..."



RAHelllord said:


> To you writing in cursive is probably also obfuscation of the plain. If you're happy with making tiny little castles out of small building blocks then by all means, more power to you. Some of us enjoy grander, flowing structures and it's not my fault that it takes you more effort to work your way through it.



Ah this is where "I wish I could invent meaning as freely from reality as you do from what I say"  becomes recursive and unironic.



RAHelllord said:


> Getting to your level is now eating up your pearls of wisdom. Intricacies of language are dead and buried.
> 
> If I want to be wrong I'll adopt your stance, I can promise you that much.



If you don't remember, it was me who addressed what you said; not the other way around.  You set the standard. 
 You have not yet to explain my stance btw.  The best you did was equate me loving babies to hating mothers.




RAHelllord said:


> Right, you listened to Jordan Peterson once and saw the inside of a psych 101 classroom in passing and now think the secrets of the human psyche are unraveled to you. Next you'll probably tell me what my lobster birthstone is.



That's interesting.  Who is Jordan Peterson?  It sounds like you are offended by him (her?).  I suppose it would be convenient to you, that traits of the human psyche were a secret.



RAHelllord said:


> You can dispose of your mollusc trash yourself, this is a flint household only.



Lol.  Even when you jest you reveal your superiority complex.

Now tell me how real you are in your fursona voice.



LainaGabranth said:


> I like this post specifically because it really shows how bad tabzer is at debate. Pedantry, optics, and personal attacks are the trifecta of his style, no real arguments or rationality though.



You are just jealous.  I admit that "snip" really consolidates the message.  Pile on coward.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 17, 2022)

City said:


> Our forum clown has derailed yet another serious thread. What a surprise.
> 
> 
> I'd like to know from pro-lifers and pro-choicers if they would be fine with a limit on the time of the fetus to abort or if you just want to ban/allow any.


I was fine with the way things used to be. Then the left started pushing abortions up until the moment of birth and they lost me and 75% of the country. Even Europe has more limits on abortion than many states here do and the left always say they want to be more like Europe.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

With the left going one extreme and the right going the other, it seems like a good time for a third party.

Nah.  I'll just keep voting democrat and pretend democrats will eventually warm up to me.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 17, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I was fine with the way things used to be. Then the left started pushing abortions up until the moment of birth and they lost me and 75% of the country. Even Europe has more limits on abortion than many states here do and the left always say they want to be more like Europe.


No you weren't, you can't even name five leftist positions you actually had.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> No you weren't, you can't even name five leftist positions you actually had.



TBF, I don't believe him either.  But his "optics" are more convincing than yours.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 17, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Those who speak in absolutes are 99% wrong.


Mate, I need you to look up how abortions are actually performed at any respectable abortion clinic.

Do you think they stick a fucking blender up a woman's uterus to get rid of the fetus? Once the fetus is viable to survive outside of the womb (inside a NICU for example) any abortion is literally just being introduced either via medicine that causes the water to break and a natural birth to be performed or via c-section. The then born baby is stuck into the NICU and the date of birth is noted down.

The only doctors that kill the child in a case where this is possible will lose their medical license in every single place abortion is illegal.

Hell, even if the fetus dies in the uterus it's still just either getting born normally (via induced medical birth or naturally induced), or c-section.

This is literally the most basic knowledge about pregnancies and termination thereof that exists. The only deviations happen when there are further complications for the health of the woman and if the fetus is proven unviable.


TraderPatTX said:


> It's not moving the goalposts when Democrat politicians try to pass laws allowing abortions at 9 months. The left have become too extreme for 75% of the country.


This needs so many [Citations Needed] it's like an entry on encyclopedia dramatica.
Also, the left perfectly represents more than 60% of the population in the US, your far right beliefs are fringe everywhere but in rural areas.


TraderPatTX said:


> A sperm will never grow into anything besides sperm. An egg will never grow into anything other than an egg. An egg fertilized by sperm has all the DNA information it needs to grow.


Man you are going to hate our already existing ability to make functioning embryos out of two unfertilized female eggs, one unfertilized female egg, and soon out of just a sperm.


TraderPatTX said:


> Once again, what is the difference between a fetus and a person? You can't answer that question and still retain your main argument. That is why you avoid it. You call babies parasites when in reality, babies and the mother live in a symbiotic relationship. Pregnant women have a boosted immune system to protect both mother and child. That is why pregnant women have stronger immune responses to colds and flus. A woman's body will do whatever it takes to protect the life growing inside of her.


A fetus is not a person precisely because the brain isn't developed enough to actually function beyond basic response stimuli, as well as that it can't survive outside of the womb until after the second trimester. You, as a person, only exist because you have consciousness and are, at large, an independent being. Hence why you can be pronounced dead once your brain stops working beyond a certain threshold.

With a fetus this point where it's capable of supporting itself enough to function independently for nothing but basic survival (heart beat, basic breathing reflex) is only achieved late into the pregnancy. Before that point it's a clump of cells, and if unwanted should be free to remove based on the mother's wishes, after that point the law already makes it clear that the fetus will be born early and placed into an NICU where the child can then grow safely until it's able to be part of the outside world. An abortion after the fetus is viable for basic survival in a NICU is always a birth.

As an aside, the "stronger immune system" can kill woman and often directly leads to the loss of the fetus as it can trigger a cascade reaction that destroys enough of the placenta that the scarring prevents nutrient uptake.
The woman's body will "do whatever it takes to protect the life growing inside of her" because the fetus's hormones override the mother's in large swaths. In fact, did you know the uterus is actually testing the embryo for viability and is happily killing them if able to? The only blastocysts that successfully implant are the ones capable of overcoming the immune system of the mother, by force. The mother's immune system has to be manually rewritten to allow the blastocyst to attach, and stay attached. There is a reason an estimated

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25356087/

An estimated 50% of all pregnancies are terminated naturally by the mother's body, many won't even know they had a pregnancy starting because it fails shortly after implantation of the embryo. Your assertion that it's "symbiotic" is naively outdated.



tabzer said:


> Yes.  The word parasite is so confusing and it traumatizes me.  In case you didn't know, I used to be a parasite, but I am happy with my mother not aborting me.  She saved my life from her own decisions.
> 
> You realize you have something to learn.  That's progress I guess.
> 
> ...



I've put everything right in front of your nose, plain as day, and yet it just eludes you. Or goes in one ear and right out the other, either or.


tabzer said:


> That's interesting.  Who is Jordan Peterson?  It sounds like you are offended by him (her?).  I suppose it would be convenient to you, that traits of the human psyche were a secret.


Of course you don't know about them, of course you do. And of course you're thinking I'm offended by them, any other right wing platitudes you want to share?


tabzer said:


> Lol.  Even when you jest you reveal your superiority complex.


And here we are at the fremdschämen.


tabzer said:


> Now tell me how real you are in your fursona voice.


