# U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision



## Ericzander (May 3, 2022)

For what might be the first time in American history, a SCOTUS opinion leaked and it... Well... Let's just say it's kind of a big deal. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/le...-majority-set-overturn-roe-v-wade-2022-05-03/

And now, armchair lawyers, go forth and use this thread to spout off recycled talking points.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 3, 2022)

Life is sacred in or out of the womb. Killing the unborn is wrong. Take responsibility for your actions.


----------



## JaapDaniels (May 3, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Life is sacred in or out of the womb. Killing the unborn is wrong. Take responsibility for your actions.


what about rape? what about when the semen donor gone missing? what about children? what about those not capable of understanding the consequences? what about those forced?


----------



## Dark_Phoras (May 3, 2022)

This is a decision based on dogma, not reason. In the first ten weeks of pregnancy, there isn't a baby, it's just a bundle of tissues and the phase of preparation of the woman's body to accomodate the process. The brain synapses only start after 17 weeks, towards the end of the fourth month. I don't see a reason why abortion shouldn't be permitted in the first 10/15 weeks, in a pro-life perspective.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 3, 2022)

I shall have to wait and see what the full opinions and results are but interesting twist.

Would not have expected the debate had enough juice to get that far (nowhere else in the world particularly considers it one, and most are usually waiting for the handful of religious folk to die off to get rid of antiquated laws). Thus usually saw it as more of a distraction level political football.

Wonder if/when the next reversal might come, and what might go for state level actors and the resulting stats there (abortions and life outcome stats and crime are a fun intersection). Abortion tourism could also be an interesting one, and even more so if chemical methods get better than they are (and they are far better than most realise).


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 3, 2022)

JaapDaniels said:


> what about rape? what about when the semen donor gone missing? what about children? what about those not capable of understanding the consequences? what about those forced?



All life is sacred. There's no excuse for terminating a pregnancy that would acquit the women of murdering an unborn child.

Also, do you know how much of those things you listed happen percentage wise compared to people who just want to have sex and get pregnant?

I also see the liberals claiming that conservatives don't care about the child after its born. That's false. They care, its just not their responsibility to raise the child for the loser parents that refuse to do so. It's the parents job to care for the kid, not random strangers.

Most unwanted pregnancies could be avoided if you take birth control pills, have an operation, wear protection, avoid sex, etc ... It's just you have to be a responsible adult because the majority of pregnancies that happen are just people who refuse to take responsibility and are careless in their actions.


----------



## VashTS (May 3, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> All life is sacred. There's no excuse for terminating a pregnancy that would acquit the women of murdering an unborn child.
> 
> Also, do you know how much of those things you listed happen percentage wise compared to people who just want to have sex and get pregnant?
> 
> ...



so what do you eat?


----------



## JaapDaniels (May 3, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> All life is sacred. There's no excuse for terminating a pregnancy that would acquit the women of murdering an unborn child.
> 
> Also, do you know how much of those things you listed happen percentage wise compared to people who just want to have sex and get pregnant?
> 
> ...


show me the numbers and the prove of accuracy of those numbers? give me proof of even ever talking to an actual women? have you ever considered your religion might be a ly? have you ever seen what your sacret creator does think of the secracy of life? have you got an actual life to defend as sacret? what did you do that i should call this life of yours so sacret? it angres me to see the short sight of such a defence.
freedom of speech i bet you use it dayly but you don't know why it's important. freedom of religion you abuse it dayly but again you don't understand why it's important. freedom of to move? freedom of expression? freedom at all? you ever for a minute thought about more than yourself?


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 3, 2022)

VashTS said:


> so what do you eat?



We're speaking about developing *human *life, not farm animals. I assumed people would realize I'm talking about human life as that's the topic.



			
				JaapDaniels said:
			
		

> show me the numbers and the prove of accuracy of those numbers? give me proof of even ever talking to an actual women? have you ever considered your religion might be a ly? have you ever seen what your sacret creator does think of the secracy of life? have you got an actual life to defend as sacret? what did you do that i should call this life of yours so sacret? it angres me to see the short sight of such a defence.
> freedom of speech i bet you use it dayly but you don't know why it's important. freedom of religion you abuse it dayly but again you don't understand why it's important. freedom of to move? freedom of expression? freedom at all? you ever for a minute thought about more than yourself?



https://www.hli.org/resources/statistics-on-abortion/
https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/
https://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals...ons-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
https://healthresearchfunding.org/18-shocking-abortion-statistics-rape-victims/


----------



## Cortador (May 3, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> All life is sacred. There's no excuse for terminating a pregnancy that would acquit the women of murdering an unborn child.
> 
> Also, do you know how much of those things you listed happen percentage wise compared to people who just want to have sex and get pregnant?
> 
> ...



So according to what you are saying, child pregnancy where a child's life is in danger if pregnancy is continued should be allowed to go on right?


----------



## The Catboy (May 3, 2022)

I hate the term “pro-life” because there’s no such thing as “pro-life.” There’s only “pro-forced birth” and “pro-back alley abortions.” Abortions will continue to happen but they will go back into dirty motels and cheap apartments. Abortions still happen in countries where even miscarriages come with a death penalty. The idea of outlawing abortion is just another means of controlling people’s bodies and it’s disgusting. Conservatives are hypocrites that hate freedom.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 3, 2022)

Cortador said:


> So according to what you are saying, child pregnancy where a child's life is in danger if pregnancy is continued should be allowed to go on right?



In that very rare circumstance, yes.


----------



## emigre (May 3, 2022)

This is honestly horrifying.

We all know it's going to disproportionally affect those most struggling but I imagine that's the point. The Republicans really do have more in common with the Taliban then the Democrats.

I guess sales of coat hangers will go up.

EDIT: Just realised Gay marriage is probably next


----------



## The Catboy (May 3, 2022)

emigre said:


> This is honestly horrifying.
> 
> We all know it's going to disproportionally affect those most struggling but I imagine that's the point. The Republicans really do have more in common with the Taliban then the Democrats.
> 
> ...


As will many other rights because Conservatives really do hate freedom no matter what mental gymnastics they go through.


----------



## KingVamp (May 3, 2022)

Of course then they don't want any programs that help actual children.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 3, 2022)

KingVamp said:


> Of course then they don't want any programs that help actual children.



It's not other peoples jobs to raise other peoples children. You're making excuses for parents who refuse to work to feed and cloth their own children. That's horrible.


----------



## The Catboy (May 3, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> It's not other peoples jobs to raise other peoples children. You're making excuses for parents who refuse to work to feed and cloth their own children. That's horrible.


So force kids into the world and leave them to suffer? So you really don’t care when the kids are born, you only care to force them into the world.


----------



## lokomelo (May 3, 2022)

Come on, removing a group of cells without nervous system is not the same as killing a baby. Ok, but it has the potential to become a human, but so does all genetic material you trowed on the toiled last time you watched a Mia Khalifa video.

I'm father of two BTW, I know how feels like to have and love a baby.


----------



## pustal (May 3, 2022)

Boy, for a country that likes to be seen as a bastion of democracy and freedom sure is heading back to the dark ages of the Middle Ages.

Let me assure you, US is becoming a bastion of neither to the eyes of outside democracies. The way I'm seeing here, it'll soon become a religious authocracy.

No offence intended for the fellow Americans here, just a wake up call.


----------



## Viri (May 3, 2022)

I don't really care at all. But, it'll be fun to see how people react.


----------



## AlexMCS (May 3, 2022)

Great news if true. This should be a law, not a SCOTUS ruling.
I also agree that abortion is an evil act, no matter the justification used for it.
It's interesting that this is ("officially") the first thing ever leaked out of the court.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 3, 2022)

JaapDaniels said:


> what about rape? what about when the semen donor gone missing? what about children? what about those not capable of understanding the consequences? what about those forced?



Can all be addressed by state laws. Assuming this leaked opinion is legit, it bans nothing. States can still legalize abortion either unconditionally, or for the circumstances you pointed out. It's just not a "right" that is identified anywhere in the Constitution, and the Court's opinion in Roe trying to conjure that right into existence out of the 9th and 14th Amendments by inference and desire was bad law. 

Personally I'd be ok with Congress legalizing abortion, and every State's legislature backing that up with their own law. But they're right - the Constitution doesn't have anything to say about this, and pretending it does sets a bad precedent.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 3, 2022)

All I can do is laugh at the fact that most who support this decision are the same ones that have been screaming "MY BODY! MY CHOICE!" and "MEDICAL FREEDOM!!!" for the last couple years.


----------



## Cortador (May 3, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Can all be addressed by state laws. Assuming this leaked opinion is legit, it bans nothing. States can still legalize abortion either unconditionally, or for the circumstances you pointed out. It's just not a "right" that is identified anywhere in the Constitution, and the Court's opinion in Roe trying to conjure that right into existence out of the 9th and 14th Amendments by inference and desire was bad law.
> 
> Personally I'd be ok with Congress legalizing abortion, and every State's legislature backing that up with their own law. But they're right - the Constitution doesn't have anything to say about this, and pretending it does sets a bad precedent.



Outside of issue at hand, this does set a precedent into SCOTUS being able to reverse previous establishes decisions.

It will be interesting to see how things change moving forward.


----------



## MikaDubbz (May 3, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> All I can do is laugh at the fact that most who support this decision are the same ones that have been screaming "MY BODY! MY CHOICE!" and "MEDICAL FREEDOM!!!" for the last couple years.


Also the same people that are all for the death penalty.  Life is precious... unless you've been found guilty by the court of law.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (May 3, 2022)

Laughs in Mexico Laws that states that *a Woman* *has the right to choose* abortion as long as it's in the first 12 weeks of gestation.


Because a woman's body it's not yours, it's hers and it's her choice.


EDIT: Why can't be like this everywhere else? "Pro Life" only cares about forcing a woman to give birth, but once the baby is here, it suddenly becomes the woman's problem. Fuck them.


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (May 3, 2022)

Cortador said:


> Outside of issue at hand, this does set a precedent into SCOTUS being able to reverse previous establishes decisions.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how things change moving forward.


This is not the first time, nor is it the last time.  I don't have any cases on hand, nor off the top of my head.  However, the idea of a court reversing a decision isn't a bad thing.  Ideals and interpretations change over time.  Having a court flexible enough to account for these idiosyncrasies is good.

Something like this probably happened for slavery at one point in time.  Probably gay marriage, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and many other social issues too.  Just because it's literally gone south this time doesn't mean it's a bad thing, just used by the wrong people.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 3, 2022)

Cortador said:


> Outside of issue at hand, this does set a precedent into SCOTUS being able to reverse previous establishes decisions.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how things change moving forward.



There have been plenty of times when the Supreme Court has reversed its own decisions of the past. Brown v Board of Education, for example.


----------



## seany1990 (May 3, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Life is sacred in or out of the womb. Killing the unborn is wrong. Take responsibility for your actions.


Why should you get to enforce your own morals on others?


----------



## chrisrlink (May 3, 2022)

don't fret i suspect the world will be f-ed on 4/9 as a whole so no rulings will even matter when we're all in a  irl "certain bethesda series"


----------



## Cyan (May 3, 2022)

how do you define life ? Should we talk about the life of unicellular bodies ? of your cells ? of spermatozoids and eggs ? what about these wasted life every woman's cycle if she doesn't get pregnant ?
and for men, sperm just dies after 48h... poor billions of murdered possible lives.
Your definition of life only fit what you decide should be cared, and you don't care about other life form.
life form can take a lot of shape, vegetables you kill to eat because you are all vegan, plants, mushroom, viruses, bacteria, etc.

/irony, or not?

If "legal" abortion is not possible, women would just do it anyway with non-medical care, and endanger themselves in the process. Two lives instead of one ! but you are all for that as I can see. you prefer killing the mothers too.
or they will go abroad. they already do that in Europe for surrogate mother where countries doesn't allow it, they just go where they can do it anyway (Ukraine).

not even talking about miscarriage...
should the women be damned for its body rejecting (SACRED) life ?
The body usually doesn't keep a non viable child (genetical anomalies etc.) and does abortion naturally, even while it's "not dead". full of living cells rejected. but I suppose that's act of gods? it's "gods choice" if someone dies. why a baby should dies by god's decision? what a  cruel sentient entity you venerate, it didn't even commit sins  what about people with other religions ? is abortion authorization based on people's belief or yours ?


Well, that's an USA issue, but I'd be curious to see the outcome too, and I'll be sad.


----------



## AlexMCS (May 3, 2022)

Cyan said:


> lots of text



Regarding human life: Everyone will draw their line at some point. Embryo is where I draw my line, for instance.
There is no scientific point of view here, since science does not know what life is. Only personal PoVs, guided by whatever criteria one wants, usually related to some sort of ethical boundary, religious or not.

It's up to the country's people to decide where they draw their lines and pass their regulations accordingly.
If the current constitution lacks clarity, amend it or make a new one.



seany1990 said:


> Why should you get to enforce your own morals on others?


We live in a society.


----------



## Viri (May 3, 2022)

I more don't like the idea of the federal gov enforcing laws on state gov. I personally am indifferent towards abortion being legal or not, I just don't like a law being forced onto a state, that didn't vote for it. I feel the same way about gay marriage and weed.

Also, having such things leak out early is just wrong, and should be investigated.


----------



## Valwinz (May 3, 2022)

Good, let the states decide. that's how it should be the people of the states will decide


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

Abortion aside, Roe v. Wade was always an awful decision - it’s a ruling pulled out of a hat to get a desired effect, and a textbook example of legislating from the bench. It’s entirely based on a presumed right that’s not enumerated, and a reinterpretation of it at that. The legal foundation for the decision was shaky from day one, it’s an extremely bizarre take on the right to privacy that would have ridiculous implications when applied to any other context. If a right to have an abortion is supposed to be entrenched in law, Roe v. Wade was the dumbest way to do it.


----------



## Nothereed (May 4, 2022)

Abortions themselves aren't going to stop, we're just now going to experince back ally abortions were women commonly die because of unsafe procedures. 
_I'm surprised I'm not hearing any major celebrations from the Republican party. 
I mean come on, they said they would do it, they should be happy they got what they said done. We should talk about the people who choose to courageously remove 50 years of precedent_
oh wait... right I forgot. about 70% of people support keeping roe v. wade.... *oops*


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 4, 2022)

JuanBaNaNa said:


> Laughs in Mexico Laws that states that *a Woman* *has the right to choose* abortion as long as it's in the first 12 weeks of gestation.
> 
> 
> Because a woman's body it's not yours, it's hers and it's her choice.
> ...



*I'm not sure how many times you're going to hear this before it sticks to your thin head*, but raising kids is the job of the parents ... not random strangers. The mother and father created life and its their responsibility to care for it.


----------



## Nothereed (May 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Abortion aside, Roe v. Wade was always an awful decision - it’s a ruling pulled out of a hat to get a desired effect, and a textbook example of legislating from the bench. It’s entirely based on a presumed right that’s not enumerated, and a reinterpretation of it at that. The legal foundation for the decision was shaky from day one, it’s an extremely bizarre take on the right to privacy that would have ridiculous implications when applied to any other context. If a right to have an abortion is supposed to be entrenched in law, Roe v. Wade was the dumbest way to do it.


yeah as many as 23 states have laws banning abortions. meanwhile about 70% of the public supports keeping roe v wade.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 4, 2022)

seany1990 said:


> Why should you get to enforce your own morals on others?



I'm not enforcing anything. I'm simply stating how I feel about the matter. You're free to ignore me if you like.


----------



## Nothereed (May 4, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not enforcing anything. I'm simply stating how I feel about the matter. You're free to ignore me if you like.


your enforcing people to not be able to have abortions, your morals are that the parents MUST have a child if pregnant, and removing the option to have a safe abortion. You are enforcing your morals on someone else


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> your enforcing people to not be able to have abortions, your morals are that the parents MUST have a child if pregnant, and removing the option to have a safe abortion. You are enforcing your morals on someone else



I'm not forcing anything on anyone. Do you see me sitting on the Supreme Court? I'm simply stating that I agree that abortion is wrong regardless of the excuse. If for some reason your logic tells you that's me somehow enforcing laws then you lack insight.


----------



## Nothereed (May 4, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not forcing anything on anyone. Do you see me sitting on the Supreme Court? I'm simply stating that I agree that abortion is wrong regardless of the excuse. If for some reason your logic tells you that's me somehow enforcing laws then you lack insight.


Here let me apply this to marijuana then. I personally have some childhood trauma relating to it, I personally hate it. Replace marijuana with abortions.
You: I don't like marijuana, so I'm going to support the supreme court in banning it
Me: I don't like marijuana, but I'm willing to tolerate others decision on it.

Does that paint the picture more clearly? Your willing to strip the mere option because you dislike it. And your willing to enforce that belief through supporting this action. While I (if it was marijuana) would dislike it, but tolerate others decision for using it.

you are deciding to enforce.


----------



## The Catboy (May 4, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not forcing anything on anyone. Do you see me sitting on the Supreme Court? I'm simply stating that I agree that abortion is wrong regardless of the excuse. If for some reason your logic tells you that's me somehow enforcing laws then you lack insight.


Outside of wanting to force people to carry a pregnancy.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> yeah as many as 23 states have laws banning abortions. meanwhile about 70% of the public supports keeping roe v wade.


70% of the public supports women having the option to abort their pregnancies if they so choose - that doesn’t make the decision itself any less stupid. The ruling is bad - the U.S. Constitution does not contain the right to privacy. The court ruled it as implied (on the basis of the right to due process, of all things), and based on that implied right, it also ruled that a woman can abort a pregnancy because it’s her private matter. Going by that logic, you can do just about anything so long as you do it in the privacy of your home and nobody finds out. It’s a stupid interpretation that only exists to enshrine abortion because the court believed it should be enshrined - the legal basis is piss poor. Anyone who actually believes this is what the authors of the Constitution meant when writing it has a screw loose. It’s judicial activism, which is *not* what the Supreme Court is for. The whole thing should be revamped to make a single lick of sense. There are established mechanism for creating legislation - the SCOTUS shouldn’t be used as a shortcut or substitute.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 4, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:
			
		

> All I can do is laugh at the fact that most who support this decision are the same ones that have been screaming "MY BODY! MY CHOICE!" and "MEDICAL FREEDOM!!!" for the last couple years.



All I can do is laugh at the fact that most of who supported forcing people to take vaccines for the last couple of years are now claiming "MY BODY! MY CHOICE" and "MEDICAL FREEDOM!!!".


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 4, 2022)

JuanBaNaNa said:


> Haha fucking stupid.



So you think it's the job of other people to feed and cloth children if the parents decide to not feed and cloth them? You're supporting dead beat pieces of trash. You're part of the reason the kids aren't being fed or clothed. Shame on you.


----------



## Nothereed (May 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> 70% of the public supports women having the option to abort their pregnancies if they so choose - that doesn’t make the decision itself any less stupid. The ruling is bad - the U.S. Constitution does not contain the right to privacy. The court ruled it as implied (on the basis of the right to due process, of all things), and based on that implied right, it also ruled that a woman can abort a pregnancy because it’s her private matter. Going by that logic, you can do just about anything so long as you do it in the privacy of your home and nobody finds out. It’s a stupid interpretation that only exists to enshrine abortion because the court believed it should be enshrined - the legal basis is piss poor. It’s judicial activism, which is *not* what the Supreme Court is for. The whole thing should be revamped to make a single lick of sense. Anyone who actually believes that’s what the authors of the Constitution meant when writing it has a screw loose.


false historical precedent within courts since 1923 has read the 14th amendment, specifically section1, even more specifically liberty clause to apply directly here, that grants a fairly broad right to privacy.


----------



## Xzi (May 4, 2022)

Tyranny of the minority, only 14% of Americans are staunchly "pro-life."  The real reason behind this also has nothing to do with the bible, as we millennials aren't popping out enough crotch goblins  to fill the lithium mines.  Next they'll go after birth control and same-sex marriage.  We're in the theocratic fascist endgame now.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> false historical precedent within courts since 1923 has read the 14th amendment, specifically section1, even more specifically liberty clause to apply directly here, that grants a fairly broad right to privacy.


The right to privacy is not found anywhere in the Constitution. It is implied only, and alluded to in previous rulings. It is *not* an enumerated right and does not appear anywhere in the text.


> *The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.*  The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting *specific aspects of privacy*, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information.  In addition, the *Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."*  The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but *some persons* (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have *interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy* in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
> 
> *The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial.* Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists.  The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, *has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy* that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment.  Polls show most  Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.
> 
> http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html


Can’t wait for you to tell me that you know law better than law professors. If you think it is an enumerated right, you will have no trouble at all quoting the part of the Constitution where it is enumerated. If you can’t, it means that I was correct and the right is implied, and subject to interpretation, which is precisely what I said in the very beginning.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (May 4, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> So you think it's the job of other people to feed and cloth children if the parents decide to not feed and cloth them? You're supporting dead beat pieces of trash. You're part of the reason the kids aren't being fed or clothed. Shame on you.


Wow, fucking holy mother of shit... you totally didn't understood my first comment.

Me: Women amd only women needs the right to choose
If you're pro life, go take care of the lives of children you defend so much.

Jonhathon:


JonhathonBaxster said:


> So you think it's the job of other people to feed and cloth children if the parents decide to not feed and cloth them? You're supporting dead beat pieces of trash. You're part of the reason the kids aren't being fed or clothed. Shame on you


----------



## Nothereed (May 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The right to privacy is not found anywhere in the constitution. It is implied only, and alluded to in previous rulings. It is *not* an enumerated right and does not appear anywhere in the text.


It is not implied only, supreme court ruled over it.
We have executive branch,  and then we have legislative, and then judicial.
The United States doesn't solo operate on the constitution or just legislative branch or what is "enumerated" within the constitution. Time and time again, that "reading in further" has been supported within the supreme court for ages either within laws themselves or the constitution. Otherwise the civil rights act would not apply to trans people, that required reading in. and if your going to take issue with "it's not enumerated" then go take issue with that ruling too.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> It is not implied only, supreme court ruled over it. We have executive branch,  and then we have legislative, and then judicial.
> The United States doesn't solo operate on the constitution or just legislative branch or what is "enumerated" within the constitution. Time and time again, that "reading in further" has been supported within the Supreme Court for ages either within laws themselves or the constitution. Otherwise the civil rights act would not apply to trans people, that required reading in.


See above, take the L. It’s not enumerated, it is implied. Do you know what the words “enumerated” and “implied” mean? You at least know the latter, because you just described it above. I haven’t even stated my opinion on abortion yet and you already have an issue, boy howdy. I just called the ruling bad and the legal basis piss poor because that’s what it is. Roe v. Wade is a specific example of the judiciary doing exactly what you describe as “solo operating”, bypassing the legislature entirely in order to get a desired result. It’s, as I mentioned before, legislating from the bench and making up rights out of whole cloth.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Tyranny of the minority, only 14% of Americans are staunchly "pro-life."  The real reason behind this also has nothing to do with the bible, as we millennials aren't popping out enough crotch goblins  to fill the lithium mines.  Next they'll go after birth control and same-sex marriage.  We're in the theocratic fascist endgame now.



That's funny coming from a liberal who claims to fight for the minority.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 4, 2022)

JuanBaNaNa said:


> Wow, fucking holy mother of shit... you totally didn't understood my first comment.
> 
> Me: Women amd only women needs the right to choose
> If you're pro life, go take care of the lives of children you defend so much.
> ...



It's not my job to raise other peoples children. It's the parents job to raise and nurture their offspring. Why do you support the parents not feeding their children?


----------



## Xzi (May 4, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> That's funny coming from a liberal who claims to fight for the minority.


Leftists are also a minority in this country with no political party to represent us, yes.  Difference is we want to grant people more rights, not slowly strip away the old ones.  I'm also not sure if this is supposed to be a "gotcha" or just you starting to learn basic math for the first time.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Leftists are also a minority in this country with no political party to represent us, yes.  Difference is we want to grant people more rights, not slowly strip away the old ones.  I'm also not sure if this is supposed to be a "gotcha" or just you starting to learn basic math for the first time.



You claim to fight for minorities, yet you attack a minority. I'm not sure if you're just learning reading comprehension for the first time.


----------



## Glyptofane (May 4, 2022)

Nice distraction just in time for midterms.


----------



## Xzi (May 4, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You claim to fight for minorities, yet you attack a minority. I'm not sure if you're just learning reading comprehension for the first time.


Bruh, how'd you pack six tons of horse shit into a single sentence?  Having minority political beliefs does not automatically make you a moral or ethical person, it's entirely down to the substance of those beliefs.  Authoritarianism and oppression don't become any easier to swallow just because they're doled out by zealots and megalomaniacs.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

@Xzi @JonhathonBaxster Think you two could take it to PM’s instead of having a cat fight in here? That is, unless your little squabble about minorities has anything at all to do with the subject? The link is tenuous at best.


----------



## ZeroFX (May 4, 2022)

JaapDaniels said:


> what about rape? what about when the semen donor gone missing? what about children? what about those not capable of understanding the consequences? what about those forced?


Whataboutism in a nutshell ^


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (May 4, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> It's not my job to raise other peoples children. It's the parents job to raise and nurture their offspring. Why do you support the parents not feeding their children?


It's not your job to decide over a woman's right to choose, it's her's. Why do you support forced labour on women that can't/won't have the resources to feed their children?


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 4, 2022)

JuanBaNaNa said:


> It's not your job to decide over a woman's right to choose, it's her's. Why do you support forced labour on women that can't/won't have the resources to feed their children?



Women have plenty of opportunities to obtain food, shelter and clothes for their children. All they have to do is get a job. They have 9 months to prepare. They shouldn't be getting pregnant in the first place if they don't want to raise a child. If you don't want a child then don't make one, but if you make one its your responsibility to care for it. You see, conservatives promote responsible actions and liberals make excuses for horrible people. The reason why kids go hungry is bad people doing bad things, that includes the parents and anyone that would make excuses for the parents actions.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (May 4, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Women have plenty of opportunities to obtain food, shelter and clothes for their children. All they have to do is get a job. They have 9 months to prepare. They shouldn't be getting pregnant in the first place if they don't want to raise a child. If you don't want a child then don't make one, but if you make one its your responsibility to care for it. You see, conservatives promote responsible actions and liberals make excuses for horrible people. The reason why kids go hungry is bad people doing bad things, that includes the parents and anyone that would make excuses for the parents actions.


Haha! Let me guess...

You own a truck.
You wear a cap, backwards, sleeveless tee.
Healthcare for obesity.
Think USA is the best country in the entire world.
Thinks woman that are raped shouldn't get pregonant if they didn't wanted to have sex.
Have a doormat that says WELCOME, but it's clean because nobody goes to your home, except you and possibly 10 more children that you support with social programs.
Would vote for Trump TWICE.
Owns a gun.


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> conservatives promote responsible actions


A lot of the anti-LGBT bills we've been seeing are going to result in dead children. The anti-abortion bills/trigger laws are going to result in dead women. I wonder if conservatives will be accepting any of that so-called personal responsibility.


----------



## osaka35 (May 4, 2022)

What a hot take from the supreme court. There's the science, there's the tradition, and there's the role of the government. There's also the metaphysical "like, what even IS a human" or "is the soul in the mind, or does it exist outside of the person?", but you really shouldn't be giving the government the power to making laws based on this.

The science says a fertilized egg is a blueprint for a human. As the fertilized egg grows, the host body contributes the resources needed to build the human from the blueprints. The final result will vary pretty strongly from the blueprints, based on the resources provided (environment, etc). At what point does it cross over from "a blueprint in progress" to "a human life" is usually accepted as when the brain begins to develop. This is around the third trimester(around 27 weeks). Abortion is almost always not allowed at this point, unless the life of the host is in danger (just as you cannot be forced to give a kidney or donate blood to save a life, you cannot be forced to die to save the life of an unborn child). The science is pretty clear-cut and well-established about this.

The tradition aspect will vary. Catholic dogma, for instance, asserts the whole of the human is contained in the sperm. Comes from a bronze-age understanding of how humans work. This is why they view masturbation as a sin. masturbation=abortion. The womb is just "fertile ground" where the "seed"  of the man is grown. A lot of western christian dogma also comes from this misunderstanding of how humans work. Usually it basically comes down to "when does the soul enter the picture?", if you believe in such things. As this is based on tradition, rather than science, the question becomes "can you assert this tradition on everyone?".

Regardless of where you stand on the science or tradition, what role does the government have in regulating the autonomy of the human body? In the US, and most developed countries I'm aware of, you cannot be compelled to give or donate your body for the benefit of others, not even to save their life. no matter how little or nonexistent the inconvenience, nor does it matter how much it's your fault it's happening. You methodically plan out and stab someone in the kidney? you still can't be compelled to give them your kidney. Not how it works. Why would it be any different in this particular situation?


----------



## Xzi (May 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> @Xzi @JonhathonBaxster Think you two could take it to PM’s instead of having a cat fight in here? That is, unless your little squabble about minorities has anything at all to do with the subject? The link is tenuous at best.


Nah I think he's done trying to conflate political/religious and racial/ethnic minorities.  It was a stupid tactic to begin with, of course, and signaled that he had no logical argument against the point I was making.

"Pro-life" is an absolute farce.  These people are pro forced birth, pro school to prison pipeline, pro cannon fodder for frivolous wars.  Anybody who is genuinely pro-life would be fighting for more social safety nets for both young children and impoverished mothers.  Anything less than that is just virtue signaling for virtues that they do not possess.


----------



## seany1990 (May 4, 2022)

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”​
― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart


----------



## zfreeman (May 4, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> The tradition aspect will vary. Catholic dogma, for instance, asserts the whole of the human is contained in the sperm. Comes from a bronze-age understanding of how humans work. This is why they view masturbation as a sin. masturbation=abortion. The womb is just "fertile ground" where the "seed"  of the man is grown. A lot of western christian dogma also comes from this misunderstanding of how humans work. Usually it basically comes down to "when does the soul enter the picture?", if you believe in such things. As this is based on tradition, rather than science, the question becomes "can you assert this tradition on everyone?".


Regarding Catholicism, the whole of the human is created at the moment of conception, fertilization of the egg. You might be thinking of that hyperbolic Monty Python skit, 'Every Sperm is Sacred'. Masturbation is considered a sin because it intrinsically involves lust. You are correct about it boiling down to "when does the soul enter the picture?" Catholic answers to this question were further defined by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. For the SparkNotes version, look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's a little dogmatic by default, but it's based on Natural Law.

To simplify: over time, if the situation begets life, it should be promoted; if it does not, it should be discouraged. That's why Catholics defend a frozen zygote, as opposed to a murderer on death row.


----------



## Xzi (May 4, 2022)

zfreeman said:


> Regarding Catholicism, the whole of the human is created at the moment of conception, fertilization of the egg. You might be thinking of that Monty Python skit, 'Every Sperm is Sacred'. Masturbation is considered a sin because it intrinsically involves lust. You are correct about it boiling down to "when does the soul enter the picture?" Catholic answers to this question were further defined by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. For the SparkNotes version, look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's a little dogmatic, but it's based on Natural Law.
> 
> To simplify: over time, if the situation begets life, it should be promoted; if it does not, it should be discouraged. That's why Catholics defend a frozen zygote, as opposed to a comatose patient on life support.


Boils down to religious tribalism, and wanting to have more children available to indoctrinate than the others.  Some real dark ages shit that you would've thought we had gotten past by now, but apparently not.


----------



## osaka35 (May 4, 2022)

zfreeman said:


> Regarding Catholicism, the whole of the human is created at the moment of conception, fertilization of the egg. You might be thinking of that Monty Python skit, 'Every Sperm is Sacred'. Masturbation is considered a sin because it intrinsically involves lust. You are correct about it boiling down to "when does the soul enter the picture?" Catholic answers to this question were further defined by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. For the SparkNotes version, look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's a little dogmatic, but it's based on Natural Law.
> 
> To simplify: over time, if the situation begets life, it should be promoted; if it does not, it should be discouraged. That's why Catholics defend a frozen zygote, as opposed to a comatose patient on life support.


monty python didn't create the thinking, they were making fun of the thinking. the idea "creation at conception" is how catholics adapted the biblical thinking to the 20th century, and the explanation for continuing the tradition changed from "baby murder" to "lust". I'd imagine some old-school catholics still believe the whole of the person resides in the sperm, as it says in the christian bible. Current explanations have been retconned to be slightly more palatable to 20th century thinking, but it still doesn't align with science. just tradition.

Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas didn't have the knowledge we have today; they ruminated on limited knowledge. Important thinking, but philosophy has come a long way since then.

It's been my experience that faith-based arguments are rarely dissuaded by other faith-based arguments. or science. So, the argument that anything which promotes life is a good thing? it seems like a personal argument, and not something that can or should be enforced on those who are not of the same religious tradition.


----------



## Valwinz (May 4, 2022)

Nobody could possibly be against letting the states decide


----------



## Xzi (May 4, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> Nobody could possibly be against letting the states decide


We're talking about women's bodily autonomy here, it's not the government's place to interfere with that.  Neither on the state nor federal level.  Women who don't have access to these services will just travel to states that do.  This will also make legal abortion states targets for far-right terrorism.


----------



## Jayro (May 4, 2022)

pustal said:


> Boy, for a country that likes to be seen as a bastion of democracy and freedom sure is heading back to the dark ages of the Middle Ages.
> 
> Let me assure you, US is becoming a bastion of neither to the eyes of outside democracies. The way I'm seeing here, it'll soon become a religious authocracy.
> 
> No offence intended for the fellow Americans here, just a wake up call.


It's funny how most of the U.S.A.'s problems stem from religion... Just sayin'. (Abortion, gay rights, etc.)


----------



## MariArch (May 4, 2022)

God Bless. Don't stop the march for life. Next we need to push for a federal ban.


----------



## Valwinz (May 4, 2022)

Xzi said:


> We're talking about women's bodily autonomy here, it's not the government's place to interfere with that.  Neither on the state nor federal level.  Women who don't have access to these services will just travel to states that do.  This will also make legal abortion states targets for far-right terrorism.


Government good when it went my way now government bad when does not go my way

States decide as it should be if the people in the state want abortion they will vote for pro-baby murder candidates


----------



## worm28 (May 4, 2022)

My uncles an abortion doctor he says when you squeeze a fetus they pop he laughs about it and says he pops them all the time.


----------



## pustal (May 4, 2022)

Jayro said:


> It's funny how most of the U.S.A.'s problems stem from religion... Just sayin'. (Abortion, gay rights, etc.)



It is sad really, specially when is a country that early saw the importance of sepparatting church and state.

What is funny to me is that this supply side Jesus and supply side Christianity cherish so much the Bible without seemingly to have read much of the New Testament. Jesus himself was for sepparattion of church and state, according to Matthew (22:21).



Valwinz said:


> Government good when it went my way now government bad when does not go my way
> 
> States decide as it should be if the people in the state want abortion they will vote for pro-baby murder candidates



Aside for not grasping the concept that a fetus is not a sentient life, you also do not seem to grasp that women's body is not public property.


----------



## Jayro (May 4, 2022)

MariArch said:


> God Bless. Don't stop the march for life. Next we need to push for a federal ban.


Not happening federally. There are more of us than there are of you.


----------



## The Catboy (May 4, 2022)

MariArch said:


> God Bless. Don't stop the march for life. Next we need to push for a federal ban.


There’s no such thing as banning abortions, there’s only bringing them back to dirty motels


----------



## XDel (May 4, 2022)

It's weird, everyone frets about the Ukraine, but when it comes to the unborn... silence.


----------



## zxr750j (May 4, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> Nobody could possibly be against letting the states decide



The women are the only ones who should decide. Not a state, or a bunch of old people with archaic ideas, just the women. 
I hope they get the support and love for whichever decision they make.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 4, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> Good, let the states decide. that's how it should be the people of the states will decide



You've said two different things. Do you want the states to decide? Or the people of the states to decide? Because there are plenty of states with zero direct ballot initiative, where the people don't get to decide shit unless the state basically tells them they are allowed to make a choice.


----------



## Viri (May 4, 2022)

XDel said:


> It's weird, everyone frets about the Ukraine, but when it comes to the unborn... silence.


If it makes you feel any better, people are fretting about the Ukrainian new borns that most likely perished, after Russia shelled hospitals in Ukraine.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> You've said two different things. Do you want the states to decide? Or the people of the states to decide? Because there are plenty of states with zero direct ballot initiative, where the people don't get to decide shit unless the state basically tells them they are allowed to make a choice.


Representative democracy is the word you’re looking for.


----------



## LoggerMan (May 4, 2022)

The Democrats losing to Trump had massive consequences. Trumps 3 Supreme Court picks should have been Hilary's. If only the Democrats controlled the Senate in Obama's second term, then RGB could have safely retired and a progressive Justice replaced her. There's some serious cracks in the American political system and Trump has exposed just some of them. I wouldn't bet any money on predicting the future of the US.


----------



## seany1990 (May 4, 2022)

edit: deleted


----------



## VashTS (May 4, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> We're speaking about developing *human *life, not farm animals. I assumed people would realize I'm talking about human life as that's the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you really think you are more valuable than any other animal that exists?


----------



## smf (May 4, 2022)

XDel said:


> It's weird, everyone frets about the Ukraine, but when it comes to the unborn... silence.


It must be difficult to live in a world that doesn't conform to your need for everything to be black/white.

Silence would actually be a good thing, because it would allow contemplation of the ethical issues.

Humans are still basically savages, we eat other living creatures because they taste good.
We hunt them for fun.

So let's not get bogged down in fundamental moralistic views.

Piety especially is not helpful.



zxr750j said:


> The women are the only ones who should decide. Not a state, or a bunch of old people with archaic ideas, just the women.
> I hope they get the support and love for whichever decision they make.


Maybe they should start selling horse abortion pills?

It's ok to take horse medicine right? I'm sure Faucci would be against that, so it's all good.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Representative democracy is the word you’re looking for.



Why exactly was that necessary to even post? What is your point? Out with it. Do explain why you think "representative democracy" should have been used over "ballot initiative". Never mind, don't answer. There was no actual purpose. You're just a contrarian.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> Why exactly was that necessary to even post? What is your point? Out with it. Do explain why you think "representative democracy" should have been used over "ballot initiative". Never mind, don't answer. There was no actual purpose. You're just a contrarian.


You specifically said that people can’t affect policy in many states due to the lack of direct ballot initiative. This is incorrect - people can and do affect policy by electing representatives, and those representatives, as the name implies, represent their interests in government. If you support certain kinds of policies, you vote for candidates who feature those policies in their platform. It’s really not rocket science.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You specifically said that people can’t affect policy in many states due to the lack of direct ballot initiative. This is incorrect - people directly affect policy by electing representatives, and those representatives, as the name implies, represent their interests in government. If you support certain types of policies, you vote for candidates who feature those policies in their platform. It’s really not rocket science.



Dude. LMFAO!!!  That is THE most stupid thing I've read so far today. Just becasue the people elect representatives, does not mean those representatives do the will of the people. You gotta be kidding me. One of the dumbest things you've ever said. And theres an awful lot of them. Not to mention, theres a little fact that not every representative of a state is on the same side of the fence and not everyone voted to elect the same people. Get fucking real. What a joke. BOTH sides have to come to an agreement. When there is no ballot initiative, the people don't have any choice in what decisions the elected representatives make. It's really not rocket science.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> Dude. LMFAO!!!  That is THE most stupid thing I've read so far today. Just becasue the people elect representatives, does not mean those representatives do the will of the people. You gotta be kidding me. One of the dumbest things you've ever said. And theres an awful lot of them. Not to mention, theres a little fact that not every representative of a state is on the same side of the fence and not everyone voted to elect the same people. Get fucking real. What a joke.


If the representatives you vote for don’t represent your interests and don’t deliver on their promises, you should hold them accountable by not voting for them again. If you continue voting for the same politicians who keep failing to deliver, there’s something wrong with you, not the system.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> If the representatives you vote for don’t represent your interests and don’t deliver on their promises, you should hold them accountable by not voting for them again. If you continue voting for the same politicians who keep failing to deliver, there’s something wrong with you, not the system.



Becasue it's always MY representatives not doing what I want. LMFAO. Stupid comment is stupid.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> Becasue it's always MY representatives not doing what I want. LMFAO. Stupid comment is stupid.


You’re the one complaining about it. What exactly am I supposed to gather from that? If they did deliver on the promises given, you wouldn’t be complaining about it now, would you?


----------



## Coto (May 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You’re the one complaining about it. What exactly am I supposed to gather from that? If they did deliver on the promises given, you wouldn’t be complaining about it now, would you?


Don't waste time on stone whatever. When he figures out the entire government takes control of him, he'll be eliminated regardless. Of course people from Poland knows what they're talking about since they've faced Communist Russia and China regimes their entire history, and even know. I respect to death Poland.


----------



## Marc_LFD (May 4, 2022)

I'm in favor of being pro-life, but when it comes to rape and incest then they should be able to abort it.

Normally, if men and women want to have sex and don't want to have kids, then wear condoms or take the pill. The kid isn't guilty of what their parents have done (this now I know goes against what I said above).


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You’re the one complaining about it. What exactly am I supposed to gather from that? If they did deliver on the promises given, you wouldn’t be complaining about it now, would you?



You dont know what the hell you are talking about. LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!! 

Here's how it works and I'll use a specific example. Marijuana is not recreationally legal where I live. There is also on ballot initiative where I live. I voted for representatives that would push for legalization in my state. They have in fact done so, and have even gotten it passed in the House. Severael times. The people in my state I did NOT vote to elect are preventing the legalization bills from passing in Senate. These are a handful of people making this decision. Not the people. There have been countless numbers of polls, om all sides of the fence here, the majority want legalization yet it doesn't happen because SOME people chose to get people elected that do NOT want legalization. Just becasue peoples canidates of choice get elected, does not mean they are doing the will of the people. So they get elected out the next go round and the next people do the same, and the next election, and the next, and the next, and. The people have a choce to elect, the people do not any choices once they are elected, except the choice to vote them out. And round and round and round it goes. For years on end.

Meanwhile, and THE most important part to explain to your think skull, is that other states that ALSO vote in their representatives just like we do, but ALSO have ballot initiative so that the people can have an actual say about things like marijuana legalization. Insteaad of a group of like 12 fucking people or what ever the number may be. You may have had a case if states with ballot initiatives had officials that were not elected by the people but... yeah. There's a kinda HUGE flaw in your line of thinking. Just admit it. You're a contrarian as I stated before.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> You dont know what the hell you are talking about. LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Here's how it works and I'll use a specific example. Marijuana is not recreationally legal where I live. There is also on ballot initiative where I live. I voted for representatives that would push for legalization in my state. They have in fact done so, and have even gotten it passed in the House. Severael times. The people in my state I did NOT vote to elect are preventing the legalization bills from passing in Senate. These are a handful of people making this decision. Not the people. There have been countless numbers of polls, om all sides of the fence here, the majority want legalization yet it doesn't happen because SOME people chose to get people elected that do NOT want legalization. Just becasue peoples canidates of choice get elected, does not mean they are doing the will of the people. So they get elected out the next go round and the next people do the same, and the next election, and the next, and the next, and. The people have a choce to elect, the people do not any choices once they are elected, except the choice to vote them out. And round and round and round it goes. For years on end.
> 
> Meanwhile, and THE most important part to explain to your think skull, is that other states that ALSO vote in their representatives just like we do, but ALSO have ballot initiative to that the people can have an actual say. Insteaad of a group of like 12 fucking people or what ever the number may be. You have have had a case if states with ballot initiatives had officials that were not elected by the people but... yeah. There's a kinda HUGE flaw in your line of thinking. Just admit it. You're a contrarian as I stated before.


It sounds to me like the democratic process played out and you’re unsatisfied with the end result. We call that “being salty”.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It sounds to me like the democratic process played out and you’re unsatisfied with the end result. We call that “being salty”.



You're still omitting the fact that the exact same democratic process is carried out in other states, and they still have ballot initiative. Keep walking around that fact all you'd like. 

Edit: Know what it sounds like to me? You're afraid of letting the people speak on things you don't agree with. You'd rather the state have complete control, not the people. I know your side has had issues with popular vote, so your comments dont surprise me in the slightest.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> You're still omitting the fact that the exact same democratic process is carried out in other states, and they still have ballot initiative. Keep walking around that fact all you'd like.


You’re operating under the assumption that direct ballot initiative is a good thing (or that I consider it good, not sure which), but you haven’t demonstrated that. Your initial complaint was that people have no impact on policy, and we’ve established that they do via representative democracy. If your problem is the efficacy of the solution, you’re shifting the goal posts. Is your issue the fact that change isn’t occurring fast enough, in your estimation? That’s a different discussion, one in which we’d have to establish if the law changing rapidly is necessarily good.


Stone_Wings said:


> Edit: Know what it sounds like to me? You're afraid of letting the people speak on things you don't agree with. You'd rather the state have complete control, not the people. I know your side has had issues with popular vote, so your comments dont surprise me in the slightest.


What’s “my side”? I’m a libertarian - I don’t want the state to have too much power over my life. In fact, I don’t want *anyone* to have too much power over my life - that includes you. For the record, I support legalisation, or rather, decriminalisation of marihuana. In fact, I support the decriminalisation of more drugs than most people would feel comfortable with. That doesn’t mean I’m willing to hand the reins of governance to just about any random group of people.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You’re operating under the assumption that direct ballot initiative is a good thing (or that I consider it good, not sure which), but you haven’t demonstrated that. Your initial complaint was that people have no impact on policy, and we’ve established that they do via representative democracy. If your problem is the efficacy of the solution, you’re shifting the goal posts.



See the edit to my last comment. Sounds like you're afraid of the outcome of peoples votes, when the majority wouldn't fit your agenda. And "Your initial complaint was that people have no impact on policy"? No. That's how you read it. That's on you little fella. Not me. Perhaps you should ask before assuming next time.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> See the edit to my last comment. Sounds like you're afraid of the outcome of peoples votes, when the majority wouldn't fit your agenda.


Oh, I’m not afraid of people - I just know that they’re stupid collectively. The mob is separated from the decision-making process by design - the system is designed the way it is to prevent the tyranny of the majority to the detriment of the minority. It allows government to run without being affected by emotions or temperaments, and it protects it from bad actors who may capture the hearts of the public temporarily for their own nefarious purposes. This protects both sides of the spectrum.


----------



## Skelletonike (May 4, 2022)

Well, I had no prior knowledge about this Row V Wade case. After reading about it, I find the whole thing silly and that it blew way out of proportions.

Anyway, I am against abortion in the majority of cases (if abortion was legal here in 1990, I wouldn't have been born).
I wasn't raised by my parents, they were young and stupid and wound up being raised by my paternal grandparents (after being taken away from my maternal family by social welfare). The first years of my life were shit, but I'm glad to have been born and believe everyone deserves that change at life.

In cases that involve health issues, rape, minors, etc, it should be allowed since it could do more harm than good. Nowadays there way too many contraceptive options, abortion should be a last resort and not just another 'contraceptive'.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, I’m not afraid of people - I just know that they’re stupid collectively. The mob is separated from the decision-making process by design - the system is designed the way it is to prevent the tyranny of the majority to the detriment of the minority. This protects both sides of the spectrum.



No. It's called you only want freedom when it's a freedom you dont take any issue with. You're all the same. Every, single, one you. You ARE afraid. You live in constant fear. You're easier to read than Goodnight Moon. You know 100% exactly what the point I was making was, try pulling it off like you're some innocent confused little lamb, side step facts to move your goalposts, change the subject relevant to the point, staing that I had several thoughts/statements that never actually occured, reading into shit that wasnt ever there. You're just really weird.

Guess I'll try out the block feature for the first time becasue I can't take any more of your narcissistic, gaslighting, manipulative, contrarian, bullshit. Can see right through you. Nothing left to say to you ever again.

Edit: No "Ignore" feature for Mr. "Endless Trash" "I am the baseline for opinions."? Figures. How convenient.


----------



## smf (May 4, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> No. It's called you only want freedom when it's a freedom you dont take any issue with.


Yeah, once all far right support dies down he'll go back to crying about libtards.

He only supports democracy when it does what he wants.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> No. It's called you only want freedom when it's a freedom you dont take any issue with. You're all the same. Every, single, one you. You ARE afraid. You live in constant fear. You're easier to read than Goodnight Moon. You know 100% exactly what the point I was making was, try pulling it off like you're some innocent confused little lamb, side step facts to move your goalposts, change the subject relevant to the point, staing that I had several thoughts/statements that never actually occured, reading into shit that wasnt ever there. You're just really weird.
> 
> Guess I'll try out the block feature for the first time becasue I can't take any more of your narcissistic, gaslighting, manipulative, contrarian, bullshit. Can see right through you. Nothing left to say to you ever again.
> 
> Edit: No "Ignore" feature for Mr. "Endless Trash" "I am the baseline for opinions."? Figures. How convenient.