I thought the clowns are meant to make the imitation? Go on, do it yourself, I believe in you.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> I've put everything right in front of your nose, plain as day, and yet it just eludes you. Or goes in one ear and right out the other, either or.



Or...?

You assume high confidence trumps your lack of an argument.  I don't accept.



RAHelllord said:


> Of course you don't know about them, of course you do. And of course you're thinking I'm offended by them, any other right wing platitudes you want to share?



I suppose if you agree with everything, you could never be wrong.  Bravo.



RAHelllord said:


> And here we are at the fremdschämen.



I know, right?  



RAHelllord said:


> I thought the clowns are meant to make the imitation? Go on, do it yourself, I believe in you.



Oh.  You are calling me a clown now.  Is that the same as an impressionist?  Don't care.

"Hi, I'm RAHelllllord.  Please take me seriously.  Being human is unpleasant.  Grrr."

Did I do good?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> -Snip-


Judging by the lack of any real data and evidence in reply to your post I'm going to assume that anti-choicers don't have any real arguments against your positions that aren't emotional.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> Mate, I need you to look up how abortions are actually performed at any respectable abortion clinic.
> 
> Do you think they stick a fucking blender up a woman's uterus to get rid of the fetus? Once the fetus is viable to survive outside of the womb (inside a NICU for example) any abortion is literally just being introduced either via medicine that causes the water to break and a natural birth to be performed or via c-section. The then born baby is stuck into the NICU and the date of birth is noted down.


If a baby is born, it is no longer called an abortion.


RAHelllord said:


> The only doctors that kill the child in a case where this is possible will lose their medical license in every single place abortion is illegal.
> 
> Hell, even if the fetus dies in the uterus it's still just either getting born normally (via induced medical birth or naturally induced), or c-section.
> 
> This is literally the most basic knowledge about pregnancies and termination thereof that exists. The only deviations happen when there are further complications for the health of the woman and if the fetus is proven unviable.


Say you've never heard of partial birth abortions without saying you've never heard of partial birth abortions.


RAHelllord said:


> This needs so many [Citations Needed] it's like an entry on encyclopedia dramatica.
> Also, the left perfectly represents more than 60% of the population in the US, your far right beliefs are fringe everywhere but in rural areas.


Provide your own citations that the left "perfectly represents more than 60% of the population. If that was true, Democrats would win every single election by landslides.


RAHelllord said:


> Man you are going to hate our already existing ability to make functioning embryos out of two unfertilized female eggs, one unfertilized female egg, and soon out of just a sperm.
> 
> A fetus is not a person precisely because the brain isn't developed enough to actually function beyond basic response stimuli, as well as that it can't survive outside of the womb until after the second trimester. You, as a person, only exist because you have consciousness and are, at large, an independent being. Hence why you can be pronounced dead once your brain stops working beyond a certain threshold.


So you admit that the difference between a fetus and a baby is location. Finally, somebody admits it.

How do you know that fetuses do not have consciousness? Is there a study proving this? Sounds a little religiony to me.


RAHelllord said:


> With a fetus this point where it's capable of supporting itself enough to function independently for nothing but basic survival (heart beat, basic breathing reflex) is only achieved late into the pregnancy. Before that point it's a clump of cells, and if unwanted should be free to remove based on the mother's wishes, after that point the law already makes it clear that the fetus will be born early and placed into an NICU where the child can then grow safely until it's able to be part of the outside world. An abortion after the fetus is viable for basic survival in a NICU is always a birth.


Infants can't support themselves independently either. They need to be breast fed. I was even having to feed my kids solid food because baby's eye/hand coordination is still developing.


RAHelllord said:


> As an aside, the "stronger immune system" can kill woman and often directly leads to the loss of the fetus as it can trigger a cascade reaction that destroys enough of the placenta that the scarring prevents nutrient uptake.


Abortions can kill women too and they have.


RAHelllord said:


> The woman's body will "do whatever it takes to protect the life growing inside of her" because the fetus's hormones override the mother's in large swaths. In fact, did you know the uterus is actually testing the embryo for viability and is happily killing them if able to? The only blastocysts that successfully implant are the ones capable of overcoming the immune system of the mother, by force. The mother's immune system has to be manually rewritten to allow the blastocyst to attach, and stay attached. There is a reason an estimated


Imagine nature doing what it is supposed to be doing. Wow, what a revelation.


RAHelllord said:


> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25356087/
> 
> An estimated 50% of all pregnancies are terminated naturally by the mother's body, many won't even know they had a pregnancy starting because it fails shortly after implantation of the embryo. Your assertion that it's "symbiotic" is naively outdated.


Got any sauce for that stat? So because miscarriages happen, it's ok to force miscarriages? That's like saying people die naturally so murder is ok. My assertion is outdated by whom? You? 

I can't even take you seriously since you think babies are a parasite. The classic leftist fascist argument of dehumanizing people in order to kill them. Reminds me of that short German guy with the funny mustache who used to yell and shake his fists all the time.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Judging by the lack of any real data and evidence in reply to your post I'm going to assume that anti-choicers don't have any real arguments against your positions that aren't emotional.



Anti-choicers aren't even real, man.  You mean pro-choice.  Their choice.  So disrespectful, referring to yourself as a third party.

(that's a real pearl btw.)


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 17, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Judging by the lack of any real data and evidence in reply to your post I'm going to assume that anti-choicers don't have any real arguments against your positions that aren't emotional.


As usual.


tabzer said:


> Or...?


Truly, we are dealing with a master of the english language here.


tabzer said:


> You assume high confidence trumps your lack of an argument.  I don't accept.


Says the person whose only arguments are emotion and bluster, with calls to unsubstantiated superiority.


tabzer said:


> Oh.  You are calling me a clown now.  Is that the same as an impressionist?  Don't care.
> 
> "Hi, I'm RAHelllllord.  Please take me seriously.  Being human is unpleasant.  Grrr."
> 
> Did I do good?


Almost, there is an "around you" missing in the center of the second to last sentence.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> Truly, we are dealing with a master of the english language here.



You're welcome.



RAHelllord said:


> Says the person whose only arguments are emotion and bluster, with calls to unsubstantiated superiority.



Nah.  "Parasite" is not a proper description of a fetus.  It's by your suggestion that the scientific description is the superior one.  Leave me out of it.



RAHelllord said:


> Almost, there is an "around you" missing in the center of the second to last sentence.



Like shit, did you think that was funny?

Someone is running out of stamina.

I'm winning.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 17, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> Says the person whose only arguments are emotion and bluster, with calls to unsubstantiated superiority.


Yeah he's kind of a wet fart intellectually. He just comes to the thread to get mad I think.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 17, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Yeah he's kind of a wet fart intellectually. He just comes to the thread to get mad I think.



Haha, you said wet fart.  I've seen you attempt to adopt my prose in threads where you thought I wouldn't see.

I know you are afraid of me.

Don't be.  I'll happily adopt you and show you the way.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 17, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Conservatives want women to be baby producing factories. They want to artificially raise the population so they can have more soldiers to send to war.


actually half right they want mor women to produce them for molestation by them 



another one
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/30/republicans-gop-party-children-abuse

and another one
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ts-talk-about-republicans-and-sex-crimes.html

even more (some may be duplicates)

#6
https://constantinereport.com/handy-list-republican-sex-offenders/
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...an-Sexual-Predators-Abusers-and-Enablers-Pt-1
https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1709387
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/Reasonable/GOPimmorality.html
https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-democrats-sexual-misconduct-trump-715837
https://www.ranker.com/list/republican-sex-scandals/web-infoguy

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october172007/repub_scandals_10_17_07.php
https://whyweprotest.net/threads/handy-list-of-american-republican-party-sex-offenders.125246/


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 17, 2022)

chrisrlink said:


> actually half right they want mor women to produce them for molestation by them
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What a surprise that the party of "family values," in fact, loathes families.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Like shit, did you think that was funny?
> 
> Someone is running out of stamina.
> 
> I'm winning.


No, I was thinking it would be simple enough to be understood by yourself because everything else wasn't. Evidently I succeeded.

You sure are winning little wiggum, you sure are.


TraderPatTX said:


> If a baby is born, it is no longer called an abortion.


Right, right wing vocabulary only. I meant to say instead of aborting the fetus after it's viable to survive outside the womb it is instead prematurely delivered if possible.


TraderPatTX said:


> Say you've never heard of partial birth abortions without saying you've never heard of partial birth abortions.


That's an entirely political term, and not a medical one. It's also been regarded as actual infanticide by most abortion providers since before it was banned in the US, and thus was only very rarely offered as an option.


TraderPatTX said:


> Provide your own citations that the left "perfectly represents more than 60% of the population. If that was true, Democrats would win every single election by landslides.


It's called political polls, you can read them online directly from the polling places and suddenly the numbers will be different than what you see on Fox, OAN, or your other favorite right wing source.

Also there's a difference between ideological leanings and party affiliation.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publ...n-50-years-ago-but-change-not-reflected-.html

The above is a link, intended as a source of a claim, you should click it and read it. This information will be relevant in a few more minutes, too.


TraderPatTX said:


> So you admit that the difference between a fetus and a baby is location. Finally, somebody admits it.
> 
> How do you know that fetuses do not have consciousness? Is there a study proving this? Sounds a little religiony to me.


It's called scientific research, they release papers on their research occasionally, highly recommended to peruse.


TraderPatTX said:


> Infants can't support themselves independently either. They need to be breast fed. I was even having to feed my kids solid food because baby's eye/hand coordination is still developing.


I know words are scary but I literally defined my criteria for basic survival for you, independent heart beat and breathing. Did you have to give constant CPR to your kid for the first two years?
I even went further than that and acknowledged help by a breathing apparatus is also already acceptable, pushing the age of viability down even further, to around 24 weeks after conception.
This, of course, also includes feeding the baby inside the NICU, I'm not expecting it to go to the cantina for food.

So congratulations, you had to read 112 words and you failed spectacularly.


TraderPatTX said:


> Abortions can kill women too and they have.


Abortions are 14 times as safe as bringing a pregnancy to term. Out of 100,000 abortions performed in the US only 0.7 have a deadly outcome, compared to about 17.2 maternal deaths for births.

Stats are for 2019, from the CDC.


TraderPatTX said:


> Imagine nature doing what it is supposed to be doing. Wow, what a revelation.


Imagine thinking that's what a symbiotic relationship is. Wow, what a revelation about the state of your education.


TraderPatTX said:


> Got any sauce for that stat? So because miscarriages happen, it's ok to force miscarriages? That's like saying people die naturally so murder is ok. My assertion is outdated by whom? You?


This is the part where the information I asked you to keep in mind comes into play. You know, the source link? Because I have in fact already supplied the source to you.
It's called the "link I pasted above the sentence you quoted and ignored". If the paper is too hard to read for you check the abstract?


TraderPatTX said:


> I can't even take you seriously since you think babies are a parasite. The classic leftist fascist argument of dehumanizing people in order to kill them. Reminds me of that short German guy with the funny mustache who used to yell and shake his fists all the time.


> leftist fascis

So not only do you not know what fascism is, you're also only able to regurgitate talking points you caught on fox news, OAN, or info wars.

The state of the US education is amazing. In the biblical sense.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 17, 2022)

To any morons still making the argument that you can be "leftist fascist,"

To be a leftist, you would need to support leftist ideas, such as the public ownership of the means of production, and social welfare policies while rejecting ideas like racism or rigid social castes and structures that result in oppression. Democracy by design is a leftist position.

To be a fascist, you would need to support a central party that controls the economy, state, and culture, that suppresses things like immigration, interracial marriage, and seeks to alienate an entire group of people from culture at a whole. You don't have to collapse in less than 150 years like almost every fascist nation in history but it sure helps! 

Leftism is largely focused on global trade and personal liberties, whereas fascism is focused on exclusionary immigration policies (if there's immigration at all) and the restriction of everyone but an arbitrarily assigned in-group, while scapegoating all faults of your nation on the arbitrarily assigned out-group.

In conclusion. You cannot be left and fascist. You are either a fascist, or you are not. It's like saying you can be "anarcho fascist," which I'm sure given some time these braindead dipshits will try to argue unironically exists as an ideology.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 17, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> In conclusion. You cannot be left and fascist. You are either a fascist, or you are not. It's like saying you can be "anarcho fascist," which I'm sure given some time these braindead dipshits will try to argue unironically exists as an ideology.


Like ancaps and Ayn Rand flavored libertarians: they're just right wingers with delusions.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 18, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> To any morons still making the argument that you can be "leftist fascist,"
> 
> To be a leftist, you would need to support leftist ideas, such as the public ownership of the means of production, and social welfare policies while rejecting ideas like racism or rigid social castes and structures that result in oppression. Democracy by design is a leftist position.
> 
> ...



Nice manifesto.  Most self-proclaimed "leftists" voted Biden.  So functionally, the colloquialism of "leftist" is someone who is full of shit.  You need a new word for that ideology you don't have the backbone to support.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 18, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> Right, right wing vocabulary only. I meant to say instead of aborting the fetus after it's viable to survive outside the womb it is instead prematurely delivered if possible.


Not sure how that is right wing vocabulary, but ok.


RAHelllord said:


> That's an entirely political term, and not a medical one. It's also been regarded as actual infanticide by most abortion providers since before it was banned in the US, and thus was only very rarely offered as an option.


I'm old enough to remember when the left used to say they wanted abortion itself to be rare. Now not so much.