I can’t know what point you’re making unless you make it. I can make an educated guess that you’d like to have more direct access to the decision-making process. I’m not sure if I support that - it depends on what you’re after. Direct democracy has its benefits when you’re after causes that are demonstrably good - on the flip side, it has drawbacks when you’re after causes that are detrimental. The healthy middle ground is to seperate the inherently emotional and easily manipulated public from the process altogether, and allow it to elect representatives instead - that’s the conclusion Madison came to as well.


----------



## titan_tim (May 4, 2022)

Easy hypothetical to prove that a fetus isn't equal to a human.

If you were in a burning fertility clinic. On one side of the hallway you're in, you see a crying child. On the other end of the hallway, there is a briefcase with hundreds of test-tubes that say "viable embryos" (Viable meaning that they're fertilized and good to go). The building is coming down, and you only have time to save one. Which do you choose?

Of course, nobody will choose the briefcase, since they aren't humans yet. You'd go after the kid, because if you didn't, you'd be a monster. Usually when you ask the question, people will try to squirm their way out of answering, but it just makes it more fun since they know the answer, and just don't want to admit that a hundred (or why not a million) fetuses aren't worth a single human life.


----------



## ChaoticCinnabon (May 4, 2022)

Women deserve these rights, especially in the cases where a child may be born into a household that cannot handle it, or if the woman in question is a victim of rape or other forms of sexual assault. America is really regressing and I'll be honest, I'm scared of my neighbor country's behavior now.

Anyways I don't intend to get into any arguments...just sayin' what I think, I'll simply be ignoring any pokes at me.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 4, 2022)

Christ...five pages of text already? Oh, well...here's my take for those who care. Might be sensitive, as I'm not yer average "I blindly copy-paste opinions of others" guy anymore.

I'm pro abortion. It's not really anything controversial in Belgium. Or any other country in the area. There are opponents, but they're such a minority they can't even gather any sort of political support.

That said...

I've had an abortion with my previous partner. Wasn't planned. Well...more specifically: we were very much in love and when she said she was pregnant (at that time I presumed she was sloppy with her pill), we started preparing to live together.
Well...I was preparing to live together. She became distant and silent.
Then she said she didn't want to live together. This caused some weird tension, as she refused to listen to reason (it's a big responsibility, and not living together would cripple that responsibility before it got started). But when my parents - who lived close by my house - promised to take care of our kid for the first couple of years, things seemed to get better.
Then she broke up with me. And somehow still thought that wouldn't be an issue for my parents. She started blaming me and my parents, rather than outline the details of her plan, or listen to criticism.

Her plan was simply that I should pay her money. She could've done this. And would even be legal. But she hadn't bothered to check what I legally owed her, which...really wasn't that much since I was unemployed at that time.
So in the end, her plan fell apart and she reluctantly agreed to an abortion. At the last moment. Without my presence. Except for paying for it. And taking the blame. And my later (and current) girlfriend, whom I've first met roughly half a year after that.
And got all sorts of threats and insults because it was clear she couldn't hurt me anymore. And...


Ugh...sorry. It's an emotional story and I always lose myself in all sorts of details (as important to the full picture as they might be). Point is: if abortion wasn't available, both our lives would've been ruined. Hers because raising a kid by yourself wouldn't be a breeze as she probably still thinks it would be(1). Mine because the girl I loved just used me as a sperm bank with interest. I contemplated suicide in the time she "considered" getting an abortion, and it's pretty likely I wouldn't be making this post here had she decided otherwise (I made a mistake in believing she took the pill. If I had known she wasn't to be trusted, I wouldn't have slept with her).


But despite that piece of drama: women should have the right to decide. My ex girlfriend's an exception. And due to that situation, I've learned that at least the majority of women I know handle this situation discrete but mature.

(1): I'm currently a father, and it's even worse than I thought. and that's with living together, a dream of a baby, financial reserves AND a pandemic that allowed the both of us to spend much more time with the baby than usual.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> Easy hypothetical to prove that a fetus isn't equal to a human.
> 
> If you were in a burning fertility clinic. On one side of the hallway you're in, you see a crying child. On the other end of the hallway, there is a briefcase with hundreds of test-tubes that say "viable embryos" (Viable meaning that they're fertilized and good to go). The building is coming down, and you only have time to save one. Which do you choose?
> 
> Of course, nobody will choose the briefcase, since they aren't humans yet. You'd go after the kid, because if you didn't, you'd be a monster. Usually when you ask the question, people will try to squirm their way out of answering, but it just makes it more fun since they know the answer, and just don't want to admit that a hundred (or why not a million) fetuses aren't worth a single human life.


I think it’s a little more nuanced than that. The child is a viable human being, fertilised embryos are potentially viable - they still need to be implanted and fully grown in order to become fully functioning humans. That doesn’t detract from them being human (as in, unique beings with human DNA), alive (as in, capable of growth and function, as opposed to dead and decomposing) or potentially viable (possible to implant and grow into a child). The decision is emotional, not calculated, but even if it were calculated, it’d be based on viability. If you were faced with the trolley problem with a small child in a stroller on one track and an elderly man who’s fallen over on the other, you would likely condemn the old man to death. After all, the old man has already lived a long life whereas the small child has its entire life ahead of it. That’s not a statement on which life is more valuable, it’s a time lost calculation, is it not? You’re instinctively more keen to protect live young. Not really a statement on fetuses, just a minor flaw in the logic here.


----------



## osaka35 (May 4, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> Nobody could possibly be against letting the states decide


just like we don't want the states to decide if free speech is a thing, we don't want the states to decide bodily autonomy. should just be a protected freedom the government gets its nose pretty much out of.


----------



## titan_tim (May 4, 2022)

@Foxi4   (Sorry, forgot to add your quote)

Wow, that's the first logical reply I've ever heard to that question, and made me think about my reply.

Let's try to address the first part of your comment talking about the embryos needing to be implanted first. All we'd have to do is adapt the hypothetical slightly to say that all the embryos were on a waiting list to be implanted that week. The hypothetical is there to say that the embryos are planned to be humans eventually. But in their current state, they are not.

And I agree, the decision would be emotional. You would see what you believe to be a human being, and choose it since you have that level of empathy for other human beings. The calculation of time lost doesn't really matter since it wouldn't be your own kid that you were saving, just some strangers kid. Similarly, instead of a child, if it were a dying man on the other end of the hallway, we would STILL go after the old man instead of taking the briefcase. Even if we were fairly certain he would still die by the time we got outside, he would be the priority.


----------



## The Catboy (May 4, 2022)

There’s a lot of mental gymnastics that need to be called out.
First, the idea that it’s not ok for the federal government to protect rights because that’s apparently big government but it’s perfectly fine for state governments to limit or remove rights. Any government limiting or removing the rights of people should be seen as big. It shouldn’t matter if it’s federal or state when it comes to human rights now. Abortion is right and a medical procedure that is often necessary for a variety of reasons, none of which is your business. If you truly uphold any values of personal freedom, then you shouldn’t believe someone’s right medical access should be limited. If you believe it should be limited, then you don’t believe in actual medical freedom. 
The idea that big government is only limited to federal government is just moving the goalpost. A state government enacting big government laws is still big government. Limiting access to healthcare and limiting what people can do their own bodies is big government. If you fail to see that because “states rights,” then you actually don’t care about big government. You only care about a law being removed from federal government and pretending that’s an L for big government. 
Finally, if you believe in freedom then you should believe what someone is doing is none of your business. Simple as that. Why are they at a doctor? None of your business. Why are they getting an abortion? None of your business. If you disagree, then quite honestly you only value freedom if you means you don’t get bothered but you have the right to bother others. Which seems more like a you problem. If it’s someone personally attached to you, then that’s something that needs to be settled in private.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> @Foxi4   (Sorry, forgot to add your quote)
> 
> Wow, that's the first logical reply I've ever heard to that question, and made me think about my reply.
> 
> ...


You got a bit mixed up in that second part - I was contrasting two different problems, rather than providing an analogy. You’d go after the child or the old man in the fire scenario, yes - they’re fully grown human beings. They’re not potentially viable - they’re fully grown. You empathise with them more strongly because they’re human-shaped, they have a face, you identify them as kin. You don’t immediately identify vials as kin - that’s an intellectual determination, not an instinctive one. The point I was making with the trolley was that despite *generally* treating the value of life equally, there are other factors which affect our instinctive decision-making when under pressure. Some of them are reasonable and can be explained after the fact, others are unreasonable and entirely emotional. It’s just a hypothetical, a thought experiment. We can modify it further - what if this burning clinic exists in isolation, and there are no other humans alive? From the perspective of species preservation, the reasonable decision would be to save the genetically diverse embryos - saving the child would mean the death of the species in short order. This fact doesn’t change that instinctively you’d save the child - it’s a human child. It would take reason, and a dose of emotional detachment, to not save it. You can even do some role reversal - in that same isolated scenario, are you going to save a small, male child or a grown woman? Logically it should be the woman, for the same reason, but your heart will still lean towards the child because the child can’t help itself. You’d be compelled to leave the last viable woman on the planet to die, thus dooming the species to certain extinction. Does that make the value of the child’s life greater than the lives of anybody else in the example? Presumably not, so can we really argue that the decision is dictated by logic? It patently isn’t.

EDIT: I didn’t really mean “time lost” in the sense of time you lost raising the child - that’s personal, we’re approaching the problem with an impersonal lens. The child may very well be a stranger to us. When calculating damage of a given tragic event, statisticians sometimes deploy a special tool to calculate the negative effect. Let’s say you compare two diseases, and both killed an equal amount of people, let’s say 100. Looking at the death toll, the damage done is the same, but that’s not necessarily true. What you use to make this calculation is counting years of productivity lost - that gives you a better picture.

If one disease kills exclusively the elderly and the other kills exclusively young people, the one that kills young people is significantly more damaging, by the virtue of higher loss of productive years. An elderly person has very few or no productive years remaining - they do not contribute economically to society. Young people, say, 20-somethings, have a good 40-50 years of productivity to contribute. If a disease killed 100 80-year-olds then the productivity lost is zero and damage is negligible, besides obvious grief for the families. If 100 20-year-olds have died, you collectively lost 4000 productive years at minimum - that’s noticeable impact on society. I say it’s noticeable because those 100 20-somethings will not enter the workforce, will not procreate, will not contribute in taxation, so on and so forth. You can even extrapolate further - you can put a dollar amount to this figure. Let’s assume those 100 20-somethings worked minimum wage jobs ($7.25) and an average amount of hours (37.5, statistically). That’s 4000 years times 52 weeks a year times 37.5 hours a week times $7.25, equals $56,550,000 lost over lifetimes. That’s a chunk of change gone from the economy, permanently and irreversibly, and we’re not even accounting for their potential offspring.

I hope that clears up the “time lost” term. It’s not exactly a very “humane” way to look at things, but it demonstrates that despite killing the same amount of people, the loss isn’t equivalent due to other factors.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (May 4, 2022)

Abortion is one of those issues that should be asked in a referendum, with binding result.


----------



## titan_tim (May 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You got a bit mixed up in that second part - I was contrasting two different problems, rather than providing an analogy. You’d go after the child or the old man in the fire scenario, yes - they’re fully grown human beings. They’re not potentially viable - they’re fully grown. You empathise with them more strongly...


Oooo, I like that change to the hypothetical! If it were a choice of a single child in a world where the human race is on the brink of extinction, that would change the whole thing really. As you said, choosing the briefcase would require a level of emotional detachment, but in the end, other people wouldn't consider you to be a monster in that situation. Similarly with the second change, anyone who chose the woman over the child also wouldn't be judged that harshly, since it's the human race is at stake. 

But in the end, those changes don't reflect our current reality. We're currently overpopulated, and don't need baby making farms. Emotionally, it would be a completely different thing as well. If the hypothetical were in our current time, I could save the kid and not bat an eye at the briefcase being lost. If it were the human extinction hypothetical, I would probably choose the case (or the woman), but be haunted by my choice forever, even if it were the logical choice for that situation. 

I guess my choice in the new hypothetical goes against the argument that I would choose the kid or old man because I can empathize with them as kin, but again, that isn't the world we live in, so it doesn't completely count. I completely agree that in the current time, that situation would be influenced by that fact, but also due to the regret I would feel if I were to choose the case.

Sorry, I need to sleep, so I won't be able to reply right away. Really enjoying the chat though!


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> Oooo, I like that change to the hypothetical! If it were a choice of a single child in a world where the human race is on the brink of extinction, that would change the whole thing really. As you said, choosing the briefcase would require a level of emotional detachment, but in the end, other people wouldn't consider you to be a monster in that situation. Similarly with the second change, anyone who chose the woman over the child also wouldn't be judged that harshly, since it's the human race is at stake.
> 
> But in the end, those changes don't reflect our current reality. We're currently overpopulated, and don't need baby making farms. Emotionally, it would be a completely different thing as well. If the hypothetical were in our current time, I could save the kid and not bat an eye at the briefcase being lost. If it were the human extinction hypothetical, I would probably choose the case (or the woman), but be haunted by my choice forever, even if it were the logical choice for that situation.
> 
> ...


I think it’s really nice that you’re considering alternative view points. I added a little edit regarding the “time lost”, and what I meant by the term, since that kind of changes the picture also. My point was that the issue is nuanced, I don’t think one can surmise whether a person legitimately treats embryos as humans or not based on this hypothetical, purely on the basis of many possible variables that’d either change the outcome or the perspective on the problem. It’s a moral quandary, to be sure, and those don’t tend to be rigid - humans are fickle creatures.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 4, 2022)

Lacius said:


> A lot of the anti-LGBT bills we've been seeing are going to result in dead children. The anti-abortion bills/trigger laws are going to result in dead women. I wonder if conservatives will be accepting any of that so-called personal responsibility.



LGBT issues have nothing to do with this thread. Overturning Roe v. Wade will leave it up to the states to decide if abortion is legal in their state or not. If by chance states make it illegal I think it would be a good time to encourage people to be responsible and not to make children if they don't want or can't care for them. That's where your *personal responsibility* comes into play. Of course, liberals won't do that and they will continue to encourage and reward recklessness and lawlessness. Liberals will need to stop encouraging lawlessness. That's part of the solution and the other part of the solution to most unwanted pregnancies ... don't get pregnant.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

While we’re on the subject of hypotheticals, there’s something that always bugged me about the right to choose. The assumption is always that it’s the woman’s right to choose by the virtue of her carrying the child, which is fair from the bodily autonomy perspective (if we assume that the child has no bodily autonomy, or that the mother’s bodily autonomy supersedes the child’s, which is hotly debated, but that’s not really my point, nor a discussion I’m interested in having). What I’m interested in is what people’s opinion is on the father’s right to choose, since you need two for this kind of tango. Let’s assume a hypothetical scenario in which the father does not want the child, but the mother does - the financial responsibility for child support falls on the father, and it is socially acceptable to expect the father to pay because “he shouldn’t have had sex if he didn’t want a child”. That measuring stick only works one way though - if we apply the same logic to a woman not wanting to bear responsibility for the intercourse, that’s an infringement of her right to choose. What’s the solution to this conundrum that would apply equal treatment to both parties? Should the father not have the right to disown an unwanted child? If a woman wants to keep the child in spite of the father’s objection, and willingness to fund the abortion, should she not also accept full financial responsibility? It seems to me that if the mother doesn’t want to be pregnant, we’re treating the fetus like a clump of cells, but if she does then it’s a baby and we must protect it, which is odd - it can only be one or the other, either we care about it or we don’t. What are people’s thoughts on this? As a big fan of equal treatment, this disparity has always seemed quite glaring to me. Naturally we’re comparing 9 months of pregnancy to 18 years of financial support, so the metric isn’t the same, but the principle still seems unequal based on the sex of the parent.


----------



## titan_tim (May 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I think it’s really nice that you’re considering alternative view points. I added a little edit regarding the “time lost”, and what I meant by the term, since that kind of changes the picture also. My point was that the issue is nuanced, I don’t think one can surmise whether a person legitimately treats embryos as humans or not based on this hypothetical, purely on the basis of many possible variables that’d either change the outcome or the perspective of the problem. It’s a moral quandary, to be sure, and those don’t tend to be rigid - humans are fickle creatures.


Damn that was a fast reply. I guess I can get in one more reply before bed...

I will always consider all points of views, as long as they're backed by evidence or logic. If I put out a hypothetical, I need to be willing to consider all hypotheticals. It's what helps us understand ourselves better.

I went back and saw what you meant by "time lost", and see where you thought I mixed up what you meant the first time around (I also chuckled that you said it was "a little edit"). I don't think that would enter the equation as much since I'm pretty confident that nobody who was about to have an abortion has thought "Maybe I should reconsider since I would be removing someone from the economy". Even with the apocalyptic hypothetical, it would be similar, but not quite. That would just be fueled by the desire to keep the species alive, and nothing more. There's actually a very good chance that in that situation abortions would be made illegal for that goal.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> Damn that was a fast reply. I guess I can get in one more reply before bed...
> 
> I will always consider all points of views, as long as they're backed by evidence or logic. If I put out a hypothetical, I need to be willing to consider all hypotheticals. It's what helps us understand ourselves better.
> 
> I went back and saw what you meant by "time lost", and see where you thought I mixed up what you meant the first time around (I also chuckled that you said it was "a little edit"). I don't think that would enter the equation as much since I'm pretty confident that nobody who was about to have an abortion has thought "Maybe I should reconsider since I would be removing someone from the economy". Even with the apocalyptic hypothetical, it would be similar, but not quite. That would just be fueled by the desire to keep the species alive, and nothing more. There's actually a very good chance that in that situation abortions would be made illegal for that goal.


You would be surprised by how much napkin math is going on in your head at all times without you even realising it, on a micro and macro scale. We as humans are constantly faced with decisions that have pros and cons, and those decisions can be represented mathematically. I would argue that large swathes of abortions are performed for purely economic reasons, particularly in the less wealthy areas of the country. A child at the wrong time can make or break one’s personal finances not just for the period of pregnancy and subsequent care, but for a lifetime due to opportunity cost. Assuming the mother chooses to care for the child, that’s 18 years of divided attention at minimum, time which could’ve otherwise been spent on gaining qualifications and/or climbing the economic ladder - you can’t make that up later in life. I’m a numbers man - can you tell? 

In any case, have a nice nap. We can get back to our chat when you’re well-rested, I’m glad that I’ve given you something amusing to think about.


----------



## osaka35 (May 4, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> While we’re in the subject of hypotheticals, there’s something that always bugged me about the right to choose. The assumption is always that it’s the woman’s right to choose by the virtue of her carrying the child, which is fair from the bodily autonomy perspective (if we assume that the child has no bodily autonomy, or that the mother’s bodily autonomy supersedes the child’s, which is hotly debated, but that’s not really my point, nor a discussion I’m interested in having). What I’m interested in is what people’s opinion is on the father’s right to choose, since you need two for this kind of tango. Let’s assume a hypothetical scenario in which the father does not want the child, but the mother does - the financial responsibility for child support falls on the father, and it is socially acceptable to expect the father to pay because “he shouldn’t have had sex if he didn’t want a child”. That measuring stick only works one way though - if we apply the same logic to a woman not wanting to bear responsibility for the intercourse, that’s an infringement of her right to choose. What’s the solution to this conundrum that would apply equal treatment to both parties? Should the father not have the right to disown an unwanted child? If a woman wants to keep the child in spite of the father’s objection, and willingness to fund the abortion, should she not also accept full financial responsibility? What are people’s thoughts on this? As a big fan of equal treatment, this disparity has always seemed quite glaring to me. Naturally we’re comparing 9 months of pregnancy to 18 years of financial support, so the metric isn’t the same, but the principle still seems unequal based on the sex of the parent.


I think if a human body wasn't needed, then it would very much be an equal discussion and it would be completely different. it'd be a formal contract. but the bodily autonomy discussion superseedes this discussion as you shouldn't be able to force an able-bodied person into using their body without their consent. and whoever births has the decision to birth or not, and i guess the rest just flows from that more important decision?

but that's about viability. financial fairness feels like a whole other matter, as you say. I'm not sure why when one party says "no", and the other party says "yes", the no party is financially on the hook. two "no"s and nobody's on the hook. once the child is born, the viability issue is off the table, but it doesn't seem to be reevaluated then either. even in issues of adoption or surrogate, it rarely seems to be evaluated fairly.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> I think if a human body wasn't needed, then it would very much be an equal discussion and it would be completely different. it'd be a formal contract. but the bodily autonomy discussion superseedes this discussion as you shouldn't be able to force an able-bodied person into using their body without their consent. and whoever births has the decision to birth or not, and i guess the rest just flows from that more important decision?
> 
> but that's about viability. financial fairness feels like a whole other matter, as you say. I'm not sure why when one party says "no", and the other party says "yes", the no party is financially on the hook. two "no"s and nobody's on the hook. once the child is born, the viability issue is off the table, but it doesn't seem to be reevaluated then either. even in issues of adoption or surrogate, it rarely seems to be evaluated fairly.


I wonder what the societal results of implementing the possibility of disowning a child pre-birth would be. I suspect we’d see a lot of single mothers living below the poverty line, and we’d quickly need the state to step in with a more robust support framework. That being said, the lack of fairness is certainly there as far as the financials of this ordeal are concerned. There’s really no legitimate reason for the father to support the child without sounding hypocritical, if we assume that parenthood is always elective rather than a result of circumstance. Elective parenthood entails a right to choose, circumstance does not.


----------



## Valwinz (May 4, 2022)

Lacius said:


> A lot of the anti-LGBT bills we've been seeing are going to result in dead children. The anti-abortion bills/trigger laws are going to result in dead women. I wonder if conservatives will be accepting any of that so-called personal responsibility.


I guess close those legs women also what anti-LGBT bills? i have seen none


----------



## Glyptofane (May 4, 2022)

It's amazing in a sad and pitiable sort of way that industrialized child sacrifice on the altar of Moloch is somehow rationalized, justified, and twisted into some sort of virtuous human right. On one hand, it does ensure that at least some of the most morally defunct among us will never spawn, but the practice continues to empower the enemy who seeks to destroy us from within.


----------



## JeepX87 (May 4, 2022)

Nevermind.


----------



## The Catboy (May 4, 2022)

Lacius said:


> A lot of the anti-LGBT bills we've been seeing are going to result in dead children. The anti-abortion bills/trigger laws are going to result in dead women. I wonder if conservatives will be accepting any of that so-called personal responsibility.


They won’t. Conservatives don’t care about women, children nor anyone else, they just want to control people.


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> LGBT issues have nothing to do with this thread.


Putting my original point aside for a moment, LGBT issues are still quite relevant to the topic of this thread. The legal reasoning behind Roe v. Wade is almost identical to the reasoning behind something like Lawrence v. Texas, for example. In fact, the former was legal precedent for the latter. If one falls, there's no legal justification the other shouldn't fall either.

In other words, a court that doesn't believe women have a constitutional right to abortion access is also a court that doesn't believe you have a constitutional right to have the kind of sex you want with the consenting adult you want to have sex with. I haven't looked at the Lawrence trigger laws lately, but that probably means no blowjobs in some places.


----------



## dAVID_ (May 4, 2022)

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”​
―    Methodist Pastor David Barnhart


----------



## smf (May 4, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> Abortion is one of those issues that should be asked in a referendum, with binding result.


Why does it need a referendum? If you are in favor of it then you have an abortion, if you are not in favor of it then you don't.



Glyptofane said:


> It's amazing in a sad and pitiable sort of way that industrialized child sacrifice on the altar of Moloch is somehow rationalized, justified, and twisted into some sort of virtuous human right. On one hand, it does ensure that at least some of the most morally defunct among us will never spawn, but the practice continues to empower the enemy who seeks to destroy us from within.


I think you misunderstand reproduction and abortion.

It is not such a cut and dry issue as you make out.

Also, what enemy within?


----------



## Dark_Phoras (May 4, 2022)

smf said:


> Why does it need a referendum? If you are in favor of it then you have an abortion, if you are not in favor of it then you don't.



The issue is divisive and it affects the personal feelings and values of several people. Either ruling will always get exposed to whoever rules parliament and the government. A referendum that puts clear terms on abortion is the purest indication achievable of the will of the people and it's not easily irrevocable.


----------



## smf (May 4, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> The issue is divisive and it affects the personal feelings and values of several people. Either ruling will always get exposed to whoever rules parliament and the government. A referendum that puts clear terms on abortion is the purest indication achievable of the will of the people and it's not easily irrevocable.


But if the result of the referendum is that nobody is allowed to have an abortion then it doesn't solve anything

People will still have abortions, they will just have to travel. Or more likely, obtain pills via other means.

Trying to ban abortions will never work. Backdoor bans, by making it illegal to have an abortion a week after conception (when the mother is unlikely to be aware) is also not going to work.

Meanwhile, if the referendum is that people should be allowed to have an abortion then that doesn't solve anything either.
People won't stop being craycray just because there was a vote.

We could test it first with a referendum on gun ownership.

Either choose the status quo, or get rid of all guns (so you will never have to worry about being attacked by someone with a gun).


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 4, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Putting my original point aside for a moment, LGBT issues are still quite relevant to the topic of this thread. The legal reasoning behind Roe v. Wade is almost identical to the reasoning behind something like Lawrence v. Texas, for example. In fact, the former was legal precedent for the latter. If one falls, there's no legal justification the other shouldn't fall either.
> 
> In other words, a court that doesn't believe women have a constitutional right to abortion access is also a court that doesn't believe you have a constitutional right to have the kind of sex you want with the consenting adult you want to have sex with. I haven't looked at the Lawrence trigger laws lately, but that probably means no blowjobs in some places.



You're stretching. LGBT issues don't have anything to do with this topic.


----------



## Lacius (May 4, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You're stretching. LGBT issues don't have anything to do with this topic.


You should actually look into the legal grounds for rulings like Roe, Lawrence, etc. before making idiotic posts. If you get rid of the established right to privacy in Roe and pull that thread, other rulings based on that right to privacy fall apart.


----------



## The Catboy (May 4, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You should actually look into the legal grounds for rulings like Roe, Lawrence, etc. before making idiotic posts. If you get rid of the established right to privacy in Roe and pull that thread, other rulings based on that right to privacy fall apart.


Let's be real here, Conservatives are the best at making up junk slippery slopes while ignoring actual slippery slopes.


----------



## x65943 (May 4, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You should actually look into the legal grounds for rulings like Roe, Lawrence, etc. before making idiotic posts. If you get rid of the established right to privacy in Roe and pull that thread, other rulings based on that right to privacy fall apart.


From having read most of the leaked document, the court is not arguing there is no such thing as right to privacy - they tend to skirt that reasoning altogether (although of course it was a large part of the original roe case)

The court is rather arguing more so that abortion itself is not a fundamental right protected by the 14th amendment or otherwise. It's also interesting they use common law arguments to back their points and oddly enough even reference UK statutes that were passed after US independence.


----------



## The Catboy (May 4, 2022)

x65943 said:


> From having read most of the leaked document, the court is not arguing there is no such thing as right to privacy - they tend to skirt that reasoning altogether (although of course it was a large part of the original roe case)
> 
> The court is rather arguing more so that abortion itself is not a fundamental right protected by the 14th amendment or otherwise. It's also interesting they use common law arguments to back their points and oddly enough even reference UK statutes that were passed after US independence.


I wonder what kind of mental gymnastics are required to consider this not a violation of privacy? It seems like a violation of privacy to question someone's right to a medical procedure.


----------



## x65943 (May 5, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I wonder what kind of mental gymnastics are required to consider this not a violation of privacy? It seems like a violation of privacy to question someone's right to a medical procedure.


The right to privacy itself is rather vague and while present in common law, it's not an enumerated right

We get that right through the 14th amendment as Lacius alluded to

However (and this is touched on in the official document) we don't have a right to privacy when it comes to say taking a drug not blessed by the government or engaging in sex work 

Both of these things would be protected as private matters if there was a sweeping right to privacy as regards to our body - why should the government say under what circumstances I can have sex (for money or not) or whether I can smoke the leaves or buds from a plant. But here we are in a world where they can - because the right is vague and applies only in some circumstances

That's why the official document goes to great lengths to talk about which matters we are allowed to have in peace and which we aren't

This is the trouble with unenumerated rights and how vague the 14th amendment is


----------



## SG854 (May 5, 2022)

My Body my Choice 

No forced Birth
No forced Vaccine


----------



## Dark_Phoras (May 5, 2022)

@SG854 that argument is a false equivalency. You can't catch infertility or forced abortion for being around people who proceeded with abortions.


----------



## SG854 (May 5, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> @SG854 that argument is a false equivalency. You can't catch infertility or forced abortion for being around people who proceeded with abortions.


My Body My Choice


----------



## Dark_Phoras (May 5, 2022)

@SG854 Yes, well, then be comprehensive that your access to certain public spaces should be restricted when you're a risk to other people's health. My body has the right to be protected from your body.


----------



## The Catboy (May 5, 2022)

x65943 said:


> The right to privacy itself is rather vague and while present in common law, it's not an enumerated right
> 
> We get that right through the 14th amendment as Lacius alluded to
> 
> ...


My favorite, easily abusable vague laws


----------



## SG854 (May 5, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> @SG854 Yes, well, then be comprehensive that your access to certain public spaces should be restricted when you're a risk to other people's health. My body has the right to be protected from your body.


Deal

The outside world scares me anyway


----------



## tabzer (May 5, 2022)

The only people I am interested in hearing are from people who have had abortions.  So far, I've heard more stories about regret than about how "abortion saved my life". 

If actual problems of American culture were addressed, then maybe abortion wouldn't even be an issue.  The fact that this discussion is happening is a symptom that we already exist in dystopia.

Tinfoil hat theory is that vaccine sterilization is a thing (demand for abortions is falling) and this is the latest intended to obfuscate it.  But you know, there is absolutely no reason to consider that.


----------



## AleronIves (May 5, 2022)

Pregnancy is not contagious. Vaccination (and masking) is more about protecting other people from you than it is about protecting you from other people. The "my body my choice" concept doesn't work for viruses, since what you do with your body has public health implications for everyone else, unlike pregnancy.


----------



## SG854 (May 5, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Pregnancy is not contagious.


You have alot learning to do


----------



## wartutor (May 5, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Pregnancy is not contagious. Vaccination (and masking) is more about protecting other people from you than it is about protecting you from other people. The "my body my choice" concept doesn't work for viruses, since what you do with your body has public health implications for everyone else, unlike pregnancy.


Are future babies not in need of protection. It isnt their fault they have a bastard for a sperm doner or a bitch ass ho for a future mother. What about their rights. You got pregnant thats your own damn fault (minus the very small few that came from rape or other similar means). Murder is murder no matter the age. Whats stopping someone from killing a 10 year old then claiming "i didnt kill him i aborted him after 520 weeks." I know little bit of a stretch but killing a 10 year old is no different than killing a baby in the womb. They both people. People want to get an abortion i say let them, but only on the condition that they are fully sterilized mother and father afterwards. Rip out the uterus and cut out the nuts. Cant be trusted with them dont need them.


----------



## seany1990 (May 5, 2022)

wartutor said:


> some 20 IQ rambling


So I assume in your view that contraception is also murder? That potential person had a right to live, how dare the parents chuck the sperm balloon in the trash


----------



## Xzi (May 5, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> Government good when it went my way now government bad when does not go my way


Government good when it's expanding rights, government bad when it's trending toward authoritarianism and legislating morality.  If you think this is the end of it and you will remain unaffected just because you aren't a woman, you've got another thing coming kiddo.



Valwinz said:


> States decide as it should be if the people in the state want abortion they will vote for pro-baby murder candidates


Republicans are pretty open about wanting to spark a civil war with this shit.  I'd be fine with leaving it up to the states if I could trust or believe that religious cultists would leave legal abortion states alone, but I obviously can't based on past experiences.  This decision will incite terrorism, and the supreme court knows it.


----------



## titan_tim (May 5, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You would be surprised by how much napkin math is going on in your head at all times without you even realising it, on a micro and macro scale. We as humans are constantly faced with decisions that have pros and cons, and those decisions can be represented mathematically. I would argue that large swathes of abortions are performed for purely economic reasons, particularly in the less wealthy areas of the country. A child at the wrong time can make or break one’s personal finances not just for the period of pregnancy and subsequent care, but for a lifetime due to opportunity cost. Assuming the mother chooses to care for the child, that’s 18 years of divided attention at minimum, time which could’ve otherwise been spent on gaining qualifications and/or climbing the economic ladder - you can’t make that up later in life. I’m a numbers man - can you tell?
> 
> In any case, have a nice nap. We can get back to our chat when you’re well-rested, I’m glad that I’ve given you something amusing to think about.


Oh, don't get me wrong! As you said, a large swath of abortions are for economic reasons. That's undeniable. I just don't believe that people think of it as an impact to society's economy, as your previous example was pointing to. Merely on their own financial future, and the potential prospects for the future kid.  I would predict that was the major factor influencing people, whereas the situation where the parents are both financially stable, but just didn't want to have kids would be the vast minority. 

I think on Fox, I saw an article saying that there have been approximately 65 million abortions since it was deemed legal. Using the math for the societal impact that you used before, it would look like it has damaged the economy. But the majority of these abortions were probably from a population which is below the poverty line, and 40-50 million extra people below the poverty line would most definitely have a negative effect on the entire country. As you said though, it's a horribly dark and inhumane way to think about this kind of topic.


----------



## x65943 (May 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Government good when it's expanding rights, government bad when it's trending toward authoritarianism and legislating morality.  If you think this is the end of it and you will remain unaffected just because you aren't a woman, you've got another thing coming kiddo.
> 
> 
> Republicans are pretty open about wanting to spark a civil war with this shit.  I'd be fine with leaving it up to the states if I could trust or believe that religious cultists would leave legal abortion states alone, but I obviously can't based on past experiences.  This decision will incite terrorism, and the supreme court knows it.


In the same way that pro-choice will advocate for access in red states, pro-life will advocate against access in blue states

However clearly there is no constitutional power for the federal government to legislate on the matter either way - it would have to be a constitutional question (which would require ratification of 2/3 of the states, which is not possible without red and blue agreeing) 

All that to say the feds are pretty much out of the abortion question practically speaking until/unless we have a change in SC justice makeup


----------



## Xzi (May 5, 2022)

x65943 said:


> In the same way that pro-choice will advocate for access in red states, pro-life will advocate against access in blue states


Yes, but we both know that's not going to be the full extent of it.  Abortion clinics were already one of the most common targets for bombings and/or shootings.  Now that they'll be isolated to just ten states or so?  Vanilla ISIS is already licking their chops.

In addition to a terrorist attack, there are two other things I can guarantee will happen within the next few months.  A woman will die from either miscarriage or stillbirth, the "pro-life" crowd will laugh it off.  And a prominent Republican will be caught sending his mistress or daughter to get an abortion from a legal state.  Predicting these things is as easy as predicting that the Earth will keep spinning.


----------



## Xzi (May 5, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Your "reason" tells me we should murder every person suffering from depression right now. Can you see how disgusting it is what you're saying?


Assisted suicide is already legal in a few states.  Respect separation of church and state, you don't have the right to force your Christian Sharia law on everybody else.


----------



## SG854 (May 5, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> I guess your next Uber driver should remotely open the door and throw you to the road at 100 mph, since it's his car, right?
> You know the baby is a different human being, with a different DNA, right? Or have you skipped this class in school?


If he doesn't want my money sure


----------



## wartutor (May 5, 2022)

seany1990 said:


> So I assume in your view that contraception is also murder? That potential person had a right to live, how dare the parents chuck the sperm balloon in the trash


Edit....i need to stay out of this section lmao.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (May 5, 2022)

This is going to turn really quick to "muh states rights, let the states decide if they want to make it illegal or not"

to

"YOUR….states rights?…federal law supersedes whatever liberal shit you passed...it's illegal nationwide now. Enjoy OUR big government… now about those godless commie gays getting married…”


----------



## Nothereed (May 5, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> You know the baby is a different human being, with a different DNA, right? Or have you skipped this class in school?


Except you understand that the difference between a baby, a human being who is capable of existing outside of the womb fully, and a fetus, a undeveloped baby, is that a fetus, is not fully developed, and has a period of time, where it's considered okay to have an abortion. Why? Here let me put your ridiculous argument.
Your equating killing a child, with killing something that isn't even developed enough to live in the outside. That doesn't mean you can just have an abortion at all stages, it's always been generally considered safest around 12 weeks, which the women would obviously have noticed by this point.

By your assessment, male masturbation should be considered killing a child. They all have half the genetic information, and a mix of that male's background.


----------



## SG854 (May 5, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> By your assessment, male masturbation should be considered killing a child. They all have half the genetic information, and a mix of that male's background.


The man is committing genocide


----------



## Nothereed (May 5, 2022)

SG854 said:


> The man is committing genocide


incoming cursed comment I am so sorry, but I must provide cringe
Just give me a moment! I'll be right back with the guinness world record death count, nobody is going to stop me and my cock!


----------



## x65943 (May 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Yes, but we both know that's not going to be the full extent of it.  Abortion clinics were already one of the most common targets for bombings and/or shootings.  Now that they'll be isolated to just ten states or so?  Vanilla ISIS is already licking their chops.
> 
> In addition to a terrorist attack, there are two other things I can guarantee will happen within the next few months.  A woman will die from either miscarriage or stillbirth, the "pro-life" crowd will laugh it off.  And a prominent Republican will be caught sending his mistress or daughter to get an abortion from a legal state.  Predicting these things is as easy as predicting that the Earth will keep spinning.


During a 2016 interview, Trump dodged answering a question about whether he had ever been involved with anyone who had an abortion:



> Given [Trump’s] draconian comment [about] sending women back to back alleys, I had to ask: When he was a swinging bachelor in Manhattan, was he ever involved with anyone who had an abortion?
> “Such an interesting question,” he said. “So what’s your next question?”


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-pay-8-women/

I think from his answer there you can make your own conclusion


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Assisted suicide is already legal in a few states.  Respect separation of church and state, you don't have the right to force your Christian Sharia law on everybody else.


The Demonrats congressmonsters of California are on their way to making it "legal" to kill a child if the mother so wants. They call it "postnatal abortion".
Listen, the powerful people in California are not the only ones in history who legalized human sacrifice, many pagan societies used to do it. That's precisely whre the regressive revolutionary lunatics want to lead us back to, if you haven't noticed yet.


----------



## Xzi (May 5, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> The Demonrats congressmonsters of California are on their way to making it "legal" to kill a child if the mother so wants. They call it "postnatal abortion".


Fearmongering nonsense.  If you can't argue within the confines of reality, don't bother trying to argue at all.


----------



## x65943 (May 5, 2022)

Serious question tho when someone says something completely nonsensical/insane why even reply to them. If an entire life of being exposed to reality had no effect what will a comment section do for them


----------



## Xzi (May 5, 2022)

x65943 said:


> Serious question tho when someone says something completely nonsensical/insane why even reply to them. If an entire life of being exposed to reality had no effect what will a comment section do for them


Avoids me the hassle of having to continue interacting with them, at least.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 5, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Except you understand that the difference between a baby, a human being who is capable of existing outside of the womb fully, and a fetus, a undeveloped baby, is that a fetus, is not fully developed, and has a period of time, where it's considered okay to have an abortion. Why? Here let me put your ridiculous argument.
> Your equating killing a child, with killing something that isn't even developed enough to live in the outside. That doesn't mean you can just have an abortion at all stages, it's always been generally considered safest around 12 weeks, which the women would obviously have noticed by this point.
> 
> By your assessment, male masturbation should be considered killing a child. They all have half the genetic information, and a mix of that male's background.


I'm a doctor, and I'm in awe that you don't know the difference between a regular human cell and a gamete, which contains only half of your DNA.
You people talk so much about "reason", but you don't seem to have a clue about what you're talking. Please, go study these matters before serving as a human toy for the barons of P1anned P4renthood (and its owners), ok?


----------



## Ulieq (May 5, 2022)

Unborn and babys are just empty flesh sacks.  An unfilled brain is not sentient.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 5, 2022)

x65943 said:


> In the same way that pro-choice will advocate for access in red states, pro-life will advocate against access in blue states
> 
> *However clearly there is no constitutional power for the federal government to legislate on the matter either way - it would have to be a constitutional question (which would require ratification of 2/3 of the states, which is not possible without red and blue agreeing)*
> 
> All that to say the feds are pretty much out of the abortion question practically speaking until/unless we have a change in SC justice makeup




Disagree. Something doesn't have to be specifically addressed in the Constitution for it to be an appropriate subject for legislation. There are federal laws covering everything under the sun. The Congress could pass a law legalizing access to abortion, whether it be absolute or (more likely) subject to conditions. I think the American public is largely in agreement over the traditional 'necessity' scenarios, i.e. rape, safety of the mother, discovery that the unborn has certain birth defects or genetic errors. And I think the American public is also largely accepting of abortion being available prior to viability. That doesn't mean all Americans agree, but I think it's well more than a majority who would.  And most in Congress would not risk their seat to support such a law.

Overruling Roe doesn't ban abortion. It just would mean it is not, as Roe erroneously claimed, a right guaranteed in the Constitution.


----------



## Nothereed (May 5, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> I'm a doctor, and I'm in awe that you don't know the difference between a regular human cell* and a gamete, which contains only half of your DNA*.
> You people talk so much about "reason", but you don't seem to have a clue about what you're talking. Please, go study these matters before serving as a human toy for the barons of P1anned P4renthood (and its owners), ok?


Hmm, interesting mr doctor


Nothereed said:


> By your assessment, male masturbation should be considered killing a child. *They all have half the genetic information, and a mix of that male's background.*


Forgive me for asking this, but as part of your profession you are required to read a lot, yes?
So please inform me as to why you didn't read me already acknowledging that it has half the genetic information, as part of your standard profession. If you ask me that's rather quite unprofessional mr/mrs doctor.
As for your "I can't believe you don't know the difference"

Your own ridiculousness brought me to make such an answer, you should be aware that when you bring up something ridiculous that your going to get a equally ridiculous response back. You were equating a fetus with a child. 

which if you are a doctor you should be keenly aware is not the equivalent of a born child, and should be aware of several developmental phases a fetus has to go through before it reaches that stage. And you should also be keenly aware of the stages that an abortion is considered accepted and normal.
So I mockingly responded that you would consider sperm as killing children.
I must ask, what specific profession do you have? A doctor is a catch all term, what is your specific field of study.
Edit: it also appears you have no defense for the fact that a fetus and child are different, sure not genetically different, but at what point in time. So the fact you only responded to me making a ridiculous assertion, not the fact I accurately pointed out that it is treated very differently in professional fields, leaves me to believe you have no argument to make based on profession, but rather religious beliefs


----------



## x65943 (May 5, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Disagree. Something doesn't have to be specifically addressed in the Constitution for it to be an appropriate subject for legislation. There are federal laws covering everything under the sun. The Congress could pass a law legalizing access to abortion, whether it be absolute or (more likely) subject to conditions. I think the American public is largely in agreement over the traditional 'necessity' scenarios, i.e. rape, safety of the mother, discovery that the unborn has certain birth defects or genetic errors. And I think the American public is also largely accepting of abortion being available prior to viability. That doesn't mean all Americans agree, but I think it's well more than a majority who would.  And most in Congress would not risk their seat to support such a law.
> 
> Overruling Roe doesn't ban abortion. It just would mean it is not, as Roe erroneously claimed, a right guaranteed in the Constitution.


Please my good sir look into the 10th amendment, you are wrong


----------



## Nakamichi (May 5, 2022)

When will women finally understand?
The only people who get to decide what they can do with their bodies are rich white-men.


----------



## SG854 (May 5, 2022)

Nakamichi said:


> When will women finally understand?
> The only people who get to decide what they can do with their bodies are rich white-men.


Don't worry Women are cooking up something good to stop this.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 5, 2022)

x65943 said:


> Please my good sir look into the 10th amendment, you are wrong



The Supreme Court has ruled that the interstate commerce clause covers just about anything and everything. Gonzales v. Raich, which had to do with cultivating marijuana, made it possible for Congress to legislate on practically anything that can affect or involve interstate commerce, even indirectly. Since disparate State laws on abortion would necessarily impact interstate commerce in medical services, well, voila.

At least, that's the argument proponents of federally legalizing abortion claim. Chuck Schumer was calling for a bill codifying Roe just yesterday. And the House has passed such a bill once before (didn't pass in the Senate at that time).


----------



## The Catboy (May 5, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Your "reason" tells me we should murder every person suffering from depression right now. Can you see how disgusting it is what you're saying?


That’s not what I said nor even what I implied. That was a stretch and I hope you warmed up before making it


Rena_to84 said:


> I'm a doctor





Rena_to84 said:


> The Demonrats congressmonsters of California are on their way to making it "legal" to kill a child if the mother so wants. They call it "postnatal abortion".
> Listen, the powerful people in California are not the only ones in history who legalized human sacrifice, many pagan societies used to do it. That's precisely whre the regressive revolutionary lunatics want to lead us back to, if you haven't noticed yet.


I really have my doubts about your claims of being a doctor. If you are, I have a lot of concerns about your practice and your patients.


----------



## Pachee (May 5, 2022)

Nakamichi said:


> When will women finally understand?
> The only people who get to decide what they can do with their bodies are rich white-men.


White man bad! Now go check the world map and you will notice that almost all countries were abortion was banned do not even have white men. 
-------------------------------

Overall, i am laughing at all this drama, it's twitter all over again. First of, the leak exposes the corruption of these activists and proves that these people do not respect anything, and will do anything they can to achieve their goals. You can't have peace with them around.
Second, they are being massive hypocrites. Just a few months ago they were pretty much demanding that unvaccinated people be punished/excluded from society. What happened to my body my choice? (5 boosters later they still want to double tax the unjabbed here and here)
Plus, those who say they do not care about the kids after they are born, do you do? Because at least in those "prolife" states/cities they are not actively trying to turn their neighborhoods into ghettos where the kids will not have a chance at life having to deal daily with infantilized woke collectivism and gangs/criminals killing people while on the umbrella of the local soros DA.


Hanafuda said:


> Disagree. Something doesn't have to be specifically addressed in the Constitution for it to be an appropriate subject for legislation. There are federal laws covering everything under the sun. *The Congress could pass a law legalizing access to abortion, whether it be absolute or (more likely) subject to conditions.* *I think the American public is largely in agreement over the traditional 'necessity' scenarios, i.e. rape, safety of the mother, discovery that the unborn has certain birth defects or genetic errors.* And I think the American public is also largely accepting of abortion being available prior to viability. That doesn't mean all Americans agree, but I think it's well more than a majority who would.  And most in Congress would not risk their seat to support such a law.
> 
> *Overruling Roe doesn't ban abortion. It just would mean it is not, as Roe erroneously claimed, a right guaranteed in the Constitution.*


Very correct. Heart Beat/Brain Activity is where laws should be based on.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 5, 2022)

_*cracks knuckles* _This shall be fun.

People screeching and reeing about this, the right to kill babies, because "my body, my choice", even though once upon a time, they fought the right to keep the baby in their body to be born, now they fight for the right to kill it. Only in very rare circumstances should this be allowed, abortion I mean, due to things like rape, saving the life of the mother, incest, things like that, but that's not the case here. Don't act like it's a common occurrence and that you absolutely _need _abortion when you don't like we're still in medieval times and we have zero advancements in technology and knowledge. Nowadays, most women want to have an abortion so they don't have to deal with the inconvenience of having and raising a child. Here's an idea, don't want a kid? Get sexual protection up the ass. It's so easy nowadays there's almost no excuse. Hell, worried that might not work? Don't have sex at all. Be abstinent. Or masturbate. They have sex toys for whatever freaky needs you may have. I just don't understand what's so hard to have as much protection as possible or to just not have sex if you're that scared of having children. Nope, just go straight to abortion right away! It's almost as if some women get pregnant just to have an abortion, and that is just purely demented and evil. This isn't the 1600's. We've advance in technology and options. Most of this push back is either mentally unstable people or laziness and cowardice on wanting to take actual responsibility for their bodies, which is funny when they screech "my body, my choice" from the rooftops. If you really don't want to get pregnant or get a women pregnant, either, if you're a woman, get a blow torch and seal your vagina, or if you're a man, chop off your twig and berries and bury it in the backyard like you would a dead hamster and you'll never have children for as long as you live!

This isn't even something that's going to completely end or outlaw abortion. This just makes it so now each individual state can decide on what abortion laws they want or not. If you need an abortion that bad, places like California will still be happy to accommodate you. Depending on where you live, it's a plane ticket or drive away. Or you can even more there and have all the free abortions you want ya sicko. "But some can't afford it!" Well that's really not my problem now, is it? Start saving up for a trip or permanent move or, as I said before, don't have sex. Easy.

I'm not sure who leaked it, be it liberal or conservative, but it is suspect that mere hours after this was leaked, a whole crowd of people showed up to conveniently protest this. Not a few weeks or days, but literally hours. Smells like a set up to me. Not sure who did it, but the intentions of it is much easier to guess: to either intimidate the supreme court with mob rule to withdraw the decision or something else. But people are done being intimidated now. Go take your twisted murderous agenda and go shove it.

I mean, really, is this normal?:



Lastly, another reason for the freak out, especially for top people in politics, is once again, they're losing control. We're clearly winning this fight, battle after battle, and they can't stand it. From Elon Musk buying twitter to let actual free speech rein, to the recent results in the primaries, to what's happening now, and a whole bunch more to list, the radical left is slowly but surely losing their tyrannical grip on the people.

And the general response from some of these righteous people on topics such as the over turning of Roe v. Wade? Well, let's just let a completely sane lefty take it from here and tell these racist white supremacist republicans what for:







Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

And to top it all off, it's amazing how people who supported forced vaccinations and destroying livelihoods over an injection turn around and say it's a women's choice for abortion.



Not to mention on how our honorable chairman Joe Biden's view changed on abortion from the past to now:



Not hypocritical at all, that's for sure. And also, let's make fun of republicans about a false narrative on how they "inject" horse de-wormer, but turn around and tell people how to mix a concoction of abortion pills that include ingredients vets use to treat ulcers in horses:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjb...hares-instructions-to-make-diy-abortion-pills

You just can't make this stuff up. Every day it just gets crazier and crazier. But at the end of the day, we're fighting back, and we're winning and taking this country back to sense and reason. You can think whatever you want here, but the fact is, we're winning, you're not.  You know why we're winning? Because we're the actual good guys, you're not. There are actually a lot more of us coming out more and more than the left wing thinkers on this site. Yeah, on this particular site, it's more left wing people here, but depending on where you frequent on the internet, some sites can be left leaning, some can be right leaning. But the fact is, outside the internet, in real life, there are more of us than there are of you who actually want a bright and noble future for our kids who we didn't abort to live in.


----------



## AleronIves (May 5, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> You can think whatever you want here, but the fact is, we're winning, you're not.  You know why we're winning? Because we're the actual good guys, you're not.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 5, 2022)

AleronIves said:


>



I'm glad you understand yourself now, my wayward child. Come to the bright side, we have common sense and chocolate chip cookies


----------



## Foxi4 (May 5, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> Oh, don't get me wrong! As you said, a large swath of abortions are for economic reasons. That's undeniable. I just don't believe that people think of it as an impact to society's economy, as your previous example was pointing to. Merely on their own financial future, and the potential prospects for the future kid.  I would predict that was the major factor influencing people, whereas the situation where the parents are both financially stable, but just didn't want to have kids would be the vast minority.
> 
> I think on Fox, I saw an article saying that there have been approximately 65 million abortions since it was deemed legal. Using the math for the societal impact that you used before, it would look like it has damaged the economy. But the majority of these abortions were probably from a population which is below the poverty line, and 40-50 million extra people below the poverty line would most definitely have a negative effect on the entire country. As you said though, it's a horribly dark and inhumane way to think about this kind of topic.


Oh, damage to the economy was just one example of how you’d translate a death into a quantifiable extent of damage - I mentioned that in reference to the child/old man example, not necessarily the abortions themselves. That being said, 65 million prematurely terminated pregnancies is *a lot*, and underlies the failure of other systems. More widespread contraception, or even easier access to Plan B (which I personally don’t consider an “abortion” - a woman isn’t really pregnant until a fertilised egg is nested in the womb - not every fertilised egg gets to that stage) would prevent many women from having to go through this traumatic experience.


x65943 said:


> In the same way that pro-choice will advocate for access in red states, pro-life will advocate against access in blue states
> 
> However clearly there is no constitutional power for the federal government to legislate on the matter either way - it would have to be a constitutional question (which would require ratification of 2/3 of the states, which is not possible without red and blue agreeing)
> 
> All that to say the feds are pretty much out of the abortion question practically speaking until/unless we have a change in SC justice makeup


I have a big problem with this kind of thinking. It is not within the SCOTUS’ purview to invent rights out of whole cloth using unrelated provisions as a justification. The SCOTUS was created with one simple function in mind - looking at specific cases and making a judgement call on whether constitutional rights were violated or not. It was not created to legislate from the bench - there are existing mechanisms to both create new laws, state and federal, and to amend the constitution to include new rights, as you’ve mentioned above. “Waiting for a different SC makeup” is a corrupt way to think about the system, it implies that the powers that be should cram “their own guys” in there whenever they can in order to bypass the inconvenient legislative branch as means of passing policies that we all know wouldn’t pass with overwhelming support otherwise. Law changes very slowly, but it does so for a reason - “pushing” something through SCOTUS changes things nationwide and overnight. It was never meant to work this way, and it’s sad that the court system is abused for political objectives. If abortion, or any other procedure, is to be legitimately enshrined in law as constitutionally protected, it has to go through the exact same process as any other constitutional amendment, rather than get tacked on to provisions that have absolutely nothing to do with it. On top of that, the existence of a right to medical care in general is questionable in the first place, let alone specific procedures.


----------



## NoobletCheese (May 5, 2022)

JaapDaniels said:


> what about rape? what about when the semen donor gone missing? what about children? what about those not capable of understanding the consequences? what about those forced?



What about the baby though?   You're concerned about everything _except_ the baby.

We should be concerned about all of those things, and there is a position that takes them all into account and weights them accordingly.

In the case of rape, what if the rape victim is close to birth?

imo the burden of proof is on whoever is proposing that something be killed.  

My city council won't even let me chop down a tree without getting their approval.


----------



## Flame (May 5, 2022)

Do any of this old white men care about babies/children in foster care like they care about what a young woman does with her body?


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 5, 2022)

Flame said:


> Do any of this old white men care about babies/children in foster care like they care about what a young woman does with her body?


You are saying you prefer black babies dead (you know most of them are black, right?) rather than on foster care?



NoobletCheese said:


> What about the baby though?   You're concerned about everything _except_ the baby.
> 
> We should be concerned about all of those things, and there is a position that takes them all into account and weights them accordingly.
> 
> ...


Fact is the regressive left has turned human sacrifice into a huge industry, the industry of child murder.

They don't care about rape, they relativize it, they turn everything into rape so that you can't even point the actual rapes anymore. They don't care at all if women are murdering their babies using fake "rape" as an excuse for infanticide.

Jane Fonda has said it: "The coronavirus is a blessing to the left".
Never forget.


----------



## seany1990 (May 5, 2022)

Flame said:


> Do any of this old white men care about babies/children in foster care like they care about what a young woman does with her body?


They wouldn't care about Zygotes either if it wasn't a convenient fringe issue to distract rural Christians having their pockets picked by the elite class.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 5, 2022)

seany1990 said:


> They wouldn't care about Zygotes either if it wasn't a convenient fringe issue to distract rural Christians having their pockets picked by the elite class.


White. Elite. Class.


----------



## seany1990 (May 5, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Fearmongering nonsense.  If you can't argue within the confines of reality, don't bother trying to argue at all.


This is what annoys me about conservatives. If you are right in your world view and beliefs, why are your arguments always disingenuous?


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 5, 2022)

seany1990 said:


> This is what annoys me about conservatives. If you are right in your world view and beliefs, why are your arguments always disingenuous?


What annoys me about the regressive left is they are proud of their blindness.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/now-a-california-bill-to-permit-infant-death-by-neglect/


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 5, 2022)

Flame said:


> Do any of this old white men care about babies/children in foster care like they care about what a young woman does with her body?


Old. White. Men.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (May 5, 2022)

This almost feels like an intentional smokescreen for something else going on because, really..THIS, in our current state of government, in 2022, THIS is somehow being considered a possibility. I just find it unbelievable to be honest. I thought we had evolved past this point but I guess not. Gotta love societal regression.



NoobletCheese said:


> What about the baby though?   You're concerned about everything _except_ the baby.
> 
> We should be concerned about all of those things, and there is a position that takes them all into account and weights them accordingly.
> 
> ...


For one, its not a baby for a long ass while in development, and abortion typically happens long before it can be considered such. Hell a heartbeat isn't even in a stage of development until at least 5-6 weeks and that is if its healthy. It does not even develop brain matter even longer. Your argument about this inherently flawed. That said it did not stop those same people in the south to execute mentally impaired folk back in the day now did it? Also why the hell would a rape victim carry until close to birth? *Most would never do this unless they are forced to *which people looking at a forced pro-life perspective try their damnedest to discourage anyone from going through with it even trying to delay it enough so they could not get it properly taken care of in the time they need to. It all comes back to the pro-life dipshits that care so goddamn much about whats growing inside of a woman far more than the woman itself or what that life may be once after its born and the difficulties it will have living. 

The way I see it, You want pro-life laws to go into effect? SURE! But you know what, once that baby is born its the responsibility, taxation and care forced on to the pro-life people that will have no choice but to take on that role, you want to preserve life? Its now your responsibility to take care of it until its an adult.  Otherwise if that does not work with you then *STAY THE FUCK OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES AND CHOICES.*


Seriously, people who speak of pro-life are so out of touch with reality around them, either having been born with a silver spoon up their arse and/or completely discconected with the problems of the world around them just assuming people live in troubles because they make their own problems, it must be nice to live that high in the clouds.


----------



## The Catboy (May 5, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Fact is the regressive left has turned human sacrifice into a huge industry, the industry of child murder.
> 
> They don't care about rape, they relativize it, they turn everything into rape so that you can't even point the actual rapes anymore. They don't care at all if women are murdering their babies using fake "rape" as an excuse for infanticide.
> 
> ...


So what field of medicine do you practice under?


----------



## JaapDaniels (May 5, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> What about the baby though?   You're concerned about everything _except_ the baby.
> 
> We should be concerned about all of those things, and there is a position that takes them all into account and weights them accordingly.
> 
> ...


Okay, tell me about your first year:

What did you feel?
have you felt love?
have you felt hate?
have you felt pain?
can you remember the first time you hit your head to anything at al?
can you remember how it hurted?
Now i'm sure you don't remember anything of your first year, so how much do you think you remember beeing in your mothers womb? have you got any actual experiences built there?
So it isn't about the unborn child it's about the feeling of beeing a mother, father or uncle of this unborn child.
Okay we're getting there, soon but first things first, how sacret have you treated all the life surrounding you?
have you ever eaten an unborn apple? yes i mean te seed..
if yes, you monster! you brutal moster? you killed an innocent life!
have you ever eaten an egg?
Even if that egg was not fertile this means you've taken what could have lived. this for every egg layed is a chance for nature to expand.
Now for meat, flesh of an actual animal ever tasted it? it means you killed life.

Okay that unborn child... That's been so sacret... You never disapointed such a sacret living thing?
i mean if it's sacret as an unborn it must also be sacret as a baby, it must me sacret as a teenager, it must be sacret as an adult, it must be sacret as a senior.
You never yelled at one of those sacret creatures?
You never disapointed one of those sacret creatures?

back to that unborn being, for by now you should understand that if life is sacret that would and should apply to all the living and you can't be that perfect and still living, for there is nothing to feed you.
that unborn being can't be that special, that sacret anymore.

It's you, it's your ego that's what has this feeling of injust. It is your feelings that you feel so strongly about that you want others to obey. it's your religion that must be lived up to by all of your surrounding.

Now what does this tell about the child, still nothing.

What does this mean for you? It means you're an egoïst, a bully for you've got no respect for those with different feelings, with different religion.
you can't seem to see they're not living your life, they don't feel your religion in thier hart.
you're missing the most important thing teached in your religion: compassion to those around you.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 5, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> What about the baby though?   You're concerned about everything _except_ the baby.
> 
> We should be concerned about all of those things, and there is a position that takes them all into account and weights them accordingly.
> 
> ...



The left just wants to live reckless life styles. They want to have sex all of the time and not take responsibility for what they willingly create. They are lying and could care less if unborn life was sentient or not. They simply are irresponsible and blame their poor decision making on others and expect those others to provide for them. Sorry you pieces of shit, I'll be voting to make abortion illegal and that means no more sleeping around like sluts and if you don't stop and someone gets hurt trying to do an abortion at home then that's their illegal decision and not my fault. If you *choose *to break the law and get hurt then that's your fucking problem. I know democrats don't understand or care about personal responsibility, but I do.



Rena_to84 said:


> Old. White. Men.



Yeah the party that claims they love everyone and everything and that hate is wrong hates old white men and yet they are allowing old white men to control them. Hypocritical doesn't even scratch the surface of what their delusions entail.


----------



## AleronIves (May 5, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Sorry you pieces of shit, I'll be voting to make abortion illegal and that means no more sleeping around like sluts and if you don't stop and someone gets hurt trying to do an abortion at home then that's their illegal decision and not my fault.


Ah, finally you admit your true motivation. It's not about saving the unborn. It's about punishing women for daring to enjoy sex.


----------



## NoobletCheese (May 5, 2022)

@JaapDaniels @Dr_Faustus @JonhathonBaxster

I think it's worth noting that both sides of the argument tend to believe that if the fetus has a soul, that it would be wrong to kill it, generally speaking.

So perhaps it's more of an empirical dispute about whether the fetus happens to have a soul, rather than a moral dispute about how souls should be treated.

I leave the word soul here to your discretion -- whatever it is about humans that gives them a different moral status to, say, plants, or other inanimate objects.

btw the word soul needn't assume mind-body dualism -- physicalists can use that word too, see here at around 9:40.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 5, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Ah, finally you admit your true motivation. It's not about saving the unborn. It's about punishing women for daring to enjoy sex.


What's the BFD on putting on protection and making absolutely sure no one gets pregnant during sex? You can have sex, but if you don't want kids yet, get your dick suited up or get birth control, preferably both so both partners are protected.


----------



## Lacius (May 5, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> What's the BFD on putting on protection and making absolutely sure no one gets pregnant during sex? You can have sex, but if you don't want kids yet, get your dick suited up or get birth control, preferably both so both partners are protected.


Condoms and other forms of birth control are not 100% effective, even when used together.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 6, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Ah, finally you admit your true motivation. It's not about saving the unborn. It's about punishing women for daring to enjoy sex.



I don't care if men and women have sex. They can have all the sex they want, but if they bring a life form into the world then they need to care for it and not have it ripped out of the womb and shredded into bits because they simply don't want to be responsible adults.



Lacius said:


> Condoms and other forms of birth control are not 100% effective, even when used together.



The rate at which condoms fail is low and if you get a simple operation you can prevent pregnancies. There's also pills. The pill is 99% effective in preventing pregnancies. If you combine a male condom and a female pill the female is pretty safe from getting pregnant. There's also the option of doing none of that and not having sex until you're ready to care for a child. Many women wait to have sex until they get married. So there's plenty of ways to pretty much make sure the female doesn't get pregnant.


----------



## deinonychus71 (May 6, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I don't care if men and women have sex. They can have all the sex they want, but if they bring a life form into the world then they need to care for it and not have it ripped out of the womb and shredded into bits because they simply don't want to be responsible adults.
> 
> 
> 
> The rate at which condoms fail is low and if you get a simple operation you can prevent pregnancies. There's also pills. The pill is 99% effective in preventing pregnancies. If you combine a male condom and a female pill the female is pretty safe from getting pregnant. There's also the option of doing none of that and not having sex until you're ready to care for a child. Many women wait to have sex until they get married. So there's plenty of ways to pretty much make sure the female doesn't get pregnant.


What a fantastic world we're preparing for all these children on a planet that already can't sustain all of us, especially with some of us feel entitled to waste its resources daily for personal gain.

If only you put that much energy at promoting a culture of equality of opportunity (that is NOT equality of outcome, no deflection please) so all born children may have a chance to live a decent life and ascend the social ladder.
I would at least half respect your argument.

If the baby life is what you care about most, if life is what you care about, "it's the responsibility of the parents" should never be the first question. That you focus on that only show that you're looking to punish first and foremost, not actually help life.


----------



## KitChan (May 6, 2022)

I think politicians should stay out of women's vaginas.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Condoms and other forms of birth control are not 100% effective, even when used together.


Then don't fuck.


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2022)

Every asshole who thinks banning abortion is a good idea should be forced to adopt two to three kids each.  The foster care system is already overwhelmed, so put up or shut up.


----------



## Valwinz (May 6, 2022)

reminder that this will no ban abortion and will fall


Xzi said:


> Every asshole who thinks banning abortion is a good idea should be forced to adopt two to three kids each.  The foster care system is already overwhelmed, so put up or shut up.


good thing the supreme court is not banning anything


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> reminder that this will no ban abortion and will fall
> 
> good thing the supreme court is not banning anything


They're removing federal protections for it, and any number of red states have already banned it preemptively.  So my statement stands: anybody who thinks it's a good idea to ban it either federally or in their own state, should be forced to adopt.  Short of that they're subjecting hundreds of thousands of kids to either abuse or neglect in an overcrowded foster care system.  Many of whom will spend their entire lives wishing they'd be never been born.


----------



## Valwinz (May 6, 2022)

Xzi said:


> They're removing federal protections for it, and any number of red states have already banned it preemptively.  So my statement stands: anybody who thinks it's a good idea to ban it either federally or in their own state, should be forced to adopt.  Short of that they're subjecting hundreds of thousands of kids to either abuse or neglect in an overcrowded foster care system.  Many of whom will spend their entire lives wishing they'd be never been born.


move to a state that lets you do it if the person is so into it


----------



## Nothereed (May 6, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> move to a state that lets you do it if the person is so into it


JuSt *MoVe*
ah yes, like the people who are getting an abortion over financial reasons can just, get up, quit their job, move to a entire new state, buy/rent a new home, which leases are 6 months commonly or more, so breaking their current lease most likely, paying for breaking that lease, Just to have an abortion.
*wow*
it's almost like this statement is extremely ridiculous in every sense of the word


----------



## Valwinz (May 6, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> JuSt *MoVe*
> ah yes, like the people who are getting an abortion over financial reasons can just, get up, quit their job, move to a entire new state, buy/rent a new home, which leases are 6 months commonly or more, so breaking their current lease most likely, paying for breaking that lease, Just to have an abortion.
> *wow*
> it's almost like this statement is extremely ridiculous in every sense of the word


don't have unprotected sex is it so hard to close your legs?


----------



## Nothereed (May 6, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> don't have unprotected sex is it so hard to close your legs?


Don't have condoms break, don't have birth control fail. Because guess what, _they do_
it reduces the chance of a baby, but does not stop it 100%
If anything your suggesting that people should do abstinence, which you know.
Is also really fucking stupid.
But hey, that stops it 100%


----------



## osaka35 (May 6, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> don't have unprotected sex is it so hard to close your legs?


"Are there no prisons, are there no poor houses?"


----------



## ZeroT21 (May 6, 2022)

What's next? Sterilize people by law?


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> move to a state that lets you do it if the person is so into it


I'm already in a state where it will remain legal, this isn't about me.


----------



## deinonychus71 (May 6, 2022)

Why don't you people start being honest and admit that's your real issue right there. That you don't like that people can fuck however they want?
Cause for all the pro life bullshit y'all keep talking about you certainly don't seem to care about what becomes of the baby once they're born, you only talk about how parents fuck up.


----------



## wartutor (May 6, 2022)

I dont see what the big deal is, hell this group cant even define what a woman is why the fux do they need a ruling for just women. Next it will be "that "man" cant get an abortion because they/he/she (whatever the hell it calls itself) dont identify as a woman so its no longet my body my choice. Hypocrisy at its finest. They tell you what to do with your body since 2020 but "dont try to keep me from killing this child who the fux do u think you are"


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 6, 2022)

deinonychus71 said:


> Why don't you people start being honest and admit that's your real issue right there. That you don't like that people can fuck however they want?
> Cause for all the pro life bullshit y'all keep talking about you certainly don't seem to care about what becomes of the baby once they're born, you only talk about how parents fuck up.


So I guess it's okay to be a nation full of disease spreading sluts? Like God damn, how sex depraved and horny must you be to not have sex or use protection? I mean, what pills are you taking? Because I want some of that shit next time I bring a lady home! XD There's even sex toys online. All the dildos and fleshlights right at your finger tips to buy. It's almost like people have no self control nowadays or they're making excuses at this point. And we talk about the parents fucking up because _they're _the ones that actually made the god damn child. If they didn't want a child, then they should've planned better. Otherwise, suck it up and raise it. Or at least give it to someone who will actually care about something other than their own self centered ass. How cold and selfish can people be nowadays?



Xzi said:


> I'm already in a state where it will remain legal, this isn't about me.


So why're you complaining? If your state allows it, you're set.


Nothereed said:


> Don't have condoms break, don't have birth control fail. Because guess what, _they do_
> it reduces the chance of a baby, but does not stop it 100%
> If anything your suggesting that people should do abstinence, which you know.
> Is also really fucking stupid.
> But hey, that stops it 100%


Dude, if it fails that often when you're fucking, you need some stronger birth control or condoms. There's like, literally a dozen options when you go shopping. How often does the protection fail that you desperately need abortion?


Xzi said:


> Every asshole who thinks banning abortion is a good idea should be forced to adopt two to three kids each.  The foster care system is already overwhelmed, so put up or shut up.


So I guess you're gonna lead by example and also adopt a few kids to shut us bigots up first, right?


ZeroT21 said:


> What's next? Sterilize people by law?


If you're that uncontrollably horny, maybe that person should look into that? lol



Nothereed said:


> JuSt *MoVe*
> ah yes, like the people who are getting an abortion over financial reasons can just, get up, quit their job, move to a entire new state, buy/rent a new home, which leases are 6 months commonly or more, so breaking their current lease most likely, paying for breaking that lease, Just to have an abortion.
> *wow*
> it's almost like this statement is extremely ridiculous in every sense of the word


Because it's so hard to control your urges to fuck and/or use protection that you *need *government sponsored abortion to clean up your mistakes and uncontrollable lifestyle.


osaka35 said:


> "Are there no prisons, are there no poor houses?"


"Are there no brains? Are there no people with self control?"

I honestly didn't mean to respond to this many people, but damn, the excuses people give. It's funny.


----------



## osaka35 (May 6, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I honestly didn't mean to respond to this many people, but damn, the excuses people give. It's funny.


So your argument against bodily autonomy is "bonk! no horny!". Bit odd.


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> So why're you complaining? If your state allows it, you're set.


We're the *United* States, remember? The consequences of abortion bans will be felt nationwide, and it's the entire nation's foster care system that's overcrowded, not just one or two states. Patchwork laws don't even work well when it comes to legal weed, so I'm not sure what makes you believe they'll work when it comes to an important part of women's healthcare.


----------



## The Catboy (May 6, 2022)

Xzi said:


> We're the *United* States,


We literally fought a war over this and the South lost.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 6, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> So your argument against bodily autonomy is "bonk! no horny!". Bit odd.


I think some people here need to go to sex therapy if they have that much unprotected sex imo I mean really, from what I've seen it's not the right to one's body, but more like, "_NOOOOOOOOO I WANNA HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX AND KILL BABIES BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE TAKING NO RESPONSIBILITY REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE_" Like how much lack of self control does one have? Why is it always someone else's fault? And why is it that this is "my body, my choice" for this but not for taking vaccines? And don't say because that affects other people, because that's pure bullshit. If you get a vaccine, then you should be protected regardless if the person next to you has it or not, otherwise that means the vaccine you took doesn't work.



Xzi said:


> We're the *United* States, remember? The consequences of abortion bans will be felt nationwide, and it's the entire nation's foster care system that's overcrowded, not just one or two states. Patchwork laws don't even work well when it comes to legal weed, so I'm not sure what makes you believe they'll work when it comes to an important part of women's healthcare.


So then adopt some kids to ease the system you unsung hero you. You're the white knight and shining armor every woman clearly needs. And killing humans isn't "healthcare". That's like, the opposite of healthcare. How is murder health? Because the woman might die? That very rarely happens. That's exception I can accept, but it's not like half of women who give birth die. The number is extremely now, like in the single digits. Unless we somehow time traveled back a thousand years, medical advancements have evolved greatly.


----------



## deinonychus71 (May 6, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> So I guess it's okay to be a nation full of disease spreading sluts? Like God damn, how sex depraved and horny must you be to not have sex or use protection? I mean, what pills are you taking? Because I want some of that shit next time I bring a lady home! XD There's even sex toys online. All the dildos and fleshlights right at your finger tips to buy. It's almost like people have no self control nowadays or they're making excuses at this point. And we talk about the parents fucking up because _they're _the ones that actually made the god damn child. If they didn't want a child, then they should've planned better. Otherwise, suck it up and raise it. Or at least give it to someone who will actually care about something other than their own self centered ass. How cold and selfish can people be nowadays?



Even if half of that garbage was right, even if the problem was indeed people not having self control, at one point are you answering the argument at all? Isn't the child, "life" what you care about the most? What do you do to help the child, beside blaming the parents and everyone that isn't you or doesn't think like you. The child isn't responsible for the behavior of their parents, are they?

It's made abundantly clear again that you give absolutely no shit about the child. All your arguments is about blaming the parents. There is no love at all for life itself. So keep making your generalization over people having sex, but at least stop being a fraud and pretend you're pro-life. You're not.

Also, speaking of garbage arguments, I could be just as nasty as you are "full of disease spreading sluts". Yeah, we saw that for 2 years. When most people were trying to protect themselves and others from spreading a disease, who didn't give 2 shits and wanted to do as they please?


----------



## osaka35 (May 6, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I think some people here need to go to sex therapy if they have that much unprotected sex imo I mean really, from what I've seen it's not the right to one's body, but more like, "_NOOOOOOOOO I WANNA HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX AND KILL BABIES BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE TAKING NO RESPONSIBILITY REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE_" Like how much lack of self control does one have? Why is it always someone else's fault? And why is it that this is "my body, my choice" for this but not for taking vaccines? And don't say because that affects other people, because that's pure bullshit. If you get a vaccine, then you should be protected regardless if the person next to you has it or not, otherwise that means the vaccine you took doesn't work.
> 
> 
> So then adopt some kids to ease the system you unsung hero you. And killing humans isn't "healthcare". That's like, the opposite of healthcare. How is murder health? Because the woman might die? That very rarely happens. That's exception I can accept, but it's not like half of women who give birth die. The number is extremely now, like in the single digits. Unless we somehow time traveled back a thousand years, medical advancements have evolved greatly.


well, since it's not "killing babies" and more "preventing a baby", and sex is an important part of mental well-being for most people, then i suspect you're a bit off with your argument.

Vaccines affect others. If it was something that only affected you, then it wouldn't be required. but vaccines also prevent you from spreading it to other people. Also a quick shot to improve your health isn't quite on the same level as governmentally forced pregnancy and responsibility for a human being for 18+ years.


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> So then adopt some kids to ease the system you unsung hero you.


You're one of the idiots insisting on banning abortion, so the onus should be on you to adopt if you believe that's such a great alternative.



BitMasterPlus said:


> And killing humans isn't "healthcare". That's like, the opposite of healthcare. How is murder health? Because the woman might die? That very rarely happens.


You might as well be arguing that masturbation is genocide, because this isn't how biology works.  A ball of cells isn't a human, and there's no excuse for holding its rights in higher regard than the person forming it inside of them.  Without the systems in place to support a population boom, we're just going to end up with far more mothers and children on the streets panhandling and begging for food.


----------



## PhantomChu (May 6, 2022)

JaapDaniels said:


> you ever for a minute thought about more than yourself?


Saying this while defending the killing of unborn children is pretty laughable


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2022)

PhantomChu said:


> Saying this while defending the killing of unborn children is pretty laughable


Yeah, gotta wait until the baby has consciousness and experiences the violence inherent in a capitalist system before we let it die of abuse/neglect/starvation!  The right is all about equal opportunity suffering.


----------



## PhantomChu (May 6, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Yeah, gotta wait until the baby has consciousness and experiences the violence inherent in a capitalist system before we let it die of abuse/neglect/starvation!  The right is all about equal opportunity suffering.


Oh jesus...

This is why it should go to the states to decide. That way people can live where it most suits their lifestyle and ideology. Obviously there is a huge difference in the way you and I think about this situation and blanket rules that outright ban abortion at a federal level are just as detrimental as blanket rules that outright allow abortion up to birth at a federal level.


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2022)

PhantomChu said:


> Oh jesus...


Don't bring him into this, the New Testament says next to nothing about abortion.  The Old Testament includes a how-to guide for aborting a fetus.  So not only are you trying to legislate morality, it's a form of morality with no basis in religion which you pulled straight out of your ass.


----------



## Nothereed (May 6, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> Vaccines affect others. If it was something that only affected you, then it wouldn't be required. but vaccines also prevent you from spreading it to other people. Also a quick shot to improve your health isn't quite on the same level as governmentally forced pregnancy and responsibility for a human being for 18+ years.


It's not even that it only affects others (I do agree with you, just expanding your points)
Its littearly fucking risk assessment. Do we:
Let a fuck ton of people die, become extremely sick and have a ton of after effects because we decided that several "my body my choice" ass hats wanted to go carry a disease and spread it everywhere. Causing business to loose employees over their death, or loosing profits over them not being able to work.
Or.
Do we instead heavily advocate for vaccines which are given to the people for free. Reduce the risk by a substantial margin, decrease the odds of death, and decrease the odds of spread, which means even less deaths occuring.
Fucking people calling "vaccines tyrany" should really fucking learn public risk assessment and tyrany are very different things. You can control your vaccine status. And it's not like the goverment is knocking on your door, putting a gun up to your head, and forcing a needle up you arm. 
Unlike idk, say, putting Japanese people in internment camps. Or a genocide on jewish people. Or idk, actively targeting trans people with laws that intentionally make it harder for them to exist, and increase their odds of death. (Hi Texas. can I say fuck you? Thanks)


----------



## SG854 (May 6, 2022)

Flame said:


> Do any of this old white men care about babies/children in foster care like they care about what a young woman does with her body?


They do care once they get to military age


----------



## wartutor (May 6, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Yeah, gotta wait until the baby has consciousness and experiences the violence inherent in a capitalist system before we let it die of abuse/neglect/starvation!  The right is all about equal opportunity suffering.


Most of the right are honest hard working people that keep this country going. It can join the right, get an education, job, work its way away from poverty instead of blaming everyone else for their plot in life....wait they would have to be republicans to do that...damn webster definition there.



Nothereed said:


> It's not even that it only affects others (I do agree with you, just expanding your points)
> Its littearly fucking risk assessment. Do we:
> Let a fuck ton of people die, become extremely sick and have a ton of after effects because we decided that several "my body my choice" ass hats wanted to go carry a disease and spread it everywhere. Causing business to loose employees over their death, or loosing profits over them not being able to work.
> Or.
> ...


Where the hell do you get vaccines are free. Your grandchildren will be paying for this shit long after we are all dead. Lmao dream big. Spend bigger you dont have to pay it back.


----------



## PhantomChu (May 6, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Don't bring him into this, the New Testament says next to nothing about abortion.  The Old Testament includes a how-to guide for aborting a fetus.  So not only are you trying to legislate morality, it's a form of morality with no basis in religion which you pulled straight out of your ass.


Wasn't bringing anybody into the conversation.  I am not religious in any way.  That was just my genuine reaction to such a ridiculous statement about capitalism and having the equal opportunity to suffer.


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Most of the right are honest hard working people that keep this country going. It can join the right, get an education, job, work its way away from poverty instead of blaming everyone else for their plot in life....wait they would have to be republicans to do that...damn webster definition there.


Did you seriously just advocate for child labor as if it's a real solution to this country's wealth and wage disparity?  Tonguing that corporate boot pretty deeply these days, eh?



PhantomChu said:


> Wasn't bringing anybody into the conversation. I am not religious in any way. That was just my genuine reaction to such a ridiculous statement about capitalism and having the equal opportunity to suffer.


We just got out of a pandemic.  There's a food insecurity crisis going on in this country right now, and inflation/corporate profiteering are out of control.  You're delusional if you think a forced birth policy on top of all that won't cause greater suffering among the impoverished.


----------



## PhantomChu (May 6, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Did you seriously just advocate for child labor as if it's a real solution to this country's wealth and wage disparity?  Tonguing that corporate boot pretty deeply these days, eh?


God damn, how do you make these giant leaps in logic.  Obviously he was stating that nobody is doomed to the living situation they are born into.  Anybody can work their way up and become something they deem respectable.  Who the hell said anything about child labor?



Xzi said:


> We just got out of a pandemic.  There's a food insecurity crisis going on in this country right now, and inflation/corporate profiteering are out of control.  You're delusional if you think a forced birth policy on top of all that won't cause greater suffering among the impoverished.


A pandemic that could have ended months ago but everybody had to continue locking themselves down.  Inflation caused by the current administration printing money like there is no tomorrow.  Also, how is this a forced birth policy?  All the supreme court is ruling on is whether or not the federal government has a right to enforce people's option of having an abortion.  If you live in a state that doesn't align with your views on abortion, move.


----------



## SG854 (May 6, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Ah, finally you admit your true motivation. It's not about saving the unborn. It's about punishing women for daring to enjoy sex.


It makes women the gate keeper. 

If she gets pregnant by accident since condoms & birth control is not 100%. She has the ultimate decision of whether or not to go through with pregnancy or get a abortion. The man has no say on abortion since it's her body her choice. Which means the man is dragged into child support of a kid he never wanted. 

So the only 100% safe method for man is to avoid sex altogether and avoid the enjoyment of sex if he doesn't want a kid and stick to masterbation.

MGTOW


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 6, 2022)

PhantomChu said:


> Oh jesus...
> 
> This is why it should go to the states to decide. That way people can live where it most suits their lifestyle and ideology. Obviously there is a huge difference in the way you and I think about this situation and blanket rules that outright ban abortion at a federal level are just as detrimental as blanket rules that outright allow abortion up to birth at a federal level.



So, then you don't actually believe in medical freedom. You want others to decide for us. Correct?


----------



## PhantomChu (May 6, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> So, then you don't actually believe in medical freedom. You want others to decide for us. Correct?


No, I don't think people should be legally allowed to murder children.



Stone_Wings said:


> So, then you don't actually believe in medical freedom. You want others to decide for us. Correct?


Also, can you define "medical freedom" for me?  Genuinely curious as to what that means.


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2022)

PhantomChu said:


> God damn, how do you make these giant leaps in logic.  Obviously he was stating that nobody is doomed to the living situation they are born into.  Anybody can work their way up and become something they deem respectable.  Who the hell said anything about child labor?


Oh okay, so you only expect single mothers to work two full-time jobs while somehow still finding the time to raise their children.  That's a much more reasonable solution that's sure to make everybody happy.  /s



PhantomChu said:


> All the supreme court is ruling on is whether or not the federal government has a right to enforce people's option of having an abortion. If you live in a state that doesn't align with your views on abortion, move.


Been over this already.  We're one nation.  Whenever red states fuck everything up, blue states foot the bill, and we all get dragged down into the mud.  I'm not okay with republicans turning us into a third-world country just so that they can generate enough desperate workers willing to accept slave wages to survive.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 6, 2022)

PhantomChu said:


> Also, can you define "medical freedom" for me?  Genuinely curious as to what that means.



Oh, fuck me. You know full well what I mean. You can stop with the fake "I don't understand" bullshit right off the bat. Just answer the question.


----------



## PhantomChu (May 6, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Oh okay, so you only expect single mothers to work two full-time jobs while somehow still finding the time to raise their children.  That's a much more reasonable solution that's sure to make everybody happy.  /s
> 
> 
> Been over this already.  We're one nation.  Whenever red states fuck everything up, blue states foot the bill, and we all get dragged down into the mud.  I'm not okay with republicans turning us into a third-world country just so that they can generate enough desperate workers willing to accept slave wages.


One nation?  We haven't been one nation except in name for decades.  Nobody can agree on anything.  Also, "whenever red states fuck everything up, blue states foot the bill?"  That gave me a good chuckle.  I don't know how you can attribute every bad thing the country has ever experienced to one side, seems pretty immature to me.

Then move?  Obviously, if this is the direction the country is moving in, maybe you would fit in better somewhere in Europe.



Stone_Wings said:


> Oh, fuck me. You know full well what I mean. You can stop with the fake "I don't understand" bullshit right off the bat. Just answer the question.


Honest to God, don't know what you mean by "medical freedom" I have not heard the term.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 6, 2022)

PhantomChu said:


> Honest to God, don't know what you mean by "medical freedom" I have not heard the term.



I don't believe you for a second but, do you believe a person should have the freedom to make their own medical choices for their own body? Or do you feel our government should be making those choices for us? Do you believe in medical freedom, or do you not? It can't be both ways. One of the other.


----------



## Xzi (May 6, 2022)

PhantomChu said:


> One nation? We haven't been one nation except in name for decades. Nobody can agree on anything.


All the more reason we shouldn't be letting the supreme court or states legislate morality.  If abortion is abhorrent to you, don't get one.  Beyond that we have to address the material conditions that make it a necessity if you actually want to reduce its frequency.



PhantomChu said:


> Also, "whenever red states fuck everything up, blue states foot the bill?" That gave me a good chuckle.


It's generally true.  Texas is one of the very few red states that pays more in taxes than it takes in in federal funding.  California's economy on its own is bigger than the majority of red states combined.



PhantomChu said:


> Then move? Obviously, if this is the direction the country is moving in, maybe you would fit in better somewhere in Europe.


Nah fuck that, I'll just become more and more of a militant leftist as the authoritarian minority in this country tries to seize more and more power.  The religious extremists will not win this fight.


----------



## The Catboy (May 6, 2022)

PhantomChu said:


> Honest to God, don't know what you mean by "medical freedom" I have not heard the term.


You have an opinion on the topic but don’t even understand the basic terminology that would go into this topic. I am not even shocked.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 6, 2022)

deinonychus71 said:


> Even if half of that garbage was right, even if the problem was indeed people not having self control, at one point are you answering the argument at all? Isn't the child, "life" what you care about the most? What do you do to help the child, beside blaming the parents and everyone that isn't you or doesn't think like you. The child isn't responsible for the behavior of their parents, are they?


I do care about the child. If the parents don't want it, give it to someone who will love it. Better yet, don't conceive or get someone pregnant until you're mentally mature and selfless enough to actually care for one. Otherwise, it's no one else's fault for your mistake on not taking precautions and it's definitely not the government's job to bail your sorry worthless ass out for your own bad decision making.


deinonychus71 said:


> It's made abundantly clear again that you give absolutely no shit about the child. All your arguments is about blaming the parents. There is no love at all for life itself. So keep making your generalization over people having sex, but at least stop being a fraud and pretend you're pro-life. You're not.


I am pro-life and you're just acting like a perpetual child having a tantrum. You showed you care very little for human life, not me.


deinonychus71 said:


> Also, speaking of garbage arguments, I could be just as nasty as you are "full of disease spreading sluts". Yeah, we saw that for 2 years. When most people were trying to protect themselves and others from spreading a disease, who didn't give 2 shits and wanted to do as they please?


If the "vaccine" you took didn't work because others didn't take it, then it's not the other person's fault, it's the medical professionals who lied to you at fault for making you take an experimental booster that provides a temporary boost in protection at best. Not a vaccine or miracle sure. Don't talk about "my body, my choice" while at the same time forcing people to get a experimental jab that has little effect. You have no ground to stand on as that's clear hypocrisy. Either choose a side and be consistent or just shut your damn mouth.


osaka35 said:


> well, since it's not "killing babies" and more "preventing a baby", and sex is an important part of mental well-being for most people, then i suspect you're a bit off with your argument.


Sex toys. Masturbation. Blowjobs. Handjobs. Tit fucking. Anal. Take your pick if you really need to get your rocks off.


osaka35 said:


> Vaccines affect others. If it was something that only affected you, then it wouldn't be required. but vaccines also prevent you from spreading it to other people. Also a quick shot to improve your health isn't quite on the same level as governmentally forced pregnancy and responsibility for a human being for 18+ years.


If that's the case, then the covid-19 vaccine has to be one of the worst vaccine's in history since it doesn't do any of that. It's a booster that provides a boost in temporary protection at best. If it were a vaccine, you'd never, ever get covid, regardless if other's have taken it or not. If you got the shot and still got covid, then it's not a vaccine, plain and simple. It's akin to a flu shot at best.



Xzi said:


> You're one of the idiots insisting on banning abortion, so the onus should be on you to adopt if you believe that's such a great alternative.


You brought up the whole strain on the whole foster care system first, not me. So either lead by example or shut your lazy ass up. Don't try to deflect on me when you suggested something first.


Xzi said:


> You might as well be arguing that masturbation is genocide, because this isn't how biology works.  A ball of cells isn't a human, and there's no excuse for holding its rights in higher regard than the person forming it inside of them.  Without the systems in place to support a population boom, we're just going to end up with far more mothers and children on the streets panhandling and begging for food.


Ok then, so tell me, when does life begin exactly? If you were just a ball of cells and you got killed, then it's not murder then, right? In my eyes, once it starts to form, life is slowly being created. Just because that fact is inconvenient doesn't make it suddenly not true. We're all technically a formation of trillions of cells walking around. Is murder ok then by that logic? Sorry officer, I didn't commit murder, it's just a giant ball of cells that I ran over. And as for a population boom, there's plenty of land on the planet earth people can choose to build new towns or cities, so really, we don't need abortion to "control" the population. I highly doubt we're gonna be overpopulated on the planet anytime soon, if at all. And even in the far distant future we do, I hope we have the technology for space colonies, colonizing other planets, or both. At the rate we're going, we just might, so don't worry about too many people all around you. Stop fearmongering over the dumbest things when you can just rationalize a solution.



Xzi said:


> Been over this already.  We're one nation.  Whenever red states fuck everything up, blue states foot the bill, and we all get dragged down into the mud.  I'm not okay with republicans turning us into a third-world country just so that they can generate enough desperate workers willing to accept slave wages to survive.


Have you seen places like Detroit and California? Or any other Democrat run state? They already look like worse than any third world country I haven't seen so I don't know what reality you're living in.


----------



## osaka35 (May 6, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> If that's the case, then the covid-19 vaccine has to be one of the worst vaccine's in history since it doesn't do any of that. It's a booster that provides a boost in temporary protection at best. If it were a vaccine, you'd never, ever get covid, regardless if other's have taken it or not. If you got the shot and still got covid, then it's not a vaccine, plain and simple. It's akin to a flu shot at best.


some of the vaccines you get a kid also need boosters. It doesn't have to be 100% effective to be a vaccine. the term vaccine is more about "training your immune system" than about "100% prevent of virus". If a booster helps, they recommend it. Every virus is different, so sometimes the approaches must be different.

The flu shot is also a vaccine, but flu is a pretty dynamic jerk and the vaccine is only effective against one or two strains. if that's the strain of the year, then excellent! This is why there was a lot of fear about the different covid strains. If covid continues to spread, it could mutate into a form the vaccine wasn't as effective against. Which happened. but the vaccine helped a great deal and continues to do so.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 6, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> some of the vaccines you get a kid also need boosters. It doesn't have to be 100% effective to be a vaccine. the term vaccine is more about "training your immune system" than about "100% prevent of virus". If a booster helps, they recommend it. Every virus is different, so sometimes the approaches must be different.
> 
> The flu shot is also a vaccine, but flu is a pretty dynamic jerk and the vaccine is only effective against one or two strains. if that's the strain of the year, then excellent! This is why there was a lot of fear about the different covid strains. If covid continues to spread, it could mutate into a form the vaccine wasn't as effective against. Which happened. but the vaccine helped a great deal and continues to do so.


It's still not a vaccine, since the definition of vaccine (before the CDC conveniently changed the definition) is to make you immune to a disease. If a new strain emerges, then people need to figure out a vaccine for that. But boosting your immune system to make it less harder for the virus to infect does not equate to complete protection and immunity. It's a booster at that point, since you can still get sick.


----------



## osaka35 (May 6, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> It's still not a vaccine, since the definition of vaccine (before the CDC conveniently changed the definition) is to make you immune to a disease. If a new strain emerges, then people need to figure out a vaccine for that. But boosting your immune system to make it less harder for the virus to infect does not equate to complete protection and immunity. It's a booster at that point, since you can still get sick.


[citation required]


----------



## deinonychus71 (May 6, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I do care about the child. If the parents don't want it, give it to someone who will love it. Better yet, don't conceive or get someone pregnant until you're mentally mature and selfless enough to actually care for one. Otherwise, it's no one else's fault for your mistake on not taking precautions and it's definitely not the government's job to bail your sorry worthless ass out for your own bad decision making.


You care, yet only the first sentence is about a child, the rest is you bitching (having a tantrum) over people for having sex.
And even then "give it to someone who will love it" exactly in what fucking reality do you live.


BitMasterPlus said:


> I am pro-life and you're just acting like a perpetual child having a tantrum. You showed you care very little for human life, not me.


LOL. See above for an honest answer. Unlike you I don't go around judging people lifestyles, especially when they have no impact on me. This again, all you talk about, judging people for what you consider to be unethical. There is no a little bit of pro-life in what you're saying. If life was all you cared about y'all wouldn't have a single issue with gay relationships since it can't lead to procreation. But you do, cause you can't fathom a world made of people who think differently or just enjoy life differently.


BitMasterPlus said:


> If the "vaccine" you took didn't work because others didn't take it, then it's not the other person's fault, it's the medical professionals who lied to you at fault for making you take an experimental booster that provides a temporary boost in protection at best. Not a vaccine or miracle sure. Don't talk about "my body, my choice" while at the same time forcing people to get a experimental jab that has little effect. You have no ground to stand on as that's clear hypocrisy. Either choose a side and be consistent or just shut your damn mouth.


It wasn't just the vaccine and you know it, even wearing a mask was met with pushback. I am consistent, I care about life, and I care about limiting my impact on other people lives. You are consistent in your attempt at meddling with other people lives.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 6, 2022)

deinonychus71 said:


> You care, yet only the first sentence is about a child, the rest is you bitching (having a tantrum) over people for having sex.
> And even then "give it to someone who will love it" exactly in what fucking reality do you live.


The one we're living in now, not the fake one you're in, clearly. And why is it so hard for people to control how much sex they have? Are they really that weak willed and minded? Guess so.


deinonychus71 said:


> LOL. See above for an honest answer. Unlike you I don't go around judging people lifestyles, especially when they have no impact on me. This again, all you talk about, judging people for what you consider to be unethical. There is no a little bit of pro-life in what you're saying. If life was all you cared about y'all wouldn't have a single issue with gay relationships since it can't lead to procreation. But you do, cause you can't fathom a world made of people who think differently or just enjoy life differently.


Projection, projection, projection. Tell me something new.


deinonychus71 said:


> It wasn't just the vaccine and you know it, even wearing a mask was met with pushback. I am consistent, I care about life, and I care about limiting my impact on other people lives. You are consistent in your attempt at meddling with other people lives.


Not wearing a mask and not taking an experimental shot that has some serious side effects is different than plain murder. I don't care what people do with their lives, but murder is murder. Otherwise, let's just let all murder be legal then! If you really cared about life you would agree to no more abortion. You just constantly show consistencies and hypocrisies all over the place, just like many others. Bring something new to the table before we just go in boring circles.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 6, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> [citation required]


https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/nat...-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity


----------



## smf (May 6, 2022)

x65943 said:


> Both of these things would be protected as private matters if there was a sweeping right to privacy as regards to our body - why should the government say under what circumstances I can have sex (for money or not) or whether I can smoke the leaves or buds from a plant. But here we are in a world where they can - because the right is vague and applies only in some circumstances


Except roe vs wade does not give you a sweeping right either. It only covers within the first 24 weeks.

Similarly sex for money in a marriage is fine, sex for money on a street corner is not.



BitMasterPlus said:


> It's still not a vaccine, since the definition of vaccine (before the CDC conveniently changed the definition) is to make you immune to a disease.



The problem is that the word Immune is misunderstood, people think of it in the sense of Immune from prosecution where it's impossible to be prosecuted.

But it is not so: immune means "resistant to a particular infection or toxin owing to the presence of specific antibodies or sensitized white blood cells." You can be resistant to an infection, but fail to fight it.

All a vaccine ever does is trigger the immune system. Vaccines aren't 100% effective, so if you misunderstand "immune" and think "real vaccines" are 100% effective then you're wrong.

It appears the CDC were trying to clear up the confusion & conspiracy nut jobs seized on it. Of course the dumb people who misunderstood it in the first place, are the ones who turn into conspiracy nut jobs.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 6, 2022)

smf said:


> Nope, never was.


Yes, it was.


----------



## omegasoul6 (May 6, 2022)

Every time I hear something new about the U.S. it sounds more and more like a third world country masquerading as a first world country.


----------



## smf (May 6, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> but murder is murder. Otherwise, let's just let all murder be legal then!.


Abortion isn't murder.  Anymore than killing animals to eat them is murder. Because we define what murder is.