RAHelllord said:


> It's called political polls, you can read them online directly from the polling places and suddenly the numbers will be different than what you see on Fox, OAN, or your other favorite right wing source.


Imagine thinking that Fox is a right wing news source, lol. You do know who is in the executive suites at Fox, right?


RAHelllord said:


> Also there's a difference between ideological leanings and party affiliation.
> 
> https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publ...n-50-years-ago-but-change-not-reflected-.html
> 
> ...


You've shown you've never read a scientific research paper.


RAHelllord said:


> I know words are scary but I literally defined my criteria for basic survival for you, independent heart beat and breathing. Did you have to give constant CPR to your kid for the first two years?
> I even went further than that and acknowledged help by a breathing apparatus is also already acceptable, pushing the age of viability down even further, to around 24 weeks after conception.
> This, of course, also includes feeding the baby inside the NICU, I'm not expecting it to go to the cantina for food.
> 
> So congratulations, you had to read 112 words and you failed spectacularly.


Independent heart beat starts at 6 weeks. All you did was defined your criteria, which doesn't amount to a lot. If a person is not physically able to go get food, do you just starve them because they can't meet your criteria for basic survival? You come across as a person who really hates people with disabilities.


RAHelllord said:


> Abortions are 14 times as safe as bringing a pregnancy to term. Out of 100,000 abortions performed in the US only 0.7 have a deadly outcome, compared to about 17.2 maternal deaths for births.


Abortions are 100% not safe for the baby. You know, the person who has no say. Doesn't matter if they are minority, women, or gay. The left just wants to kill them. Bonus points if the baby has a disability. See below.


RAHelllord said:


> > leftist fascis
> 
> So not only do you not know what fascism is, you're also only able to regurgitate talking points you caught on fox news, OAN, or info wars.


Fascists supported abortions for minorities and those with disabilities, gun control for their enemies, high taxes, centralized government control of large corporations. Who does that sound like?


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 18, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Fascists supported abortions for minorities and those with disabilities


Except also Fascist disabled abortions for the majority, so what does that sound like? Because facists selectively choose who get's aborted and who doesn't, at a state level. There was *no choice*
because right now, your trying to support removing the *choice* to have an abortion at all.


TraderPatTX said:


> The left just wants to kill them.


No, the right just wants to *force* people into what they want. The left would prefer to leave a choice.


TraderPatTX said:


> Imagine thinking that Fox is a right wing news source, lol. You do know who is in the executive suites at Fox, right?


Dude... holy shit. Fox is right wing. The only reason they stopped being "right wing" in your book is because they briefly stopped dick sucking dear leader. Remember when they reported that a state was going to go the democrats, and got blasted for it? and then same exact state, did infact go to democrats?



TraderPatTX said:


> I'm old enough to remember when the left used to say they wanted abortion itself to be rare. Now not so much.


Again, your brainwashed, the left *doesn't* want abortions. *They want a choice*
Leftists don't answer the abortion argument in "yes or no". That everyone has to have an abortion, or that everyone shouldn't have one. They answer with "Everyone has *THE CHOICE* to an abortion"
it's is the mother, not the state or government's right to choose that decision. something you are saying the government does have right to. And that is the reason we heavily object.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 18, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Except also Fascist disabled abortions for the majority, so what does that sound like? Because facists selectively choose who get's aborted and who doesn't, at a state level. There was *no choice*
> because right now, your trying to support removing the *choice* to have an abortion at all.


It sounds like selective abortions. I'd like to give the baby a choice. The right to life supersedes all other rights.


Nothereed said:


> No, the right just wants to *force* people into what they want. The left would prefer to leave a choice.


We're just not fans of killing babies. Maybe you are, but I'm not.


Nothereed said:


> Dude... holy shit. Fox is right wing. The only reason they stopped being "right wing" in your book is because they briefly stopped dick sucking dear leader. Remember when they reported that a state was going to go the democrats, and got blasted for it? and then same exact state, did infact go to democrats?


90% of J-school students are leftists. Do you honestly believe that Fox News hired from the 10%? You do realize that would be illegal, right?


Nothereed said:


> Again, your brainwashed, the left *doesn't* want abortions. *They want a choice*
> Leftists don't answer the abortion argument in "yes or no". That everyone has to have an abortion, or that everyone shouldn't have one. They answer with "Everyone has *THE CHOICE* to an abortion"
> it's is the mother, not the state or government's right to choose that decision. something you are saying the government does have right to. And that is the reason we heavily object.


So firebombing pregnancy centers so women's only choice is abortion is not a leftist position?

Even mother's shouldn't be able to just kill their babies. Fathers can't do it so I'm just looking for equal rights and making sure everybody has the right to life.

The government's main objective is protecting rights and the right to life is the most important since you don't need the right to free speech if you are dead.

If you think the right to life is not important, that's on you and you should really look inward to yourself. Something's not right there.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 18, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> So firebombing pregnancy centers so women's only choice is abortion is not a leftist position?


*WE WANT WOMEN TO CHOOSE IT IS THEIR CHOICE*
So no, we wouldn't support firebombing a pregnancy center.
It's the women's choice, or whoever may have the godamn organs for a womb and reproduce.
It particularly pisses me off that you would even *dare* to make that accusation, when your side made a fucking *bomb threat *on a children's hospital because of false pretenses *your side made up*


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 18, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Even mother's shouldn't be able to just kill their babies. Fathers can't do it so I'm just looking for equal rights and making sure everybody has the right to life.


That's... *holy fuck*
I am about to pop a gasket. I am outraged by how bullshit you are being with your claims.

No, mothers DON'T want to kill their "babies"
They aren't putting a fucking gun to a 1 year old and go "time to die now, I don't want you anymore"

They specifically, choose to prevent the child from happening at all as early as possible. If they don't want a baby, the remove it as early as possible. earliest stage possible. No late stage abortions, no fucking 9months go by and suddenly you don't want the kid anymore.
Mothers have the right to know they are pregent, and they reserve the right to act on it as early as they learn about it. If they choose they don't want to carry to terms, which they commonly know by week 12. *then it's their choice and nobody elses*
It's not your choice, it's not my choice, it's not the goverment/state's choice. And *nothing* will change my mind on that.

Choosing that every women has to give birth, because *you say so* is fucking disgusting.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 18, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It sounds like selective abortions. I'd like to give the baby a choice. The right to life supersedes all other rights.


a fetus cannot choose for itself. It's ludicrous to fucking choose that a fetus has the right over the mother when it cannot even make such a decision. Your using it as an excuse to defend that you just want women to give birth. And I am Livid by how fucking malicious your trying to be trying to hide behind such an argument.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 18, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I'm old enough to remember when the left used to say they wanted abortion itself to be rare. Now not so much.


I'm old enough to remember when the right still remembered that easy access to contraceptions qnd comprehensive health and sexual education reduced abortions drastically, but has then shifted to an abstinence only teaching and now more unwanted pregnancies are on the rise.
Your side creates and perpetuates the problems you complain about.


TraderPatTX said:


> Imagine thinking that Fox is a right wing news source, lol. You do know who is in the executive suites at Fox, right?


Yes, the Murdoch family who is very open about their right wing affiliation, political right wing efforts around the globe, and has openly stated to support Trump. But this is all just freely available public information so I can't expect you to know that.


TraderPatTX said:


> You've shown you've never read a scientific research paper.


Wow, what a comeback from the guy unable to click links.


TraderPatTX said:


> Independent heart beat starts at 6 weeks. All you did was defined your criteria, which doesn't amount to a lot. If a person is not physically able to go get food, do you just starve them because they can't meet your criteria for basic survival? You come across as a person who really hates people with disabilities.


Man, I can't write in crayon in here so I can't make this any more simple for the likes of you. Assisted feeding is not deal breaker for independence. Also at six weeks the embryo doesn't have a heart, that development barely starts at 6 weeks with the initial muscle and pacemaker forming then, and after it takes another six weeks before the actual heart is formed and able to pump blood.

Again, maybe learn about the thing you talk before talking about them.

Also no, I don't hate people with disabilities just because I don't consider fetuses as people before they have all organs necessary to actually survive with assistance outside of a womb, but to someone like you that's apparently the same as hating people with disabilities.


TraderPatTX said:


> Abortions are 100% not safe for the baby. You know, the person who has no say. Doesn't matter if they are minority, women, or gay. The left just wants to kill them. Bonus points if the baby has a disability. See below.


Wow, what an emotional jump you've done from "we want the mother to have a choice" to "the left wants mandatory eugenics". You are truly a definitely not an emotional snowflake having nothing but reasonable arguments.


TraderPatTX said:


> Fascists supported abortions for minorities and those with disabilities, gun control for their enemies, high taxes, centralized government control of large corporations. Who does that sound like?


That's not how fascism is defined, great job at literally failing yet another simple definition.


TraderPatTX said:


> It sounds like selective abortions. I'd like to give the baby a choice. The right to life supersedes all other rights.


Bodily autonomy supersedes the right to life, because if you don't own yourself you own nothing, not even your own life. Which is what you're taking from woman by pretending to be "pro-life" for banning abortions. Domestic violence increases against woman carrying unwanted pregnancies, often leading to miscarriages due to abuse or death of the woman outright, but hey that's fine because the mother's life is worth less than the fetus to you people.


TraderPatTX said:


> We're just not fans of killing babies. Maybe you are, but I'm not.


Fetuses aren't babies.


TraderPatTX said:


> So firebombing pregnancy centers so women's only choice is abortion is not a leftist position?


The right wing has been terrorizing planned parenthood clinics, killing their doctors, and bombed their hospitals for decades now. But yes, it's definitely the left doing it, even though all stats from the fbi and CIA all only ever point towards the extreme right.


TraderPatTX said:


> Even mother's shouldn't be able to just kill their babies. Fathers can't do it so I'm just looking for equal rights and making sure everybody has the right to life.


Only one of the two parents has to give up their body's autonomy to allow an embryo to develop into a baby. Hint: it's not the father. So we have an unequal amount of responsibility and thus an unequal amount of right to consider.


TraderPatTX said:


> The government's main objective is protecting rights and the right to life is the most important since you don't need the right to free speech if you are dead.


Because bodily autonomy is just not a right worth having? As long as you're kept alive it's okay to do with your body what others want against your will? How about the government forces you into a small holding cell, gives you a PDA so you can still talk with others, then keeps you around for forced organ transplantion and blood donations. You're kept alive and you're allowed to talk, boom, all your most important criteria are covered and you should be happy. Right?


TraderPatTX said:


> If you think the right to life is not important, that's on you and you should really look inward to yourself. Something's not right there.


The woman's right to her own life and body is equally important as the right to life of the fetus, and yet that still means if the woman doesn't want to nourish a life inside her body it is her choice, and that fetus has to leave that body. Until medicine progresses far enough that we can implant fetuses inside artificial wombs and allow them to grow there a necessary complication will be that the fetus will not be able to grow further and instead perish. But the mother's rights may not be infringed upon by anyone, not by any other person and especially not by a fetus that doesn't even have a heart to pump blood with or a brain to support a breathing reflex.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 18, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> The woman's right to her own life and body is equally important as the right to life of the fetus, and yet that still means if the woman doesn't want to nourish a life inside her body it is her choice, and that fetus has to leave that body.



It sounds like you don't think a woman should be expected to take responsibility and maintain a life she brings into existence, to any degree.  How sustainable is that in reality?


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 18, 2022)

tabzer said:


> After reading what you wrote, I started shaking.  I got outraged.  I couldn't believe it.
> 
> But then, you know, I actually read the article.
> 
> ...


I can understand your position, but it's not really a strong argument. More like politico is trying to give Republicans as much leeway as possible without actually lying.

@Nothereed isn't objective either, but is nonetheless directly on point. If Republicans are really all about states having the final say, then Graham's doing SHOULD actually stun Republicans. Not this weak "welp... That's just like his opinion. You should ask him" from the senate leader. "most would like this handled at state level" might be true, but this 'majority' seem rather quiet about someone going directly against what the party is about.
Otherwise said: politico isn't doing much to indicate their own article header is correct.

Edit: nevermind. Hadn't seen that this thread is eight pages, and hasn't read the article in detail. I withdraw my reply.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 18, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It sounds like you don't think a woman should be expected to take responsibility and maintain a life she brings into existence, to any degree.  How sustainable is that in reality?


Ah yes, "how we will sustain the species if woman aren't forced to make babies???". Do you listen to yourself at all or is your internal monologue just a constant white noise?

It is very sustainable if you realize that the only abortions are of unwanted pregnancies or pregnancies dangerous to the woman. Plenty woman want to have children even with abortions, and the quality of child rearing increases dramatically if the woman are able to decide when the right time is to raise a baby.
But this just in, the woman will know for herself when the best time to do so is, and thus it should be their choice, not anyone else's.
And no, having sex and then getting pregnant on accident is not an excuse to "take responsibility" by forcing her to bring the embryo to term, it is nobody's business to determine why the pregnancy occured, the service should be offered without interference by government or zealous religious beliefs.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 18, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> Ah yes, "how we will sustain the species if woman aren't forced to make babies???". Do you listen to yourself at all or is your internal monologue just a constant white noise?
> 
> It is very sustainable if you realize that the only abortions are of unwanted pregnancies or pregnancies dangerous to the woman. Plenty woman want to have children even with abortions, and the quality of child rearing increases dramatically if the woman are able to decide when the right time is to raise a baby.
> But this just in, the woman will know for herself when the best time to do so is, and thus it should be their choice, not anyone else's.
> And no, having sex and then getting pregnant on accident is not an excuse to "take responsibility" by forcing her to bring the embryo to term, it is nobody's business to determine why the pregnancy occured, the service should be offered without interference by government or zealous religious beliefs.