So if you want to hysterically say that killing a foetus is murder, then why can't we also say that killing animals for sport or food is murder too?

Using fossil fuels could also be considered murder, because of deaths caused by the pollution. It's funny how arbitrarily right whingers are.



omegasoul6 said:


> Every time I hear something new about the U.S. it sounds more and more like a third world country masquerading as a first world country.



Please, don't insult third world countries.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Yes, it was.


No, vaccines have never made you "immune" and cdc never claimed they did. They triggered your immune system, which gives you a certain percentage of immunity for a certain amount of time.

Have you not noticed that vaccines have never made people "immune"? Why are you not worried about that?

There is research that predates covid by a long way that shows this.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253344/

_Interestingly, the vaccine efficacy dropped over time. Although most vaccinees had binding antibodies, titers ‘collapsed’ after 24 weeks. The precise correlate of protection is under intense study, and the immune responses most consistently detected in this trial were CD4+ T cell proliferation, antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, and binding of antibodies to HIV-1 gp120_


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/198218

*Results*_ Although the adjusted overall effectiveness of the vaccine was 87% (95% confidence interval, 81%-91%; P<.001), there was a substantial difference in the vaccine's effectiveness in the first year after vaccination (97%) and in years 2 to 8 after vaccination (84%, P = .003)._


tl;dr A vaccine has never given absolute immunity that is unchanged over time, certain immune responses will persist longer than others. For covid 19 it is incredibly short, even for the same strain.

However vaccination has proven to be statistically effective against serious disease & hospitalisation, so deaths certainly were reduced even if people still got sick.

Maybe you should do better research next time.


----------



## urherenow (May 6, 2022)

Umm... without going through the entirety of what is likely a shitshow of a thread (I've read through the first page)... how many of you actually have a clue what this particular action means?  

I'll tell you: It's taking the Federal government out of the picture, and giving the power back to the States to decide. 

Don't like what that means for the area where you live? Move. You speak your mind by voting, and if the outcome is undesirable to you, then there are more people in your area that disagree with you than there are that do. You'll likely have a happier life surrounding yourself with like-minded people.

@JonhathonBaxster You're dead wrong. There are MANY situations that will KILL THE MOTHER if the abortion isn't done. This is absolutely an excuse. And for the first several weeks, we are NOT talking about a human. 

On the other hand, hearing (face it, mostly democrats) whining about being able to abort up to and including birth? Yea, those people are loony toons, and that is absolutely murder. My personal opinion is that an immediate choice is warranted and needed. But after more than 12 weeks? You've made your choice to keep it at that point, and should be jailed for aborting unless a Doctor deems it medically necessary to save the mother's life.  <-- which, again, is absolutely a valid reason.


----------



## deinonychus71 (May 6, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> The one we're living in now, not the fake one you're in, clearly. And why is it so hard for people to control how much sex they have? Are they really that weak willed and minded? Guess so.
> 
> Projection, projection, projection. Tell me something new.
> 
> Not wearing a mask and not taking an experimental shot that has some serious side effects is different than plain murder. I don't care what people do with their lives, but murder is murder. Otherwise, let's just let all murder be legal then! If you really cared about life you would agree to no more abortion. You just constantly show consistencies and hypocrisies all over the place, just like many others. Bring something new to the table before we just go in boring circles.


The fake one I'm in? Seriously?? You think you find loving families at every corner willing to take someone else's child? Have you even looked at how many children are living in misery and/or waiting for adoption around the world? The fuck is wrong with you.

I'll tell you something new when you'll start making sense and actually address the problem instead of deflecting it. No child is responsible for the sins of their parents, so even if the parents are sinners in your eyes it doesn't matter, it doesn't solve the problem, a problem that you're making worse with your obscurantist takes about what is a life and what isn't.

And stop trying to justify endangering other people. If you can understand (and condemn) the danger of spreading diseases through sex you shouldn't have a problem understanding why protection matters for an airborne disease.
And for the record I don't condone having random hookups without using protection. No double standards.



BitMasterPlus said:


> I don't care what people do with their lives


You're not kidding anyone.


----------



## Lacius (May 6, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> The rate at which condoms fail is low and if you get a simple operation you can prevent pregnancies. There's also pills. The pill is 99% effective in preventing pregnancies. If you combine a male condom and a female pill the female is pretty safe from getting pregnant.


That isn't 100%. People get pregnant everyday despite being on the pill and/or using condoms.

There's also the issue of things like rape, health of the mother, etc.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> There's also the option of doing none of that and not having sex until you're ready to care for a child. Many women wait to have sex until they get married. So there's plenty of ways to pretty much make sure the female doesn't get pregnant.


The vast majority of humans don't wait until marriage to have sex, since we are a sexual species. Funnily, when we're talking abortion, we are generally talking about responsible adults trying not to have children (or additional children, in the majority of cases) when they aren't ready.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Then don't fuck.


I'm sure that's easy, or even involuntary, for you, but it's easier said than done for most people. It's one of the many reasons why abstinence-only education doesn't work.


----------



## The Catboy (May 6, 2022)

The only take I have from this thread


----------



## Dr_Faustus (May 6, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> @JaapDaniels @Dr_Faustus @JonhathonBaxster
> 
> I think it's worth noting that both sides of the argument tend to believe that if the fetus has a soul, that it would be wrong to kill it, generally speaking.
> 
> ...


The problem is that such theological concepts are hard to weigh on when we ourselves barely understand it, not like we have tried in the past such as the experiment to see if the soul actually holds weight which to no surprise does not. 

The thing with souls and the scales of belief are far more lucid than anything else. Depending on your belief they could just go straight to the afterlife, or limbo or whatever. Maybe they will get a second chance to try again, or perhaps they just don't obtain a soul until after they are born. The arguments about kicking/moving inside their mother is not a response of the soul or brain but are merely reflexes in the same way the body will still have reflexes even after death (you know, when the soul is supposed to leave the body). The human body is made up of a lot of fun tissues and small electrical pulses, biologically speaking we are the closest form of perfect technology when it comes down to it, and I do not think that it was just luck that we became what we are today because of it. 

I don't want to argue the existence of a soul or not though, as I would rather believe in there being an afterlife for everyone. It would be far more peaceful to think rather than once you're dead that's it, your electrical signals in your brain cease and the biological hard drive and processor that is your brain ceases operation permanently with no ghost or presence of yourself afterwards. Its a depressing thought but one that has to be considered since the truth of truths is still vastly unknown to anyone, all we have is beliefs and the systems that they are structured on and to some that is enough. 

That said we still should not put our personal opinions on the right and choice of the people involved in these situations. Manipulating the idea of the fetus being a lifeform harboring a soul is as groundless as saying that the trees and vegetables have a soul. Hell some religions don't even believe that anything but a human can have a soul, discarding whole lifeforms and species from the mere concept of having a soul and a chance in a afterlife. (something I find highly disrespectful to anyone who had pets they loved dearly and had passed on, the thought that you can't reunite with them in the afterlife is gut wrenching to me.) Every form of life matters and deserves a chance if that is the case, but this is of course not the reality that is presented to us. 

If you want to be a protector of life, then it starts from the top to the bottom. All life is precious then, all animals, all people no matter the conflict of differences or beliefs, they all deserve to be protected as well. But this is not the reality here. Wars are still a thing and people die for far less, animals are killed for sport, kids are put into factories forced to make clothes until they die so you can buy your next cheap shirt from walmart.  Major corporate entities are making entire villages suffer due to their push on resources and can get away with it because they have the money to while bribing third world hospitals to push their baby formula on babies so they become dependent on the substance regardless of its actual health. We even still have issues with getting kids back to their families who crossed the border here in this country. Tell me, of these things and more how does the priority of life matter most when it comes to something not even formative of a human or even formative enough to have a heartbeat yet? So determined to protect something to the point where radicals would actually threaten the life of those in clinics no less, tell me does that make any sense? It doesn't. 

The Pro-Life movement is founded on hypocrisy and nothing more. A misguided effort of trying to protect something that barely exists and putting so much obscene effort behind it to the point that it circles back around and could end up taking lives to "help your cause". When human lives have to be put on the line to simply make your point you have already lost any credibility of your argument making sense. It becomes a question of mental deterioration or even illness, all for the sake of "being righteous in the eyes of God" let me tell you, if there is a hell those who do these things will be on the fast track there when they die. 

Finally, missing another point is that a woman is just as much a human and a lifeform deserving respect as anyone else. They do not exist as a means of accessory to a man's life. They are not tools to use to your desire and then become vessels for making kids. They are as human as the rest of us and deserve just as much respect and choice in their lives as any one of us do. We do not hold the right to determine what someone can or can't do because of how we feel about it. Again, if that is the case then take responsibility for your actions, if not then stay the hell out of it and let them choose what they need to do in their life to survive. 

If you feel the need to essentially "whiteknight" something that can't speak for itself basically, take up against animal abuse since animals can't talk for themselves. Or perhaps help those in other countries where the culture is so ass backwards that the idea of a woman speaking out can have her killed. Or maybe help bring attention to the slaves and the "reeducation camps" in China that have no problem forcefully sterilizing people of other beliefs/races so they could systematically erase their existence in a few generations. There are a lot of causes out there helping those who can't speak or defend themselves. Those deserve to have their lives protected before they are ended. There is no need to worry about a lump of underdeveloped cells when there is real trouble in the world worth defending life for. 

So please tell me how anything I have stated here is invalidated to your core belief of protecting life, to protect the soul, to protect those who cannot speak for themselves or defend themselves. It does not. If you really care about any of these things, then be the good example in the world and help those who need it, not attack women in your own country because of something that has not even formed a life yet.


----------



## KitChan (May 6, 2022)

I'm not particularly fond of promiscuity, but I think access to sexual health services for women is important.

Anyone who has had one will tell you that getting an abortion is an unpleasant experience, they carefully think it over and have serious reasons for doing so. Noone would willy nilly get abortions left and right as an excuse for promiscuity.


----------



## tabzer (May 6, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> The problem is that such theological concepts are hard to weigh on when we ourselves barely understand it, not like we have tried in the past such as the experiment to see if the soul actually holds weight which to no surprise does not.
> 
> The thing with souls and the scales of belief are far more lucid than anything else. Depending on your belief they could just go straight to the afterlife, or limbo or whatever. Maybe they will get a second chance to try again, or perhaps they just don't obtain a soul until after they are born. The arguments about kicking/moving inside their mother is not a response of the soul or brain but are merely reflexes in the same way the body will still have reflexes even after death (you know, when the soul is supposed to leave the body). The human body is made up of a lot of fun tissues and small electrical pulses, biologically speaking we are the closest form of perfect technology when it comes down to it, and I do not think that it was just luck that we became what we are today because of it.
> 
> ...




"Soul" is neʹphesh and psy·kheʹ.  They refer to the living body.  Living creatures are "souls".  If you are going to focus on ethereal aspects, then you have to have a form of measurement for the ethereal. 

As for white-knighting, that's what is going on both sides of the aisle.  If you need to get an abortion and your life depends on it, you will make the decision.  The idea of "economic hardship" entering the decision making process seems to attempt to put a price tag on life and may be equally as bad as the systems that have promoted the circumstances in the first place.

Afaik, abortion isn't a constitutional matter.  The connection to the 14th amendment makes as much sense to me as other stretches people take with other kinds of literature (ie. scripture).  This "controversy" appears to be a smokescreen or a fool's errand.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 6, 2022)

KitChan said:


> I'm not particularly fond of promiscuity, but I think access to sexual health services for women is important.
> 
> Anyone who has had one will tell you that getting an abortion is an unpleasant experience, they carefully think it over and have serious reasons for doing so. Noone would willy nilly get abortions left and right as an excuse for promiscuity.



You're wrong. Most abortions are done because the mother sleeps around (promiscuity) and doesn't want the kids they create. I linked to statistics in this post if you're interested in them.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 6, 2022)

smf said:


> Abortion isn't murder.  Anymore than killing animals to eat them is murder. Because we define what murder is.


Yes it is. And we eat certain kinds of animals for survival and nutrients, like protein. That's why we have different classifications for animals: some are domesticated pets, some are wild animals, and some are livestock. Humans fit into none of those categories and babies lives are worth value.


smf said:


> So if you want to hysterically say that killing a foetus is murder, then why can't we also say that killing animals for sport or food is murder too?


Nope, it's not. Humans have been hunting for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. Hell, animals hunt other animals for food. It's nature. But humans evolved to the point where we know it's ok to reasonably hunt animals, and not commit acts such as cannibalism if you're wondering why we don't hunt each other (at least, not any of us that aren't psychopathic killers).


smf said:


> Using fossil fuels could also be considered murder, because of deaths caused by the pollution. It's funny how arbitrarily right whingers are.


I think there may be more to it than people just croaking from air pollution, factors such as pre-existing conditions and such, that are not accounted for just for the sake of a convenient argument.


smf said:


> Please, don't insult third world countries.


Go live in one then if they're so great.



smf said:


> No, vaccines have never made you "immune" and cdc never claimed they did. They triggered your immune system, which gives you a certain percentage of immunity for a certain amount of time.
> 
> 
> Maybe you should do better research next time.


Biden and a whole bunch of other supposed "scientists" said when the shot came out it would make you immune:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahb...ims-you-cant-get-covid-after-vaccine-n2592934

It's all right there in the open for you to look up. I did my research, these people didn't.



deinonychus71 said:


> The fake one I'm in? Seriously?? You think you find loving families at every corner willing to take someone else's child? Have you even looked at how many children are living in misery and/or waiting for adoption around the world? The fuck is wrong with you.
> 
> I'll tell you something new when you'll start making sense and actually address the problem instead of deflecting it. No child is responsible for the sins of their parents, so even if the parents are sinners in your eyes it doesn't matter, it doesn't solve the problem, a problem that you're making worse with your obscurantist takes about what is a life and what isn't.
> 
> ...


Damn, you sound like a miserable person who had a bad childhood or something. Yeah, not everyone is caring, which is why the kids should go to someone who is caring and loving to raise them. It's that simple. I'm not the one endangering people by wanting more murder. And it is a double standard to say "my body, my choice" for abortions but not for experimental injections with possible deadly side effects.


deinonychus71 said:


> You're not kidding anyone.


Neither are you.



Lacius said:


> I'm sure that's easy, or even involuntary, for you, but it's easier said than done for most people. It's one of the many reasons why abstinence-only education doesn't work.


Talking about your non existent sex life again, huh, if we're going there? It actually is easy to say, "No, we cannot have sex tonight unless we're both fully protected." or, "No thank you I don't want to have sex." for whatever reason you have.


----------



## osaka35 (May 6, 2022)

urherenow said:


> I'll tell you: It's taking the Federal government out of the picture, and giving the power back to the States to decide.



"big government" doesn't mean "federal", and "small government" doesn't mean "state". It's about the size and breadth of the action.

We want government completely out of the equation. Just like with things like free speech and freedom of religion, we want to prevent the government from even being able to create laws restricting basic human rights. they're human rights, not rights bestowed by a government. 

in this case, it's the right to personal autonomy. even if you believe a clump of cells is a human life, just like how you can't be forced to donate blood or a kidney, you can't force someone to give up their body to eventually grow a human. 

a fair compromise is probably a month or two after conception.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 6, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Then don't fuck.



This reminds me of George Carlins comments on abortion and those who oppose it. After a comment as incredibly stupid as the one you made, I'm 100% positive you fit the bill from the first 20 seconds of this clip. Well, the entire thing actually. But the first 20 seconds is especially relevant to the quoted comment.


----------



## The Catboy (May 6, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Then don't fuck.


Why do you feel the need to control other people?


----------



## Lacius (May 6, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> It actually is easy to say, "No, we cannot have sex tonight unless we're both fully protected."


For the third time, protection isn't 100% effective.



BitMasterPlus said:


> "No thank you I don't want to have sex." for whatever reason you have.


In general, most people like sex and are sexually active.

I guess this is a case of not knowing what you're missing.


----------



## The Catboy (May 6, 2022)

urherenow said:


> I'll tell you: It's taking the Federal government out of the picture, and giving the power back to the States to decide.


How is the state deciding what people can and can't do with their bodies, not a big government?


----------



## Lacius (May 6, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> How is the state deciding what people can and can't do with their bodies, not a big government?


I wonder how conservatives would feel if whether or not one could legally own a gun were up to the states.


----------



## The Catboy (May 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I wonder how conservatives would feel if whether or not one could legally own a gun were up to the states.


Conservative logic, guns can't be limited because of mah rights, and criminals ignore laws. Also Conservative logic, we can limit human bodies, sexuality, gender, and everything else but it's not big government if it's all being done by the state.


----------



## Lacius (May 6, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Conservative logic, guns can't be limited because of mah rights, and criminals ignore laws. Also Conservative logic, we can limit human bodies, sexuality, gender, and everything else but it's not big government if it's all being done by the state.


Conservative logic: "Abortion isn't a constitutionally protected right because the word 'abortion' doesn't appear in the Constitution, but I have a constitutional right to own weaponry that isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and didn't even exist when the Second Amendment was written."


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> This almost feels like an intentional smokescreen for something else going on because, really..THIS, in our current state of government, in 2022, THIS is somehow being considered a possibility. I just find it unbelievable to be honest. I thought we had evolved past this point but I guess not. Gotta love societal regression.
> 
> 
> For one, its not a baby for a long ass while in development, and abortion typically happens long before it can be considered such. Hell a heartbeat isn't even in a stage of development until at least 5-6 weeks and that is if its healthy. It does not even develop brain matter even longer. Your argument about this inherently flawed. That said it did not stop those same people in the south to execute mentally impaired folk back in the day now did it? Also why the hell would a rape victim carry until close to birth? *Most would never do this unless they are forced to *which people looking at a forced pro-life perspective try their damnedest to discourage anyone from going through with it even trying to delay it enough so they could not get it properly taken care of in the time they need to. It all comes back to the pro-life dipshits that care so goddamn much about whats growing inside of a woman far more than the woman itself or what that life may be once after its born and the difficulties it will have living.
> ...


If we're still practicing human sacrifice here on Earth, my friend, I don't give a f*ck if we're colonizing the Moon, Mars or making dull trips to Alpha Centauri, ok?


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Conservative logic: "Abortion isn't a constitutionally protected right because the word 'abortion' doesn't appear in the Constitution, but I have a constitutional right to own weaponry that isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and didn't even exist when the Second Amendment was written."


The baby inside the mother's womb is a baby, or a little human being, or whatever you want to call it. If you want to murder, kill, stab, poison or asphyxiate that little baby, it's exactly what you're doing. It also goes by the name of HUMAN SACRIFICE, and I hope this gets extinguished from the whole Earth as soon as possible.


----------



## deinonychus71 (May 7, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Damn, you sound like a miserable person who had a bad childhood or something. Yeah, not everyone is caring, which is why the kids should go to someone who is caring and loving to raise them. It's that simple. I'm not the one endangering people by wanting more murder. And it is a double standard to say "my body, my choice" for abortions but not for experimental injections with possible deadly side effects.


My childhood has nothing to do with it. I just go outside and talk to people. Yes, it's that simple.
As stated by many people you keep misqualifying the removal of a bunch of cells as murder. It is not a baby at this stage, they are not killing babies just like you're not committing murder by masturbating.
And actually, I was against mandatory injections -even though I got my 3 shots- exactly because of what you're saying. My body, my choice. I understand why it happened in many countries though. Many people refusing to wear masks and the bare minimum to keep themselves and other safe.


BitMasterPlus said:


> Neither are you.


Good, I wasn't planning on it.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Conservative logic, guns can't be limited because of mah rights, and criminals ignore laws. Also Conservative logic, we can limit human bodies, sexuality, gender, and everything else but it's not big government if it's all being done by the state.


Did you know Benito Mussolini followed the very sound logic of disarming the Italian civilians so that that no one could oppose his regime? You look like you really enjoy that logic too, don't you? But you don't wanna be called a f*scist, do you? Oh mine, such a cruel world...


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Did you know Benito Mussolini followed the very sound logic of disarming the Italian civilians so that that no one could oppose his regime? You look like you really enjoy that logic too, don't you? But you don't wanna be called a f*scist, do you? Oh mine, such a cruel world...


I really don't think you are a doctor.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> "big government" doesn't mean "federal", and "small government" doesn't mean "state". It's about the size and breadth of the action.
> 
> We want government completely out of the equation. Just like with things like free speech and freedom of religion, we want to prevent the government from even being able to create laws restricting basic human rights. they're human rights, not rights bestowed by a government.
> 
> ...


The right to live is the first golden rule in any set of "human rights" (you probably don't know the origin of this term you use so much).
The baby inside the mother's womb is an INDIVIDUAL with its own unique DNA, which can not become a monkey, can not become a dog, can not become a tree, can not become a unicorn, it can only become a human being, because IT IS a human being, with THE RIGHT TO LIVE.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> The baby inside the mother's womb is a baby, or a little human being, or whatever you want to call it. If you want to murder, kill, stab, poison or asphyxiate that little baby, it's exactly what you're doing. It also goes by the name of HUMAN SACRIFICE, and I hope this gets extinguished from the whole Earth as soon as possible.


We disagree that a fetus or embryo is a baby. Regardless, a woman should have a right to bodily autonomy. The day you say the government should require a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is the day you say the government should require a person to donate a kidney.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I really don't think you are a doctor.


My God, you're almost convincing me that murdering babies is indeed a "women's right" (even when it's a female baby you're murdering).
Try just a little harder, please.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> We disagree that a fetus or embryo is a baby. Regardless, a woman should have a right to bodily autonomy. The day you say the government should require a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is the day you say the government should require a person to donate a kidney.


I disagree that abortists are actual people. Like you, they're just a mal-functioning clump of cells. So I'm gonna kill you. Now.


----------



## Nothereed (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> My God, you're almost convincing me that murdering babies


Yeah I'm doubting your claim to be a doctor, doctor's would make the distinction that it is a fetus, not a baby.


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> The right to live is the first golden rule in any set of "human rights" (you probably don't know the origin of this term you use so much).
> The baby inside the mother's womb is an INDIVIDUAL with its own unique DNA, which can not become a monkey, can not become a dog, can not become a tree, can not become a unicorn, it can only become a human being, because IT IS a human being, with THE RIGHT TO LIVE.


Those same rights also list forced pregnancy as a crime against humanity
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-humanity.shtml


Rena_to84 said:


> My God, you're almost convincing me that murdering babies is indeed a "women's right" (even when it's a female baby you're murdering).
> Try just a little harder, please.


I asked you a rather simple question about the field of medicine that you study under. If you are a doctor, that shouldn't be an issue to disclose. So far, you've only presented some basic medical jargon that one would learn in middle/high school. The rest of your posts have been conspiracies, conjectures, and misquoting. You claimed to be a doctor but you act more like one of the regulars we commonly see making dupe accounts.


----------



## Nothereed (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> I disagree that abortists are actual people. Like you, they're just a mal-functioning clump of cells. So I'm gonna kill you. Now.


Here we are, thanks for quantifying your hate of people who want abortions.
You'd actually kill people over wanting to have one. Your level of intelorence of other's bodily decisions is appalling.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> I disagree that abortists are actual people. Like you, they're just a mal-functioning clump of cells. So I'm gonna kill you. Now.


I can't show everyone how ridiculous you are when you do it for me.


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> I'm a doctor


Claiming to be a doctor without a license is a crime
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/medical-malpractice/practicing-without-license-criminal-civil-liability.html#:~:text=Laws vary by state, but,in addition to prison sentences.
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/h...f-practicing-medicine-without-a-license-44835
So I will humbly ask you again, what field do you practice under?


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Those same rights also list forced pregnancy as a crime against humanity
> https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-humanity.shtml
> 
> I asked you a rather simple question about the field of medicine that you study under. If you are a doctor, that shouldn't be an issue to disclose. So far, you've only presented some basic medical jargon that one would learn in middle/high school. The rest of your posts have been conspiracies, conjectures, and misquoting. You claimed to be a doctor but you act more like one of the regulars we commonly see making dupe accounts.


I haven't specified the "United Abomination's notion of human rights" for a reason, you know? They put Venezuelan regime puppets to chair the "human rights' council". That says it all.

But do you want to know how long should a patient be on a dual-antiplatelet therapy after going through a primary angioplasty with drug-eluting stents on his left anterior descending coronary artery? Do you want to know the dosage of IV Adenosine to reverse a supraventricular tachycardia in the ER?

Or do you want me to explain to you again why the baby inside a woman's womb is a human being, which you shall not murder?


----------



## osaka35 (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> The right to live is the first golden rule in any set of "human rights" (you probably don't know the origin of this term you use so much).
> The baby inside the mother's womb is an INDIVIDUAL with its own unique DNA, which can not become a monkey, can not become a dog, can not become a tree, can not become a unicorn, it can only become a human being, because IT IS a human being, with THE RIGHT TO LIVE.


"can become" is different than "is". You can't conflate the two just because. A fertilized egg is a blueprint for a human, it is not a human itself. The final results will be different than the blueprints based on the resources used to build the actual human from the blueprints (environment, nutrition, etc.).

It's like saying you have to "save this forest" when you just have a hand full of seeds. Saying you have to "save this forest" as an argument for planting the seeds where you want the forest to grow is...well, it's a bit circular.

That, and "right to live" doesn't mean at the expense of others. You can't go around stealing people's kidneys to save other people's lives. Even if both will live that way, the "right to live" doesn't negate personal autonomy.


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> I haven't specified the "United Abomination's notion of human rights" for a reason, you know? They put Venezuelan regime puppets to chair the "human rights' council". That says it all.
> 
> But do you want to know how long should a patient be on a dual-antiplatelet therapy after going through a primary angioplasty with drug-eluting stents on his left anterior descending coronary artery? Do you want to know the dosage of IV Adenosine to reverse a supraventricular tachycardia in the ER?
> 
> Or do you want me to explain to you again why the baby inside a woman's womb is a human being, which you shall not murder?


Damn dude, that’s a lot of words to not answer a very simple question


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> "can become" is different than "is". You can't conflate the two just because. A fertilized egg is a blueprint for a human, it is not a human itself. The final results will be different than the blueprints based on the resources used to build the actual human from the blueprints (environment, nutrition, etc.).
> 
> It's like saying you have to "save this forest" when you just have a hand full of seeds. Saying you have to "save this forest" as an argument for planting the seeds where you want the forest to grow is...well, it's a bit circular.
> 
> That, and "right to live" doesn't mean at the expense of others. You can't go around stealing people's kidneys to save other people's lives. Even if both will live that way, the "right to live" doesn't override personal autonomy.


What you're saying to me is that I can murder a 1 month old baby. Postnatal. That's definitely human sacrifice. It's the most REGRESSIVE thing you can do to a civilization.


----------



## SG854 (May 7, 2022)

@BitMasterPlus 

You know what's so stupid about the don't have sex argument. What if its a married couple having sex wearing protection and yet some accident happens and the woman gets pregnant like a condom accidently ripping or something. 

The fit the bill of conservative logic that they are married. And use protection. And yet by dumbass conservative logic they should be forced to take care of a kid they never intended. This kid can have financial consequences on the family if they cant afford it or mental consequences on a family that didn't want kids. 

So should married couples never have sex ever? Only have sex to produce a child or however many they want and then never have sex ever again for the rest of their life. This is pure stupidity. But I'm sure a loser like you who never had sex wouldn't understand this.


----------



## osaka35 (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> What you're saying to me is that I can murder a 1 month old baby. Postnatal. That's definitely human sacrifice. It's the most REGRESSIVE thing you can do to a civilization.


Which part of what i said made you feel like this was a logical conclusion?


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

SG854 said:


> @BitMasterPlus
> 
> You know what's so stupid about the don't have sex argument. What if its a married couple having sex wearing protection and yet some accident happens and the woman gets pregnant like a condom accidently ripping or something.
> 
> ...


Dude, if you think there's such a thing as "conservative logic" or "socialist logic", you don't know what logic is. Sorry, but you don't.


----------



## YamiZee (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> All life is sacred. There's no excuse for terminating a pregnancy that would acquit the women of murdering an unborn child.
> 
> ...


All life huh. What about that steak on your plate?


----------



## SG854 (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Dude, if you think there's such a thing as "conservative logic" or "socialist logic", you don't know what logic is. Sorry, but you don't.


Nice way to avoid what I said


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> Which part of what i said made you feel like this was a logical conclusion?


You're comparing a plant that's starting to grow, and will eventually become a tree, with a 1 month old baby that will eventually become a human being. Can you see how lunatic your arguments were?



YamiZee said:


> All life huh. What about that steak on your plate?


Human life. Yes, humans are special. I suggest you read Chesterton's "Everlasting Man", it's brilliant.
If you don't, I hope you don't kill yourself after realizing how many bacteria you kill every time you go to the bathroom, ok?



SG854 said:


> Nice way to avoid what I said


Every civilization in which total "sexual liberation" starts to spread, there's regression and chaos, until eventually that civilization dies.
My comrade, tell me, what do you think about the Chinese Communist Party, Iranian and Stalin's USSR laws that prohibited homosexual behavior with really hard punishments? Is it fair in those cases? Tell me, comrade.


----------



## YamiZee (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Human life. Yes, humans are special. I suggest you read Chesterton's "Everlasting Man", it's brilliant.
> If you don't, I hope you don't kill yourself after realizing how many bacteria you kill every time you go to the bathroom, ok?


Humans aren't special. However all sentient and intelligent life is. Bacteria is neither, and as it turns out, neither are human fetuses. Having an abortion is actually on the same level of morality as eating a shrimp scampi.


----------



## SG854 (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Every civilization in which total "sexual liberation" starts to spread, there's regression and chaos, until eventually that civilization dies.
> My comrade, tell me, what do you think about the Chinese Communist Party, Iranian and Stalin's USSR laws that prohibited homosexual behavior with really hard punishments? Is it fair in those cases? Tell me, comrade.


What to go to sound unhinged. This is an argument about Abortion.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

YamiZee said:


> Humans aren't special. However all sentient and intelligent life is. Bacteria is neither, and as it turns out, neither are human fetuses. Having an abortion is actually on the same level of morality as eating a shrimp scampi.


While you sleep, I'm gonna kill you to exercise my freedom of killing any "non-sentient and non-intelligent life". It's gonna be fun, isn't it?



SG854 said:


> What to go to sound unhinged. This is an argument about Abortion.


You were talking about sexual liberation. Stop lying (or being a socialist, which is the same thing).



YamiZee said:


> Humans aren't special. However all sentient and intelligent life is. Bacteria is neither, and as it turns out, neither are human fetuses. Having an abortion is actually on the same level of morality as eating a shrimp scampi.


Oh, what about a covid patient that's sedated and on mechanical ventilation? We should stop spending all that money with all of them, since those are all unintelligent non-sentient clump of cells, aren't they? Are they or not?


----------



## osaka35 (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> While you sleep, I'm gonna kill you to exercise my freedom of killing any "non-sentient and non-intelligent life". It's gonna be fun, isn't it?


please stop comparing things to literally killing someone here. if you do it again, it'll be considered an actual threat and you'll be banned.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> please stop comparing things to literally killing someone here. if you do it again, it'll be considered an actual threat and you'll be banned.


Stop crying when someone doesn't accept your arbitrary words and notions for what a small unique human being inside a woman's womb is.
If you really believe in "reason" and understand what it is, try showing me some of it, please. I love reasonable exchange of ideas. Arguing about words is not one of them.


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Dude, if you think there's such a thing as "conservative logic" or "socialist logic", you don't know what logic is. Sorry, but you don't.


Why do you keep avoiding my question? What field do you practice under? For a doctor, you sure seem embarrassed by your practice


----------



## osaka35 (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Stop crying when someone doesn't accept your arbitrary words and notions for what a small unique human being inside a woman's womb is.
> If you really believe in "reason" and understand what it is, try showing me some of it, please. I love reasonable exchange of ideas. Arguing about words is not one of them.


that's fine, just don't say threaten people you're talking with is all. These things can get heated and it's best to ensure no one feels like they're actually in danger or anything.


----------



## SG854 (May 7, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Why do you keep avoiding my question? What field do you practice under? For a doctor, you sure seem embarrassed by your practice


He's a Witch Doctor that's what he is.


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> All life is sacred. There's no excuse for terminating a pregnancy that would acquit the women of murdering an unborn child.


Does this include the lives of LGBT+ folks, poor people, people on government support, and medical support? What about the life of a potential parent who needs an abortion due to complications that risk killing them?


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Dude, if you think there's such a thing as "conservative logic" or "socialist logic", you don't know what logic is. Sorry, but you don't.



Dude, if you are anti-abortion, you don't know what freedom is. Sorry, but you don't. Nor do you support it. Sorry, but you just don't.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

SG854 said:


> He's a Witch Doctor that's what he is.


I'm someone who understands the difference between a gamete and a human being.
By the way, I've learned it on school, when I was a teenager, not in college, so I wonder how proficient you are in high school biology. Do you know at all what a cell is?



Stone_Wings said:


> Dude, if you are anti-abortion, you don't know what freedom is. Sorry, but you don't. Nor do you support it. Sorry, but you just don't.


What is freedom, pal?



Stone_Wings said:


> Dude, if you are anti-abortion, you don't know what freedom is. Sorry, but you don't. Nor do you support it. Sorry, but you just don't.


 
"Thomas Aquinas's use of the terms _libero_, _libertas_, and _liberum arbitrium_ in the _Summa theologiae_ gives us a wealth of information about free will and freedom. Human beings have free will and are masters of themselves through their free will. Free will can be impeded by obstacles or ignorance but naturally moves toward God. According to Servais Pinckaers, our freedom can be that of indifference (the morality of obligation) or that of excellence (the morality of happiness). The difference is that of free will moving reason versus reason moving free will. The freedom of indifference is the power to choose between good and evil. The will is inclined toward neither and freely chooses between them. The freedom for excellence is the power to be the best human being we can be. Here the rules, or what makes for a good human being, are the grounding for freedom. One who observes these rules has the freedom to become excellent. According to Aquinas, intellect and will have command over free will. This then is true freedom, and on this Aquinas and Pinckaers agree. We do not have freedom of indifference, we have freedom for excellence. Anything else makes us slaves."

As you can see, brilliant minds have alredy given brilliant answers on this ever hot subject.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> What is freedom, pal?



Another one playing dumb when presented with simple questions. "But but but what??? What do you mean by freedom?" LMFAO! Just like the other moron that claimed they had zero idea what medical freedom meant, then never came back to the conversation. Just stop with the pretend little lost sheep that doesn't understand gimmick. Doctor my cats asshole. Just answer the damn question, pal.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> Another one playing dumb when presented with simple questions. "But but but what??? What do you mean by freedom?" LMFAO! Just like the other moron that claimed they had zero idea what medical freedom meant, then never came back to the conversation. Just stop with the pretend little lost sheep that doesn't understand gimmick. Doctor my cats asshole. Just answer the damn question, pal.


I've posted Dr. Aquinas' answer above, if you actually care about this topic, that is.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 7, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> This reminds me of George Carlins comments on abortion and those who oppose it. After a comment as incredibly stupid as the one you made, I'm 100% positive you fit the bill from the first 20 seconds of this clip. Well, the entire thing actually. But the first 20 seconds is especially relevant to the quoted comment.



Again, what's so hard about not fucking? Do that really people have so little self control and reasoning?


The Catboy said:


> Why do you feel the need to control other people?


Why do you? Like with the "vaccines" aka experimental booster shot.


Lacius said:


> For the third time, protection isn't 100% effective.


Then. Don't. Fuck. And even when it fails it's rare, not a common thing like people want to believe. It'll work a lot of the times. Only if like, the condom was cheap or broken or something along those lines then it won't work.


Lacius said:


> In general, most people like sex and are sexually active.
> 
> I guess this is a case of not knowing what you're missing.


Or maybe some people have self control. Sex is good, but too much of a good thing is always bad. Didn't your mother teach you that? If you're really that worried though, don't have sex. I don't know how much simpler I can make it.



The Catboy said:


> Conservative logic, guns can't be limited because of mah rights, and criminals ignore laws. Also Conservative logic, we can limit human bodies, sexuality, gender, and everything else but it's not big government if it's all being done by the state.


Oh the horror on not being able to identify on any of the 100000000 genders that don't exist and not being able to make people submit to your fantasy because "muh gay rights".



Lacius said:


> Conservative logic: "Abortion isn't a constitutionally protected right because the word 'abortion' doesn't appear in the Constitution, but I have a constitutional right to own weaponry that isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and didn't even exist when the Second Amendment was written."


Guns did exist back when the second amendment was written you moron. The amendment was made so people would have a way to self defense and/or if the government got way too big or controlling, the people have a safeguard so they wouldn't get too control happy. Learn history.



deinonychus71 said:


> My childhood has nothing to do with it. I just go outside and talk to people. Yes, it's that simple.
> As stated by many people you keep misqualifying the removal of a bunch of cells as murder. It is not a baby at this stage, they are not killing babies just like you're not committing murder by masturbating.
> And actually, I was against mandatory injections -even though I got my 3 shots- exactly because of what you're saying. My body, my choice. I understand why it happened in many countries though. Many people refusing to wear masks and the bare minimum to keep themselves and other safe.


And I bed people enjoy talking to you so much they cross the street to avoid you. It is life, Roe v. Wade is gone, get over it. And masks don't do shit, the end.


deinonychus71 said:


> Good, I wasn't planning on it.


Ok continue being a horrible human being, no skin off my bones.


SG854 said:


> @BitMasterPlus
> 
> You know what's so stupid about the don't have sex argument. What if its a married couple having sex wearing protection and yet some accident happens and the woman gets pregnant like a condom accidently ripping or something.


You can be married and after a kid or two not have sex anymore and still love each other. I don't see the point you're trying to make here. Get stronger condoms and birth control pills, it's not that hard.


SG854 said:


> The fit the bill of conservative logic that they are married. And use protection. And yet by dumbass conservative logic they should be forced to take care of a kid they never intended. This kid can have financial consequences on the family if they cant afford it or mental consequences on a family that didn't want kids.


So if we just abort all babies on earth, how will the human race survive? Take precautions, and if something happens, make the best of it. How heartless one must be to look at one's own flesh and blood, in the womb or out, and say, "Ew, I don't wanna take care of this thing even though I should've been more careful. Kill it." Don't you see how evil that is? Or course not, and that's another problem.



SG854 said:


> So should married couples never have sex ever? Only have sex to produce a child or however many they want and then never have sex ever again for the rest of their life. This is pure stupidity. But I'm sure a loser like you who never had sex wouldn't understand this.


They can have sex. Use protection, get a vasectomy, just be careful. And don't talk about my sex life as if you know about it when probably the only sex you have is the cheap ass disease ridden whores down the street corner of the democratic shithole you live in.


YamiZee said:


> All life huh. What about that steak on your plate?


Comparing a steak to a human being. We're getting to peak leftism alright. For thousands of years, humans have used livestock, such as cows and pigs, for the sustenance they need. Should we condemn wild animals for hunting other animals then? I'm sure that wolf pack will listen to you on their next hunting trip.



Stone_Wings said:


> Dude, if you are anti-abortion, you don't know what freedom is. Sorry, but you don't. Nor do you support it. Sorry, but you just don't.


Because the freedom to kill babies and snuff out someone else's life is what true freedom is all about. Sorry, but you don't know what actual freedom is. Nor do you support it. Sorry, but you just don't.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> I've posted Dr. Aquinas' answer above, if you actually care about this topic, that is.



Answer the question. Do you actually believe in freedom or not? Yes or no.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Again, what's so hard about not fucking? Do that really people have so little self control and reasoning?
> 
> Why do you? Like with the "vaccines" aka experimental booster shot.
> 
> ...



So what you're saying is, you don't believe in freedom. Especially medical freedom.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Again, what's so hard about not fucking? Do that really people have so little self control and reasoning?
> 
> Why do you? Like with the "vaccines" aka experimental booster shot.
> 
> ...


The global chinese virus madness has shown us how much leftists/socialists care about any kind of freedom...

"The coronavirus is a blessing to the left" - Jane Fonda



Stone_Wings said:


> So what you're saying is, you don't believe in freedom. Especially medical freedom.


What I'm saying is, you sound like that retarded journo trying to catch Jordan Peterson into cliché journo traps.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> The global chinese virus madness has shown us how much leftists/socialists care about any kind of freedom...
> 
> "The coronavirus is a blessing to the left" - Jane Fonda



Quotes? Okay. I'll play along.

_"I don't want this old white guy telling me what to do with my body.”_ - Kellyanne Conway



Rena_to84 said:


> What I'm saying is, you sound like that retarded journo trying to catch Jordan Peterson into cliché journo traps.



Is there a reason why you still haven't just answersed the question? Still waiting...


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> I'm someone who understands the difference between a gamete and a human being.
> By the way, I've learned it on school, when I was a teenager, not in college, so I wonder how proficient you are in high school biology. Do you know at all what a cell is?
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, that's a lot of words with literally nothing of value said.
So yeah, you clearly aren't a doctor and you are just another dupe account. Most likely the same guy who keeps making dupe accounts just so you can keep arguing nonsense in the political section.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> Quotes? Okay. I'll play along.
> 
> _"I don't want this old white guy telling me what to do with my body.”_ - Kellyanne Conway
> 
> ...


I'm not even a voter in the US, I had to look for that name you brought up. Did you know that Anthony Fauci did everything while president Trump was the POTUS? Haven't you learned yet that politics is a snake hole? You better learn that lesson sooner than later, pal.

As for the definition of freedom, I've pointed you to Thomas Aquinas' answer on the subject. I am waiting for YOUR answer on that.



The Catboy said:


> Wow, that's a lot of words with literally nothing of value said.
> So yeah, you clearly aren't a doctor and you are just another dupe account. Most likely the same guy who keeps making dupe accounts just so you can keep arguing nonsense in the political section.


Please, for God's sake, try to be less stupid...

About freedom, I'd like to reinforce the following statement: 

"The coronavirus is a blessing to the left" 
- Jane Fonda


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Please, for God's sake, try to be less stupid...


I literally just asked you a very basic question and you keep avoiding that question. The easiest answer is that you lied and I caught your bullshit. You aren't arguing in good faith, you are just pushing out some mad rambles and expected to be taken seriously due to your bullshit claim of being a doctor.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I literally just asked you a very basic question and you keep avoiding that question. The easiest answer is that you lied and I caught your bullshit. You aren't arguing in good faith, you are just pushing out some mad rambles and expected to be taken seriously due to your bullshit claim of being a doctor.


I'm pretty sure socialist/leftists/satanists like you have a lot of "good faith" when you talk about freedoms. Yep, you care a lot about it.

The freedom of murdering babies and messing with a kid's gender is about the 2 only "freedoms" you defend.
By the way, that's not freedom, that's slavery, if you understand what Thomas Aquinas wrote about it (largely based on Aristotelean philosophy).


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> About freedom, I'd like to reinforce the following statement:
> 
> "The coronavirus is a blessing to the left"
> - Jane Fonda



You already said that. LMFAO!! Like, just a couple posts ago.  And who gives a fuck if you had to look up who Kellyanne Conway is? Who she is is very relivant to this entire conversation, as was her quote. You having to look up who she is is not relivant in any way. Also, are you aware that anyone, at any give time, can pick and chose a quote to fit their agenda? Do you see how incredibly stupid it is? I posted the quote becasue you're playing stupid ass fuckign games. I'm just playing your own game. Seem you don't like it when you're not the winner.

You're 100% a dupe account. No one signs up for an account at a primarily gaming site, ONLY to post in this section. LMFAO! Not sure who you are, but you're not even anywhere close to being as smart as you think you are.

Still waiting for you to answer the question. Saying "But but but I'm asking YOU" is not answering the question.


----------



## osaka35 (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> I'm not even a voter in the US, I had to look for that name you brought up. Did you know that Anthony Fauci did everything while president Trump was the POTUS? Haven't you learned yet that politics is a snake hole? You better learn that lesson sooner than later, pal.
> 
> As for the definition of freedom, I've pointed you to Thomas Aquinas' answer on the subject. I am waiting for YOUR answer on that.


Eh, Aquinas was more concerned with reconciling the idea of free will with the christian faith which is...tricky. I prefer David Hume and more modern philosophers: "a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence"


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> I'm pretty sure socialist/leftists/satanists like you have a lot of "good faith" when you talk about freedoms. Yep, you care a lot about it.


I am pretty sure you said this


Rena_to84 said:


> I'm a doctor


and still, fail to answer the simple question as to what you practice. Why can't you answer the most basic of questions?


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> Eh, Aquinas was more concerned with reconciling the idea of free will with the christian faith which is...tricky. I prefer David Hume and more modern philosophers: "a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence"


The evidences that the human being inside the woman's womb is a human being are largely abundant. 

Even under your modern mess of "philosophies", you're wrong, sorry.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

What field do you practice?


Rena_to84 said:


> The evidences that the human being inside the woman's womb is a human being are largely abundant.
> 
> Even under your modern mess of "philosophies", you're wrong, sorry.



Still haven't answered either question.

Q: "What field do you practice?"
A:

Q: "Do you believe in actual freedom, or not?"
A: "I don't know what freedom means."


----------



## osaka35 (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> The evidences that the human being inside the woman's womb is a human being are largely abundant.
> 
> Even under your modern mess of "philosophies", you're wrong, sorry.


All the evidence i have read would indicate the opposite; that human stem cells, and therefore fertilized eggs, are just blueprints and should not be considered human beings. What evidence are you referencing?


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> Eh, Aquinas was more concerned with reconciling the idea of free will with the christian faith which is...tricky. I prefer David Hume and more modern philosophers: "a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence"


In the end, you will end up with this choice:

- Human lives don't matter, so Hitler did what he had to do, Gengis Khan was an awesome emperor who slaughtered the Chinese, Russians and Eastern Europeans, and Stalin was right to start the Holodomor to consolidate his power in Ukraine

or:

- Human lives are special, and I shall not murder a human being unless someone else's life is threatened by his actions (which obviously excludes the most innocent of all human lives, A BABY)


Pick your side. I go with the second one.



osaka35 said:


> All the evidence i have read would indicate the opposite; that human stem cells, and therefore fertilized eggs, are just blueprints and should not be considered human beings. What evidence are you referencing?


Let's get it straight: this madness NEVER stops at the zygote stage. You relativize it in the beginning, you relativize it in all stages. Stop being ridiculously hypocritical about it, please. (maybe that's gonna be tough, given your modernist inclinations...)


----------



## osaka35 (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> In the end, you will end up with this choice:
> 
> - Human lives don't matter, so Hitler did what he had to do, Gengis Khan was an awesome emperor who slaughtered the Chinese, Russians and Eastern Europeans, and Stalin was right to start the Holodomor to consolidate his power in Ukraine
> 
> ...


bit of "False dilemma" and "strawman" mixed up into one right there. Obviously I object the premise, as baking in your desired answer into the question isn't productive.



Rena_to84 said:


> Let's get it straight: this madness NEVER stops at the zygote stage. You relativize it in the beginning, you relativize it in all stages. Stop being ridiculously hypocritical about it, please. (maybe that's gonna be tough, given your modernist inclinations...)



Scientifically? the brain doesn't start developing until about the 3rd trimester. This is around the time almost everyone agrees abortion is highly suspect. Before that, nothing of a person has been created, as the whole of the person is in the brain. That's the scientific argument. Religious arguments obviously don't care too much about science. But we shouldn't be making laws based on religious thinking.


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> In the end, you will end up with this choice:
> 
> - Human lives don't matter, so Hitler did what he had to do, Gengis Khan was an awesome emperor who slaughtered the Chinese, Russians and Eastern Europeans, and Stalin was right to start the Holodomor to consolidate his power in Ukraine
> 
> ...





Rena_to84 said:


> Let's get it straight: this madness NEVER stops at the zygote stage. You relativize it in the beginning, you relativize it in all stages. Stop being ridiculously hypocritical about it, please. (maybe that's gonna be tough, given your modernist inclinations...)


So you don’t have evidence and you are also not a doctor. You also don’t like freedom or medical freedom.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> In the end, you will end up with this choice:
> 
> - Human lives don't matter, so Hitler did what he had to do, Gengis Khan was an awesome emperor who slaughtered the Chinese, Russians and Eastern Europeans, and Stalin was right to start the Holodomor to consolidate his power in Ukraine
> 
> ...



How about just answering the questions though? And you litereally just said murder is okay, as long as is it's where you see fit. Anti-abortion, but the death penalty is just fine. Right? And the death of the mother too when she gets an illegal abortion? Two for 1 deal for you, huh?


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> bit of "False dilemma" and "strawman" mixed up into one right there. Obviously I object the premise, as baking in your desired answer into the question isn't productive.


History has taught a thousand times what humans are capable of when we relativize the value of a human life. 

Have you heard of the "french revolution", my modernist friend?


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> How about just answering the questions though? And you litereally just said murder is okay, as long is it's where you see fit.


You just confirmed you agree that humans beings have a free will to choose between right and wrong. I'm glad we're on the same boat here.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> You just confirmed you agree that humans beings have a free will to choose between right and wrong. I'm glad we're on the same boat here.



How about answering the question?


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> History has taught a thousand times what humans are capable of when we relativize the value of a human life.
> 
> Have you heard of the "french revolution", my modernist friend?


Did you know Dr. Guillotine was murdered with his own invention? 

That's one of my favorite ironies of "revolutions" ever (although I really wish that crap never started in the first place).


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> You just confirmed you agree that humans beings have a free will to choose between right and wrong. I'm glad we're on the same boat here.


Why can’t you answer any basic questions?


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> How about answering the question?


"Thomas Aquinas's use of the terms _libero_, _libertas_, and _liberum arbitrium_ in the _Summa theologiae_ gives us a wealth of information about free will and freedom. Human beings have free will and are masters of themselves through their free will. Free will can be impeded by obstacles or ignorance but naturally moves toward God. According to Servais Pinckaers, our freedom can be that of indifference (the morality of obligation) or that of excellence (the morality of happiness). The difference is that of free will moving reason versus reason moving free will. The freedom of indifference is the power to choose between good and evil. The will is inclined toward neither and freely chooses between them. The freedom for excellence is the power to be the best human being we can be. Here the rules, or what makes for a good human being, are the grounding for freedom. One who observes these rules has the freedom to become excellent. According to Aquinas, intellect and will have command over free will. This then is true freedom, and on this Aquinas and Pinckaers agree. We do not have freedom of indifference, we have freedom for excellence. Anything else makes us slaves."

Can you read that? Do you need me to read the Aquinas' statement on freedom to you via Skype? If not, give me your insight on it. Or don't. Your choice.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> "Thomas Aquinas's use of the terms _libero_, _libertas_, and _liberum arbitrium_ in the _Summa theologiae_ gives us a wealth of information about free will and freedom. Human beings have free will and are masters of themselves through their free will. Free will can be impeded by obstacles or ignorance but naturally moves toward God. According to Servais Pinckaers, our freedom can be that of indifference (the morality of obligation) or that of excellence (the morality of happiness). The difference is that of free will moving reason versus reason moving free will. The freedom of indifference is the power to choose between good and evil. The will is inclined toward neither and freely chooses between them. The freedom for excellence is the power to be the best human being we can be. Here the rules, or what makes for a good human being, are the grounding for freedom. One who observes these rules has the freedom to become excellent. According to Aquinas, intellect and will have command over free will. This then is true freedom, and on this Aquinas and Pinckaers agree. We do not have freedom of indifference, we have freedom for excellence. Anything else makes us slaves."
> 
> Can you read that? Do you need me to read the Aquinas' statement on freedom to you via Skype? If not, give me your insight on it. Or don't. Your choice.



Or, you could answer the questions first. And then when you DO decide to, how about some of your own thoughts on the matter? I didn't ask Thomas Aquina. I asked you.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Why can’t you answer any basic questions?


If I want freedom? Yes, I want Aquinas' freedom. And I want you to stop being a slave.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> Or, you could answer the questions first.


Stop being a slave.


----------



## heraymo (May 7, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> This is a decision based on dogma, not reason. In the first ten weeks of pregnancy, there isn't a baby, it's just a bundle of tissues and the phase of preparation of the woman's body to accomodate the process. The brain synapses only start after 17 weeks, towards the end of the fourth month. I don't see a reason why abortion shouldn't be permitted in the first 10/15 weeks, in a pro-life perspective.



Yeah once the Brain Starts to form an abortion shouldn't be allowed, it's a very complex subject and religion and politics make us unable to solve it.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Stop being a slave.



Stop creating alt accounts and refusing to answer simple questions. Slave? I'm a slave becasue I want you to answer a question? Ummmm. What in the FUCK? "Slave" says the one who wants government to force medical opinions upon us.


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> If I want freedom? Yes, I want Aquinas' freedom. And I want you to stop being a slave.


I actually just want to know what field you practice under


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

YamiZee said:


> What about that steak on your plate?


This is modern "philosophy".
They write on the premise that human beings are just another animal.
The next thing we have is the Guillotine, WW1, WW2, Holodomor, Mao's hunger, things that only a gnostic/satanist human being could ever do.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> Stop creating alt accounts and refusing to answer simple questions. Slave? I'm a slave becasue I want you to answer a question? Ummmm. What in the FUCK? "Slave" says the one who wants government to force medical opinions upon us.


You think slaughtering babies is "freedom". 
You haven't the slightest idea of what freedom is. 
You are a slave.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I actually just want to know what field you practice under


I'm a Cardiologist.
Now tell me, my dear "enlightened" conveyor of modern "reason", how does that contribute to this debate? (to be honest, I regret I said my profession, guess I expected too much maturity from this thread's users...)


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Aquinas's


Rena_to84 said:


> You think slaughtering babies is "freedom".
> You haven't the slightest idea of what freedom is.
> You are a slave.



A slave to what? My own free will? LMFAO. You can't answer a couple simple quesions, let me see how you do with something a bit more difficult. PLease do tell me what I am a  slave to. You sound like you want free will, but not freedom. Which doesn't even make sense. I don't even think you understand the shit you are buying into. At all. Period.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Again, what's so hard about not fucking? Do that really people have so little self control and reasoning?
> 
> Why do you? Like with the "vaccines" aka experimental booster shot.
> 
> ...


Sexuality is a biological drive. In general, the desire for sex is comparable to the desire for food or water, regardless of whether or not you need it to literally survive. This "just say no" attitude of yours suggests you don't know what you're missing and don't understand sex.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Sexuality is a biological drive. In general, the desire for sex is comparable to the desire for food or water, regardless of whether or not you need it to literally survive. This "just say no" attitude of yours suggests you don't know what you're missing.


You're saying you can't live without sex just as you can't live without food or water.
Do I have to explain to you how flawed this argument is?


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> I'm a Cardiologist.
> Now tell me, my dear "enlightened" conveyor of modern "reason", how does that contribute to this debate? (to be honest, I regret I said my profession, guess I expected too much maturity from this thread's users...)


It took that much effort, why? You made the claim, it had everything to do with this thread


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Sexuality is a biological drive. In general, the desire for sex is comparable to the desire for food or water, regardless of whether or not you need it to literally survive. This "just say no" attitude of yours suggests you don't know what you're missing and don't understand sex.


Out of curiosity: have you castrated your pet, my friend?


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> You're saying you can't live without sex just as you can't live without food or water.
> Do I have to explain to you how flawed this argument is?


I suggest you reread my post. I didn't say that.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I suggest you reread my post. I didn't say that.



"Sexuality is a biological drive. In general, the desire for sex is comparable to the desire for food or water,"

Yes, you did, and it's preposterous.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> "Sexuality is a biological drive. In general, the desire for sex is comparable to the desire for food or water,"
> 
> Yes, you did, and it's preposterous.


I didn't say "you can't live without sex just as you can't live without food or water." I said the biological drive for sex is comparable to the desire for food or water.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Still waiting to hear your own thoughts on actual freedom, vs Aquinas religious viewpoints on free will. Also, I may have missed your response, but Catboy asked how you feel about abortions when the pregnancy would endanger the womans life. Can you please chime in on that one even if you already have? I can't believe you're bowing before Aquinas, wanting peoples freedom/medical freedom/free will taken away and controlled by the government, and calling others slaves. LOL!


----------



## Nothereed (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> The evidences that the human being inside the woman's womb is a human being are largely abundant.
> 
> Even under your modern mess of "philosophies", you're wrong, sorry.


wait a minute... wait a minute...
This brash nature. This "I am smarter than"  you attitude...
@morvoran ?


Stone_Wings said:


> You're 100% a dupe account. No one signs up for an account at a primarily gaming site, ONLY to post in this section. LMFAO! Not sure who you are, but you're not even anywhere close to being as smart as you think you are.


you may not know him, but morvoran was a staunch right winger here in the political section. He disappeared after Biden was elected. and hasn't been seen since.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I suggest you reread my post. I didn't say that.


Have you any idea of how many people live a happy, whole life without more than very sporadic sex?

Thinking about it, it's easy to understand why every dictator in history have always manipulated the youth for power grabbing, domination and "revolutions", teens and young adults are hostages to their hormones. When you hypersexualize the environment around them, what you get is a decrease of IQ in the adult population. That's a straight path to slavery, forged by very smart and evil people, some of which have very occasional sex, mind you.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> wait a minute... wait a minute...
> This brash nature. This "I am smarter than"  you attitude...
> @morvoran ?
> 
> you may not know him, but morvoran was a staunch right winger here in the political section. He disappeared after Biden was elected. and hasn't been seen since.


I'm a Brazilian Catholic who found your post to be totally useless.


----------



## Nothereed (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> I'm a Brazilian Catholic who found your post to be totally useless.


Okay, so you don't live in the states, telling how Americans should live. Got it.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> Still waiting to hear your own thoughts on actual freedom, vs Aquinas religious viewpoints on free will. Also, I may have missed your response, but Catboy asked how you feel about abortions when the pregnancy would endanger the womans life. Can you please chime in on that one even if you already have? I can't believe you're bowing before Aquinas, wanting peoples freedom/medical freedom/free will taken away and controlled by the government, and calling others slaves. LOL!


Do you know why you don't understand the difference between a mother in risk of death during pregnancy (VERY rare these days) and a misguided woman who thinks she will be happier by killing her baby? Because you are a slave.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> I'm a Brazilian Catholic who found your post to be totally useless.



Please do tell me how the above quoted post was so helpful to the community. Crying about someone elses post being totally useless and then posintg a totally useless comment about it? I cant even. LOL!


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Have you any idea of how many people live a happy, whole life without more than very sporadic sex?


Which is why I said "in general." Nothing I've said should be taken as applying to everyone. In general, when you tell people to just "not do it," they tend to fail as miserably as if you had told them to just not eat food. It's why abstinence-only education doesn't work.

You should also be aware that for people with a healthy sex drive, a lack of sex can lead to depression, anxiety, and a host of other problems. You don't have to look farther than some of the anti-woman incels in this thread to see how detrimental a lack of sex can be to one's health.

As I've already said, the biological drive for sex can comparable to the biological drive for food and water.


----------



## Nothereed (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Do you know why you don't understand the difference between a mother in risk of death during pregnancy (VERY rare these days) and a misguided woman who thinks she will be happier by killing her baby? Because you are a slave.


so let me get this straight you believe forcing women give birth to child is okay? That she gets no other choice but to give birth to the kid, despite finances or what if she doesn't believe she'll be a good responsible parent? are you telling me that it's healthier to force a child on someone regardless of environment or situation that child will grow up in?
If so that's incredibly fucked.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Do you know why you don't understand the difference between a mother in risk of death during pregnancy (VERY rare these days) and a misguided woman who thinks she will be happier by killing her baby? Because you are a slave.



Still waiting for you to answer my other question, now this one. Why do difficult? Just answer the questions. That's all I'm asking. Why are you refusing to answer? Presenting your own question is not answering my questions. You have flat out refused to answer my question about freedom, and now you're refusing to answer how you feel about abortions in the case of the mothers life being in danger. Just answer.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Okay, so you don't live in the states, telling how Americans should live. Got it.


Hahahahahah
Leftist fake alienation, so cute.
Did you know Hillary Clinton came here to promote quotas in universities based on skin color, which is downright institutionalized RACISM? 

The USA is a great country that heavily influences the whole world in many aspects.
Leftist American politics, though, is a monumental pile of horseshit that infects the whole world.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> so let me get this straight you believe forcing women give birth to child is okay? That she gets no other choice but to give birth to the kid, despite finances or what if she doesn't believe she'll be a good responsible parent? are you telling me that it's healthier to force a child on someone regardless of environment or situation that child will grow up in?
> If so that's incredibly fucked.



Fact you don't know: giving birth is way safer for the mother than murdering the baby.

Fact you've forgotten: your iPhone was designed by a brilliant American whose parents refused to raise him.


----------



## Nothereed (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Hahahahahah
> Leftist fake


Hahaha, no we're not just changing conversations like that.
Your telling other people how to live, in a country were you don't know their laws, their circumstances, on how to handle abortion.
That's as fucking insensitive as if I were to walk on over to Europe right now, tell them how they should govern themselves. I'm pretty sure they'd be pretty fucking pissed.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Fact you don't know: giving birth is way safer for the mother than murdering the baby.
> 
> Fact you've forgotten: your iPhone was designed by a brilliant American whose parents refused to raise him.


Abortion is significantly safer than pregnancy and childbirth.


----------



## Nothereed (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Abortion is significantly safer than pregnancy and childbirth.


you may want to add when it's legal. When it becomes illegal, it becomes incredibly dangerous, since it would have to be done in back ally ways, with questionable toolsets and cleaning.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> you may want to add when it's legal. When it becomes illegal, it becomes incredibly dangerous, since it would have to be done in back ally ways, with questionable toolsets and cleaning.


Excuse me, yeah. A lifetime of living in a country where women don't die unnecessarily clouded my perspective.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Wants government control, calls everyone that wants freedom a slave.  You have nothing else. Just "Slave". That's your only comeback, your only reply, your only answer to questions... "Slave". LMAO! Brazil my ass. I know I've used this one before, but you're so far fucking right leaning that you may as well cut off your left leg. You're far too invested in this to be who you say you are and come from where you say you do. You created an account on a video game forum to ONLY post in this topc. You can't answer incredibly simple questions. You're nothing but a fake. Absolutely nothing left to say to you.


----------



## Rena_to84 (May 7, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> bit of "False dilemma" and "strawman" mixed up into one right there. Obviously I object the premise, as baking in your desired answer into the question isn't productive.
> 
> 
> 
> Scientifically? the brain doesn't start developing until about the 3rd trimester. This is around the time almost everyone agrees abortion is highly suspect. Before that, nothing of a person has been created, as the whole of the person is in the brain. That's the scientific argument. Religious arguments obviously don't care too much about science. But we shouldn't be making laws based on religious thinking.


In Mahometan countries, it's forbidden to murder the baby as soon you detect heart beats. That's A LOT of people around the world. 
Problem is you're drunk with modernist pseudo-"philosophy" (that trash is mostly gnostic alchemical writing made for power-grabbing, it's the opposite of philo sophia, of seeking the truth).

Now, for some fun: I'd like to see a single leftist here speak ill of the Mahometans. 3, 2, 1, Go!



Lacius said:


> Abortion is significantly safer than pregnancy and childbirth.


Murdering the baby is NEVER safer than having the baby in a healthy pregnancy, stop talking about what you don't know.



Lacius said:


> Excuse me, yeah. A lifetime of living in a country where women don't die unnecessarily clouded my perspective.


How many female babies were murdered during this time?
You have absolutely no idea about what you're talking. You're regurgitating what you read in the NYT. It's ridiculous.

Before I sleep, let me get this out:

Saying the murder of a baby equals saving a life is not only illogical, it's Satanism. Everyone should be aware of this.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Murdering the baby is NEVER safer than having the baby in a healthy pregnancy, stop talking about what you don't know.


Pregnancy and childbirth carry much higher rates of mortality for the woman than legal abortions. I know you have an "abortion is a no good very bad thing" mentality, but that doesn't mean you get to make up your own facts.

Abortion isn't the murder of a baby. An embryo/fetus is not a baby, for one. In addition, an abortion is not the killing of a fetus; it's the termination of a pregnancy. A consequence of the ended pregnancy just happens to be the death of the fetus. If you want to find a way to keep a fetus alive after it's removed from the body of a woman who has a right to bodily autonomy, be my guest.



Rena_to84 said:


> How many female babies were murdered during this time?


Zero. They weren't babies, and it wasn't murder.

If I needed a kidney transplant to survive, and you were a compatible match, you should have a right to not have to donate a kidney to me. If I die as a consequence, it doesn't mean you murdered me; it just means I couldn't survive without a piece of your body.

With respect, you post like someone who hasn't thought this through.


----------



## tabzer (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I wonder how conservatives would feel if whether or not one could legally own a gun were up to the states.





The Catboy said:


> Conservative logic, guns can't be limited because of mah rights, and criminals ignore laws. Also Conservative logic, we can limit human bodies, sexuality, gender, and everything else but it's not big government if it's all being done by the state.





Lacius said:


> Conservative logic: "Abortion isn't a constitutionally protected right because the word 'abortion' doesn't appear in the Constitution, but I have a constitutional right to own weaponry that isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and didn't even exist when the Second Amendment was written."



This is a dumb and disingenuous circle-jerk.  The second amendment is about weaponry, and despite what it does say, there are still regulations.  The fourteenth amendment is not about abortion.  Understanding that doesn't make people dumb conservatives.  If you ask me, your constitution and its representatives are unreliable.


----------



## Nothereed (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> How many female babies were murdered during this time?
> You have absolutely no idea about what you're talking. You're regurgitating what you read in the NYT. It's ridiculous.


who gives birth? Female or Male.
Females give birth.
Do females only produce female offspring?
No.
Don't "what if it was a female"
it's clear by that statement alone you treat women like objects, and that's fucking disgusting. You could of thought for two seconds about how either a male or female could be given birth to. And yet you specifically, fucking ignored that adult females give birth to either one, just make a gross "whataboutism"
We're not putting guns up to children heads. We're not slapping them until dead, because we're not fucking killing babies, it's fetuses. Give it enough time and yes the blueprint will develop into a baby. But only do it early in the process.
Get off your damn "_wHaT AbOuT tHe ChIlDrEn"_
If you truly fucking thought about the fucking child, you would be far aware that caring for a life is pretty fucking important, but that would mean:
Safe location that is stable for the entire time the child grows up
plenty supply to food and water
relationships are stable between mother and father

I grew up in a mess of a situation. My mother was not ready to have me,she wanted an abortion, I was already developed too far, so she couldn't and it shows she wasn't ready, she did the best she could, but her financial and relationships were a complete mess to no fault of her own.  I have fucking PTSD because of the unsafe environment I grew up in.
I would not wish a child to go through the same thing I did, I would not force a women to have a child if she's certain she isn't ready. Because the amount of damage and suffering you will do to that kid as a result, is incalculable. And the amount of guilt that mother will feel, will remain forever present.
So get off your fucking high horse.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The second amendment is about weaponry,


Is it? I don't recall that word being in the Constitution.



tabzer said:


> and despite what it does say, there are still regulations.


Conservatives often argue there shouldn't be regulations. That's kind of the point of the whole debate over background checks and other regulations.



tabzer said:


> The fourteenth amendment is not about abortion.


The amendment is broad. I suggest you read it.

Edit: And per your logic, the Second Amendment isn't about technology that didn't exist at the time or isn't explicitly mentioned.



tabzer said:


> This is a dumb and disingenuous circle-jerk.


Sorry. @The Catboy and I are banging out as many circle jerks as possible before the fall of Roe, and the entire legal precedent for the right to privacy used in cases like Lawrence v. Texas, makes it so states can make our circle jerks illegal.


----------



## Xzi (May 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The second amendment is about weaponry, and despite what it does say, there are still regulations.


The second amendment warns us about the very tyrants now attempting to strip away our rights, one by one.  As usual, conservatives are intentionally blind to the obvious connection.



tabzer said:


> The fourteenth amendment is not about abortion.


Constitutional originalism is no different than extremism.  If we're really going down that path, conservatives on the supreme court will be bringing back the three-fifths compromise next.  According to nearly every founding father, the constitution was always intended to be a living document, not set in stone.


----------



## tabzer (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Is it? I don't recall that word being in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> Conservatives often argue there shouldn't be regulations. That's kind of the point of the whole debate over background checks and other regulations.
> ...



If you have nothing to add, you didn't have to say anything.  The people who wrote the constitution were more interested in guns than abortions.  Just because the document itself is conservative doesn't make the person who knows how to read it a moron or a conservative.  If the problem is with the constitution itself, then that should probably be addressed.


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Saying the murder of a baby equals saving a life is not only illogical, it's Satanism. Everyone should be aware of this.


Yeah, that proves you definitely aren’t a doctor and your follow up claim is clearly a lie too


----------



## Xzi (May 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you have nothing to add, you didn't have to say anything.  The people who wrote the constitution were more interested in guns than abortions.  Just because the document itself is conservative doesn't make the person who knows how to read it a moron or a conservative.  If the problem is with the constitution itself, then that should probably be addressed.


No shit it's a "conservative" document, it was written in the late 1700s.  The founding fathers never intended us to be living with that exact same set of rights and laws in 2022, they expected better of us and wanted better for us.  And maybe if General Sherman had pushed his campaign a bit further, we wouldn't have so many fucking confederates still around to impede any sort of social, societal, and governmental progress.


----------



## tabzer (May 7, 2022)

Xzi said:


> No shit it's a "conservative" document, it was written in the late 1700s.  The founding fathers never intended us to be living with that exact same set of rights and laws in 2022, they expected better of us and wanted better for us.  And maybe if General Sherman had pushed his campaign a bit further, we wouldn't have so many fucking confederates still around to impede any sort of social, societal, and governmental progress.


I didn't need all of that.  A simple "like" would have sufficed.


----------



## Xzi (May 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I didn't need all of that.  A simple "like" would have sufficed.


I don't disagree with the statement itself, but I do disagree with the premise of it, so no like for you.  A living document such as the constitution should've made conservatism obsolete by now.  Libertarianism not so much, as they wouldn't be opposed to further expanding human and workers' rights.


----------



## tabzer (May 7, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I don't disagree with the statement itself, but I do disagree with the premise of it, so no like for you.  A living document such as the constitution should've made conservatism obsolete by now.  Libertarianism not so much, as they wouldn't be opposed to further expanding human and workers' rights.


To be clearer, I am not disagreeing with your lack of satisfaction with the constitution or with how it is living up to its status as "a living document".  

The premise is simple.  The 14th amendment is about representation, the 2nd amendment is about guns, and SCOTUS lacks the ability to interpret the intention of the founding fathers on subjects that they weren't ever concerned.  Bowing out probably would have been more progressive and less damaging , long term, if it was done in the first place.  Now you all have to work even harder to rewire your system after decades of building on an unstable foundation.  Kind of ironic as the 14th amendment is indirectly making you work even harder.


----------



## Lumstar (May 7, 2022)

Conservatives are making a mountain out of a molehill. Terminating a fetus with murderous intent is (theoretically) not impossible, but have you EVER heard of a case where that actually was the goal?

Not to mention ending pregnancy early doesn't even necessarily result in death. If a birth defect is discovered very late, you might have to deliver prematurely to perform a live-saving (imagine that!) procedure.


----------



## YamiZee (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> While you sleep, I'm gonna kill you to exercise my freedom of killing any "non-sentient and non-intelligent life". It's gonna be fun, isn't it?


Sleeping people are still sentient and intelligent, at least while they're dreaming. Also my family and friends would be quite sad for losing me from their lives. That's not something an unborn fetus can claim. If you're gonna kill me in my sleep, at least do it without informing me of it. Afterall, I do have the mental capacity for the fear of death, unlike the dwellers of the womb.


----------



## RandomUser (May 7, 2022)

Xzi said:


> *We're talking about women's bodily autonomy here*, it's not the government's place to interfere with that.  Neither on the state nor federal level.  Women who don't have access to these services will just travel to states that do.  This will also make legal abortion states targets for far-right terrorism.


To be fair, male born babies do not have the rights to their bodily autonomy. Also again at the age of 18 perhaps for up to 7 years, if a draft were to be active.

I'm actually surprised that the supreme court is considering on overturning this law. This could actually hurt women, especially if it is medically necessary.


Lumstar said:


> Conservatives are making a mountain out of a molehill. Terminating a fetus with murderous intent is (theoretically) not impossible, but have you EVER heard of a case where that actually was the goal?
> 
> Not to mention ending pregnancy early doesn't even necessarily result in death. If a birth defect is discovered very late, you might have to deliver prematurely to perform a live-saving (imagine that!) procedure.


Something like a cesarean surgery?


----------



## YamiZee (May 7, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Cause the freedom to kill babies and snuff out someone else's life is what true freedom is all about.


Snuff out "someone else's" life. How can you call a life form that has neither the sentience nor the intelligence of a human, a "someone", a "person"? A life form that is objectively less wrong to kill than a rat, or a cow, or even a shrimp, all of which have functioning brains that respond to stimuli? Cows and rats especially containing their own social circles. A fetus is nothing more than an unintelligent parasite that feeds off it's host. We kill pests and parasites, why wouldn't we kill a human fetus that serves the same function.


----------



## Lumstar (May 7, 2022)

YamiZee said:


> Snuff out "someone else's" life. How can you call a life form that has neither the sentience nor the intelligence of a human, a "someone", a "person"? A life form that is objectively less wrong to kill than a rat, or a cow, or even a shrimp, all of which have functioning brains that respond to stimuli? Cows and rats especially containing their own social circles. A fetus is nothing more than an unintelligent parasite that feeds off it's host. We kill pests and parasites, why wouldn't we kill a human fetus that serves the same function.



While I do believe fetuses shouldn't be abused, people are approaching it from a horribly wrong perspective.
Forcing a mother to, for example, carry a deceased or terminally ill fetus is not protecting life.


----------



## RichardTheKing (May 7, 2022)

Personally, I despise how much power women have over reproduction; in a lot of areas a woman can get an abortion without her husband's or partner's knowledge, let alone consent - what if he wanted a child? Shouldn't it be a decision made by the TWO of them, not just one forcing the decision on the other?  

Additionally, a woman can force child support on the baby's father, even if he didn't know he had impregnated her - one-night stands, stolen sperm, female-on-male rape, pregnancy entrapment (she tampers with his condom without him knowing, lying about being on the pill, etc.). Yeah, that's real fair, especially since in a lot of areas the man has a limited time to prove why he shouldn't pay, else the payment will be forced upon him - when it SHOULD be the woman having a limited time to prove why he should pay, with him able to defend himself, else no payment will be forced on him.   

As for whether abortion should be legal or not...yeah, it should be, but it shouldn't be solely up to the woman.


----------



## deinonychus71 (May 7, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> And I bed people enjoy talking to you so much they cross the street to avoid you. It is life, Roe v. Wade is gone, get over it. And masks don't do shit, the end.



I see you ran out of arguments. Not that you had any to begin with.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 7, 2022)

i'm going to be completely honest here.

banning abortion except in extreme cases of rape or when it'll kill the mother is a pretty good idea, you shouldn't be allowed to use abortion as a birth control because you couldn't keep your damn legs shut.

But of course, if you really want one, you can always go to a liberal state, it should be easy.

Also calm the fuck down, just because the laws will revert to the states doesn't mean everywhere will suddenly become a hellhole where gay people and trans people are executed on sight, and the moment you speak out against laws you will be sent to a government sponsored rehabilitation program designed to brainwash you like 1984. The decisions will just revert to the states, nothing to throw a fit about.


----------



## Pachee (May 7, 2022)

Rena_to84 said:


> Old. White. Men.


----------



## Cortador (May 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> i'm going to be completely honest here.
> 
> banning abortion except in extreme cases of rape or when it'll kill the mother is a pretty good idea, you shouldn't be allowed to use abortion as a birth control because you couldn't keep your damn legs shut.
> 
> ...



Just like Dysney being punished for voicing their opinion against a new Anti-LGBT law being passed in Florida.

I'm sure whatever contract they had with the state of Florida wasn't ripped to shreds just because of a difference in opinions as a form of punishment.


----------



## Lumstar (May 7, 2022)

RichardTheKing said:


> Personally, I despise how much power women have over reproduction; in a lot of areas a woman can get an abortion without her husband's or partner's knowledge, let alone consent - what if he wanted a child? Shouldn't it be a decision made by the TWO of them, not just one forcing the decision on the other?
> 
> Additionally, a woman can force child support on the baby's father, even if he didn't know he had impregnated her - one-night stands, stolen sperm, female-on-male rape, pregnancy entrapment (she tampers with his condom without him knowing, lying about being on the pill, etc.). Yeah, that's real fair, especially since in a lot of areas the man has a limited time to prove why he shouldn't pay, else the payment will be forced upon him - when it SHOULD be the woman having a limited time to prove why he should pay, with him able to defend himself, else no payment will be forced on him.
> 
> As for whether abortion should be legal or not...yeah, it should be, but it shouldn't be solely up to the woman.



Being legal doesn't make it without accountability. The father might've considerably invested in the child's future. If the baby is aborted without proper content, what happens to its college fund?


----------



## tabzer (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> And per your logic, the Second Amendment isn't about technology that didn't exist at the time or isn't explicitly mentioned.



It isn't about that at all.  That's your argument, lol.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It isn't about that at all.  That's your argument, lol.


The second is, and always has been, about the explicit right to bear arms that are of the same or similar standard to those used by the state itself, as a pre-requisite (not requirement) for forming citizen militias. By the virtue of being militias, they must necessarily have equal fighting force, so as to function as a stop gap against both external threat and tyranny. The possibility of standing up against the state was always priced in, should the state turn against its citizens - we know this from the Federalist Papers. The founding fathers were always aware of technological progress - plenty of it was happening *when they were still alive*. The “muskets only” argument is, and always has been, a red herring - the provision is non-specific because any additional specificity would limit its scope.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> To be clearer, I am not disagreeing with your lack of satisfaction with the constitution or with how it is living up to its status as "a living document".
> 
> The premise is simple.  The 14th amendment is about representation, the 2nd amendment is about guns, and SCOTUS lacks the ability to interpret the intention of the founding fathers on subjects that they weren't ever concerned.  Bowing out probably would have been more progressive and less damaging , long term, if it was done in the first place.  Now you all have to work even harder to rewire your system after decades of building on an unstable foundation.  Kind of ironic as the 14th amendment is indirectly making you work even harder.


Do... Do you think the founding fathers wrote the Fourteenth Amendment?

Also, insert here my previous point about how the Supreme Court should, according to conservative logic, only consider the kinds of guns around during the time of the founding fathers when discussing the Second Amendment.



RichardTheKing said:


> Personally, I despise how much power women have over reproduction; in a lot of areas a woman can get an abortion without her husband's or partner's knowledge, let alone consent - what if he wanted a child? Shouldn't it be a decision made by the TWO of them, not just one forcing the decision on the other?


No. Only one of them is actually using their body to grow a fetus. The father's wishes are wholly irrelevant to the mother's choices about her own body.



RichardTheKing said:


> Additionally, a woman can force child support on the baby's father, even if he didn't know he had impregnated her - one-night stands, stolen sperm, female-on-male rape, pregnancy entrapment (she tampers with his condom without him knowing, lying about being on the pill, etc.). Yeah, that's real fair, especially since in a lot of areas the man has a limited time to prove why he shouldn't pay, else the payment will be forced upon him - when it SHOULD be the woman having a limited time to prove why he should pay, with him able to defend himself, else no payment will be forced on him.


If a child is going to be brought into this world, it needs to be supported. If a man is going to be involved in the creation of this child, there has to be some personal responsibility. The pro-choice argument isn't about saying people shouldn't have personal responsibility; it's about acknowledging that a person should have a right to bodily autonomy, and that supercedes pretty much any other consideration. It sets a dangerous legal precedent when the government can tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. A state that criminalizes abortion could just as reasonably mandate kidney donations, for example. Whether or not a man has a financial responsibility towards a child has nothing to do with his right to bodily autonomy, so he gets no say.

I'm not necessarily unopposed to a man being able to sign away his parental rights and responsibilities early in a pregnancy, so long as there's a reasonable enough amount of time for the woman to make the informed choice about whether or not to have an abortion, and as long as it can be demonstrated that the sole parent has the resources to raise the kid herself.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> i'm going to be completely honest here.
> 
> banning abortion except in extreme cases of rape or when it'll kill the mother is a pretty good idea, you shouldn't be allowed to use abortion as a birth control because you couldn't keep your damn legs shut.


Great, let's make a law where any man who receives a blowjob must be compelled to donate a kidney to a compatible patient if the need arises.



KennyAtom said:


> Also calm the fuck down, just because the laws will revert to the states doesn't mean everywhere will suddenly become a hellhole where gay people and trans people are executed on sight, and the moment you speak out against laws you will be sent to a government sponsored rehabilitation program designed to brainwash you like 1984. The decisions will just revert to the states, nothing to throw a fit about.


The fall of Roe means the legal precedent for things like gay marriage, gay sex, oral sex, interracial marriage, and more could be subject to state bans (and trigger laws for these things are already on the books in some states). Embracing the kind of right wing authoritarianism where the government controls your body has its consequences.



tabzer said:


> It isn't about that at all.  That's your argument, lol.


Excuse me. My point wasn't meant to be that it was your logic, but it is the logic of most American conservatives. If Amendments can only be about the literal words in the text and the literal considerations during the time, then that becomes inconvenient for conservatives when we move to the Second Amendment. That's my point.


----------



## tabzer (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Do... Do you think the founding fathers wrote the Fourteenth Amendment?


No, but the person I was responding to thought that it is the job of SCOTUS to make decisions based on the "intention of the founding fathers".



Lacius said:


> Excuse me. My point wasn't meant to be that it was your logic, but it is the logic of most American conservatives.



It has nothing to do with the points that I've made.  I'm not an American conservative, and my points aren't exclusive to American conservatives.  Foxi puts up an interesting case, but since you can't find the correlation between "weaponry" and arms, I doubt you are a capable in tracing the correlation between women's uteruses  and 21 year old males within the 14th amendment.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I doubt you are a capable in tracing the correlation between women's uteruses  and 21 year old males within the 14th amendment.


Like I said, the 14th Amendment is pretty broad, and we know that's by design.


----------



## tabzer (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Like I said, the 14th Amendment is pretty broad, and we know that's by design.



Yeah, it's called chicanery.  Obviously they weren't trying to mention the slaves when "freeing the slaves".  Apparently, you forgot that part of history even happened.


----------



## RichardTheKing (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> No. Only one of them is actually using their body to grow a fetus. The father's wishes are wholly irrelevant to the mother's choices about her own body.
> 
> 
> If a child is going to be brought into this world, it needs to be supported. If a man is going to be involved in the creation of this child, there has to be some personal responsibility. The pro-choice argument isn't about saying people shouldn't have personal responsibility; it's about acknowledging that a person should have a right to bodily autonomy, and that supercedes pretty much any other consideration. It sets a dangerous legal precedent when the government can tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. A state that criminalizes abortion could just as reasonably mandate kidney donations, for example. Whether or not a man has a financial responsibility towards a child has nothing to do with his right to bodily autonomy, so he gets no say.
> ...


Firstly, the father's wishes should _not_ be "wholly irrelevant", since he provided his half of the fetus's chromosomes, and his life will also be changed by the presence of his child; he should, by all rights, be able to have his own say in whether or not an abortion occurs - 50/50, not 0/100 (man/woman). Denying this is continuing to deny part of men's reproductive and parental rights.

Secondly, how does any of the latter two paragraphs counter my opinion that it shouldn't be up to the father to prove why he shouldn't pay within a limited time frame, else he's forced to pay? I've heard of too many men trapped into child support payments, when they had absolutely nothing to do with the child and ended up being crippled by said payments; the default ending should be no payment forced on the father, especially if he doesn't have a well-paying job.

After all, there's countless ways for women to trap men into being forced to pay child support - tampering with condoms, sperm theft or sperm donation, rape (which does happen, despite what feminism and most news outlets hate to admit - men can be raped by women, yet there's minimal awareness of this), one-night stands...you're basically saying that if a guy does become victimised in this way, he should still end up financially responsible for a child he probably didn't even know about, and almost certainly doesn't want anything to do with; that's a truly _wonderful_ opinion, there, mate. --__--


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Obviously they weren't trying to mention the slaves when "freeing the slaves".


The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, and it uses the word "slavery." 



RichardTheKing said:


> Firstly, the father's wishes should _not_ be "wholly irrelevant", since he provided his half of the fetus's chromosomes, and his life will also be changed by the presence of his child; he should, by all rights, be able to have his own say in whether or not an abortion occurs - 50/50, not 0/100 (man/woman). Denying this is continuing to deny part of men's reproductive and parental rights.


I don't care if a man provided 100% of the genetic material. It isn't his body, so he has no say regarding what happens with the pregnancy. Whether or not his "life will be changed" by the outcome of the pregnancy is also irrelevant. We don't have a legal freedom from "life-changing events."



RichardTheKing said:


> Secondly, how does any of the latter two paragraphs counter my opinion that it shouldn't be up to the father to prove why he shouldn't pay within a limited time frame, else he's forced to pay? I've heard of too many men trapped into child support payments, when they had absolutely nothing to do with the child and ended up being crippled by said payments; the default ending should be no payment forced on the father, especially if he doesn't have a well-paying job.


If a child is going to be brought into this world, it needs to be supported. I suggest you reread those paragraphs for more information.



RichardTheKing said:


> After all, there's countless ways for women to trap men into being forced to pay child support - tampering with condoms, sperm theft or sperm donation, rape (which does happen, despite what feminism and most news outlets hate to admit - men can be raped by women, yet there's minimal awareness of this), one-night stands...you're basically saying that if a guy does become victimised in this way, he should still end up financially responsible for a child he probably didn't even know about, and almost certainly doesn't want anything to do with; that's a truly _wonderful_ opinion, there, mate. --__--


If a man can prove that his sperm was stolen, I don't think he should have to pay child support.

The issue of whether or not a man should have to pay child support is different from the issue of whether or not a woman should have a right to bodily autonomy. A woman should always have a right to bodily autonomy, regardless of the circumstances. If a child is brought into this world, then that child needs financial support. The man who contributed half the genetic material to that child should be on the hook for some of that support. That isn't a violation of his right to bodily autonomy. He is not free from the consequences of his actions.


----------



## Drak0rex (May 7, 2022)

Amusing that after the Plandemic, the lefties are reeeing and screaming ''My body my choice'' again.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

Drak0rex said:


> Amusing that after the Plandemic, the lefties are reeeing and screaming ''My body my choice'' again.


I don't recall anyone arguing during the pandemic that anybody didn't have a right to bodily autonomy.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Drak0rex said:


> Amusing that after the Plandemic, the lefties are reeeing and screaming ''My body my choice'' again.



Isn't that what the righties have been crying about for the last 2 years? Funny how they only want medical freedom for themeselves. What a fucking hypocrite. You may as well start protesting "Her body! My choice!", since we all know that's what conservatives already believe anyway. That your women should be 100% sumbissive to you, obey your every command, and fulfil your every desire. You're all fucking pathetic and disgusting. This is has nothign to do with murdering babies and "satanism" (especially lmfao at the latter), and everything to do with conservative scum controlling their women as usual.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (May 7, 2022)

@heraymo I was already preparing this comment and, as it pertains to what you wrote, I'll summon you in case it is of interest.

I perceive consciousness as the state of being, when the fetus starts to feel anything at all, starts to dream and becomes aware. For simplicity, we can say when it wakes up to life. Consciousness can develop as early as the 24th week, which is the end of the fifth month, but usually it manifests around the 30th week, which is beyond six and a half months. Personally, I'm for the right of a woman to choose to abort before the fetus reaches its state of consciousness, and I believe there should be limits to the right to choose the abortion after it, related to medical reasons (risk to life or of debilitating injury to the woman, deformity on the baby, new significant medical/psychiatric events in any of the parents), or if the sexual act or the insemination were forced upon the woman.

By curiosity, I went to check on a book. “Ethics in the Real World” is an accessible collection of thoughts by the philosopher Peter Singer, where he applies the ethical principles of philosophy to contemporary real world cases. And he has a brief chapter on abortion. Beyond other points, Singer states that the fallacy of the anti-abortion argument lies in the false equivalency between the scientific thesis that a fetus is a homo sapiens and the ethical thesis that the fetus has subsequently the same right to life than any other human. Belonging to the homo sapiens species isn’t enough to give an entity the right to live.

Singer argues that granting the right for a fetus to live on it being conscious or rational makes it invalid to kill plenty of other living beings, like cows, because cows have more conscious and rational capacity than a human fetus. However, the pro-life groups protesting against abortion seldom protest to save the animals and in favor of a vegan lifestyle.

It is plausible that we shouldn’t kill, against their will, self-conscious beings that wish to continue to live. However, why should the potential of a being to become self-conscious make it immoral to prevent their potential self-consciousness? We’re not bound to allow that any being with the potential to become self-conscious reaches that status of self-consciousness. When we have a conflict between the unknown interests of non-rational beings and the known interests of rational women, the women get the preference.



KennyAtom said:


> i'm going to be completely honest here.
> 
> banning abortion except in extreme cases of rape or when it'll kill the mother is a pretty good idea, you shouldn't be allowed to use abortion as a birth control because you couldn't keep your damn legs shut.
> 
> But of course, if you really want one, you can always go to a liberal state, it should be easy.



There's the issue that women who live in some abortion-banning states are still imprisoned if they travel to another state to perform the abortion. The location of the act is irrelevant for them.


----------



## tabzer (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, and it uses the word "slavery."


That's right.  That's my misunderstanding and I own that.  It was about their status as citizens.  Still chicanery, though.  Still absent of a rebuttal.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Still chicanery, though.


Could you be more specific about your claim?


----------



## tabzer (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Could you be more specific about your claim?


That it has nothing to do with abortion?  That it maintained that 21+ year old males where the primary demographic of representation?


----------



## mammastuffing (May 7, 2022)

Drak0rex said:


> Amusing that after the Plandemic, the lefties are reeeing and screaming ''My body my choice'' again.


It's amusing that a lot of people were whining about having to wear a mask for everyones safety while screaming "My body, my choice". But when it comes to the rights of women they're basically screaming "Your body, my choice".


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> That it has nothing to do with abortion?  That it maintained that 21+ year old males where the primary demographic of representation?


I said the Fourteenth Amendment is broad by design, and you said "it's called chicanery." Are you saying those who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment did so with nefarious intent? Are you saying the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment was chicanery? I'm asking you to be specific so I can respond.

If the Fourteenth Amendment was broad by design, then that means it has broad applications by design. Whether or not abortion was specifically in mind is irrelevant to whether or not its broadness was by design.


----------



## Drak0rex (May 7, 2022)

Human embryos contain their own unique set of DNA. A fetus that is still in the womb has the same amount of rights as one that is born prematurely or on time.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

Drak0rex said:


> Human embryos contain their own unique set of DNA. A fetus that is still in the womb has the same amount of rights as one that is born prematurely or on time.


A fetus is not a baby.

Neither a fetus nor baby have the right to use someone else's body against their will. If a woman terminates a pregnancy and the fetus cannot survive outside the mother, that's called an abortion. If a woman terminates a pregnancy and the baby can survive outside the mother, that's called a birth.

The DNA is irrelevant.


----------



## Jayro (May 7, 2022)

Given the amount of right-wing stupidity running rampant in this thread, I feel like this belongs here:


----------



## Drak0rex (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> A fetus is not a baby.
> 
> Neither a fetus nor baby have the right to use someone else's body against their will. If a woman terminates a pregnancy and the fetus cannot survive outside the mother, that's called an abortion. If a woman terminates a pregnancy and the baby can survive outside the mother, that's called a birth.
> 
> The DNA is irrelevant.


Suppose that any of the many defenseless, terminated humans might have grown up to be converted into flaming, limp wristed soy vegans, and go on to do great things to further the agenda for your si...... You know what, nevermind. You're right, what was I thinking? Please, continue.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Drak0rex said:


> Suppose that any of the many defenseless, terminated humans might have grown up to be converted into flaming, limp wristed soy vegans, and go on to do great things to further the agenda for your si...... You know what, nevermind. You're right, what was I thinking? Please, continue.



Your reply has absolutely zero relavance to the comment you quoted. But please, continue, on how much the right cares about life after birth. Also, please elaborate on your use of the term "flaming". I certainly hope you aren't referring to someone being gay, although I'm near 100% certain you are. And in the case of a fetus later on becoming "flaming, limp wristed soy vegans, and go on to do great things for your side", you would most likely have zero issue with the abortion if you had a way of knowing something like that ahead of time. I bet you're all for the death penalty too, even though ALL life is precious.


----------



## Drak0rex (May 7, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> Your reply has absolutely zero relavance to the comment your quoted. But please, continue, on how much the right cares about life after birth.


Pfft! It wasn't meant to. It's called... ''*SARCASM*''  Your reply has absolutely zero to do with future humans having their necks cut and scraped out of the womb *before birth*


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Drak0rex said:


> Pfft! It wasn't meant to. It's called... ''*SARCASM*''



Seems sarcasm is yet another topic you're clueless about. You weren't being sarcastic, you meant what you said. Not to mention it's not even proper use of sarcasm even if you inteded it to be. You're full of shit. You're just trying to walk back your words becasue you don't have anything of value to say after being called out for stupidity. "But but but! That's not what I meant! I was trying to make a funny!!!" BULLSHIT!

Edit: Nice edit you made there. As opposed to having their necks cut and scraped out of the womb AFTER birth? LMFAO!!! And did you actually just admit "FUTURE" humans? Why yes, in fact you did. Case closed. Thanks.


----------



## Drak0rex (May 7, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> Seems sarcasm is yet another topic you're clueless about. You weren't being sarcastic, you meant what you said. Not to mention it's not even proper use of sarcasm even if you inteded it to be. You're full of shit. You're just trying to walk back your words becasue you don't have anything of value to say after being called out for stupidity. "But but but! That's not what I meant! I was trying to make a funny!!!" BULLSHIT!


Die mad, bro. You're just here for my amusement.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Drak0rex said:


> Die mad, bro. You're just here for my amusement.



LOL! Thats the only thing you have left. A "you mad?" comment? LMFAO!!! Yeah, I'm raging over here at how little effort you make to justify your own stupidity.  Why do conservatives have such a difficult time with simple questions?

Me: "You're for the death penalty?"
You: "Die mad bro!"

Great argument, genius. It's about as great as this classic:

Me: "Do you actually support freedom/medical freedom?"
Another conservative moron: "I don't know what those words mean."


----------



## Jayro (May 7, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> LOL! Thats the only thing you have left. A "you mad?" comment? LMFAO!!! Yeah, I'm raging over here at how little effort you make to justify your own stupidity.  Why do conservatives have such a difficult time with simple questions?
> 
> Me: "You're for the death penalty?"
> You: "Die mad bro!"
> ...


Conservatives are a walking joke. They also like to preach this and that about Jesus, when they would hate Jesus if he were alive today. It's like they don't get that he was a brown middle-eastern socialist. And they can't fight the 'marriage equality' argument without dragging their shitty religion into it, which says NOTHING about it, by the way...


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Drak0rex said:


> Alrighty then. Since you love abortions so much, this must be like porn to you. Happy jacking!



Avoid much? LMFAO! Can't even make this shit up. Just anser the question. So far you've given me "You mad bro? and "Never mind your question, here's a video for you."


----------



## Jayro (May 7, 2022)

Drak0rex said:


> Alrighty then. Since you love abortions so much, this must be like porn to you. Happy jacking!


Reported, don't post shit like this.


----------



## Drak0rex (May 7, 2022)

Jayro said:


> Reported, don't post shit like this.


But it's what you all want!


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

Drak0rex said:


> But it's what you all want!



How about answering the question though?


----------



## Jayro (May 7, 2022)

Drak0rex said:


> But it's what you all want!


No, THIS is what we all want:


----------



## Dakitten (May 7, 2022)

Oy, it is so easy for ignorant young men in this place to just assume "Slutty women just can't keep their legs closed and then take responsibility for their actions!" is a valid argument to make abortion illegal. I've got two kids, and they're wonderful little beasties, but they never got their sister due to complications that couldn't be helped. It took until after two months for the issue to become apparent, and it was possible that the kid could have come into the world (albeit with some serious issues) but there was also a decent chance that they all would have not had their mother. Sure, overturning Roe might not make that illegal everywhere, but the idea that it might be illegal anywhere is just insanity...

Also, I thought posting porn vids was a temp ban at least? Why is Drak0rex still posting? Speaks volumes to the moderation of this place still.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

@Drak0rex So just laughs then? Still no answer? LOL! As I thought. All you have is a big fat nothing burger. I know it's common for people to laugh when they're nervous and afraid, but it usually doesn't last this long for most. What are you afraid of? Having your own foot shoved down your throat?

Posting whatever video you did that was bad enough for it to be removed and then proceeding to laugh at ones loss of a child due to medical complications? You're sick as fuck. I'd have perma banned you by now. Maybe we should have a poll and let the people decide. And if it's decided you're not wanted, you can always move to a "state" (forum, in case you're daft enough to not understand what I meant) where your beliefs are echoed. In fact, why haven't you already done so? You want women to move to a place where their beliefs are echoed by the majority. Why don't you do the same and gtfo of here? Practice what you preach or stfu. Oh, and how about answering the question?


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> For the third time, protection isn't 100% effective.