Lol.  Are you responding to something I said?

See, this is why I don't have to suggest that you are crazy or unhinged.  You flaunt it.

If you think that mankind, in its natural state, does not need social pressure to do what is moral, then why are you advocating policy at all?

If you want to try to respond to what I said, and only what I said, it'd be appreciated.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 18, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Lol.  Are you responding to something I said?
> 
> See, this is why I don't have to suggest that you are crazy or unhinged.  You flaunt it.
> 
> ...


Nah mate, when you cherry pick a single part of my text and use it out of context to push your own narrative, I will put the context I provided back in. You don't get to pick and chose as it suits your needs and then pretend it stands in a vacuum.

The reply you got from me is the only one you deserve.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 18, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> Nah mate, when you cherry pick a single part of my text and use it out of context to push your own narrative, I will put the context I provided back in. You don't get to pick and chose as it suits your needs and then pretend it stands in a vacuum.
> 
> The reply you got from me is the only one you deserve.



Cherry pick?  I'm not suggesting that the rest of your text is flat out false because I voice a scruple.  That's entirely your own insecurity talking.  If you feel like the context was assumed on my part, you can feel free to point out where you already provided the foresight.  I honestly think you did not provide such thing.  I tried finding it.  I think you are just projecting buddy.

I like that you aren't hiding your desire dole out judgement though.

You are such a great guy.



RAHelllord said:


> You don't get to pick and chose as it suits your needs and then pretend it stands in a vacuum.



Haha.  What does that mean?  Pretend you are an English teacher.

It'd be insightful to everyone watching if you could answer the question though:

If you think that mankind, in its natural state, does not need social pressure to do what is moral, then why are you advocating policy at all?

Maybe you aren't as grounded as you think.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 18, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> *WE WANT WOMEN TO CHOOSE IT IS THEIR CHOICE*
> So no, we wouldn't support firebombing a pregnancy center.
> It's the women's choice, or whoever may have the godamn organs for a womb and reproduce.
> It particularly pisses me off that you would even *dare* to make that accusation, when your side made a fucking *bomb threat *on a children's hospital because of false pretenses *your side made up*


Then it should really piss you off that the bomb threat was a hoax by a leftist. It amazes me that the left keeps falling for these clickbait news stories. When will you ever learn?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catherine-leavy-arrested-hoax-bomb-threat-boston-childrens-hospital/


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 18, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> a fetus cannot choose for itself. It's ludicrous to fucking choose that a fetus has the right over the mother when it cannot even make such a decision. Your using it as an excuse to defend that you just want women to give birth. And I am Livid by how fucking malicious your trying to be trying to hide behind such an argument.


Just because somebody doesn't have a voice does not mean their voice does not matter. Makes me wonder how you feel about the mentally handicapped who cannot speak or interact with people. Do they not have a voice either? Should they just be executed because they have no voice? That is the leftist fascist way after all.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 18, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> I'm old enough to remember when the right still remembered that easy access to contraceptions qnd comprehensive health and sexual education reduced abortions drastically, but has then shifted to an abstinence only teaching and now more unwanted pregnancies are on the rise.
> Your side creates and perpetuates the problems you complain about.


You can buy the pill for $9 a month a WalMart. How much easier do you need it to be? Are you saying that women are too dumb to accomplish this easy feat?


RAHelllord said:


> Yes, the Murdoch family who is very open about their right wing affiliation, political right wing efforts around the globe, and has openly stated to support Trump. But this is all just freely available public information so I can't expect you to know that.


The kids are not right wing, but ok.


RAHelllord said:


> Wow, what a comeback from the guy unable to click links.
> 
> Man, I can't write in crayon in here so I can't make this any more simple for the likes of you. Assisted feeding is not deal breaker for independence. Also at six weeks the embryo doesn't have a heart, that development barely starts at 6 weeks with the initial muscle and pacemaker forming then, and after it takes another six weeks before the actual heart is formed and able to pump blood.


Your arguments are dumb. You want unfettered access to kill as many babies as possible.


RAHelllord said:


> Again, maybe learn about the thing you talk before talking about them.
> 
> Also no, I don't hate people with disabilities just because I don't consider fetuses as people before they have all organs necessary to actually survive with assistance outside of a womb, but to someone like you that's apparently the same as hating people with disabilities.


By your logic, anybody who doesn't have a perfect working body deserves to be killed.


RAHelllord said:


> Wow, what an emotional jump you've done from "we want the mother to have a choice" to "the left wants mandatory eugenics". You are truly a definitely not an emotional snowflake having nothing but reasonable arguments.
> 
> That's not how fascism is defined, great job at literally failing yet another simple definition.


It's not how you define fascism. Doesn't mean it's not the right definition.


RAHelllord said:


> Bodily autonomy supersedes the right to life, because if you don't own yourself you own nothing, not even your own life. Which is what you're taking from woman by pretending to be "pro-life" for banning abortions. Domestic violence increases against woman carrying unwanted pregnancies, often leading to miscarriages due to abuse or death of the woman outright, but hey that's fine because the mother's life is worth less than the fetus to you people.
> 
> Fetuses aren't babies.


What are they then because genetically, they are the same.


RAHelllord said:


> The right wing has been terrorizing planned parenthood clinics, killing their doctors, and bombed their hospitals for decades now. But yes, it's definitely the left doing it, even though all stats from the fbi and CIA all only ever point towards the extreme right.


The FBI is having to make up white supremacy crimes to pad their stats. You should check out the whistleblowers coming forward, but that would mean you'd have to leave your little echo chamber.

Also, Planned Parenthood got caught admitting on camera to selling baby parts, which is illegal.


RAHelllord said:


> Only one of the two parents has to give up their body's autonomy to allow an embryo to develop into a baby. Hint: it's not the father. So we have an unequal amount of responsibility and thus an unequal amount of right to consider.


Damn Mother Gaia and her perfect designs. Didn't peg you to be a nature hater.


RAHelllord said:


> Because bodily autonomy is just not a right worth having? As long as you're kept alive it's okay to do with your body what others want against your will? How about the government forces you into a small holding cell, gives you a PDA so you can still talk with others, then keeps you around for forced organ transplantion and blood donations. You're kept alive and you're allowed to talk, boom, all your most important criteria are covered and you should be happy. Right?


What's the point of bodily autonomy if you are dead? Hence why the right to life comes before any other right. Not sure why you people are struggling with this concept.


RAHelllord said:


> The woman's right to her own life and body is equally important as the right to life of the fetus, and yet that still means if the woman doesn't want to nourish a life inside her body it is her choice, and that fetus has to leave that body. Until medicine progresses far enough that we can implant fetuses inside artificial wombs and allow them to grow there a necessary complication will be that the fetus will not be able to grow further and instead perish. But the mother's rights may not be infringed upon by anyone, not by any other person and especially not by a fetus that doesn't even have a heart to pump blood with or a brain to support a breathing reflex.