For the second time using the pill is 99% effective, having an operation is 100% effective, using a condom is 86% effective, not having vaginal sex is 100% effective. If there is a will there is a way. You're simply making excuses for bad behavior because you don't give a shit and just want to sleep around and not take responsibility for your actions. You're a typical liberal shill.



SG854 said:


> @BitMasterPlus
> 
> You know what's so stupid about the don't have sex argument. What if its a married couple having sex wearing protection and yet some accident happens and the woman gets pregnant like a condom accidently ripping or something.
> 
> ...



People need to take responsibility for the life that they create regardless if they wanted to create that life or not. Killing an unborn child due to the fact the parents don't want to provide for it is murder.



YamiZee said:


> All life huh. What about that steak on your plate?



It was really tasty. However, didn't you notice this thread is about human abortions?



Lacius said:


> Sexuality is a biological drive. In general, the desire for sex is comparable to the desire for food or water, regardless of whether or not you need it to literally survive. This "just say no" attitude of yours suggests you don't know what you're missing and don't understand sex.



Then masturbate or have non-vaginal sex, wear protection, take a pill, have an operation or simply don't have sex. It doesn't matter how horney you get you need to practice self control and if you do have sex you need to take responsibility for your actions. All you are doing is making excuses for irresponsible behavior and making excuses for bad behavior is supporting that bad behavior. If people like you on the left would stop making excuses then there would be less need for abortions, but you don't care about the mother or the baby. You just want to sleep around like sluts and take no responsibility for the life that you create.



mammastuffing said:


> It's amusing that a lot of people were whining about having to wear a mask for everyones safety while screaming "My body, my choice". But when it comes to the rights of women they're basically screaming "Your body, my choice".



Let me explain something to you. It's not just the women's life we're discussing. There's an innocent baby that did no wrong that's going to be sucked out and shredded into pieces because the parents simply don't want the child. It's also funny that all of these people wanting to force you to get a vaccine when it's your body suddenly claim the opposite and claim its the women's body and her choice.


----------



## Lumstar (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, and it uses the word "slavery."
> 
> 
> I don't care if a man provided 100% of the genetic material. It isn't his body, so he has no say regarding what happens with the pregnancy. Whether or not his "life will be changed" by the outcome of the pregnancy is also irrelevant. We don't have a legal freedom from "life-changing events."
> ...



Following up on that, bodily autonomy only extends to the womb. Aborting against the father's wishes gives him potential grounds for divorce. If the woman's actions during pregnancy impair the rest of the kid's life, that can have consequences for her.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

Lumstar said:


> Following up on that, bodily autonomy only extends to the womb. Aborting against the father's wishes gives him potential grounds for divorce. If the woman's actions during pregnancy impair the rest of the kid's life, that can have consequences for her.



Of course the father has a say in what happens to the child. Lacius is just an idiot.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> For the second time using the pill is 99% effective, having an operation is 100% effective, using a condom is 86% effective, not having vaginal sex is 100% effective. If there is a will there is a way. You're simply making excuses for bad behavior because you don't give a shit and just want to sleep around and not take responsibility for your actions. You're a typical liberal shill.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LMFAO!!!! What a complte failure of a post. Let me explain something to you. Wreckless pregnancy and then deciding they simply don't want it is not the reason for every abortion. Also, you want me to masturbate and kill 300+ million potential fetuses or babies? Hypocritical serial killer. Sperm cells are living organisms. Do you care about all life? Or only some? The ones that meet your religious needs?


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> This is a dumb and disingenuous circle-jerk. The second amendment is about weaponry, and despite what it does say, there are still regulations. The fourteenth amendment is not about abortion. Understanding that doesn't make people dumb conservatives. If you ask me, your constitution and its representatives are unreliable.


Of course, you walked right into my example without a sense of irony or awareness. Thanks for proving the very point I was making.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Of course the father has a say in what happens to the child. Lacius is just an idiot.


Currently in the US, the father has no say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion, and that's how it should be.

I can't speak for what a dystopian right-wing version of this country might do in the future.


----------



## mammastuffing (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Let me explain something to you. It's not just the women's life we're discussing. There's an innocent baby that did no wrong that's going to be sucked out and shredded into pieces because the parents simply don't want the child. It's also funny that all of these people wanting to force you to get a vaccine when it's your body suddenly claim the opposite and claim its the women's body and her choice.


Thanks for the explanation. And for the record I do not support forcefully injecting someone with a vaccine, so not sure what you are referring to there. Now let me explain something to you. This issue is about equals rights - for everyone. It sounds like your argument is "Because something is innocent and a baby, therefore they get special rights to be inside someone without their consent and violate that persons right to their bodily autonomy.".


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Of course the father has a say in what happens to the child. Lacius is just an idiot.



Except. LMFAO! Please point out to me the section of the Uniform Parentage Act that states any pre-birth rights the father has. Please point me to ANY laws that state fathers rights to a fetus. Also doesn't seem you're aware whatsoever that there are other Supreme Court decisions regarding things of this nature. Not just Roe vs Wade. You're just wrong. But thanks for the lols.


----------



## Lumstar (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Currently in the US, the father has no say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion, and that's how it should be.



Fair enough I suppose. The father doesn't need to be able to stop the abortion. If the woman egregiously betrayed his trust, there's other ways to hold her accountable.


----------



## Nothereed (May 7, 2022)

RichardTheKing said:


> After all, there's countless ways for women to trap men into being forced to pay child support


And men do it too you know. Go to r/childfree and look at the stories about baby trapping.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

These people are litereally saying the father has rights to the unborn fetus, but the woman does not. That's some right wing misogynistic bullshit right there if I've ever seen it.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

Lumstar said:


> Fair enough I suppose. The father doesn't need to be able to stop the abortion. If the woman egregiously betrayed his trust, there's other ways to hold her accountable.


I have no problem with a guy divorcing his wife for having an abortion (or for any other reason). I never said abortion has to be free of consequences. it just needs to be accessible and free of legal consequences.


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> These people are litereally saying the father has rights to the unborn fetus, but the woman does not.


The same group of people also pissed and moaned over imaginary vaccine mandates, trans people existing, gay marriage, pronouns, and everything else. The only thing I am learning from this thread is that they live in a world where they both don't want government interference in the lives of the people, but also want a lot of government interference in the lives of the people.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

mammastuffing said:


> Thanks for the explanation. And for the record I do not support forcefully injecting someone with a vaccine, so not sure what you are referring to there. Now let me explain something to you. This issue is about equals rights - for everyone. It sounds like your argument is "Because something is innocent and a baby, therefore they get special rights to be inside someone without their consent and violate that persons right to their bodily autonomy.".



Most of the time the baby isn't in the mother without the mothers consent. She willingly had sex knowing there's a chance she could become pregnant. The mother should lose her right to bodily autonomy after becoming pregnant because its not just her body any longer. Also in the rare case that the mother was impregnated against her will there is still the baby to consider. Why kill a human being just because it was created out of wedlock? Why punish an innocent being? 

There's 3 parts to this equation ... the mother, the father and the child. The baby isn't a parasite or just a clump of cells that can should be discarded if unwanted .. it's a living being that was created by two parties. I know liberals could care less about morals or the right thing to do, but I'm not a liberal.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Most of the time the baby isn't in the mother without the mothers consent. She willingly had sex knowing there's a chance she could become pregnant. The mother should lose her right to bodily autonomy after becoming pregnant because its not just her body any longer. Also in the rare case that the mother was impregnated against her will there is still the baby to consider. Why kill a human being just because it was created out of wedlock? Why punish an innocent being?
> 
> There's 3 parts to this equation ... the mother, the father and the child. The baby isn't a parasite or just a clump of cells that can should be discarded if unwanted .. it's a living being that was created by two parties. I know liberals could care less about morals or the right thing to do, but I'm not a liberal.



You're the person LITERALLY saying the father should have rights on what happens, but not the mother. How does this scenerio work out for you then? The mother wants to keep the baby, the father does not. Are you still for the fathers rights to decide? Or do you then magically swich your stance to fit your own views? THEN the mother has the right to decide. Right? And not the father? Which one is it? Guess you didn't think outside your bubble when you made the stupid fucking comment.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Currently in the US, the father has no say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion, and that's how it should be.
> 
> I can't speak for what a dystopian right-wing version of this country might do in the future.



I never claimed the father had a say in whether or not the mother can kill the baby or not. I'm actually not sure what rights, if any the father has in that circumstance. What I said is the father has a say in what happens to his kid.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I never claimed the father had a say in whether or not the mother can kill the baby or not. I'm actually not sure what rights, if any the father has in that circumstance. What I said is the father has a say in what happens to his kid.


Your statements seem contradictory. Are you admitting a fetus isn't a kid?


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Most of the time the baby isn't in the mother without the mothers consent. She willingly had sex knowing there's a chance she could become pregnant. The mother should lose her right to bodily autonomy after becoming pregnant because its not just her body any longer. Also in the rare case that the mother was impregnated against her will there is still the baby to consider. Why kill a human being just because it was created out of wedlock? Why punish an innocent being?
> 
> There's 3 parts to this equation ... the mother, the father and the child. The baby isn't a parasite or just a clump of cells that can should be discarded if unwanted .. it's a living being that was created by two parties. I know liberals could care less about morals or the right thing to do, but I'm not a liberal.


And what if there were complications where the parent's life was at risk and an abortion was the only means of saving them? What if the fetus was showing signs of a medical complication that would result in a stillborn and an extremely painful birth with an increased risk of death for the parent? These are not uncommon complications involved in pregnancy and at one point used to be a regular cause of death. These are now complications that have been resolved through abortions. Should we force someone to carry through, fully knowing that they will die and that the fetus is going with them?
It's also not that rare for sexual assault to result in pregnancy and it's horrible that you believe someone should carry out that pregnancy. Sexual assault results in a lot of trauma and bringing a life into this world, as a result, is just asking for more child abuse and neglect. It's also a crime against humanity to force a pregnancy. I am honestly concerned with how little you value the lives and mental health of an already existing person because you value a fetus more. It's also very clear how little you value the life of a child if you are so willing to force them into this world and then disregard any complications they might face. It's only clear that you just want to have forced birth and nothing else.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> You're the person LITERALLY saying the father should have rights on what happens, but not the mother. How does this scenerio work out for you then? The mother wants to keep the baby, the father does not. Are you still for the fathers rights to decide? Or do you then magically swich your stance to fit your own views? THEN the mother has the right to decide. Right? And not the father? Which one is it? Guess you didn't think outside your bubble when you made the stupid fucking comment.



No abortion should happen. 

Mother wants kid, father doesn't = No abortion
Father wants kid, mother doesn't = No abortion
Mother doesn't want kid, Father doesn't want kid = No abortion


----------



## mammastuffing (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Most of the time the baby isn't in the mother without the mothers consent. She willingly had sex knowing there's a chance she could become pregnant.


You do not consent to being pregnant when having sex. Do you consent to being hit by a car when crossing the street?



JonhathonBaxster said:


> The mother should lose her right to bodily autonomy after becoming pregnant because its not just her body any longer.


So are you advocating that women should have less rights than men? I reject that it would not just be her body any longer unless she has consented to sharing her body.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Why kill a human being just because it was created out of wedlock? Why punish an innocent being?


You aren't killing a human being and you are not punishing anyone. You are exercising your right to remove something from your body that you did not consent to having in there.


JonhathonBaxster said:


> I know liberals could care less about morals or the right thing to do, but I'm not a liberal.


I'm sorry, but if you are advocating that women should have less rights than men I think you should take another look at your moral compass.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> No abortion should happen.
> 
> Mother wants kid, father doesn't = No abortion
> Father wants kid, mother doesn't = No abortion
> Mother doesn't want kid, Father doesn't want kid = No abortion



You said the father absolutely has rights knowing full well the context of the conversation was unborn fetuses. Move the goal posts much? Walking back your statements becasue you got called out on contradictions. Lame.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Your statements seem contradictory. Are you admitting a fetus isn't a kid?



No, a fetus is a developing human being. Just because you misunderstood my statement about a father having a say in what happens to his kid during its lifetime doesn't mean the kid is not a kid. I don't even see how the two are related.



mammastuffing said:


> You do not consent to being pregnant when having sex. Do you consent to being hit by a car when crossing the street?



If you have sex knowing there's a chance you could become pregnant then you are then resposible for the life you create, or at least should be. If you're good person you'd take responsibility, but if you're evil like the liberals then you'd kill the baby.



mammastuffing said:


> So are you advocating that women should have less rights than men? I reject that it would not just be her body any longer unless she has consented to sharing her body.



If the women willingly had sex she needs to be held accountable for her actions if she becomes pregnant. That means she needs to carry the baby to full term. Tough shit if she decides she doesn't want to care for the life she created. She needs to be forced to care for the child. That means carrying the baby to full term and then caring for the child after its born and until it turns 18 years old.



mammastuffing said:


> You aren't killing a human being and you are not punishing anyone. You are exercising your right to remove something from your body that you did not consent to having in there.
> 
> I'm sorry, but if you are advocating that women should have less rights than men I think you should take another look at your moral compass.



My moral compass is clean and shiny and pointing in the the right direction. I just dislike baby killers. I'm glad I'm not evil like the democrats are. They are truly spawn of Satan.


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> She needs to be forced to care for the child.


That's literally a crime against humanity.


> Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;


https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-humanity.shtml
I am not shocked by how much you hate freedom but I am disgusted that you are willing to commit a crime against humanity as a means of oppressing women further. I deeply feel sorry for any of the women in your life.


JonhathonBaxster said:


> My moral compass is clean and shiny and pointing in the the right direction. I just dislike baby killers. I'm glad I'm not evil like the democrats are. They are truly spawn of Satan.


I am pretty sure you just want to control people and that's all you want.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (May 7, 2022)

As older guy who doesn't want kids at my age.... Honestly my opinion means nothing. I feel like it should be up to the woman or girl (depends on the age) and their situation. They should have the final say in what is right for them.


----------



## Dakitten (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> If you have sex knowing there's a chance you could become pregnant then you are then resposible for the life you create, or at least should be. If you're good person you'd take responsibility, but if you're evil like the liberals then you'd kill the baby.
> 
> My moral compass is clean and shiny and pointing in the the right direction. I just dislike baby killers. I'm glad I'm not evil like the democrats are. They are truly spawn of Satan.


Anyone else notice these conservative misogynistic bible thumping pro lifers have the worst grammar and spelling on the site? Just saying...


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!!! They are truly spawn of Satan.



You've been proven at this point to be a hypocritical, misogynistic, pig. And still with this entire "DEMOCRATS ARE SATAN!!!" thing? Are you like 12 yrs old?  If I'm literally spawn of Satan, I'll be waiting for the day you die so I can gobble up your evil as fuck self-rightous soul.


----------



## mammastuffing (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> If the women willingly had sex she needs to be held accountable for her actions if she becomes pregnant.


So if you get hit by a car while crossing the road, you should be held accountable for your action to cross the road and pay for any damage done to the car, right?



JonhathonBaxster said:


> That means she needs to carry the baby to full term. Tough shit if she decides she doesn't want to care for the life she created. She needs to be forced to care for the child. That means carrying the baby to full term and then caring for the child after its born and until it turns 18 years old.


Should your potential children have the right to *your *body? For example, should they have the right to take one of  your kidneys without your consent if they would die without it? Or should they even have the right to be inside you? Even if you do not consent?



JonhathonBaxster said:


> My moral compass is clean and shiny and pointing in the the right direction. I just dislike baby killers. I'm glad I'm not evil like the democrats are. They are truly spawn of Satan.


Come on, now it just sounds like you're saying that you can't be wrong and everyone who disagrees with you are just evil.

If there is a sound argument for why women should not have equal rights to men I honestly really want to hear it. Until then I am not convinced that women should have less rights than men and therefore a woman must also have the right to terminate a pregnancy as a result of her right to bodily autonomy.


----------



## Lumstar (May 7, 2022)

Choosing how and when to have sex is bodily autonomy.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

mammastuffing said:


> So if you get hit by a car while crossing the road, you should be held accountable for your action to cross the road and pay for any damage done to the car, right?
> 
> 
> Should your potential children have the right to *your *body? For example, should they have the right to take one of  your kidneys without your consent if they would die without it? Or should they even have the right to be inside you? Even if you do not consent?
> ...



You're simply oversimplifying the issue. The baby is a person. A kidney is not a person. Crossing the road is not the same thing as willingly having sex knowing you could become pregnant. Your mind is already made up. Nothing I could say could make you any less evil.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Great, let's make a law where any man who receives a blowjob must be compelled to donate a kidney to a compatible patient if the need arises.


Ahh yes, whataboutism. If we do this, this will happen!


Lacius said:


> The fall of Roe means the legal precedent for things like gay marriage, gay sex, oral sex, interracial marriage, and more could be subject to state bans (and trigger laws for these things are already on the books in some states). Embracing the kind of right wing authoritarianism where the government controls your body has its consequences.


Again, just blowing stuff out of proportion. If we ban the merciless slaughter of babies except in extreme cases, then you will be banned from having gay sex or criticizing the government!


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

Lumstar said:


> Choosing how and when to have sex is bodily autonomy.



Yes it is and if you create life during the process then its your responsibility to care for it.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Ahh yes, whataboutism. If we do this, this will happen!



You're confusing whataboutism with a slippery slope argument. Learn the difference.
We are talking about an issue regarding what is/isn't the legal precedent. Striking down Roe creates a precedent for a state to do what I described. They are analogous.



KennyAtom said:


> Again, just blowing stuff out of proportion. If we ban the merciless slaughter of babies except in extreme cases, then you will be banned from having gay sex


A fetus is not a baby.

See above for my point on legal precedent. In a nutshell, Roe v. Wade was literally precedent for Lawrence v. Texas. If you pull the Roe thread, the Lawrence ruling also unravels. If Roe falls, and Lawrence reappears before this court, they would almost certainly strike it down, and states would be able to criminalize gay sex again. Trigger laws already exist for it.



KennyAtom said:


> or criticizing the government!


When did I say anything about not being able to criticize the government? That clearly falls under free speech.


----------



## Dakitten (May 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Ahh yes, whataboutism. If we do this, this will happen!
> 
> Again, just blowing stuff out of proportion. If we ban the merciless slaughter of babies except in extreme cases, then you will be banned from having gay sex or criticizing the government!


This isn't whataboutism. Whataboutism is deflecting by saying "X MAYBE is bad, but what about Y? Y is bad, so forget X, focus on Y!" This is obviously hyperbole to point out hypocrisy.

Also, fetuses and embryos aren't babies or children, they're biological matter with the potential to become babies. If you see babies getting slaughtered, please don't be quiet! However, if you're crying over fertilized goo not being allowed to continue on at great pain and some genuine risk to a person... I suspect you have other issues. Get your terms right, love.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Yes it is and if you create life during the process then its your responsibility to care for it.


If your kid you've never met requires an organ transplant from you, should the government require you to donate that organ?

"If you create life during the process then its your responsibility to care for it."


----------



## mammastuffing (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You're simply oversimplifying the issue. The baby is a person. A kidney is not a person. Crossing the road is not the same thing as willingly having sex knowing you could become pregnant. You're mind is already made up. Nothing I could say could make you any less evil.


You are claiming that the baby should have the right to the mothers body. I'm asking if they should also have the right to the fathers body. I am not oversimplifying the issue, I am pointing out a fundamental problem with your views.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> You're mind is already made up. Nothing I could say could make you any less evil.


That's a lie. Now you are just being dishonest and childish. Like I said, a sound argument could convince me. Is there something that could change *your *mind?


----------



## Dakitten (May 7, 2022)

mammastuffing said:


> You are claiming that the baby should have the right to the mothers body. I'm asking if they should also have the right to the fathers body. I am not oversimplifying the issue, I am pointing out a fundamental problem with your views.
> 
> 
> That's a lie. Now you are just being dishonest and childish. Like I said, a sound argument could convince me. Is there something that could change *your *mind?


Gender-bent Jesus at 8 months with the antichrist in their womb?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You're confusing whataboutism with a slippery slope argument. Learn the difference.
> We are talking about an issue regarding what is/isn't the legal precedent. Striking down Roe creates a precedent for a state to do what I described. They are analogous.


1. Yes, I got my terms wrong, and I'm sorry for that.
2. Striking down Roe would not lead to more rights being taken away, if anything, if those came in, just do another supreme court case if you're really that mad.


Lacius said:


> A fetus is not a baby.
> 
> See above for my point on legal precedent. In a nutshell, Roe v. Wade was literally precedent for Lawrence v. Texas. If you pull the Roe thread, the Lawrence ruling also unravels. If Roe falls, and Lawrence reappears before this court, they would almost certainly strike it down, and states would be able to criminalize gay sex again. Trigger laws already exist for it.


A fetus is a baby.

Also, just because one ruling is reversed doesn't mean another, more important one, would be.



Lacius said:


> When did I say anything about not being able to criticize the government? That clearly falls under free speech.


But dude, if they ban killing babies inside the womb, then that will obviously lead to the 1st amendment being taken away! It's the slippery slope! The moment they leave the decision to kill babies inside the womb to the state, the states can obviously now do whatever they want as that is the point where we slip down the slope or whatever!


----------



## KennyAtom (May 7, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Also, fetuses and embryos aren't babies or children, they're biological matter with the potential to become babies. If you see babies getting slaughtered, please don't be quiet! However, if you're crying over fertilized goo not being allowed to continue on at great pain and some genuine risk to a person... I suspect you have other issues. Get your terms right, love.


Babies are babies, unborn or born.

Also I literally said in extreme cases like rape or risk, you're just trying to make me look like a douchebag who enjoys women dying.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> 2. Striking down Roe would not lead to more rights being taken away, if anything, if those came in, just do another supreme court case if you're really that mad.


It would not automatically lead to other rights being taken away, but it creates precedent for them to be taken away, and if they appeared before the same court, they would certainly take them away. The court clearly doesn't care about a right to privacy or anything that isn't explicitly laid out in the Constitution. Gay sex, oral sex, interatrial marriage, gay marriage, etc. These are things that would likely fall if brought before the court.



KennyAtom said:


> A fetus is a baby.


No, it's a fetus.



KennyAtom said:


> But dude, if they ban killing babies inside the womb, then that will obviously lead to the 1st amendment being taken away! It's the slippery slope! The moment they leave the decision to kill babies inside the womb to the state, the states can obviously now do whatever they want as that is the point where we slip down the slope or whatever!


You should also know a slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

The First Amendment isn't at risk. It's a part of the Constitution. The Court has a problem with what I outlined above.


----------



## Dakitten (May 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> But dude, if they ban killing babies inside the womb, then that will obviously lead to the 1st amendment being taken away! It's the slippery slope! The moment they leave the decision to kill babies inside the womb to the state, the states can obviously now do whatever they want as that is the point where we slip down the slope or whatever!


You do realize this was the case for a while and society didn't crumble, right? On the flip side, prior to Roe women WERE dying needlessly.


KennyAtom said:


> Babies are babies, unborn or born.
> 
> Also I literally said in extreme cases like rape or risk, you're just trying to make me look like a douchebag who enjoys women dying.


Well, if the shoe fits...


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 7, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> So what you're saying is, you don't believe in freedom. Especially medical freedom.


No, I'm saying that you don't believe in any freedoms at all. And you don't.


Lacius said:


> Sexuality is a biological drive. In general, the desire for sex is comparable to the desire for food or water, regardless of whether or not you need it to literally survive. This "just say no" attitude of yours suggests you don't know what you're missing and don't understand sex.


You need food and especially water to survive. While procreation is necessary for humanity to continue in general, one can go through life without sex and still live a long healthy life if they choose to. I do know what sex is. I'm not going into detail into my personal life with strangers on the internet I don't like, but I do know and even though pleasurable, you can say no easily. You make it sound like people are sex crazed addicts you constantly need sex all the time. You can say no and/or use protection if you're that worries. It's that simple. And before you say "I didn't say you need sex like you need food and water" you compared the need for sex to needing food and water, so you did. We need and desire food and water to survive. We can desire sex, but we don't actually need it unless to procreate.


YamiZee said:


> Snuff out "someone else's" life. How can you call a life form that has neither the sentience nor the intelligence of a human, a "someone", a "person"? A life form that is objectively less wrong to kill than a rat, or a cow, or even a shrimp, all of which have functioning brains that respond to stimuli? Cows and rats especially containing their own social circles. A fetus is nothing more than an unintelligent parasite that feeds off it's host. We kill pests and parasites, why wouldn't we kill a human fetus that serves the same function.


The left always act like they aren't sentient or have the intelligence of a human and yet we're forced to call them people. lol But really, comparing a fetus that is life to pests and parasites, how twisted and evil can one be? For you to think that human life in the womb is a parasite, you need to re-evaluate yourself and your values immediately.


deinonychus71 said:


> I see you ran out of arguments. Not that you had any to begin with.


Like you? Like you.


Lacius said:


> I don't recall anyone arguing during the pandemic that anybody didn't have a right to bodily autonomy.


.....Have you been living under a rock or did someone heave a rock at your head and you were in a coma the past two years?


Lacius said:


> Currently in the US, the father has no say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion, and that's how it should be.
> 
> I can't speak for what a dystopian right-wing version of this country might do in the future.


It can't be worse than the dystopian left-wing version of the country we're living in now.


The Catboy said:


> The same group of people also pissed and moaned over imaginary vaccine mandates


Um.....

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/vaccine-mandates#1
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/vaccine-mandates

I guess people around the world must have great and powerful imaginations then for this to become reality.


The Catboy said:


> That's literally a crime against humanity.
> 
> https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-humanity.shtml
> I am not shocked by how much you hate freedom but I am disgusted that you are willing to commit a crime against humanity as a means of oppressing women further. I deeply feel sorry for any of the women in your life.
> ...


Not killing a baby is a crime against humanity? Jesus, you people will stretch to the ends of the Earth to try to back up your twisted view points and arguments.


Dakitten said:


> Anyone else notice these conservative misogynistic bible thumping pro lifers have the worst grammar and spelling on the site? Just saying...


I've seen plenty of people on the left with incredibly bad grammar and spelling. We don't need someone like you to be a grammar nazi for us, we can type just fine.


Stone_Wings said:


> You've been proven at this point to be a hypocritical, misogynistic, pig. And still with this entire "DEMOCRATS ARE SATAN!!!" thing? Are you like 12 yrs old?  If I'm literally spawn of Satan, I'll be waiting for the day you die so I can gobble up your evil as fuck self-rightous soul.


Well at least you admit what you are. As the old saying goes: May the Lord have Mercy on your soul.


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Yes it is and if you create life during the process then its your responsibility to care for it.


So just gonna ignore any nuance questions? I am honestly afraid for any women in your life. You seem like an extremely unhappy, unhinged, and controlling person that treats women like property


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> No, I'm saying that you don't believe in any freedoms at all. And you don't.
> 
> You need food and especially water to survive. While procreation is necessary for humanity to continue in general, one can go through life without sex and still live a long healthy life if they choose to. I do know what sex is. I'm not going into detail into my personal life with strangers on the internet I don't like, but I do know and even though pleasurable, you can say no easily. You make it sound like people are sex crazed addicts you constantly need sex all the time. You can say no and/or use protection if you're that worries. It's that simple. And before you say "I didn't say you need sex like you need food and water" you compared the need for sex to needing food and water, so you did. We need and desire food and water to survive. We can desire sex, but we don't actually need it unless to procreate.
> 
> ...


You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how human sexuality works.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 7, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> You do realize this was the case for a while and society didn't crumble, right? On the flip side, prior to Roe women WERE dying needlessly.


You do realize I was being sarcastic as well? Just because you ban killing babies doesn't mean the entire world will fall apart.


Dakitten said:


> Well, if the shoe fits...


You know, i never understood that line. Just because the shoe fits doesn't mean that it's yours.


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> You know, i never understood that line. Just because the shoe fits doesn't mean that it's yours.


It can be when the security isn’t looking


----------



## Dakitten (May 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> You do realize I was being sarcastic as well? Just because you ban killing babies doesn't mean the entire world will fall apart.
> 
> You know, i never understood that line. Just because the shoe fits doesn't mean that it's yours.


I realized your sarcasm, and then pointed out that it doesn't work to suit your point. You're welcome!

While we are here, I'll explain that line. Yes, it doesn't mean the shoe is yours, but it means you fit that shoe. I may not have called you those things you were worried about being called, but I pointed out that they don't not apply to you. That would be a double negative. You're welcome!


----------



## Lumstar (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Yes it is and if you create life during the process then its your responsibility to care for it.



There are responsibilities yes. Did you drink alcohol while pregnant? That has a lasting impact on the child long after delivery.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 7, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> I realized your sarcasm, and then pointed out that it doesn't work to suit your point. You're welcome!


Alright, I didn't understand at first, thanks for explaining it. Don't really need the "You're welcome" comment though tbh.



Dakitten said:


> While we are here, I'll explain that line. Yes, it doesn't mean the shoe is yours, but it means you fit that shoe. I may not have called you those things you were worried about being called, but I pointed out that they don't not apply to you. That would be a double negative. You're welcome!


Sorry, I'm not really a good english speaker, so I get confused on some idioms and such. Thank you for explaining.

Doesn't mean I hate women though, I just don't like seeing babies die.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Alright, I didn't understand at first, thanks for explaining it. Don't really need the "You're welcome" comment though tbh.
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm not really a good english speaker, so I get confused on some idioms and such. Thank you for explaining.
> ...



A fetus is not a baby.
Criminalizing abortion will lead to women dying.
It is anti-woman for the state to tell a woman what to do with her body. If the goal is to reduce abortions, mandate vasectomies.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> A fetus is not a baby.


It is a baby.


Lacius said:


> Criminalizing abortion will lead to women dying.


Criminalizing damn near anything will lead to people dying. 


Lacius said:


> It is anti-woman for the state to tell a woman what to do with her body. If the goal is to reduce abortions, mandate vasectomies.


If that's anti woman, then this suggestion is anti man.

why not just support sex ed, and fund condoms and condoms for woman?


----------



## Lumstar (May 7, 2022)

The man has choices too, you know. If a man thinks a woman isn't ready for children, he doesn't have to have sex with her.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

mammastuffing said:


> You are claiming that the baby should have the right to the mothers body. I'm asking if they should also have the right to the fathers body. I am not oversimplifying the issue, I am pointing out a fundamental problem with your views.
> 
> 
> That's a lie. Now you are just being dishonest and childish. Like I said, a sound argument could convince me. Is there something that could change *your *mind?



Change my mind? Nope. Murdering babies is evil and wrong. As for the father, if per say a biological man could get pregnant then yes, he should have to carry the baby to term. After that both parents need to care for it until its 18 years old, by providing it food, clothes, housing, etc ...



KennyAtom said:


> Babies are babies, unborn or born.
> 
> Also I literally said in extreme cases like rape or risk, you're just trying to make me look like a douchebag who enjoys women dying.



The leftists on this site fail to realize that these extreme cases are not the norm, they are rare. However, I believe that killing the baby is wrong regardless of how the mother became pregnant. It's still a human life you're shredding to bits.


----------



## Dakitten (May 7, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Well at least you admit what you are. As the old saying goes: May the Lord have Mercy on your soul.


Irony, this faith has a lot of baby killing in its pages. I think I'm cool not being a part of your cult.


KennyAtom said:


> Alright, I didn't understand at first, thanks for explaining it. Don't really need the "You're welcome" comment though tbh.
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm not really a good english speaker, so I get confused on some idioms and such. Thank you for explaining.
> ...


Y'know, I'll own this. I was being antagonistic because your comments show a lack of understanding and good faith regarding this topic. Maybe you don't fully understand the gravity of the side you're defending, and I'll respect that to a point. Abortions aren't just magical turn-off pregnancy buttons, they hurt and have long lasting consequences of their own. They do end a pregnancy, which has long lasting and immediate issues all its own, well aside from the new human being brought into the world. Society being ill equipped to handle every child that comes to be aside (which it absolutely is and destitution follows folks for life!), women often suffer negative health effects for the rest of their days. Forever. 

Kids who don't understand their bodies enough to realize what they could and then do get into, adults that have birth control fail or maybe just fail to gauge their own ability to handle liquor at a party, victims of sexual assault that again society doesn't do anywhere near a perfect job preventing or even dissuading predators from glamorizing the acts, people who don't know their bodies are ill suited to pregnancy and are in danger of complications... There are a lot of reasons abortions can save a life that is here, right now, from certain distress, and the costs have to be weighed by the woman as either path ends in some level of suffering. A man can walk away from an encounter and never have so much as a single tear shed for the consequences of their part in conception (and have, many many times no less).

I suspect you think that abortions are just a last resort birth control method by people who aren't responsible, and that really isn't the issue... but if you truly want to stand up against that sort of thing, I'd suggest you devote your energy to a more practical countermeasure, like providing family readiness support and education in your area.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> The leftists on this site fail to realize that these extreme cases are not the norm, they are rare. However, I believe that killing the baby is wrong regardless of how the mother became pregnant. It's still a human life you're shredding to bits.


That's true, taking away a human life in any instance is bad. But sometimes, you have to account for really extreme cases.

In cases where the mother would die if she gave birth, I'd rather only lose one life, rather than two, but I'd much rather keep both lives if I could.

Also I love how they keep forgetting about adoption, like "I want to kill my baby!" But don't forget about adoption! "NO I WANT TO KILL!"


----------



## mammastuffing (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Change my mind? Nope. Murdering babies is evil and wrong. As for the father, if per say a biological man could get pregnant then yes, he should have to carry the baby to term. After that both parents need to care for it until its 18 years old, by providing it food, clothes, housing, etc ...


No one here is advocating for murdering babies. You are however advocating for women having less rights than men but are failing to make your case for it. Are you saying that you are close minded when it comes to womens rights?


----------



## Lumstar (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Change my mind? Nope. Murdering babies is evil and wrong. As for the father, if per say a biological man could get pregnant then yes, he should have to carry the baby to term. After that both parents need to care for it until its 18 years old, by providing it food, clothes, housing, etc ...
> 
> 
> 
> The leftists on this site fail to realize that these extreme cases are not the norm, they are rare. However, I believe that killing the baby is wrong regardless of how the mother became pregnant. It's still a human life you're shredding to bits.



On the fringes, it becomes two sides of the same coin. The furthest extremes of the left and right are similarly atrocious.

Is the mother the fetus's property?
Is the fetus the mother's property?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 7, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Y'know, I'll own this. I was being antagonistic because your comments show a lack of understanding and good faith regarding this topic. Maybe you don't fully understand the gravity of the side you're defending, and I'll respect that to a point. Abortions aren't just magical turn-off pregnancy buttons, they hurt and have long lasting consequences of their own. They do end a pregnancy, which has long lasting and immediate issues all its own, well aside from the new human being brought into the world. Society being ill equipped to handle every child that comes to be aside (which it absolutely is and destitution follows folks for life!), women often suffer negative health effects for the rest of their days. Forever.
> 
> Kids who don't understand their bodies enough to realize what they could and then do get into, adults that have birth control fail or maybe just fail to gauge their own ability to handle liquor at a party, victims of sexual assault that again society doesn't do anywhere near a perfect job preventing or even dissuading predators from glamorizing the acts, people who don't know their bodies are ill suited to pregnancy and are in danger of complications... There are a lot of reasons abortions can save a life that is here, right now, from certain distress, and the costs have to be weighed by the woman as either path ends in some level of suffering. A man can walk away from an encounter and never have so much as a single tear shed for the consequences of their part in conception (and have, many many times no less).
> 
> I suspect you think that abortions are just a last resort birth control method by people who aren't responsible, and that really isn't the issue... but if you truly want to stand up against that sort of thing, I'd suggest you devote your energy to a more practical countermeasure, like providing family readiness support and education in your area.


You know what, thank you for speaking to me like a human being.

I suspect I need to do some more research on this, and not just jump in like I usually do. This probably will have more gravity than any of us realize, and we need to realize this. 

Also I'm sorry for being a dickhead earlier, it was undeserved, and I should not have done it.


----------



## SG854 (May 7, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Oy, it is so easy for ignorant young men in this place to just assume "Slutty women just can't keep their legs closed and then take responsibility for their actions!" is a valid argument to make abortion illegal. I've got two kids, and they're wonderful little beasties, but they never got their sister due to complications that couldn't be helped. It took until after two months for the issue to become apparent, and it was possible that the kid could have come into the world (albeit with some serious issues) but there was also a decent chance that they all would have not had their mother. Sure, overturning Roe might not make that illegal everywhere, but the idea that it might be illegal anywhere is just insanity...
> 
> Also, I thought posting porn vids was a temp ban at least? Why is Drak0rex still posting? Speaks volumes to the moderation of this place still.


What's stupid about that comment is that it's not even about Promiscuity. What if just a Boyfriend and Girlfriend having g sex. Or Hisband and Wife. 

How are those even considered slutty Woman? Just the very act of Sex is considered slutty to them and evil. It's a fuckin stupid comment. And it's rooted in stupid religious beliefs.


----------



## Lumstar (May 7, 2022)

Anyone so promiscuous they'd get abortions to continue their behavior, needs help. Not criminal justice.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> If that's anti woman, then this suggestion is anti man.


It wasn't a serious suggestion. That was the point.



KennyAtom said:


> why not just support sex ed, and fund condoms and condoms for woman?


We should, but they also aren't 100% effective.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> No, I'm saying that you don't believe in any freedoms at all. And you don't.



"Things conservatives say for $100, Alex."

Chalk it up with other conservative greatest hits like "I don't know what medical freedom means." and "Fathers absoultely have rights to what happens, but the mothers do not."

You are insane. You want government to have control, I do not, yet I'm the one not believing in freedoms.  That's about as fucking stupid as it can get.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 7, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> So just gonna ignore any nuance questions? I am honestly afraid for any women in your life. You seem like an extremely unhappy, unhinged, and controlling person that treats women like property


And you seem like  an extremely unhappy, unhinged, and controlling person that treats human life as an inconvenience that must die when you want it to.



Lacius said:


> You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how human sexuality works.


I do. You probably don't, as with most things, that might be the problem here.



Dakitten said:


> Irony, this faith has a lot of baby killing in its pages. I think I'm cool not being a part of your cult.


Only the sinners who rebelled against God as punishment. But humans are more free to make our own choices nowadays, and we should choose to preserve life rather than destroy it. The leftist cult has killed over 62 million abortions, most of them being black babies, since Roe v. Wade was established so I'm glad I'm not part of the satanic leftist cult.


Stone_Wings said:


> "Things conservatives say for $100, Alex."
> 
> Chalk it up with other conservative greatest hits like "I don't know what medical freedom means." and "Fathers absoultely have rights to what happens, but the mothers do not."
> 
> You are insane. You want government to have control, I do not, yet I'm the one not believing in freedoms.  That's about as fucking stupid as it can get.


I'm insane because I see you for what you are, evil and sad. Okay. You don't believe in freedoms, moron.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I do.


I'm glad we agree.


----------



## Dakitten (May 7, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> You know what, thank you for speaking to me like a human being.
> 
> I suspect I need to do some more research on this, and not just jump in like I usually do. This probably will have more gravity than any of us realize, and we need to realize this.
> 
> Also I'm sorry for being a dickhead earlier, it was undeserved, and I should not have done it.


No worries, this is a serious topic. It is easy to get swept up in zeal and fervor exactly because it deals with a complicated topic that alters the course of lives. It is hard to understand the nuances of something without having experienced it yourself, and... well... it seems it is all too easy to forget that abortions hurt women, too. It is never a first choice for dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, it is a last resort before something becomes so massive it alters the course of a life (or potentially two+ lives) forever. Women choose to get abortions because, after weighing all the consequences and pain against each path, it is the one they decide is best for their own health.

If you want to argue that men should get more say, well... they did the deed too. If they as partners can't convince their companion to keep the child by discourse, they've had their say but they also aren't the one dealing with the physical consequences the rest of their lives. They have a say, but they shouldn't get to demand someone else be burdened with their choice and repercussions without feeling any themselves. It isn't their bodies being stretched, squished, contorted, and siphoned from, and it isn't their bodies that will endure the abortion and its side effects either.


----------



## RandomUser (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> No abortion should happen.


Please help me understand,
Are you insinuating that women doesn't have the right to her own life, in the event of medical issue arises? This sounds like the the life of the unborn supersede the life of a pregnant women. She may have other members of the family that needs her or her existing kids that needs their mother.
Now if the unborn has a chance of surviving outside the womb and perhaps even a healthy life, then they're other options women can take to insure survival for both herself and the baby. However, sometimes it doesn't work that way and abortion may be the only option for the women to survive.


----------



## Dakitten (May 7, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> And you seem like  an extremely unhappy, unhinged, and controlling person that treats human life as an inconvenience that must die when you want it to.
> 
> I'm insane because I see you for what you are, evil and sad. Okay. You don't believe in freedoms, moron.


Perhaps you should look into therapy, comrade. Insanity is serious business, and while it does seem to answer some questions we're all thinking of, nobody here wants you to endure mental and emotional anguish because of something like indoctrination and abuse. You have a problem, help is out there, and we are all proud that you've taken the first step by acknowledging that the issue is there.


----------



## tabzer (May 7, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Of course, you walked right into my example without a sense of irony or awareness. Thanks for proving the very point I was making.


Sure you can say that and it sounds pretty cool, but that didn't happen.

The following quote sums up the mess pretty well.  The majority of the thread reads like banter.



Foxi4 said:


> Abortion aside, Roe v. Wade was always an awful decision - it’s a ruling pulled out of a hat to get a desired effect, and a textbook example of legislating from the bench. It’s entirely based on a presumed right that’s not enumerated, and a reinterpretation of it at that. The legal foundation for the decision was shaky from day one, it’s an extremely bizarre take on the right to privacy that would have ridiculous implications when applied to any other context. If a right to have an abortion is supposed to be entrenched in law, Roe v. Wade was the dumbest way to do it.


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> The leftists on this site fail to realize that these extreme cases are not the norm, they are rare.


Sexual assault is unfortunately rather common, with about 1 in 6 women having reported a sexual assault and many cases of higher degrees
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence
Complications during pregnancy are also not uncommon and many abortions are the result of complications. I know this won’t change your opinion but reality doesn’t match up with your opinion.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Sexual assault is unfortunately rather common, with about 1 in 6 women having reported a sexual assault and many cases of higher degrees
> https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence
> Complications during pregnancy are also not uncommon and many abortions are the result of complications. I know this won’t change your opinion but reality doesn’t match up with your opinion.


Contraception also fails literally all the time.


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> And you seem like an extremely unhappy, unhinged, and controlling person that treats human life as an inconvenience that must die when you want it to.


You literally just resorted to an “I know you are but am I!” To a comment not even directed at you, ok.


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Sure you can say that and it sounds pretty cool, but that didn't happen.
> 
> The following quote sums up the mess pretty well. The majority of the thread reads like banter.


I literally don’t care what Foxi has to say because quite honestly I find his stance to just to just be “Big government is only when federal government does something” but ignores when states enact big government choices. He also seems to only hate on laws that protect people but seems to ignore ones that do actual harm. 
As for what you walked into, the argument was the inconsistencies of Conservative values. Believing guns can’t be regulated in any means and fighting tooth and nail to protect them. While also believing it’s perfectly ok to make laws that limit or remove rights for women, lgbt+ people, and other groups. Couple with wanting “small government” but their only example of “small government” is a state government that still tampers with the lives of the people. Conservatives values make no sense and are extremely inconsistent.


----------



## Jayro (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Let me explain something to you. It's not just the women's life we're discussing. There's an innocent baby that did no wrong that's going to be sucked out and shredded into pieces because the parents simply don't want the child. It's also funny that all of these people wanting to force you to get a vaccine when it's your body suddenly claim the opposite and claim its the women's body and her choice.


There is no baby, only a clump of DNA. Cells. Even your own "God book" tells you _'life begins at birth'_, so spare us the hypocritical B.S.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

Jayro said:


> There is no baby, only a clump of DNA. Cells. Even your own "God book" tells you _'life begins at birth'_, so spare us the hypocritical B.S.


For a group of people who are so concerned with the fact that the word "abortion" doesn't appear in the Constitution, they don't seem to care that the word "abortion" doesn't appear in their Bible.


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> For a group of people who are so concerned with the fact that the word "abortion" doesn't appear in the Constitution, they don't seem to care that the word "abortion" doesn't appear in their Bible.


Nor do half the things they get bent out of shape about.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I'm glad we agree.


Whoops. I meant I don't. Responding to comments after reading like, 10 pages of insane lefties screeching gets to a person with common sense. No point in editing so I'll just correct it here.

I don't. You probably do, misunderstand that is, as with most things, that might be the problem here.



Dakitten said:


> Perhaps you should look into therapy, comrade. Insanity is serious business, and while it does seem to answer some questions we're all thinking of, nobody here wants you to endure mental and emotional anguish because of something like indoctrination and abuse. You have a problem, help is out there, and we are all proud that you've taken the first step by acknowledging that the issue is there.


Get yourself therapy, because that all sounds like what you're going through and as usual, just projecting on to me. And don't call me comrade. You aren't any familiar terms to me.



The Catboy said:


> You literally just resorted to an “I know you are but am I!” To a comment not even directed at you, ok.


Because, just like half the people here, you insult other and belittle others, so I decided to do it back about what you actually are. Don't complain after the fact. You wanna call someone a piece of shit? Well, I can do the same and it'll actually be true.

-snip-


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

RandomUser said:


> Please help me understand,
> Are you insinuating that women doesn't have the right to her own life, in the event of medical issue arises? This sounds like the the life of the unborn supersede the life of a pregnant women. She may have other members of the family that needs her or her existing kids that needs their mother.
> Now if the unborn has a chance of surviving outside the womb and perhaps even a healthy life, then they're other options women can take to insure survival for both herself and the baby. However, sometimes it doesn't work that way and abortion may be the only option for the women to survive.



If per say the baby dies in the womb before its born then yes, it can be removed because its not alive any longer and at that point you wouldn't be performing an abortion as the child is already deceased. Though per say if the mothers health is danger, but the baby is alive then it should be born. I know this might sound harsh as it is. Life isn't all fucking roses and peaches.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

-- please delete -- double post --


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> If per say the baby dies in the womb before its born then yes, it can be removed because its not alive any longer and at that point you wouldn't be performing an abortion as the child is already deceased. Though per say if the mothers health is danger, but the baby is alive then it should be born. I know this might sound harsh as it is. Life isn't all fucking roses and peaches.


So literally just fuck the parent because the unborn life is more important. You literally want people to die because you've decided all unborn lives are more important, but then try to sound like you are in the moral right about it.


BitMasterPlus said:


> Because, just like half the people here, you insult other and belittle others, so I decided to do it back about what you actually are. Don't complain after the fact. You wanna call someone a piece of shit? Well, I can do the same and it'll actually be true.


Cool, so you literally just want to be part of this conversation and nothing else. I won't entertain you past this message because it seems you only want attention and I don't care to give that to you.


----------



## tabzer (May 7, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I literally don’t care what Foxi has to say because quite honestly I find his stance to just to just be “Big government is only when federal government does something” but ignores when states enact big government choices. He also seems to only hate on laws that protect people but seems to ignore ones that do actual harm.
> As for what you walked into, the argument was the inconsistencies of Conservative values. Believing guns can’t be regulated in any means and fighting tooth and nail to protect them. While also believing it’s perfectly ok to make laws that limit or remove rights for women, lgbt+ people, and other groups. Couple with wanting “small government” but their only example of “small government” is a state government that still tampers with the lives of the people. Conservatives values make no sense and are extremely inconsistent.



I don't care about how you personally feel about foxi.  It appears that you are putting more effort in rationalizing why you shouldn't read or comprehend what I quoted.  

Also, there was no "argument".  It was a circle jerk about your favorite boogeymen. 

I don't know what you did to disable your comprehension, but the logical fallacies of ad hominems and strawman attacks aren't good for developing rationale.  Everyone is hypocritical.


----------



## Sheimi (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> If the mothers health is danger, but the baby is alive then it should be born.


Forcing the woman to give birth to a baby that is essentially killing her is unethical!


----------



## The Catboy (May 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I don't care about how you personally feel about foxi.  It appears that you are putting more effort in rationalizing why you shouldn't read or comprehend what I quoted.


I actually read his comment but that doesn't change what I said nor how I feel about his comments. I also explained my point and the purpose of my comment. Your personal issues with me don't change anything that I've said or the purpose behind my comments.


----------



## Lumstar (May 7, 2022)

Sheimi said:


> Forcing the woman to give birth to a baby that is essentially killing her is unethical!



At the final stages of pregnancy, removing a baby from a dying woman can save the baby's life.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> If per say the baby dies in the womb before its born then yes, it can be removed because its not alive any longer and at that point you wouldn't be performing an abortion as the child is already deceased.


What you described is an abortion. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

Sheimi said:


> Forcing the woman to give birth to a baby that is essentially killing her is unethical!



Killing babies by the tens of millions is also unethical.


----------



## Sheimi (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Killing babies by the tens of millions is also unethical.


By that logic, a guy blowing his load is the same way.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> What you described is an abortion. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.



Nope, it's not an abortion if the baby is dead. You're not aborting anything, it's already aborted. At that point your simply removing a dead baby from the mothers womb. It's about the same as a miscarriage at that point in time.



Lumstar said:


> At the final stages of pregnancy, removing a baby from a dying woman can save the baby's life.



If the women is dead then its also not an abortion.

*I'm talking about removing the unborn child when it's still alive while the mother is still alive. *


----------



## MadonnaProject (May 7, 2022)

illegitimacy is an issue that is destroying many communities. Look at what its done to the black community. Whilst I do not think abortion on a whim is a good thing, I still think an illegitimate child brought into the world is a bad idea.

There's a generation of fatherless, disenfranchised, angry for no reason youths stabbing each other in London and its not the chinese or indian community I will say that.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

Sheimi said:


> By that logic, a guy blowing his load is the same way.



Nope, at the point in time the sperm hasn't fertilized the egg yet and no baby is being created. Discarding sperm isn't killing an actual unborn child. What's next, spitting into the wind is also murder?


----------



## Dakitten (May 7, 2022)

Sheimi said:


> By that logic, a guy blowing his load is the same way.


That is why I loved Lacius' comment earlier. If guys experienced testicular torsion or something when a child was born, this thread wouldn't exist and the global population would be demolished as men begged the federal government to ban a woman's right to choose to go to term with a child against their partner's will. And that would still be a walk in the park compared to childbirth.


----------



## tabzer (May 7, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I actually read his comment but that doesn't change what I said nor how I feel about his comments. I also explained my point and the purpose of my comment. Your personal issues with me don't change anything that I've said or the purpose behind my comments.


This is so self-defeating.  Changing what you said or why is not possible.  You are using many words to communicate what silence would do better.


----------



## Lumstar (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Nope, it's not an abortion if the baby is dead. You're not aborting anything, it's already aborted. At that point your simply removing a dead baby from the mothers womb. It's about the same as a miscarriage at that point in time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That, I can understand criticizing. But not everything ethically controversial can or should be outlawed. Prohibition didn't work.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> illegitimacy is an issue that is destroying many communities. Look at what its done to the black community. Whilst I do not think abortion on a whim is a good thing, I still think an illegitimate child brought into the world is a bad idea.
> 
> There's a generation of fatherless, disenfranchised, angry for no reason youths stabbing each other in London and its not the chinese or indian community I will say that.



This is why starting at a young age people should be taught not to have sex until they are prepared to handle the responsibility of raising a child or if they do have sex to take precautions, because contrary to what @Lacius is claiming birth control works really damned well. 

We as a society shouldn't be making excuses for the fatherless, disenfranchised, angry for no reason youths like the liberals in the USA are doing. We should be teaching them how to act responsibly and also be responsible in our actions and what we say. It's just sad that there's around half of society that could care less about unborn life and encourages or looks the other way while its being murdered.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> illegitimacy is an issue that is destroying many communities. Look at what its done to the black community. Whilst I do not think abortion on a whim is a good thing, I still think an illegitimate child brought into the world is a bad idea.
> 
> There's a generation of fatherless, disenfranchised, angry for no reason youths stabbing each other in London and its not the chinese or indian community I will say that.


You should check on the definition of what an abortion is. It's the termination of a pregnancy, not the killing of a fetus or baby. The fact that the fetus cannot live without the mother's body is just a consequence of the termination of the pregnancy.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> This is why starting at a young age people should be taught not to have sex until they are prepared to handle the responsibility of raising a child or if they do have sex to take precautions, because contrary to what @Lacius is claiming birth control works really damned well.
> 
> We as a society shouldn't be making excuses for the fatherless, disenfranchised, angry for no reason youths like the liberals in the USA are doing. We should be teaching them how to act responsibly and also be responsible in our actions and what we say. It's just sad that there's around half of society that could care less about unborn life and encourages or looks the other way while its being murdered.


Birth control works very well, but it isn't 100% effective, we are a country of 329.5 million people in the USA, and we have a lot of sex.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

Lumstar said:


> That, I can understand criticizing. But not everything ethically controversial can or should be outlawed. Prohibition didn't work.



I'm not a fan of making new laws either. The left and the right have this attitude where if they dislike something they think there should be a law forcing others to comply with their wishes and how they think. As an independent I don't think we need laws for every single action that someone might do.

I think as a society we should teach kids starting at a young age to be responsible and live responsibility ourselves. Yes, you'll have a few who refuse, but if the majority are living responsibly then there would be less abortions and no need to create laws. I am at no point advocating that new laws are created.

I think many laws we have now need to be rescinded. Ask yourself "what isn't regulated" and try to come up with something. I'm guessing you'd start with air, water or sunlight. Wrong, think again.



Lacius said:


> You should check on the definition of what an abortion is. It's the termination of a pregnancy, not the killing of a fetus or baby. The fact that the fetus cannot live without the mother's body is just a consequence of the termination of the pregnancy.



If the baby is dead the pregnancy has already been terminated.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (May 7, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> illegitimacy is an issue that is destroying many communities. Look at what its done to the black community. Whilst I do not think abortion on a whim is a good thing, I still think an illegitimate child brought into the world is a bad idea.
> 
> There's a generation of fatherless, disenfranchised, angry for no reason youths stabbing each other in London and its not the chinese or indian community I will say that.



I checked the list of the 25 most wanted in Britain and almost everyone's white, more than half is british.


----------



## osaka35 (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> This is why starting at a young age people should be taught not to have sex


*should be taught consent, sexual biology, how to practice safe sex, and how to go about family planning


----------



## Lumstar (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> This is why starting at a young age people should be taught not to have sex until they are prepared to handle the responsibility of raising a child or if they do have sex to take precautions, because contrary to what @Lacius is claiming birth control works really damned well.
> 
> We as a society shouldn't be making excuses for the fatherless, disenfranchised, angry for no reason youths like the liberals in the USA are doing. We should be teaching them how to act responsibly and also be responsible in our actions and what we say. It's just sad that there's around half of society that could care less about unborn life and encourages or looks the other way while its being murdered.



I would prefer alternatives to abortion where practical. Wider access to counseling, birth control, and adoption, should be discussed much more than they are.


----------



## MadonnaProject (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> This is why starting at a young age people should be taught not to have sex until they are prepared to handle the responsibility of raising a child or if they do have sex to take precautions, because contrary to what @Lacius is claiming birth control works really damned well.
> 
> We as a society shouldn't be making excuses for the fatherless, disenfranchised, angry for no reason youths like the liberals in the USA are doing. We should be teaching them how to act responsibly and also be responsible in our actions and what we say. It's just sad that there's around half of society that could care less about unborn life and encourages or looks the other way while its being murdered.


Agreed on all points. Don't worry, I don't pay attention to lucius. He sounds like the sort of american you mentioned.


----------



## Sheimi (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> This is why starting at a young age people should be taught not to have sex until they are prepared to handle the responsibility of raising a child or if they do have sex to take precautions, because contrary to what @Lacius is claiming birth control works really damned well.


From what I have learned over the years, birth control isn't 100% effective. Same was wrapping your burrito with a condom.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> If the baby is dead the pregnancy has already been terminated.


That isn't how pregnancy works.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> *should be taught consent, sexual biology, how to practice safe sex, and how to go about family planning



I agree with your reply, but you cut my sentence in half.

I stated; "This is why starting at a young age people should be taught not to have sex until they are prepared to handle the responsibility of raising a child or if they do have sex to take precautions, because contrary to what @Lacius is claiming birth control works really damned well."

Being prepared to handle raising a child would entail all of what you mentioned. I completely agree that education is a key factor in whether or not people have abortions and we shouldn't be allowing the leftist liberals to be encouraging them like they are a simple trip to the supermarket.



Sheimi said:


> From what I have learned over the years, birth control isn't 100% effective. Same was wrapping your burrito with a condom.



Birth control is very effective, but yes it's not 100% effective. The pill is 99% effective, condoms are 98% effective. If you combine the pill and a condom though you're relatively safe. As for more permanent solutions a male vasectomy is nearly 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. A female vasectomy is also a reliable form of birth control. It’s also almost 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. IUDs and tubal ligation have similar effectiveness. However, only abstinence is 100% effective. 

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/p...ific-southwest/blog/12-types-of-birth-control


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Nope, at the point in time the sperm hasn't fertilized the egg yet and no baby is being created. Discarding sperm isn't killing an actual unborn child. What's next, spitting into the wind is also murder?



Sperm is a life form. You're killing 300+ million living organisms when you blow your load. Thank you for admitting you only care about life when it fits your religious views. You're a complete fraud. You don't care about life, you care about control.


----------



## MadonnaProject (May 7, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> I checked the list of the 25 most wanted in Britain and almost everyone's white, more than half is british.


Most wanted lists are people who have absconded, on the run or not found. Quoting an irrelevant statistic does not change the fact in Britain (and america) a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by black males. These are more than likely to be from single parent family with no father figure and an issue with discipline. They're likely to be born to young black (and white) mothers.


----------



## tabzer (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You should check on the definition of what an abortion is. It's the termination of a pregnancy, not the killing of a fetus or baby. The fact that the fetus cannot live without the mother's body is just a consequence of the termination of the pregnancy.



Suggesting that nuance about abortion is a crux of the issue that people have with it reads a bit sociopathic.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Suggesting that nuance about abortion is a crux of the issue that people have with it reads a bit sociopathic.


It's a relevant part of the issue, considering some states want to criminalize all forms of abortion.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Birth control is very effective, but yes it's not 100% effective. The pill is 99% effective, condoms are 98% effective. If you combine the pill and a condom though you're relatively safe. As for more permanent solutions a male vasectomy is nearly 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. A female vasectomy is also a reliable form of birth control. It’s also almost 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. IUDs and tubal ligation have similar effectiveness. However, only abstinence is 100% effective.
> 
> https://www.plannedparenthood.org/p...ific-southwest/blog/12-types-of-birth-control


If you're going to argue the state has an interest and the legal authority to limit abortions to as little a number as possible, then maybe they should require vasectomies on all sexually mature males. They can just get them reversed when they're ready to have a kid on purpose, right? Bodily autonomy isn't an issue, of course.

And, to address the topic at hand, contraceptives are not 100% effective, and we are talking about hundreds of millions of Americans who have sex everyday. You are going to get plenty of pregnancies from people who did everything right.


----------



## osaka35 (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I agree with your reply, but you cut my sentence in half.
> 
> I stated; "This is why starting at a young age people should be taught not to have sex until they are prepared to handle the responsibility of raising a child or if they do have sex to take precautions, because contrary to what @Lacius is claiming birth control works really damned well."
> 
> Being prepared to handle raising a child would entail all of what you mentioned. I completely agree that education is a key factor in whether or not people have abortions and we shouldn't be allowing the leftist liberals to be encouraging them like they are a simple trip to the supermarket.


Without an understanding of the whole, kids won't care something is "dangerous". They aren't going to not do something just because it could potentially maybe ruin their life. Have to teach them every aspect of it, about how it works, how to do it safely and properly, and what's expected of them day-to-day if something bad happens. They're kids and literally don't know anything about it other than bad porn and vague references on TV. Just explaining to them how risky and dangerous it is won't have any impact.


----------



## Sheimi (May 7, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> Sperm is a life form. You're killing 300+ million living organisms when you blow your load. Thank you for admitting you only care about life when it fits your religious views. You're a complete fraud. You don't care about life, you care about control.


That is so spot on! Better than what I could say.


----------



## tabzer (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It's a relevant part of the issue, considering some states want to criminalize all forms of abortion.


Using an argument like "I didn't kill the fish" when you took it out of water and left it to die doesn't absolve the action of the consequence, which seems to be what you are suggesting.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Using an argument like "I didn't kill the fish" when you took it out of water and left it to die doesn't absolve the action of the consequence, which seems to be what you are suggesting.


I'm saying killing the embryo or fetus isn't the direct goal of the abortion. If you could move the embryo or fetus somewhere else, then we wouldn't have a problem. A woman only has the right to end the pregnancy, since she has a right to bodily autonomy. If the fetus could survive without her, she wouldn't have the right to kill it once it's out of her.

I'm not saying this technicality absolves anyone of the moral consequences of their actions. I'm explaining what an abortion is and isn't.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you're going to argue the state has an interest and the legal authority to limit abortions to as little a number as possible, then maybe they should require vasectomies on all sexually mature males. They can just get them reversed when they're ready to have a kid on purpose, right? Bodily autonomy isn't an issue, of course.
> 
> And, to address the topic at hand, contraceptives are not 100% effective, and we are talking about hundreds of millions of Americans who have sex everyday. You are going to get plenty of pregnancies from people who did everything right.



No, the right wingers are the ones stating at if Roe vs. Wade is invalidated that the States should outlaw abortion and the left wingers are stating the States should pass laws making it legal. I don't think there needs to be any laws, new or otherwise regarding abortion. We as a society can and should do better by ourselves without needing to create restrictive laws. It's just there's around half of the USA that could care less about life and just wants to act irresponsibly because it "feels good".


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> No, the right wingers are the ones stating at if Roe vs. Wade is invalidated that the States should outlaw abortion and the left wingers are stating the States should pass laws making it legal.


Yes, correct.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> I don't think there needs to be any laws, new or otherwise regarding abortion. We as a society can and should do better by ourselves without needing to create restrictive laws.


I'm confused. Are you saying, for example, that a state shouldn't criminalize abortion after the fall of Roe? That sounds pretty pro-choice.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Yes, correct.
> 
> 
> I'm confused. Are you saying, for example, that a state shouldn't criminalize abortion after the fall of Roe? That sounds pretty pro-choice.



The States shouldn't pass *any laws* *outlawing or* *making abortions legal*. We don't need laws for every single damned thing in existence. That's not freedom. People should just live responsibility and not seek out to kill the life they create just because they simply don't want it.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (May 7, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> Most wanted lists are people who have absconded, on the run or not found. Quoting an irrelevant statistic does not change the fact in Britain (and america) a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by black males. These are more than likely to be from single parent family with no father figure and an issue with discipline. They're likely to be born to young black (and white) mothers.



You chose to specify by ethnicity that irresponsible black men that ignore their familial duties are at fault for crime in Britain. While absent parents are a reason for crime, the responsibility of the larger community should be adressed, such as discrimination and ostracization. Young black people commit more crimes associated with poverty, and are the most victims of violent crime.

Discrimination and exclusion puts minorities in disadvantage from school days to work and dealing with housing, local communities and the police. Black people are disproportionately more subject to stops and searches by the authorities. The Home Affairs Select Committee found that black people are over-represented at all stages of the criminal justice system. The government has a page for the conviction ratio for different types of crimes, according to ethnicity. As you can see, whites are always near 100% conviction ratio, which likely means that white people crimes are ignored until they're serious or caught red-handed, while people of other ethnicites have a lower threshold of burden of proof to be arrested.

Wikipedia tells me that the white british are the major culprits of hate crime, terror crimes, sexual grooming and child sex offenses. I imagine that the majority of white collar crimes also falls upon white british.

P.S.: I know this is off-topic, but certain perceptions should be adressed so that we avoid the pitfalls of prejudice, discrimination and dehumanization.


----------



## Lacius (May 7, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> The States shouldn't pass *any laws* *outlawing or* *making abortions legal*. We don't need laws for every single damned thing in existence.


This isn't how laws work. If there isn't a law criminalizing something, it's legal (generally speaking).


----------



## MadonnaProject (May 8, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> You chose to specify by ethnicity that irresponsible black men that ignore their familial duties are at fault for crime in Britain. While absent parents are a reason for crime, the responsibility of the larger community should be adressed, such as discrimination and ostracization. Young black people commit more crimes associated with poverty, and are the most victims of violent crime.
> 
> Discrimination and exclusion puts minorities in disadvantage from school days to work and dealing with housing, local communities and the police. Black people are disproportionately more subject to stops and searches by the authorities. The Home Affairs Select Committee found that black people are over-represented at all stages of the criminal justice system. The government has a page for the conviction ratio for different types of crimes, according to ethnicity. As you can see, whites are always near 100% conviction ratio, which likely means that white people crimes are ignored until they're serious or caught red-handed, while people of other ethnicites have a lower threshold of burden of proof to be arrested.
> 
> ...


Perhaps what you say is correct about america, but do you know in Britain, the poorest, with the lowest prospect for life, health and education are white boys? Sadly these are also afflicted by the same issues - single parent households and broken families. However most of are broken households.

I agree there are issues such as racism etc but when someone mentions bare facts and you immediately frame everything through a lense of race and "dehumanisation" you effectively stifle conversation, which is the main reason the black community suffers from a lot of pitfalls - no one is honest about their issues.

For example, in Britain, black people make up around 4% of the population, but most violent crime, including stabbings and murders are committed by black men. When I state this, I know the white community (and every other) has their issues, but just because I am mentioning a fact relating to people who happen to be black, I don't need to mention a completely unrelated statistic relating to another race. THAT in itself sounds prejudicial, not just towards the other race but also towards the black community. Ever heard of the prejudice of low expectations?

Using words such as "over-represented" and "dehumanise" only hurts the black comunity. In London, where most, if not all stabbings happen by black men, it is not racist to stop and search people who fit that statistic - black men. Yet stop and search happens to everyone.

I wouldn't make assertions about america, but I live in England. I go out in Lodnon. I see who is dealing drugs, who is behaving aggressively, whether its on the streets, or clubs, or in shops. Trust me, it isn't chinese or indian kids. Its not even white kids (although they can be rowdy). Its mostly a certain sort of person, and no one is dehumanising them but their own behavior.

Example: I went to college and university. I was with chinese, nepalese, european, caucasian British and Black British pupils. Do you know who graduated and got jobs? Do you know who mostly didn't graduate and even if they did graduate ended up with illegitimate kids? The black students. Every-single-one. Literally, every single one.


----------



## osaka35 (May 8, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> The States shouldn't pass *any laws* *outlawing or* *making abortions legal*. We don't need laws for every single damned thing in existence. That's not freedom. People should just live responsibility and not seek out to kill the life they create just because they simply don't want it.


Laws that "make abortions legal" are more saying "the government recognizes this as a right you have already and is not something given to you by the government, and so will not allow restrictions based on you exercising said right". or put plainly, the government won't restrict your rights and won't let government punish you directly or indirectly for exercising your rights.

and sometimes it also usually defines this right specifically, so everyone knows exactly what this right entails and its limits

Helps you sue the government if it's written down somewhere they can't do the thing and then they do the thing.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (May 8, 2022)

@MadonnaProject you were the one that framed the issue of abortion in the United States through the lense of crime by ethnic communities in Britain. It wasn't me who started the talk on race, and the thesis of your post is based on the idea that I started that discussion. You haven't mentioned bare facts, you mentioned one or two selected facts, and I completed the picture. Stabbings, robberies and violent crime are majorly perpetrated by black people, supposedly, because with police discrimination we can't get a clear picture. But you're ignoring the fact that those crimes are usually related to poverty, to communities with precariety and scarce means. 

Immediately your first paragraph is disproven by the government itself. White kids aren't the most exposed to poverty; from all the ethnicities, they're actually the least exposed.


----------



## Lumstar (May 8, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> The States shouldn't pass *any laws* *outlawing or* *making abortions legal*. We don't need laws for every single damned thing in existence. That's not freedom. People should just live responsibility and not seek out to kill the life they create just because they simply don't want it.



In any event, abortion being legal doesn't obligate doctors to perform it. A physician has every right to tell a patient their wishes are medically unnecessary or unsound.


----------



## MadonnaProject (May 8, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> @MadonnaProject you were the one that framed the issue of abortion in the United States through the lense of crime by ethnic communities in Britain. It wasn't me who started the talk on race, and the thesis of your post is based on the idea that I started that discussion. You haven't mentioned bare facts, you mentioned one or two selected facts, and I completed the picture. Stabbings, robberies and violent crime are majorly perpetrated by black people, supposedly, because with police discrimination we can't get a clear picture. But you're ignoring the fact that those crimes are usually related to poverty, to communities with precariety and scarce means.
> 
> Immediately your first paragraph is disproven by the government itself. White kids aren't the most exposed to poverty; from all the ethnicities, they're actually the least exposed.



The topic is about abortion. My point was I am conflicted about the issue. I do not support casual abortion but I think sometimes abortion prevents other issues such as unwanted births and illegitimacy. You cannot mention illegitimacy without mentioning the sort of people most likely to have illegitimate children. 

I was quite respectful about the matter and chose to not keep mentioning "black people" and instead referred to other races so make a point by omission. Then I stated my personal experience and being such it may differ from yours which is normal and that is ok.

I think perhaps something has hit a nerve, which is why you're reacting in this manner. If you think police as a whole is so against the darker skin colour (bearing in mind black people come from all parts of the world and have a varied and diverse culture, background, and faith system) that they're skewing stats to make everyone believe Black people committ the most crime, then perhaps you need to have a long hard think as to how you can come to such a conclusion. What would police have to gain from people believing such a thing?

Use the gov website link you posted as an example. If Pakistani and South Asian origin people live in poorer neighborhoods then you'd imagine poverty, scarcity etc etc to affect them also. Please explain how statistically they're not as likely as Black and Mixed (black and other race) kids to stab each other?

Why don't you see chinese immigrant families, Indian or other immigrant families (some of whom come from war torn countries and utter squalor) committ crime at a rate the same as black people. Or keeping it on point have illegitimite children like black people or abortions for that matter?

Let's not get oversensitive and virtue signal please. Its base level.


----------



## The Catboy (May 8, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Nope, at the point in time the sperm hasn't fertilized the egg yet and no baby is being created. Discarding sperm isn't killing an actual unborn child. What's next, spitting into the wind is also murder?


Sperm is still alive though and it's part of what makes a fetus. Why not set the goal back to saying busting a nut is the murder of countless potential children?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 8, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Cool, so you literally just want to be part of this conversation and nothing else. I won't entertain you past this message because it seems you only want attention and I don't care to give that to you.


Hey man, I have as much right to post replies here as you do. It's your choice to respond back or not, but you can't stop me from replying to you, just as I can't do the same.

This is all becoming a shout/insult fest as usual either way, but at the end of the day, Roe v. Wade is going, so go to a blue state to get your free abortion. It ain't my fault if you knock someone up or get knocked up and it's not the government's job to bail your sorry asses out.


----------



## Lacius (May 8, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Hey man, I have as much right to post replies here as you do. It's your choice to respond back or not, but you can't stop me from replying to you, just as I can't do the same.
> 
> This is all becoming a shout/insult fest as usual either way, but at the end of the day, Roe v. Wade is going, so go to a blue state to get your free abortion. It ain't my fault if you knock someone up or get knocked up and it's not the government's job to bail your sorry asses out.


I don't think this was ever an issue about an abortion being "free" or the government "bailing anybody out." The pro-choice argument is for the government to stay out of it.


----------



## Xzi (May 8, 2022)

Really all that needs to be said on this topic is that abortion is legal through the first trimester under Sharia Law, and any time if the mother's health is endangered.  Modern republicans have even ISIS beat when it comes to this sort of extremism.


----------



## jpmasterflex (May 8, 2022)

Wait..leak?  why would they allow that to get leaked? I doubt that'll get overturned...like OP said...just recycling talking points...i think they're trying to distract us again


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I don't think this was ever an issue about an abortion being "free" or the government "bailing anybody out." The pro-choice argument is for the government to stay out of it.


But the government was involved for decades thanks to Roe v. Wade, so then you should be good it's getting overturned. Why all the complaining then?


----------



## Valwinz (May 8, 2022)

jpmasterflex said:


> Wait..leak?  why would they allow that to get leaked? I doubt that'll get overturned...like OP said...just recycling talking points...i think they're trying to distract us again


Yea it seems some Woke staffer probably one of Sotomayor knowing Row will be overturned decided to leak it to in their mind help Dems in the midterms and try to intimidate the judges into not doing it. i mean they have now doxx the chief justice home


----------



## Pachee (May 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I don't recall anyone arguing during the pandemic that anybody didn't have a right to bodily autonomy.


Selective recall. Go check the 2 years + worth of news.



Dakitten said:


> Anyone else notice these conservative misogynistic bible thumping pro lifers have the worst grammar and spelling on the site? Just saying...


Here comes the educated elite that can't pay their own loans.


----------



## Lacius (May 8, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> But the government was involved for decades thanks to Roe v. Wade, so then you should be good it's getting overturned. Why all the complaining then?


You don't seem to understand that the country under Roe was the government staying out of it.


----------



## tabzer (May 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You don't seem to understand that the country under Roe was the government staying out of it.


Planned Parenthood and its abortions are funded and/or subsidized by American tax dollars.  Institutionalizing abortion isn't "the government staying out of it".


----------



## Pachee (May 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You don't seem to understand that the country under Roe was the government staying out of it.


You don't seem to understand that Roe was the government staying on it, making a mistake.


----------



## WeedZ -- Mod Warning (May 8, 2022)

[Posts removed for derailing, flaming, bickering, and inappropriate behavior]

Stay on topic and stay respectful. I cant believe we're still dealing with this behavior from veteran members.


----------



## Dakitten (May 8, 2022)

Pachee said:


> Here comes the educated elite that can't pay their own loans.


If being able to convey my thoughts clearly to others is being an educated elite, I weep for the fate of this country. Also, not that it matters, but my degree is not only paid for in full, I then went on to teach after getting back from military service and now work as a public servant in another capacity. You're welcome to throw about senseless shade, but you might look foolish if you can't spell or string words together properly while failing to understand other people trying to correct your faulty logic.

Off the topic for a moment, you realize your avatar is of a girl who lives in a castle and prides education over interacting with others because people are inferior to knowledge in her eyes and won't hesitate to murder people after her secret tomes, right? She is literally an educated elite. Not sure if this is supposed to flaunt ignorance or be ironic, but...


Pachee said:


> You don't seem to understand that Roe was the government staying on it, making a mistake.


"Staying on it" in this case meant not having cops raid places where abortions took place. Y'know... not getting involved. Education is really helpful when trying to understand the points other people make! 


BitMasterPlus said:


> But the government was involved for decades thanks to Roe v. Wade, so then you should be good it's getting overturned. Why all the complaining then?


The government ceased being involved thanks to Roe v. Wade. I'm very glad Lacius continued in education, and still has enough time to take so many of you kids to school~


----------



## tabzer (May 8, 2022)

The government didn't stay uninvolved in abortion.  It institutionalized it and helped fund it via tax dollars.  This negates the claim that government is not involved.  I'm not paying for it, but it's reasonable to see why people (even if they are pro-choice) would be upset with the government's role.  Flipping from anti-abortion to pro-abortion might be progressive in your book, but that's not really the point.


----------



## Dakitten (May 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The government didn't stay uninvolved in abortion.  It institutionalized it and helped fund it via tax dollars.  This negates the claim that government is not involved.  I'm not paying for it, but it's reasonable to see why people (even if they are pro-choice) would be upset with the government's role.  Flipping from anti-abortion to pro-abortion might be progressive in your book, but that's not really the point.


Actually, the government saw it as a health care issue, and lumped it in with health care services... which it absolutely is and they should because obviously. If you don't like paying taxes though, you can go to that place where you wouldn't have to. What was that place called again? Antarctica? Sorry comrade, you probably will pay for a lot of things in your life you won't approve of, and there are likely many more to come. It is kinda how governments continue to exist.

But hey, maybe you can hide behind Foxi's skirt some more. It would make this thread more interesting if you just stuck to being his hype man since you can't make any valid arguments of your own.


----------



## smf (May 8, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Yes it is. And we eat certain kinds of animals for survival and nutrients, like protein. That's why we have different classifications for animals: some are domesticated pets, some are wild animals, and some are livestock. Humans fit into none of those categories and babies lives are worth value.
> 
> Nope, it's not. Humans have been hunting for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. Hell, animals hunt other animals for food. It's nature. But humans evolved to the point where we know it's ok to reasonably hunt animals, and not commit acts such as cannibalism if you're wondering why we don't hunt each other (at least, not any of us that aren't psychopathic killers).


You abort a fetus, not a baby.

If humans can decide it's ok to reasonably hunt animals, then why can't we decide it's ok to reasonably abort fetus?

I understand that you are against the idea of abortion, but vegans are against killing animals.

If a minority can block abortions, then why should vegans not be able to block everyone eating animals?



BitMasterPlus said:


> But the government was involved for decades thanks to Roe v. Wade, so then you should be good it's getting overturned. Why all the complaining then?



Overturning roe v wade doesn't end the "government" involvement. It just moves it from federal governments "don't ask don't tell" policy, to state government where there is going to be even more involvement.



tabzer said:


> It institutionalized it and helped fund it via tax dollars.



It's better for the economy to fund health care. Cutting funding is like a taxi driver refusing to buy tires because they are expensive and instead just sit at home not earning money.


----------



## JaapDaniels (May 8, 2022)

PhantomChu said:


> Saying this while defending the killing of unborn children is pretty laughable


killing of an unborn vessel... an unborn mass still undefined, kiling an unborn still not abble to live. the only real thing it could be and that's what you would've understood if you read further than what you want to read: they kill a dream. this blob hasn't developed to anything so calling this blob of flesh a child that's way off!
read the whole fucking statement and we'll talk about the detailles.


----------



## Pachee (May 8, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> If being able to convey my thoughts clearly to others is being an educated elite, I weep for the fate of this country. Also, not that it matters, but my degree is not only paid for in full, I then went on to teach after getting back from military service and now work as a public servant in another capacity. You're welcome to throw about senseless shade, but you might look foolish if you can't spell or string words together properly while failing to understand other people trying to correct your faulty logic.


It's not about you, it's about what you did. We can clearly understand each other here, even the posts with broken english, and grammar nazism is one of the oldest cheap internet tricks people use when they don't have any other argument to use. 



Dakitten said:


> Off the topic for a moment, you realize your avatar is of a girl who lives in a castle and prides education over interacting with others because people are inferior to knowledge in her eyes and won't hesitate to murder people after her secret tomes, right? She is literally an educated elite. Not sure if this is supposed to flaunt ignorance or be ironic, but...


She lives in a mansion, not a castle. She is a book worm who values knowledge, not education, there is a difference. Also she is a quiet character who values knowledge more than social interactions, there are a few reasons why she doesn't leave the mansion but nothing to do with "other's inferiority". Elite? she is almost a squatter living off remilia.




Why are you even picking on my avatar? you are acting like those obsessive people who go doxxing others and calling their work/bosses over internet comments.



Dakitten said:


> "Staying on it" in this case meant not having cops raid places where abortions took place. Y'know... not getting involved.
> ....
> The government ceased being involved thanks to Roe v. Wade.


Why not? Clinics performing illegal services in a state shall not be exempt from raids. You have just confirmed the government's involvement by abusing a wrong decision to shield them. I wonder how you would react if this about states trying to control/ban silencers and cripple magazines.



Dakitten said:


> ... Education is really helpful when trying to understand the points other people make!  ...
> I'm very glad Lacius continued in education, and still has enough time to take so many of you kids to school~


----------



## tabzer (May 8, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Actually, the government saw it as a health care issue, and lumped it in with health care services... which it absolutely is and they should because obviously. If you don't like paying taxes though, you can go to that place where you wouldn't have to. What was that place called again? Antarctica? Sorry comrade, you probably will pay for a lot of things in your life you won't approve of, and there are likely many more to come. It is kinda how governments continue to exist.
> 
> But hey, maybe you can hide behind Foxi's skirt some more. It would make this thread more interesting if you just stuck to being his hype man since you can't make any valid arguments of your own.


I'll take this as an admission that your previous claim is full of shit and that you are too proud to admit it directly.  There is plenty that I disagree with, with everyone here, and that is the beauty of diversity.  If you think Foxi, alone, single mindedly pioneered the rationale then he must be like a god to you.  As someone who pays taxes, I feel a moral responsibility for how my tax dollars are spent.  By that standard, you aren't anyone I'm trying to impress (and you know it).


----------



## Lacius (May 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Planned Parenthood and its abortions are funded and/or subsidized by American tax dollars.  Institutionalizing abortion isn't "the government staying out of it".


In general, abortions in the United States are not funded or subsidized by American tax dollars. Federal law explicitly bans that in cases that don't have to do with rape or life of the mother.

I'm not saying I agree with this, but my point is you're factually wrong. It's also an issue that's wholly separate from Roe, a ruling that's only about legal access to abortion.



Pachee said:


> You don't seem to understand that Roe was the government staying on it, making a mistake.


Roe was a Supreme Court ruling that said the federal government and state governments generally had to stay out of it (with regard to access to abortion).



tabzer said:


> As someone who pays taxes, I feel a moral responsibility for how my tax dollars are spent.


I have a general moral opposition to war and the military industrial complex. Should paying taxes toward the military become optional?


----------



## tabzer (May 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> In general, abortions in the United States are not funded or subsidized by American tax dollars. Federal law explicitly bans that in cases that don't have to do with rape or life of the mother.
> 
> I'm not saying I agree with this, but my point is you're factually wrong. It's also an issue that's wholly separate from Roe, a ruling that's only about legal access to abortion.



Can you provide documentation about that?  Afaik, planned parenthood gets tax funding and abortion isn't exempt.  That could be an assumption based on bad information, but it is a worthy point for clarification imo.  While our standards for a "worthy abortion" and how we apply our judgement may be vastly different, that isn't my issue.  I already know disagreements exist and I am not in control of your abortions.  Roe was the foot in the door.  You perceive it to be separate from other government actions because you compartmentalize government action based on the fact that there are different bills.  But the fact remains that the government is _progressively _becoming tyrannical.  Little by little, the government is leveraging more against its people. 



Lacius said:


> I have a general moral opposition to war and the military industrial complex. Should paying taxes toward the military become optional?



They are optional.  The question is if the risk of becoming a martyr is worth the representation.  If you feel the 14th amendment is a worthy cause, then you have my support.  I might even start a GoFundMe.


----------



## Lacius (May 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Can you provide documentation about that?


Sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment



tabzer said:


> They are optional.


If I don't want to go to prison, then no, they aren't optional. I would probably end up even having to pay the taxes and additional fines if convicted of tax evasion. You also didn't answer my question.


----------



## tabzer (May 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Sure.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
> 
> 
> If I don't want to go to prison, then no, they aren't optional. I would probably end up even having to pay the taxes and additional fines if convicted of tax evasion. You also didn't answer my question.


They are optional.  The question of whether they should be or not is redundant.  Not paying taxes is a form of protest.  People who are satisfied with their life and their government would happily pay taxes.


----------



## Lacius (May 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> They are optional.  The question of whether they should be or not is redundant.  Not paying taxes is a form of protest.  People who are satisfied with their life and their government would happily pay taxes.


You are muddying the subject.

The issue was about whether or not your tax dollars should have to go to abortion (they currently don't). You seem to think that you shouldn't have to legally pay taxes towards anything you're morally opposed to. My point was that if everybody could just pick and choose the things their tax dollars pay for, on the basis of what they find moral, nothing would get funded. In other words, that'd be a terrible system.

Did I get everything right?


----------



## Dark_Phoras (May 8, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> The topic is about abortion. My point was I am conflicted about the issue. I do not support casual abortion but I think sometimes abortion prevents other issues such as unwanted births and illegitimacy. You cannot mention illegitimacy without mentioning the sort of people most likely to have illegitimate children.
> 
> I was quite respectful about the matter and chose to not keep mentioning "black people" and instead referred to other races so make a point by omission. Then I stated my personal experience and being such it may differ from yours which is normal and that is ok.
> 
> ...



I'm not virtual signaling. You could never understand how I think if you're unable to put yourself in the shoes of another person. Maybe you're trying to figure me out via the same pattern of tribal nature by which racists view the world, like somehow me defending people from other ethnicities must come from some personal unbalance or ulterior motive. I happen to think it's basic human decency. It doesn't even occur to me to perceive anything through the lens of ethnicity.

You tell me to use the government page I posted as an example to consider why pakistani and south asian origin people live in poorer neighbourhoods and don't commit crimes at the same rate as black people. I assume you mean why pakistani and south asian origin people living in poorer neighbourhoods don't commit violent crimes at the same rate as black people. I presume there are historical and sociological explanations for the fact. We already verified that there's overrepresentation of black people in all stages of the criminal justice system, that black people are the most randomly approached by authorities in the street, and that black people are the highest victims of violent crime.

I believe in accountability. Anyone is responsible for their actions, no matter the color of their skin. There's plenty of fatherless children in every ethnicity, there's plenty of criminals in every ethnicity. We know for a fact that abortion, in the long term, prevents crime and poverty. Abortion is a last resort measure by women who believe they are not financially, professionally or psychologically ready to be a mother. When women can develop their craft, strengthen their finances and mature themselves in experience and personality, they'll be more attuned to estimate when and under what circumstances they want to have a child. When a woman is forced to become a mother against her will, or without her being ready, both herself and the child will be more vulnerable and with a higher potential for poverty and distress. People that grow up challenged by these difficulties, or in harsh environments, are more likely to resort to crime and to find themselves stuck to a community of crime.


----------



## MadonnaProject (May 8, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> I'm not virtual signaling. You could never understand how I think if you're unable to put yourself in the shoes of another person. Maybe you're trying to figure me out via the same pattern of tribal nature by which racists view the world, like somehow me defending people from other ethnicities must come from some personal unbalance or ulterior motive. I happen to think it's basic human decency. It doesn't even occur to me to perceive anything through the lens of ethnicity.
> 
> You tell me to use the government page I posted as an example to consider why pakistani and south asian origin people live in poorer neighbourhoods and don't commit crimes at the same rate as black people. I assume you mean why pakistani and south asian origin people living in poorer neighbourhoods don't commit violent crimes at the same rate as black people. I presume there are historical and sociological explanations for the fact. We already verified that there's overrepresentation of black people in all stages of the criminal justice system, that black people are the most randomly approached by authorities in the street, and that black people are the highest victims of violent crime.
> 
> I believe in accountability. Anyone is responsible for their actions, no matter the color of their skin. There's plenty of fatherless children in every ethnicity, there's plenty of criminals in every ethnicity. We know for a fact that abortion, in the long term, prevents crime and poverty. Abortion is a last resort measure by women who believe they are not financially, professionally or psychologically ready to be a mother. When women can develop their craft, strengthen their finances and mature themselves in experience and personality, they'll be more attuned to estimate when and under what circumstances they want to have a child. When a woman is forced to become a mother against her will, or without her being ready, both herself and the child will be more vulnerable and with a higher potential for poverty and distress. People that grow up challenged by these difficulties, or in harsh environments, are more likely to resort to crime and to find themselves stuck to a community of crime.


Black people are approached in the street the same manner everyone else is.
Black people are also more likely to be murdered by other black people or suffer violence against them by other black people and this is EXPONENTIALLY higher than any other race.
I think you very much are virtue signalling, especially as you're bandying the word "Racist" around.
Do you know I am African by the way? No, because it doesn't matter.

My opinion was framed from my own experience, and in my experience, as an African, I have a lense on the situation which you couldn't possibly unless you were from a similar cultural background and perspective.

No, illegitimacy is absolutely not the same in every other race as it is in the American and British black and Caribbean community. Young black women having children out of wedlock is mostly not against their will. Its done because its simply easier to be a welfare queen. This isn't because society is bad, it is not because black people are bad its far from it. Its cultural. There are countless psychological studies which show young black people to culturally be incapable of foregoing a benefit right now to gain more from it in the future. When chinese, caucasian, middle eastern children were given the option of having a treat now or 5 later, they mostly chose to go for more later. The results were opposite for black people. Chinese people have lived through horrific oppression, the indians have lived through abject poverty the ikes of which unimaginable, but you know what? they have picked themselves up over the past 30 years and both countries are now superpowers. They haven't cried about being enslaved to this and that. You will never find chinese or indians obsessing about their race but with the black community it is all you ever hear. I should know, I am a part of it.

You also can't speak about believing in accountability and then turn around and say statistics on black crimes are skewed because police hates black people. Then claim black people are highly represented in the justice system despite making up a small fraction of the population because there are socio-economic reasons.

You may think you're being decent, but coming from an African person, what you have is very much the bigotry of low expectations. I feel you're young and whilst I think you have the best intentions here, I also think you're privileged and idealistically naive.


----------



## Dakitten (May 8, 2022)

Pachee said:


> It's not about you, it's about what you did. We can clearly understand each other here, even the posts with broken english, and grammar nazism is one of the oldest cheap internet tricks people use when they don't have any other argument to use.


What I've done, oh boy... Makes me sound like a murderer or something. Neat.

I've been attacking people's perception and points just fine, even got one fellow to listen. The one who focused on my wee jab here was you, comrade. In a debate, it is important to get across your ideas clearly so people understand your point of view, and on a topic like this where there is an overwhelming majority of support for a standard upheld most everywhere else in the world, the burden of conveying reasons clearly falls upon the minority with great emphasis. That is why the leak was really such a big deal, because it flies against both the will of the people AND precedent, to say nothing of how it goes in the face of what several newer justices said during their confirmation hearings. Now they have to answer for themselves, and they erected a literal barricade to protect themselves rather than doing so.



Pachee said:


> She lives in a mansion, not a castle.


Yes, so much less elitist. My bad. 



Pachee said:


> Why are you even picking on my avatar? you are acting like those obsessive people who go doxxing others and calling their work/bosses over internet comments.


You realize you aren't ACTUALLY Patchouli Knowledge, right? Just like I'm not actually a cat. I'm not doxing you, comrade, please turn the Karen down a notch.



Pachee said:


> Why not? Clinics performing illegal services in a state shall not be exempt from raids. You have just confirmed the government's involvement by abusing a wrong decision to shield them. I wonder how you would react if this about states trying to control/ban silencers and cripple magazines.


Shield them? The only time planned parenthood and other clinics needed protecting was when they were being assaulted for the crime of not breaking the law. The services weren't illegal then, because the government... wait for it... chose to not be involved with a women's health issue. When something gets made illegal, it requires enforcement, aka involvement, aka government steps in. If you actually want "big government" lessened, you would support Roe v. Wade, but that wouldn't be convenient.

As for free speech, I believe in consequences for people's actions should they choose to invoke hostility via speech. If somebody wants to post a rant about how they dislike the decisions of the courts, cool. If somebody else wants to reply by posting pictures of pornography and obscenities not befitting a child friendly website, I believe the platform management people where they post SHOULD remove the offender at least temporarily as per their terms of use. Totally only talking about youtube here, of course. Not like GBATemp has a standards and consistancy issue or anything.  Censorship has a place in society, it just needs to have a firm set of sensible rules and public support.

In the case of your arguments, you... don't really seem to have any aside from "baby murder bad!". The science goes against your stance, the people of the US don't approve of your position, and the world at large operates opposite of how you think things should be. If you don't have anything to add, you can use your freedom of speech to keep mouthing off, but all it will be is an exercise in ignorance.

If only there was a way for you to improve your ability to communicate with others AND reinforce your world view with facts and the skill to organize them for others to view so as to convince them you might have something worth contributing... oh yeah, I got an idea!









tabzer said:


> I'll take this as an admission that your previous claim is full of shit and that you are too proud to admit it directly.  There is plenty that I disagree with, with everyone here, and that is the beauty of diversity.  If you think Foxi, alone, single mindedly pioneered the rationale then he must be like a god to you.  As someone who pays taxes, I feel a moral responsibility for how my tax dollars are spent.  By that standard, you aren't anyone I'm trying to impress (and you know it).


If you say so, comrade. My comment was actually doing nothing of the sort, and if you failed to understand something please let me know.

I love diversity, but many folks on your side of this discourse use the same tactics and talking points, and it gets a bit hard to parse you all out sometimes. Good to see you join Bit in the "No but u" defensive strategy, by the by. I brought up Foxi because he at least tackles things from different angles and with some actual thought, and when he does the rest of the right wingers on this site flock to praise him like he was Ben Shapiro, as you've done. I like to think I give Lacius ass pats more often than other "lefties" on this site because I respect his efforts as a peer, but I don't think I've ever needed to quote him to make my own points.

Also, don't worry about impressing me. Everyone of age pays taxes. 



MadonnaProject said:


> I think you very much are virtue signalling, especially as you're bandying the word "Racist" around.
> Do you know I am African by the way?


Irony intensifies. By the by, I think anyone who has ever followed a thread you're in knows you identify as black, you do kinda virtue signal a lot with it.


----------



## Ulieq (May 8, 2022)

Fetus' and infants are not sentient, so it's a moot point.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> This isn't how laws work. If there isn't a law criminalizing something, it's legal (generally speaking).



So, then all these new laws passed legalizing marijuana in various states are what then?


----------



## Lacius (May 8, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> So, then all these new laws passed legalizing marijuana in various states are what then?


It's illegal at the federal level, but the Justice Department has been instructed to not enforce those laws in states that legalize it. If it weren't illegal at the federal or state level, it'd be legal.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It's illegal at the federal level, but the Justice Department has been instructed to not enforce those laws in states that legalize it. If it weren't illegal at the federal or state level, it'd be legal.



"The *recreational marijuana law* uses the definition of public place found in ARS 36-601.01."

https://arjashahlaw.com/blog/arizona-marijuana-laws-2022/

So, you're telling me what I quoted doesn't exist and the laws passed in Arizona legalizing marijuana at a State level also don't exist?

Edit:

"Under *ARS 36-2852*, for example, adults ages 21 and older can legally possess up to six plants, five grams of marijuana concentrate, or one ounce of cannabis."


----------



## Lacius (May 8, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> "The *recreational marijuana law* uses the definition of public place found in ARS 36-601.01."
> 
> https://arjashahlaw.com/blog/arizona-marijuana-laws-2022/
> 
> ...


You weren't listening, so I'll try again. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level, as well as at the state level in a lot of states, which means marijuana has to be legalized in order to not be illegal anymore. In states where it is legal, a.) it only works because the federal law is not being enforced consistently, and b.) it's changing preexisting state law that criminalized marijuana. If it weren't illegal at the federal level, and if it weren't illegal at the state level, then it would be legal.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You weren't listening, so I'll try again. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level, as well as at the state level in a lot of states, which means marijuana has to be legalized in order to not be illegal anymore. If it weren't illegal at the federal level, and if it weren't illegal at the state level, then it would be legal.



Yes, and you just said there's no laws that make things legal. Seems you're conflicted. I'll let you sit and figure it out for a while.


----------



## Lacius (May 8, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Yes, and you just said there's no laws that make things legal.


I didn't say this. I said something is legal if it isn't explicitly illegal. 

If something is illegal, the law obviously has to be changed to make it legal.

Edit: Are you okay?


----------



## Dark_Phoras (May 8, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> Black people are approached in the street the same manner everyone else is.
> Black people are also more likely to be murdered by other black people or suffer violence against them by other black people and this is EXPONENTIALLY higher than any other race.
> I think you very much are virtue signalling, especially as you're bandying the word "Racist" around.
> Do you know I am African by the way? No, because it doesn't matter.
> ...



Your ethnicity, skin color or place of origin don’t matter to these arguments. Some pages behind you made a point to base your opinion on the fact that you have a life in Britain. It looks like you’re assuming any arbitrary characteristic of yours to legitimize your empirical arguments. But I’m basing myself on factual information. I am not stating by empirical experience or personal prejudice the systematic unfairness to which black people are subjected, I’ve shown my respectable sources. As to my own personal character, I have explained myself. Repeating ad nauseam that I’m virtue signalling is useless if I’ve already refuted.

Children that grow up without one parent, I won’t call it illegitimacy, because these children are not illegitimate. Your points on myself, on welfare, single parenthood, as well as all those considerations on ethnicity loaded with prejudice that make more than half your post don’t have any relevance to the subject discussed. You’re already full of opinions about me, someone you don’t know. And I can absolutely talk about accountability and point out the unfairness to which black people are subjected, because they’re not contradictory. I already wrote that I believe that anyone is responsible for their actions, no matter the color of their skin.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I didn't say this. I said something is legal if it isn't explicitly illegal.
> 
> If something is illegal, the law obviously has to be changed to make it legal.
> 
> Edit: Are you okay?



I'm fine, I was just responding to your post stating that I didn't understand how laws work when I stated that there could possibly be a law passed to legalize abortion and you said that's not how laws work, meaning laws aren't passed to legalize something.

Here, in case you forgot.

https://gbatemp.net/threads/u-s-sup...-abortion-rights-decision.611748/post-9820060


----------



## Lacius (May 8, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm fine, I was just responding to your post stating that I didn't understand how laws work when I stated that there could possibly be a law passed to legalize abortion and you said that's not how laws work, meaning laws aren't passed to legalize something.
> 
> Here, in case you forgot.
> 
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/u-s-sup...-abortion-rights-decision.611748/post-9820060


The point of my response, which was clear, was that not having any laws about abortion whatsoever means abortion is legal. I'm not sure what's so confusing to understand.