The left seems to really care about women's bodies, unless that woman is a baby, then all bets are off. Just rip that sonbitch out limb from limb, amirite comrade?


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 18, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Then it should really piss you off that the bomb threat was a hoax by a leftist. It amazes me that the left keeps falling for these clickbait news stories. When will you ever learn?
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catherine-leavy-arrested-hoax-bomb-threat-boston-childrens-hospital/


She's a leftist that donated to Trump's campaign?

https://heavy.com/news/catherine-leavy-boston-childrens-hospital-suspect/

Man, you people really have no critical thinking skills whatsoever.


TraderPatTX said:


> You can buy the pill for $9 a month a WalMart. How much easier do you need it to be? Are you saying that women are too dumb to accomplish this easy feat?
> 
> The kids are not right wing, but ok.
> 
> ...


Literally everything in this response is either wrong or misinformed. The pill isn't perfect, not every woman can use it due to allergies or side effects. The kids don't run the company. Fetuses aren't people, in the same way that "just because it has human DNA" doesn't make it a person. Fascism has a very rigid definition and yours ain't it, by your definition Mussolini's fascist party wasn't fascist. The FBI doesn't make up crime statistics in the way you think they do, right wing violence is still underreported and even then it far exceeds left wing violence in the US. Planned Parenthood doesn't sell baby parts (https://oversight.house.gov/planned-parenthood-fact-v-fiction).


TraderPatTX said:


> By your logic, anybody who doesn't have a perfect working body deserves to be killed.


This is the third time you have completely managed to miss what I said and instead substituted your own meaning based on your emotions. I have explicitly said three separate times that outside aid is acceptable and yet you ignore that.

Does it hurt your feelings when you have no argument to present beyond screaming in rage that fetuses are supposedly babies when they can't even sustain their own life with all the medical advances we've already made?


TraderPatTX said:


> What's the point of bodily autonomy if you are dead? Hence why the right to life comes before any other right. Not sure why you people are struggling with this concept.


So you're okay being forced to donate your organs and blood for other people based on the metric that it might save the life of someone else?


TraderPatTX said:


> The left seems to really care about women's bodies, unless that woman is a baby, then all bets are off. Just rip that sonbitch out limb from limb, amirite comrade?


Fetuses aren't babies, in the same way that ingredients for a cake aren't a cake, or how feelings on something don't translate into becoming facts. You and your ilk are the only ones equating abortions with infanticide, and yet even your favorite bible gave instructions on how to perform an abortion, and considers life to only begin at the first breath.

But hey, that doesn't help your narrative just like all the other things your favorite prophet said, like helping the poor freely with food and housing.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 18, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Just because somebody doesn't have a voice does not mean their voice does not matter. Makes me wonder how you feel about the mentally handicapped who cannot speak or interact with people


Seriously?
Fetus's don't have a (develop-ish)brain. Not even enough for a breathing reflex. Infact. It doesn't even feel pain until week 15. Which people get abortions by week 12.
https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/
A disabled person can think.  even if they can't speak. Even if that person also thinks differently or process's things differently.
Stop trying to use other people as meat shields for your own bad arguments.

And secondly, how about you ask about the lives that exist now. Because ultimately it is up to them to if they want to bring lives into the future. Not your forced authoritarian bullshit.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 18, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> I have explicitly said three separate times that outside aid is acceptable and yet you ignore that.



As acceptable as not having an abortion?

Seems to be consistent, at least, but you are avoiding the question of what kind of social obligation should be expected of those in the position to support them.

Should a woman be expected to take responsibility and maintain a life she brings into existence, to any degree?  If so, what?


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 18, 2022)

tabzer said:


> As acceptable as not having an abortion?
> 
> Seems to be consistent, at least, but you are avoiding the question of what kind of social obligation should be expected of those in the position to support them.
> 
> Should a woman be expected to take responsibility and maintain a life she brings into existence, to any degree?  If so, what?


You already got my answer. If that doesn't answer your question go read it again.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 19, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> You already got my answer. If that doesn't answer your question go read it again.



You answered that it is sustainable for a woman not to be expected to take responsibility and maintain a life she brings into existence, to any degree.  

So you don't think women _*should *_take care of their children and handicapped people _*should *_be cared for?

It just appears that you are disguising your degeneracy as virtue and avoiding answering questions that reveal your nihilism.


----------



## SScorpio (Sep 19, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Seriously?
> Fetus's don't have a (develop-ish)brain. Not even enough for a breathing reflex. Infact. It doesn't even feel pain until week 15. Which people get abortions by week 12.
> https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/


Your link says it's possible they feel pain as early as 12 weeks. And medical science used to say infants couldn't comprehend pain because they can't articulate it to anyone. So they perform surgery on them without anesthetics or painkillers.

It's also generally somewhere in the 10-12 weeks that fetuses have the normal shape of a baby rather than looking like a random clump of cells. This is why prolifers have fought and sometimes won the requirement of an ultrasound before having an abortion. Many women have changed their minds after staring reality in the face versus having dehumanizing language parroted at them.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 19, 2022)

There is a *belief *that the ability to think and feel are a biproduct of cell structure where it is possible that by thinking and feeling such cell structures is created.

I'd rather err on the side of caution, personally.


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 19, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You answered that it is sustainable for a woman not to be expected to take responsibility and maintain a life she brings into existence, to any degree.
> 
> So you don't think women _*should *_take care of their children and handicapped people _*should *_be cared for?
> 
> It just appears that you are disguising your degeneracy as virtue and avoiding answering questions that reveal your nihilism.


This reply here is perfect proof that you can't comprehend even basic language and have little to no ability to actually comprehend complex problems with any noteworthy degree of nuance.

Because that is not at all what I've said, and you'd be able to know that if only you could read past a 3rd grade English level.


----------



## tabzer (Sep 19, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> This reply here is perfect proof that you can't comprehend even basic language and have little to no ability to actually comprehend complex problems with any noteworthy degree of nuance.
> 
> Because that is not at all what I've said, and you'd be able to know that if only you could read past a 3rd grade English level.



You could correct me if I am wrong.  You are the one that suggested that you already "answered" the question.  Keep hiding, furry.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 19, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> She's a leftist that donated to Trump's campaign?
> 
> https://heavy.com/news/catherine-leavy-boston-childrens-hospital-suspect/
> 
> ...


Keep dehumanizing people in order to kill them. Make sure to do 10 "Heil Hitler's" before going to bed each night.

You will be going on ignore. Congrats.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 19, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Keep dehumanizing people in order to kill them. Make sure to do 10 "Heil Hitler's" before going to bed each night.
> 
> You will be going on ignore. Congrats.


Ah, I see. Bodily autonomy makes you "LITERALLY HITLER!!". Grow up, lmao.


----------



## City (Sep 19, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Ah, I see. Bodily autonomy makes you "LITERALLY HITLER!!". Grow up, lmao.


​


----------



## sombrerosonic (Sep 19, 2022)

Is it me or are most of these threads made my the left leaning people.......


----------



## RAHelllord (Sep 19, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You could correct me if I am wrong.  You are the one that suggested that you already "answered" the question.  Keep hiding, furry.


They do say mimicry is the highest form of flattery, I'm glad you found out how reactions work.

I'm not hiding anything, the answer is there in plain sight and your inability to understand it is of no concern to me. Now I won't be repeating myself so if you want more attention go get it somewhere else.


TraderPatTX said:


> Keep dehumanizing people in order to kill them. Make sure to do 10 "Heil Hitler's" before going to bed each night.
> 
> You will be going on ignore. Congrats.


Love how you didn't even attempt hiding you got called out your misinformation on every single aspect. Nothing will be lost by you no longer interacting with me.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 19, 2022)

sombrerosonic said:


> Is it me or are most of these threads made my the left leaning people.......


It's not you. Most of these threads are created to evoke emotions out of people. Basically, just leftist struggle sessions. They don't understand what is going on and their echo chambers aren't providing them with answers. If you notice, there are only a handful of leftists that comment in these threads. They always back each other up and they will dogpile on you when you start making too much sense.

I truly don't understand why we need so many threads about abortions, but it shows where the priorities lie with leftists. They definitely don't want to talk about inflation, selling our oil reserves to China, Ukraine neonazis, Hunter's laptop exposing Joe Biden's pay to play schemes with China and Ukraine, or Martha's Vineyard using the National Guard to deport illegal aliens. They definitely don't want to talk about Durham's court filings. It's always abortion and trans topics with these people. Frankly, it's making this site kind of boring. I'd like to see diversity of topics.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Sep 19, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It's not you. Most of these threads are created to evoke emotions out of people. Basically, just leftist struggle sessions. They don't understand what is going on and their echo chambers aren't providing them with answers. If you notice, there are only a handful of leftists that comment in these threads. They always back each other up and they will dogpile on you when you start making too much sense.
> 
> I truly don't understand why we need so many threads about abortions, but it shows where the priorities lie with leftists. They definitely don't want to talk about inflation, selling our oil reserves to China, Ukraine neonazis, Hunter's laptop exposing Joe Biden's pay to play schemes with China and Ukraine, or Martha's Vineyard using the National Guard to deport illegal aliens. They definitely don't want to talk about Durham's court filings. It's always abortion and trans topics with these people. Frankly, it's making this site kind of boring. I'd like to see diversity of topics.


Them, these people, you know who and what they are. They aren't like us.
Dude Just Fuck Off. 
And Tabzer is like talking to the meat freezer. Whyareyouhere.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 19, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> Them, these people, you know who and what they are. They aren't like us.
> Dude Just Fuck Off.
> And Tabzer is like talking to the meat freezer. Whyareyouhere.


MEAT FREEZER LMAO

That's a new one, good shit. It's true, too. I've never seen these people post outside of political threads either, I really wanna know why these psychos are bringing their right wing nonsense to a piracy forum.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Sep 19, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> MEAT FREEZER LMAO
> 
> That's a new one, good shit. It's true, too. I've never seen these people post outside of political threads either, I really wanna know why these psychos are bringing their right wing nonsense to a piracy forum.


Ive been active outside this area, its just fun over here alot


----------



## TraderPatTX (Sep 19, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> Them, these people, you know who and what they are. They aren't like us.
> Dude Just Fuck Off.
> And Tabzer is like talking to the meat freezer. Whyareyouhere.


You mad, bro?


----------



## tabzer (Sep 19, 2022)

RAHelllord said:


> I'm not hiding anything, the answer is there in plain sight and your inability to understand it is of no concern to me. Now I won't be repeating myself so if you want more attention go get it somewhere else.



That's a lie.

You plainly didn't answer:  "Should a woman be expected to take responsibility and maintain a life she brings into existence, to any degree? If so, what?"


Let's look at the context.  You said this:



RAHelllord said:


> The woman's right to her own life and body is equally important as the right to life of the fetus, and yet that still means if the woman doesn't want to nourish a life inside her body it is her choice, and that fetus has to leave that body.



I see that as an absolutist's position that rationalizes abortion at any time during a pregnancy, for any reason.  It's extreme and unreasonable imo.  It also invites the question of responsibility of parents after birth, raising flags that you are potentially unsafe with children.

So I said:



tabzer said:


> It sounds like you don't think a woman should be expected to take responsibility and maintain a life she brings into existence, to any degree. How sustainable is that in reality?



Your response was an unhinged pearl-clutch, with little resembling relevancy .

"It is very sustainable if you realize that the only abortions are of unwanted pregnancies or pregnancies dangerous to the woman. Plenty woman want to have children even with abortions, and the quality of child rearing increases dramatically if the woman are able to decide when the right time is to raise a baby."

Even though it is not my argument that women shouldn't have the right to choose, it does sound like you are saying that people can be trusted to do the right thing, which I find hopeful and optimistic.  But that makes me wonder why you are arguing policy in the first place.

You alluding that "charity" or "helping" people as _*acceptable*_ further supports the position that people shouldn't be obliged to support other people.

If you want to clarify your position it will make you look less insane and more agreeable.  Empathetic even.



MicroNut99 said:


> And Tabzer is like talking to the meat freezer. Whyareyouhere.



To add some rationality to your daily insanity.





LainaGabranth said:


> MEAT FREEZER LMAO
> 
> That's a new one, good shit. It's true, too. I've never seen these people post outside of political threads either, I really wanna know why these psychos are bringing their right wing nonsense to a piracy forum.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Sep 23, 2022)

Another thing that I predicted that is actually happening.


----------



## Marc_LFD (Oct 3, 2022)

I honestly am not in favor of Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, or Pro-Abortion. This is a delicate matter and a simple "yes" or "no" is not enough.

If a woman is raped and reasonably does not want the child then she should take the pill, but what if it's not available? It's her choice if she wants to keep or not.

Sure, the child is innocent and so was the woman who was forced.

I just decided to share my opinion since I was asked about it on a survey website (I tried and I just hate survey websites) which gave me three answers like it's that simple.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Oct 4, 2022)

oh look, another thing pro-birth hypocrites said it wouldn't happen is, in fact happening.

"you shouldn't have abortion, get birth control!"
"you shouldn't have birth control, use condoms!"
"you shouldn't use condoms, practice abstinence!"

The catholic church has been trying that for years, good luck with that.

Republikkkans indistinguishable from Talibans and Muslim theocracies, women seen only as breeders.


----------