----------



## MadonnaProject (May 8, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Irony intensifies. By the by, I think anyone who has ever followed a thread you're in knows you identify as black, you do kinda virtue signal a lot with it.


I don't know who you are.


----------



## MadonnaProject (May 8, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> Your ethnicity, skin color or place of origin don’t matter to these arguments. Some pages behind you made a point to base your opinion on the fact that you have a life in Britain. It looks like you’re assuming any arbitrary characteristic of yours to legitimize your empirical arguments. But I’m basing myself on factual information. I am not stating by empirical experience or personal prejudice the systematic unfairness to which black people are subjected, I’ve shown my respectable sources. As to my own personal character, I have explained myself. Repeating ad nauseam that I’m virtue signalling is useless if I’ve already refuted.
> 
> Children that grow up without one parent, I won’t call it illegitimacy, because these children are not illegitimate. Your points on myself, on welfare, single parenthood, as well as all those considerations on ethnicity loaded with prejudice that make more than half your post don’t have any relevance to the subject discussed. You’re already full of opinions about me, someone you don’t know. And I can absolutely talk about accountability and point out the unfairness to which black people are subjected, because they’re not contradictory. I already wrote that I believe that anyone is responsible for their actions, no matter the color of their skin.


Hmm, ok.


----------



## Dakitten (May 8, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> I don't know who you are.


Doesn't change the facts, though. It has been a while since I've commented, new job and living space and such, but we've spoken before and I've seen you around in threads. You've played your purported race as a reverse uno card a few times, to the point where it reminds me of the Quartering swearing he has a bunch of gay fathers so he can't be homophobic when he trashes on LGBT+ relationships. Even if its true, it just means you would be poor representation and willfully ignorant for the convenience of your world view. Try a new tactic, comrade.


----------



## MadonnaProject (May 8, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Doesn't change the facts, though. It has been a while since I've commented, new job and living space and such, but we've spoken before and I've seen you around in threads. You've played your purported race as a reverse uno card a few times, to the point where it reminds me of the Quartering swearing he has a bunch of gay fathers so he can't be homophobic when he trashes on LGBT+ relationships. Even if its true, it just means you would be poor representation and willfully ignorant for the convenience of your world view. Try a new tactic, comrade.


That's a lot. Thanks for being a fan tho.


----------



## Valwinz (May 9, 2022)

Well a new CNN conducted poll release and it seems the majority of people are in favor of overturning this and makes sense since even the late RBG say this thing was badly done.


----------



## Lacius (May 9, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> Well a new CNN conducted poll release and it seems the majority of people are in favor of overturning this


Could you provide a link? Every poll I've ever seen shows a solid majority of Americans supporting Roe.\

Edit: I think you read the poll wrong (this poll was conducted in January)
CNN Poll: As Supreme Court ruling on Roe looms, most Americans oppose overturning it​https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/21/politics/cnn-poll-abortion-roe-v-wade/index.html

Edit x2: The May poll isn't much different.
(it's a PDF) https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21903171/abortion-politics.pdf


----------



## Valwinz (May 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Could you provide a link? Every poll I've ever seen shows a solid majority of Americans supporting Roe.


----------



## Lacius (May 9, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> View attachment 309312


This isn't a question about Roe. 

In the same poll you're referencing, 66% of Americans oppose overturning Roe.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21903171/abortion-politics.pdf


----------



## Valwinz (May 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> This isn't a question about Roe.
> 
> In the same poll you're referencing, 66% of Americans oppose overturning Roe.
> https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21903171/abortion-politics.pdf


did you even read it ? literally the last question 

Row was bad law to begin with. Should always remain a States issue, and the decision to federalize it was bad its clear the majority of people lookt at it like that


----------



## Lacius (May 9, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> did you even read it ? literally the last question


You seem to be having trouble finding it, so here.


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You are muddying the subject.
> 
> The issue was about whether or not your tax dollars should have to go to abortion (they currently don't). You seem to think that you shouldn't have to legally pay taxes towards anything you're morally opposed to. My point was that if everybody could just pick and choose the things their tax dollars pay for, on the basis of what they find moral, nothing would get funded. In other words, that'd be a terrible system.
> 
> Did I get everything right?



Well, that does look pretty muddy, but I am not the one doing that.  My response was succinct.  If you, an American, are paying money for the war, I am still going to blame you for the war.  But I do understand that you have a tyrannical government, so I can empathize a little.  However, be the change.  Maybe you should be sanctioned for some extra motivation in your anticipated rebellion.

I don't agree with the conclusion that "nothing would get funded" and "that it would be a terrible system".  It's irrational to assume and does not account for people who are happy to pay taxes and approve of their government.



Dakitten said:


> My comment was actually doing nothing of the sort



My conflict was about government involvement in abortions by being institutionalized and funded by tax dollars.  Even though they are largely not, sharing the same failure in understanding, you responded with "it's a healthcare issue, stupid".  Not only was that an admission that "yes, the government does institutionalize abortion and fund it with tax dollars" (even though that's inaccurate), you suggested that it was ridiculous to be a concern, avoiding direct confrontation with the fact that you are contradicting yourself.  If you get moody every time someone points out an err in your rationale, then maybe you should stay off the internet until the thought police can finish installing all of the guardrails.



Dakitten said:


> I don't think I've ever needed to quote him to make my own points.



Seeing as your point was stupid, maybe we'd all have been better off if you had let him do the talking.  If you are disappointed because I quoted Foxi but not in disagreement with the material of the quote, then I am okay with that.  When solving for x, I would hope that we can arrive to the same conclusion.  If you want to forfeit accuracy just to "make your own original point", then good for you--but we all lose.


----------



## Lacius (May 9, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Well, that does look pretty muddy, but I am not the one doing that.  My response was succinct.  If you, an American, are paying money for the war, I am still going to blame you for the war.  But I do understand that you have a tyrannical government, so I can empathize a little.  However, be the change.  Maybe you should be sanctioned for some extra motivation in your anticipated rebellion.
> 
> I don't agree with the conclusion that "nothing would get funded" and "that it would be a terrible system".  It's irrational to assume and does not account for people who are happy to pay taxes and approve of their government.


Jesus Christ. Do you think a person should, personally and without legal consequence, be able to withhold tax dollars from expenses they have moral objections with? You seemed to suggest they should be able to when you said a person shouldn't have to have their tax dollars go towards subsidized abortions (they already don't).

If your answer is yes, then the funding for virtually everything (my example was the military) would be slashed. If the answer is no, then I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Nobody asked if you thought the American government was tyrannical, lol.


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Jesus Christ. Do you think a person should, personally and without legal consequence, be able to withhold tax dollars from expenses they have moral objections with? You seemed to suggest they should be able to.
> 
> If your answer is yes, then the funding for virtually everything would be slashed. If the answer is no, then I'm not sure why you brought it up.
> 
> Nobody asked if you thought the American government was tyrannical, lol.



Define "should".   You don't need me to answer something so loaded.


----------



## Lacius (May 9, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Define "should".   You don't need me to answer.


If you don't want to answer the question, you can just refrain from responding. You don't have to muddy the waters more.


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you don't want to answer the question, you can just refrain from responding. You don't have to muddy the waters more.


But I want to help you with your moral crisis of paying for your country's military complex.  The point is that it's not for me to decide whether or not you "should" do something.  That's for you to decide.  You seem to think it's not optional, and I disagreed.

I'll still blame you, as an American, for what your country does wrong, because that's just what we do.


----------



## Lacius (May 9, 2022)

tabzer said:


> But I want to help you with your moral crisis of paying for your country's military complex.


You missed the point of my post entirely if you think I'm actually in moral crisis. It was a hypothetical situation. The point was that people don't to get to pick and choose which taxes they pay based on moral objections, and anyone "having a moral objection" to something isn't grounds for something to not be subsidized by taxes. Those decisions, generally, are made by their elected officials. The say of the individual is at the ballot box.

Edit: If your point is that anyone can pay whatever taxes they want/don't want to pay, then what's your problem with subsidized abortions? You seem inconsistent. 



tabzer said:


> it's not for me to decide whether or not you "should" do something.  That's for you to decide.  You seem to think it's not optional, and I disagreed.


You mean like a woman deciding whether or not to have an abortion?


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You missed the point of my post entirely if you think I'm actually in moral crisis. It was a hypothetical situation. The point was that people don't to get to pick and choose which taxes they pay.


Not... yet.  As for now, they can only choose if they pay taxes and how much, or demonstrate in some other manner.




Lacius said:


> You mean like a woman deciding whether or not to have an abortion?


Exactly.  Did you think I have the capacity to make her decision for her or something?


----------



## Lacius (May 9, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Exactly.  Did you think I have the capacity to make her decision for her or something?


I'm just making sure we agree that a woman should have legal access to abortion. I'm glad we agree.


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I'm just making sure we agree that a woman should have legal access to abortion. I'm glad we agree.


That's not what we are agreeing on.  I am not assessing what "should be legal".  I am assessing facts.


----------



## Lacius (May 9, 2022)

tabzer said:


> That's not what we are agreeing on.  I am not assessing what "should be legal".  I am assessing facts.


If you think it's for a woman to decide whether or not she should get an abortion, then you agree with me that abortion should be legal.


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you think it's for a woman to decide whether or not she should get an abortion, then you agree with me that abortion should be legal.


I think_ it is_ a woman's decision,_ even _in the case it is illegal.


----------



## The Catboy (May 9, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I think_ it is_ a woman's decision,_ even _in the case it is illegal.


Then it should be legal. If they are allowed to decide then there shouldn’t be a government to stop them. If the government does stop them, then it’s not their decision. The simple logic is that you support their right to decide and that right should be legal. Otherwise, your support is pointless.


----------



## Lacius (May 9, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Then it should be legal. If they are allowed to decide then there shouldn’t be a government to stop them. If the government does stop them, then it’s not their decision. The simple logic is that you support their right to decide and that right should be legal. Otherwise, your support is pointless.


He doesn't understand that he has either a.) made a statement in support of legal abortion, or b.) is stating the obvious about how free will works in an effort to muddy the waters and avoid the topic.


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

It seems people here don't understand about how free will works.  You assess that it is obvious, but even after I spell it out, people like yourself and catboy can't decipher it.


----------



## The Catboy (May 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> He doesn't understand that he has either a.) made a statement in support of legal abortion, or b.) is stating the obvious about how free will works in an effort to muddy the waters and avoid the topic.


Most of this thread has literally been nonsense and false claims from “Pro-Lifers.” I am starting to believe that muddy water, attempting to control the conversation, and mental gymnastics is all they have


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Most of this thread has literally been nonsense and false claims from “Pro-Lifers.” I am starting to believe that muddy water, attempting to control the conversation, and mental gymnastics is all they have


Again, dumb and disingenuous.  The 14th amendment is not about abortion.  Find another way.


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

That, or get an abortion.


----------



## The Catboy (May 9, 2022)

tabzer said:


> That, or get an abortion.


I literally can’t because I was born sterile


tabzer said:


> Again, dumb and disingenuous.  The 14th amendment is not about abortion.  Find another way.


Yeah my post literally didn’t mention that, so ok. You ignored everything else posted before this post.


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I literally can’t because I was born sterile



So, biologically you are anti-abortion, but you identify as pro-abortion....  or you want to experience one vicariously?  
 I'm sure you can read about one somewhere. 



The Catboy said:


> Yeah my post literally didn’t mention that, so ok



That's the point.  You seem to think that the existence of "pro-lifers" leaked a SCOTUS opinion.


----------



## AleronIves (May 9, 2022)

Let's play Devil's advocate and assume that the anti-abortion camp is correct, and abortion is murder. Shouldn't anyone involved in an abortion therefore be put on trial for murder? There are at least two ways this could go:


If a woman goes to a doctor to get an abortion, the doctor should be charged with murder for performing the abortion, and the woman should be charged with accessory to murder for giving the murderer access to the victim (the fetus).
If a doctor gives a woman a prescription for abortion medication, the doctor should be charged with accessory to murder for giving her the murder weapon, and the woman should be charged with murder for performing the abortion. The pharmacist is also likely an accessory to murder for dispensing the medication.

If you're against abortion on the grounds that it's murder, and you agree with this, then at least you're being logically consistent.

If you're against abortion on the grounds that it's murder, and you disagree with this, then you should probably question why you're really against abortion, because claiming that abortion is murder and then not wanting to prosecute the murderer makes little sense.


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

I've never seen someone who is against abortions defend someone who performs abortions.  Have you?


----------



## The Catboy (May 9, 2022)

tabzer said:


> So, biologically you are anti-abortion, but you identify as pro-abortion.... or you want to experience one vicariously?
> I'm sure you can read about one somewhere.


That literally doesn’t make sense. I can’t get an abortion because I can’t get pregnant. That doesn’t mean I am anti-abortion and it’s a fucking stretch to make my statement anti-abortion.


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> That literally doesn’t make sense. I can’t get an abortion because I can’t get pregnant. That doesn’t mean I am anti-abortion and it’s a fucking stretch to make my statement anti-abortion.


Well, that's hilarious.  I _literally _can't even._   But I will try._

You're physically incapable of having an abortion.  Biologically, no-to-abortion.

And _that's _the stretch, in contrast to the claim that the 14th amendment is pro-abortion. 

If a petition could enumerate people's rights to an abortion, your signature would be much more effective, because your rationale is sabotaging the effort.


----------



## Pachee (May 9, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Pachee said:
> 
> 
> > She lives in a mansion, not a castle.
> ...





Pachee said:


> She lives in a mansion, not a castle. She ...
> Elite? *she is almost a squatter living off remilia.*View attachment 309193


Full quote lives matter.


----------



## omgcat (May 9, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I've never seen someone who is against abortions defend someone who performs abortions.  Have you?



life is nuanced, you might find the scenario to be fuck awful, but accept that it isn't your place to make a choice for them. 

--------------------------------------------------------


most of the people who claim abortions are a persons main form of birth control has zero idea about the procedure itself and how hellish it can be.

i see misinfo all over the place, some examples are:

women get abortions all the time instead of using birth control (this is just plain stupid since abortions are expensive and PAINFUL)

women routinely get 3rd trimester abortions (also false since less than 1% of all abortions happen after 24 weeks in the USA)








an important point to make with this whole ordeal is that a bunch of states have tripwire laws that will kick in the moment RVW gets overturned, here is a handy dandy chart







on top of all of this, the republicans have already started drafting a 6 weeks federal abortion ban that can be passed if they nuke the filibuster (which they can do with only 50 votes).

the  legal argument that underpinned the RVW decision also underpinned access to contraceptives, gay marriage, interracial marriage, and others. so expect those to go out the window with TN already trying to circumvent the ban on gay marriage, MI already discussing banning contraceptives. this is all now in the realm of possibility.


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

omgcat said:


> life is nuanced, you might find the scenario to be fuck awful, but accept that it isn't your place to make a choice for them. most of the people who claim abortions are a persons main form of birth control has zero idea about the procedure itself and how hellish it can be.
> 
> i see misinfo all over the place, some examples are:
> 
> ...



You do realize that your response has nothing to do with what you are responding to, right?


----------



## omgcat (May 9, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You do realize that your response has nothing to do with what you are responding to, right?


Lol I should have made a more obvious separator between a response to what you said and my contribution to the topic. I edited it, my bad.


----------



## laudern (May 9, 2022)

I love how the "my choice my body" abortion fools forgot that slogan when the government was jabbing everyone in the arm, left, right and centre. The usual retort is "vaccination affects more than just the person getting it, it helps everyone." But guess what, I'm pretty sure an abortion also affects more than just the woman who is getting, like the dead kid and the father. 

I'm not a fan of the tools who are pro life and against vaccinations, either. They are just as dumb and hypocritical. 

I'm pro choice for both vaccinations and the useless jab. At least the abortion is actually effective. 

My body my choice for everything!!!


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

omgcat said:


> Lol I should have made a more obvious separator between a response to what you said and my contribution to the topic. I edited it, my bad.


Oh, ok.  I get what you are saying on behalf of the practitioner who performs an abortion.  But I was asking if someone who is against abortion has ever said it's ok to perform abortions.  I didn't really understand the point of @AleronIves's post.  If abortion is murder, then of course the persons conducting the procedure and handing the pills are an accessory.  I don't think that people on either side of the issue would disagree.  When people say,"no abortions", it is assumed that it includes giving them, lol.



laudern said:


> I love how the "my choice my body" abortion fools forgot that slogan when the government was jabbing everyone in the arm, left, right and centre. The usual retort is "vaccination affects more than just the person getting it, it helps everyone." But guess what, I'm pretty sure an abortion also affects more than just the woman who is getting, like the dead kid and the father.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the tools who are pro life and against vaccinations, either. They are just as dumb and hypocritical.
> 
> ...



It's easy.  Different issues require different slogans.  We don't actually know what they mean.  They just sound cool and edgy.


----------



## laudern (May 9, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Oh, ok.  I get what you are saying on behalf of the practitioner who performs an abortion.  But I was asking if someone who is against abortion has ever said it's ok to perform abortions.  I didn't really understand the point of @AleronIves's post.  If abortion is murder, then of course the person conducting the procedure or handing the pills are an accessory.  I don't think that people on either side of the issue would disagree.  When people say,"no abortions", it is assumed that it includes giving them, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy.  Different issues require different slogans.  We don't actually know what they mean.  They just sound cool and edgy.


Except both issues come down to the very same thing. Personal choice vs government control. Most people, yourself included, by the looks of it, are too stupid to realise this or they are so brainwashed to follow whatever their "team" is chanting in the streets to see their own hypocrisy. 

You control what goes in your body and what comes out of it. Not the government.


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

laudern said:


> Except both issues come down to the very same thing. Personal choice vs government control. Most people, yourself included, by the looks of it, are too stupid to realise this or they are so brainwashed to follow whatever their "team" is chanting in the streets to see their own hypocrisy.
> 
> You control what goes in your body and what comes out of it. Not the government.


I would tell you that I agree, but my social media-based clique of peace, love, and acceptance would ostracize me and then I would feel lonely.


----------



## The Catboy (May 9, 2022)

laudern said:


> I love how the "my choice my body" abortion fools forgot that slogan when the government was jabbing everyone in the arm, left, right and centre. The usual retort is "vaccination affects more than just the person getting it, it helps everyone." But guess what, I'm pretty sure an abortion also affects more than just the woman who is getting, like the dead kid and the father.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the tools who are pro life and against vaccinations, either. They are just as dumb and hypocritical.
> 
> ...


Ideally one shouldn't build their entire ideology on slogans. Not getting vaccinated is indeed a personal choice and a personal choice one should be allowed to make. But doesn't make it a choice that should be respected or that people shouldn't push back on as it's a choice that does hurt more than just the individual. Those unvaccinated have a higher risk of causing harm to everyone they come in contact with. This is not the same as abortion because an abortion only affects the person having it. Someone getting an abortion doesn't cause the person next to them to have an abortion or miscarriage. These are not comparable issues. 


laudern said:


> Except both issues come down to the very same thing. Personal choice vs government control. Most people, yourself included, by the looks of it, are too stupid to realise this or they are so brainwashed to follow whatever their "team" is chanting in the streets to see their own hypocrisy.
> 
> You control what goes in your body and what comes out of it. Not the government.


Well, then you are in luck because it seems most countries only require vaccines for a select group of people, mostly those in the medicinal and government fields.
https://www.reuters.com/business/he...aking-covid-19-vaccines-mandatory-2021-08-16/
There are very few countries that limit access for unvaccinated and those are in high-risk areas like gyms, shopping malls, and restaurants. There are only a handful of countries that are pushing to make it required for adults. The point is, this isn't as big an issue as people make it out to be.


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Ideally one shouldn't build their entire ideology on slogans. Not getting vaccinated is indeed a personal choice and a personal choice one should be allowed to make. But doesn't make it a choice that should be respected or that people shouldn't push back on as it's a choice that does hurt more than just the individual. Those unvaccinated have a higher risk of causing harm to everyone they come in contact with. This is not the same as abortion because an abortion only affects the person having it. Someone getting an abortion doesn't cause the person next to them to have an abortion or miscarriage. These are not comparable issues.
> 
> Well, then you are in luck because it seems most countries only require vaccines for a select group of people, mostly those in the medicinal and government fields.
> https://www.reuters.com/business/he...aking-covid-19-vaccines-mandatory-2021-08-16/
> There are very few countries that limit access for unvaccinated and those are in high-risk areas like gyms, shopping malls, and restaurants. There are only a handful of countries that are pushing to make it required for adults. The point is, this isn't as big an issue as people make it out to be.



Go back to school and learn how to read.  Not only did you not comprehend what you responded to, but your "source" shows the opposite of what you said.  What a joke.  I changed my mind.  You will inspire many to have abortions.  It may become a requirement and run, successfully, on donations.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 9, 2022)

laudern said:


> Except both issues come down to the very same thing. Personal choice vs government control. Most people, yourself included, by the looks of it, are too stupid to realise this or they are so brainwashed to follow whatever their "team" is chanting in the streets to see their own hypocrisy.
> 
> You control what goes in your body and what comes out of it. Not the government.



I agree that both issues (vaccines and abortion) should be a personal choice and not have anything to do with the government. You also brought up a good point in the previous post that abortions are just not the womens body as there is the male who impregnated her and the baby itself that are involved. I just think we as a society shouldn't be killing babies, but that doesn't mean we need laws legalizing abortions or making abortions illegal.


----------



## laudern (May 9, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Ideally one shouldn't build their entire ideology on slogans. Not getting vaccinated is indeed a personal choice and a personal choice one should be allowed to make. But doesn't make it a choice that should be respected or that people shouldn't push back on as it's a choice that does hurt more than just the individual. Those unvaccinated have a higher risk of causing harm to everyone they come in contact with. This is not the same as abortion because an abortion only affects the person having it. Someone getting an abortion doesn't cause the person next to them to have an abortion or miscarriage. These are not comparable issues.
> 
> Well, then you are in luck because it seems most countries only require vaccines for a select group of people, mostly those in the medicinal and government fields.
> https://www.reuters.com/business/he...aking-covid-19-vaccines-mandatory-2021-08-16/
> There are very few countries that limit access for unvaccinated and those are in high-risk areas like gyms, shopping malls, and restaurants. There are only a handful of countries that are pushing to make it required for adults. The point is, this isn't as big an issue as people make it out to be.


You must be a special type of stupid. You literally typed word for word the incorrect justification for getting an abortion that makes it somewhat more acceptable than not getting the vaccine that I already have said is garbage. "Umvaccinated have a higher chance of passing it on...abortion only affects the woman." An abortion has a 100% chance of affecting the kid that's going to be killed and also the guy the impregnated the woman. The chance of an unvaccinated passing on covid compared to a vaccinated person passing on covid is nearly equal. And even if it wasn't equal, if you are scared, stay home. Be responsible for your own health. 

Forced vaccines are a massive issue if you live in a place that implements it. What a stupid comment. It's like me saying this change of abortion law is not a big issue, just go fly to another country and abort away. And guess what, you are in luck as well, you can go live in many countries allow for abortions.  No big deal at all /s.

Noone should control what goes in to your body or comes out of it.


----------



## Lacius (May 9, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You also brought up a good point in the previous post that abortions are just not the womens body as there is the male who impregnated her and the baby itself that are involved.


In which post did I say a woman's decision whether or not to get an abortion had to do with anything other than the woman's right to bodily autonomy? The father and the fetus are irrelevant.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> I just think we as a society shouldn't be killing babies


Good news: Neither fetuses nor embryos are babies.

It would also be irrelevant if they were. It wouldn't change anything about a right to bodily autonomy. If I were going to die unless I got your kidney, you have a right to bodily autonomy and a right to say no. That doesn't mean you murdered me.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> I agree that both issues (vaccines and abortion) should be a personal choice and not have anything to do with the government.


A person should be free to choose whether or not to get an abortion and whether or not to get a vaccine. However, there are circumstances in which vaccination might be required (working at a hospital, public school, etc.). Requiring a vaccination in these circumstances is not a violation of one's right to bodily autonomy. You don't have a right to, for example, work in a nursing home while unvaccinated. It's in the interest of public health, and you could always choose to not work there.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> but that doesn't mean we need laws legalizing abortions or making abortions illegal.


If there is no law that abortion is illegal, then it's legal.


----------



## Valwinz (May 9, 2022)

I find it funny many here don't bring up the fact that abortion is very restrictive in Europe and that the US one is closer to how it is in North Korea and china


----------



## Lacius (May 9, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> I find it funny many here don't bring up the fact that abortion is very restrictive in Europe and that the US one is closer to how it is in North Korea and china


From Wikipedia:
_95% of European women of reproductive age live in countries which allow abortion on demand or for broad socioeconomic reasons._
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe

What are you talking about? Is this like that time yesterday when you mistakenly said a majority of Americans are in favor of overturning Roe?


----------



## AleronIves (May 9, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If abortion is murder, then of course the persons conducting the procedure and handing the pills are an accessory.  I don't think that people on either side of the issue would disagree.


The contradiction is that anti-abortion advocates claim abortion is murder, but they generally do not seem to support treating the people involved in an abortion as murderers. Even the now infamous Texas abortion law that encourages people to snitch on each other only punishes the doctor who performs the abortion; the woman is not held accountable. Either abortion is murder, or it isn't. The fact that most anti-abortion advocates aren't calling for prosecution of these supposed baby murderers suggests they don't fully believe their own arguments.


----------



## Valwinz (May 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> From Wikipedia:
> _95% of European women of reproductive age live in countries which allow abortion on demand or for broad socioeconomic reasons._
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe
> 
> What are you talking about? Is this like that time yesterday when you mistakenly said a majority of Americans are in favor of overturning Roe?


i love how you twisted that since is not even what i say

nobody is talking about bans  now find me all the Europe countries  where you can abort all the way to the 9th month


----------



## Nothereed (May 9, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> nobody is talking about bans now find me all the Europe countries where you can abort all the way to the 9th month


Most abortions happen within 3 months
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
the latest you can have an abortion is 24 weeks, which is 5.5 months.
No one is getting an abortion so late that the fetus is developed enough to the point it can be considered a full proper baby.


----------



## Lacius (May 9, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> i love how you twisted that since is not even what i say
> 
> nobody is talking about bans  now find me all the Europe countries  where you can abort all the way to the 9th month


Are you suggesting it's legal anywhere in the United States to abort a fetus at nine months?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 9, 2022)

honestly, I understand both sides.

Women feel as if they're losing more rights with this, people feel as if this will get the ball rolling to ban gay people and trans people and such, and planned parenthood will no longer receive free tax dollars from americans. (that last part was a joke, but it is partially serious as well)

Pro Life people don't like seeing babies die, whether they're fetuses, embryos, or an actual baby.

Is there an obvious situation to this that will satisfy both sides? Unfortunately not. Repeal Roe V Wade, and the women and lgbtq+ get angry and upset. Keep Roe V Wade in place, and pro lifers are upset since babies are dying, or babies in their view at least.

Basically issues such as this are complex, cannot be discussed easily, and lead to flame wars such as this. I think we should all agree to disagree and get along, you know? Anger never helps anyone, kindness does.


----------



## Lacius (May 9, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> honestly, I understand both sides.
> 
> Women feel as if they're losing more rights with this, people feel as if this will get the ball rolling to ban gay people and trans people and such, and planned parenthood will no longer receive free tax dollars from americans. (that last part was a joke, but it is partially serious as well)
> 
> ...


A solution isn't hard. If you don't like abortion, don't get an abortion. One's delicate religious sensibilities aren't reason to violate a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Also, generally speaking, Planned Parenthood gets zero tax dollars for abortion.



KennyAtom said:


> Basically issues such as this are complex, cannot be discussed easily, and lead to flame wars such as this. I think we should all agree to disagree and get along, you know? Anger never helps anyone, kindness does.


Do you know what actually never helps? Platitudes. This is a serious topic, and people's rights are being taken away. Pro-choice people would love nothing more than to "agree to disagree."


----------



## KennyAtom (May 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> A solution isn't hard. If you don't like abortion, don't get an abortion. One's delicate religious sensibilities aren't reason to violate a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
> 
> Also, generally speaking, Planned Parenthood gets zero tax dollars for abortion.


I mean that solution isn't really a solution for the other side, it won't make the other side happy.

Also I swore i heard somewhere that PP got tax dollars, but I was most likely wrong.



Lacius said:


> Do you know what actually never helps? Platitudes. This is a serious topic, and people's rights are being taken away. Pro-choice people would love nothing more than to "agree to disagree."


Not to be rude, but is removing a baby from the womb really a right in itself? 

Also fine, I won't try to be nice, I'll be a complete dickhead.


----------



## The Catboy (May 9, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Women feel as if they're losing more rights with this,


They are though because this law actually protected women and AFABs (assigned female at birth) people from government interference in their lives. It protected their body autonomy and protected their medical freedom from the government. Removing that protection will only result in government interference in the lives of the people. This will become a loss of rights all to "protect" a clump of cells.


KennyAtom said:


> Not to be rude, but is removing a baby from the womb really a right in itself?


A fetus is not a baby. You don't look at an egg in your fridge and call it a chicken. You don't look at an acorn and call it a tree. A fetus is not a baby.


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> The contradiction is that anti-abortion advocates claim abortion is murder, but they generally do not seem to support treating the people involved in an abortion as murderers. Even the now infamous Texas abortion law that encourages people to snitch on each other only punishes the doctor who performs the abortion; the woman is not held accountable. Either abortion is murder, or it isn't. The fact that most anti-abortion advocates aren't calling for prosecution of these supposed baby murderers suggests they don't fully believe their own arguments.


I can see how it appears, but I personally think it is a matter of exposure.  It's easier to make and see media of protestors harassing the women walking into an abortion clinic.  The women are simply more vulnerable and easier to single out or target.  I am pretty sure if the doctors had the same exposure, you'd be seeing that too.  If you find someone who thinks it's okay to perform an abortion, but not okay to get one, that would appear to be an inconsistency.  I've never knowingly met or communicated with such a person myself.


----------



## Lacius (May 9, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I mean that solution isn't really a solution for the other side, it won't make the other side happy.


That's like saying the solution to the topic of same-sex marriage (make it legal) isn't sufficient because one side would be unhappy that same-sex marriage exists. The solution is to have legal same-sex marriage, and those who are against it can just not get gay married. It doesn't have to affect them, and isn't rocket science.



KennyAtom said:


> Also I swore i heard somewhere that PP got tax dollars, but I was most likely wrong.


It's generally against US law for tax dollars to go towards abortion. You heard wrong.



KennyAtom said:


> Not to be rude, but is removing a baby from the womb really a right in itself?


The right to bodily autonomy is a right in itself. I should be able to do whatever I want to my body, and a woman should have as much of a right to terminate a pregnancy as I have the right to refuse to donate an organ to someone.



KennyAtom said:


> Also fine, I won't try to be nice, I'll be a complete dickhead.


It's admirable to want to be nice, but telling people to "just get along" and acting as though both sides are equal is wholly unhelpful.


----------



## tabzer (May 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The right to bodily autonomy is a right in itself. I should be able to do whatever I want to my body, and a woman should have as much of a right to terminate a pregnancy as I have the right to refuse to donate an organ to someone.


The false-equivalency here exists on a couple of levels.    I’m not sure about the laws surrounding, but I wouldn’t find it very strange for a doctor to refuse the removal and discarding of a healthy kidney based on ethical reasons.  Also, I don’t think you can take a kidney back from someone after you donated it.

The laws surrounding bodily autonomy aren’t designed to reflect nature, but to promote and perpetuate ideals.  The fact is that the developing human does not have rights, at certain stages, and is among a top concern for those on the pro-life side of the debate.


----------



## Lacius (May 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> but I wouldn’t find it very strange for a doctor to refuse the removal and discarding of a healthy kidney based on ethical reasons.


I wouldn't either. I didn't mention any such thing.



tabzer said:


> Also, I don’t think you can take a kidney back from someone after you donated it.


And pregnancy can have have irreparable effects on the human body, and it can even kill you. What is your point?



tabzer said:


> The fact is that the developing human does not have rights, at certain stages, and is among a top concern for those on the pro-life side of the debate.


An embryo or fetus is not a person, and even if it were a person with rights, that wouldn't include the right to violate a person's right to bodily autonomy. A person shouldn't be able to force me to give them one of my kidneys, and a fetus shouldn't be able to force a woman to carry it to term (or more accurately, a state shouldn't be able to force either of these things).

I hope that clears things up.


----------



## Iamapirate (May 10, 2022)

We have to thank Trump for his selection of justices but also RBG for not retiring so we could get this based decision.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 10, 2022)

Iamapirate said:


> We have to thank Trump for his selection of justices but also RBG for not retiring so we could get this based decision.



Trump sure did a lot of good while he was in office. It's a shame Biden won, but there's always the next election!


----------



## Valwinz (May 10, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Are you suggesting it's legal anywhere in the United States to abort a fetus at nine months?


are you going to answer my question still waiting for the country thats allows it in europe


----------



## Lacius (May 10, 2022)

Iamapirate said:


> We have to thank Trump for his selection of justices but also RBG for not retiring so we could get this based decision.


Yep, those are two people anti-choice people have to thank. Also, the following:

An unrepresentative Senate that skews Republican while the country doesn't.
Mitch McConnell shamelessly and hypocritically stealing a Supreme Court seat.
An undemocratic Electoral College that resulted in 5/6 of the Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices being appointed by presidents who didn't win the popular vote. (Side note: I'm in my 30s, and I've never seen a non-incumbent Republican candidate win the popular vote in a presidential election. I'm beginning to think it's never going to happen).
James Comey publicizing Clinton investigations (and Clinton non-developments) while keeping more substantive Trump investigations private.
Russian election meddling in 2016.


----------



## Lacius (May 10, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> are you going to answer my question still waiting for the country thats allows it in europe


Why would I need to answer that question? It isn't allowed in the United States, so I don't understand why it would be relevant to anything either of us has said.


----------



## tabzer (May 10, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I wouldn't either. I didn't mention any such thing.



A healthy embryo is an organ of procreation.  Removing it and discarding it is at least as ethically comparable as removing a healthy kidney to waste, despite the non-existence of human rights for the developing child.



Lacius said:


> And pregnancy can have have irreparable effects on the human body, and it can even kill you. What is your point?



I went a little off tangent.  It was unrelated.



Lacius said:


> An embryo or fetus is not a person, and even if it were a person with rights, that wouldn't include the right to violate a person's right to bodily autonomy. A person shouldn't be able to force me to give them one of my kidneys, and a fetus shouldn't be able to force a woman to carry it to term (or more accurately, a state shouldn't be able to force either of these things).



It is a developing human life.  Not a person by legal definition, and that is something people on the other side of the argument want to see changed.

If it was recognized as a person, it would be also recognized that it did not create the conditions of its indentured state-which was imposed onto it.  You are reading it the other way around, as if the unborn was assaulting a woman.


----------



## Dakitten (May 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> My conflict was about government involvement in abortions by being institutionalized and funded by tax dollars.  Even though they are largely not, sharing the same failure in understanding, you responded with "it's a healthcare issue, stupid".  Not only was that an admission that "yes, the government does institutionalize abortion and fund it with tax dollars" (even though that's inaccurate), you suggested that it was ridiculous to be a concern, avoiding direct confrontation with the fact that you are contradicting yourself.  If you get moody every time someone points out an err in your rationale, then maybe you should stay off the internet until the thought police can finish installing all of the guardrails.
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as your point was stupid, maybe we'd all have been better off if you had let him do the talking.  If you are disappointed because I quoted Foxi but not in disagreement with the material of the quote, then I am okay with that.  When solving for x, I would hope that we can arrive to the same conclusion.  If you want to forfeit accuracy just to "make your own original point", then good for you--but we all lose.


Y'know, actually, I didn't call you stupid. I've implied or outright stated you're unoriginal, factually incorrect and often inconsistant with your own purported beliefs when convenient, belligerent, and unable to hold a proper conversation, but I genuinely try to bite my tongue and not resort to name calling despite how personal this topic is to me. 

Planned Parenthood doesn't get federal money to pay for abortions, they get paid by medicaid in a few states and insurance providers or non profit fundraising to perform a health related service for women. It isn't "your tax dollars murdering babies" or what have you, it is good old capitalism running its course like it would for any other non-profit within the law. I notice you get confused about this point a lot, but Foxi tends to have a better grasp of things like relevant facts and scientific consensus. That was why I made my statement, but hey credit where it is due, I suppose I could have been clearer! You're even right that your post made me moody, because your antagonizing folks while speaking so confidently in ignorance is frustrating. Seeing your signature a bit lately has actually served to calm me down a bit, reminding me that you aren't a good faith actor so much as a troll, taking pride in the misfortune of others.



Pachee said:


> Full quote lives matter.


It really doesn't. Fun touhou fact, Zun actually states she was the one who made the scarlet mist that would have ruined her homeland just so her noblewoman friend could play outside any time she wanted. Also, she regards people as either pests, service animals, or if they're of noble birth, friends. Furthermore, she doesn't "squat" so much as Remilia regards her as a friend and guest who provides her a service with her education. Sorry dear, but I understand why you'd want to focus on your avatar so much, since your errors regarding abortion have been even more abundant thus far. Maybe quit while you're ahead on both fronts.


KennyAtom said:


> honestly, I understand both sides.
> 
> Women feel as if they're losing more rights with this, people feel as if this will get the ball rolling to ban gay people and trans people and such, and planned parenthood will no longer receive free tax dollars from americans. (that last part was a joke, but it is partially serious as well)
> 
> ...


I understand your intention, but as said elsewhere, this isn't the kind of issue that can be easily dropped. There are victims in this, people wounded for the rest of their lives or dead over these kinds of rulings, and the only meaningful reason to deny such a service to women is a manufactured religious fury of the minority. Nobody wants to use an abortion as birth control, nobody considers it even as a plan b, and nobody takes joy in snuffing out even a conceptual life that has yet to cross the threshold of any reasonably defined sentient existence. It serves a clear purpose to help the lives of women, and planned parenthood in particular actually does its best to educate women who rely on the service about alternatives should they even inquire about needing it. Even with all this in mind, it is made varying degrees of illegal in several states with no federal guidelines yet, but conservatives have been quite clear that it would be a future goal.

You can't slap someone in the face and then ask for peace in this, and riding the fence means you're watching abuse and failing to act. The only moral stance is to participate in objecting to the injustice, but I'd advise settling for not getting involved if your own moral guidelines can't navigate the issue clearly.


----------



## Iamapirate (May 10, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Yep, those are two people anti-choice people have to thank. Also, the following:
> 
> An unrepresentative Senate that skews Republican while the country doesn't.
> Mitch McConnell shamelessly and hypocritically stealing a Supreme Court seat.
> ...


Sounds like excuses. Dems lost. Republicans won. That's politics. GG


----------



## Iamapirate (May 10, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Trump sure did a lot of good while he was in office. It's a shame Biden won, but there's always the next election!


Indeed. Rs seem to be in a good position now since Biden is 162 years old and Kamala Harris is disliked by everyone.


----------



## Dakitten (May 10, 2022)

Iamapirate said:


> Sounds like excuses. Dems lost. Republicans won. That's politics. GG


You do know that the Republicans lost, and that they haven't won via majority in almost 20 years, right? I'm sure it must be nice to be able to find comfort in a country losing its status as a beacon of democracy so long as your agenda gets passed, but it still puts conservatives in the minority.


----------



## tabzer (May 10, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Y'know, actually, I didn't call you stupid. I've implied or outright stated you're unoriginal, factually incorrect and often inconsistant with your own purported beliefs when convenient, belligerent, and unable to hold a proper conversation, but I genuinely try to bite my tongue and not resort to name calling despite how personal this topic is to me.
> 
> Planned Parenthood doesn't get federal money to pay for abortions, they get paid by medicaid in a few states and insurance providers or non profit fundraising to perform a health related service for women. It isn't "your tax dollars murdering babies" or what have you, it is good old capitalism running its course like it would for any other non-profit within the law. I notice you get confused about this point a lot, but Foxi tends to have a better grasp of things like relevant facts and scientific consensus. That was why I made my statement, but hey credit where it is due, I suppose I could have been clearer! You're even right that your post made me moody, because your antagonizing folks while speaking so confidently in ignorance is frustrating. Seeing your signature a bit lately has actually served to calm me down a bit, reminding me that you aren't a good faith actor so much as a troll, taking pride in the misfortune of others.



Glad you think you've figured it out.  Medicaid is tax funded.  It is also beside the point, as the conversation has progressed while you were trying to stew up reasons of why you were right in being wrong.  Bite your tongue a little harder.


----------



## Iamapirate (May 10, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> You do know that the Republicans lost, and that they haven't won via majority in almost 20 years, right? I'm sure it must be nice to be able to find comfort in a country losing its status as a beacon of democracy so long as your agenda gets passed, but it still puts conservatives in the minority.


You can cry about the popular vote but that has never mattered. Saying the supreme court is therefore illegitimate is just absurd and factually incorrect, since both Bush 2 and Trump won their elections legitimately. McConnell holding up Merrick Garland was also his prerogative, and Democrats 100% would have done the same thing given the chance. Politics is all about winning and losing, and the Republicans won these battles. If you don't like the rules, change the rules when you have the mandate. This is what some Dems are already pushing for.


----------



## Dakitten (May 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Glad you think you've figured it out.  Medicaid is tax funded.  It is also beside the point, as the conversation has progressed while you were trying to stew up reasons of why you were right in being wrong.  Bite your tongue a little harder.


Was working a job and handling kids until evening, but whatever. Medicade is tax funded at the state level with some amount of federal matching and has limitations on what it can be used on, yet PP actually still opts to pay out of pocket even when denied. As for what the topic has progressed to... you've moved on to asking for European countries that support full term abortions and  comparing zygotes and embryos to kidneys for some reason. Real progress... sorry, but you've got nothing useful to offer and never have.


Iamapirate said:


> You can cry about the popular vote but that has never mattered. Saying the supreme court is therefore illegitimate is just absurd and factually incorrect, since both Bush 2 and Trump won their elections legitimately. McConnell holding up Merrick Garland was also his prerogative, and Democrats 100% would have done the same thing given the chance. Politics is all about winning and losing, and the Republicans won these battles. If you don't like the rules, change the rules when you have the mandate. This is what some Dems are already pushing for.


So you're saying that you don't care about democracy so much as victory towards a minority agenda? Interesting stuff. Sounds kinda totalitarian, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Also, Democrats have had full control and not done those sorts of things, so... no? I don't much care for the party myself, but they tend to at least make an effort to seem interested in compromise.


----------



## tabzer (May 10, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Was working a job and handling kids until evening, but whatever. Medicade is tax funded at the state level with some amount of federal matching and has limitations on what it can be used on, yet PP actually still opts to pay out of pocket even when denied. As for what the topic has progressed to... you've moved on to asking for European countries that support full term abortions and comparing zygotes and embryos to kidneys for some reason. Real progress... sorry, but you've got nothing useful to offer and never have.


I don't care why you are still beating a dead horse.  You are being emotional and still wrong.  Move on, Miss "everything looks the same to me".


----------



## Lacius (May 10, 2022)

Iamapirate said:


> Sounds like excuses.


They're also facts, and many of them show the system isn't as democratic as people think.



Iamapirate said:


> That's politics. GG


Could you tell that to the majority of Republicans who continue to whine (incorrectly, I might add) the election was stolen in 2020? Thanks.



tabzer said:


> A healthy embryo is an organ of procreation.


An embryo/fetus is not an organ of the mother.



tabzer said:


> It is a developing human life.  Not a person by legal definition, and that is something people on the other side of the argument want to see changed.
> 
> If it was recognized as a person, it would be also recognized that it did not create the conditions of its indentured state-which was imposed onto it.  You are reading it the other way around, as if the unborn was assaulting a woman.


If I require a donation of one of your kidneys to survive, a.) I'm a sentient person with rights, and b.) I didn't create the condition of needing a new kidney. Does that mean the state gets to require you to donate your kidney to me? Does that mean it's murder if you don't?

By your logic here, you seem to suggest that the answers are "yes" and "yes."


----------



## tabzer (May 10, 2022)

Lacius said:


> An embryo/fetus is not an organ of the mother.



It's a necessary organ of the human race and is unique to the maternal aspect of our species.  It fulfills the definition of an organ even if the colloquialism does not exist.  If you cannot see the sense in this type of thinking, then I doubt you are even trying.



Lacius said:


> If I require a donation of one of your kidneys to survive, a.) I'm a sentient person with rights, and b.) I didn't create the condition of needing a new kidney. Does that mean the state gets to require you to donate your kidney to me? Does that mean it's murder if you don't?
> 
> By your logic here, you seem to suggest that the answers are "yes" and "yes."



If you created a circumstance where I need something from you to survive, you can be  liable for seeing that those needs are met.  This is not an unfamiliar situation.  A mother may procure child support and a divorcee may procure alimony.  A squatter can even take the property they squat in some jurisdictions (semi-tangent).  These are all regrettable situations, but they are established on similar rationale.

A mother created the embryo, the embryo didn't will itself and make demands (praise Jesus!).  It is not a parasite.  Bodily autonomy doesn't defy nature, and there is a reasonable precedence to establish expectations on these matters.  

The only reason the abortion "right" works is because the embryo has none.  You resort to language that dehumanizes it as much as possible to divorce it from the human condition.

You pretend that you are progressive, but you only inherited the name.  If we were living in  times of slavery (still there if you ask me), you'd be making the argument that slaves are "property" based on the facts the definition says they are, trying to not rock the boat and doing everything you can to maintain status quo.

Nothing you do suggests that you are trying to understand other people.  You even think it is up to you to decide what rights are for who.  That's why you are the little tyrant.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (May 10, 2022)

I learned in high school 10 or more years ago that the United States isn't a democracy, but a post-democracy.


----------



## tabzer (May 10, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> I learned in high school 10 or more years ago that the United States isn't a democracy, but a post-democracy.


I learned that it was never a democracy and is incapable of becoming a democracy without an overhaul.

Also, I never learned the difference between mob rule and democracy.  If you have something for me, it'd be appreciated.

I'd like to like a democracy.

But I wouldn't trust it if my own neighbors are assholes.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (May 10, 2022)

@tabzer a mob rule is disorderly, unruly, capricious. A democracy is a self-preserving, hierarchized system of order in which people can have a say in the conduct of the affairs of society. A post-democracy is a previous democracy whose system of order is being held by the crystalized presence of a social elite.


----------



## tabzer (May 10, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> @tabzer a mob rule is disorderly, unruly, capricious. A democracy is a self-preserving, hierarchized system of order in which people can have a say in the conduct of the affairs of society. A post-democracy is a previous democracy whose system of order is being held by the crystalized presence of a social elite.


Okay.  I agree with 2/3rds.  But a democracy isn't self-preserving just because you want it to be.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (May 10, 2022)

@tabzer I don't care about your agreement. You asked for an explanation, I gave it. You do with that what you wish, I don't have the burden of proof.


----------



## tabzer (May 10, 2022)

Lol.  By agree, I mean I understood.  If you aren't making the assessment that democracy actually works the way you described, then I misunderstood.


----------



## lokomelo (May 10, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> @tabzer a mob rule is disorderly, unruly, capricious. A democracy is a self-preserving, hierarchized system of order in which people can have a say in the conduct of the affairs of society. A post-democracy is a previous democracy whose system of order is being held by the crystalized presence of a social elite.


It still is a democracy, a strong one. It is decaying tho, that's why USA citizens need to move to protect it. Most of World population is not under this degree of freedom, not even close of it.

(Out of their borders on other hand, USA is an ultra aggressive empire, but let's pretend they're cool so they keep buying the crap we produce and we don't starve)


----------



## tabzer (May 10, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> It still is a democracy, a strong one. It is decaying tho, that's why USA citizens need to move to protect it. Most of World population is not under this degree of freedom, not even close of it.
> 
> (Out of their borders on other hand, USA is an ultra aggressive empire, but let's pretend they're cool so they keep buying the crap we produce and we don't starve)


Afaik it is a symbiosis of a republic and a democracy.  Never has it been a real democracy and the debate is whether that it is for better or worse.  I'm not sure if we'd agree but America is ultra liberal about its say in the rest of the world.


----------



## Lacius (May 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It's a necessary organ of the human race and is unique to the maternal aspect of our species.  It fulfills the definition of an organ even if the colloquialism does not exist.  If you cannot see the sense in this type of thinking, then I doubt you are even trying.


A fetus is not an organ by any scientific definition, and even if it were, it wouldn't matter. If I wanted to rip out my kidney and throw it away, I should have every legal right to do so.



tabzer said:


> If you created a circumstance where I need something from you to survive, you can be  liable for seeing that those needs are met.


Not if the thing you need is a piece of my body. I have (and should have) a right to bodily autonomy.



tabzer said:


> A mother created the embryo, the embryo didn't will itself and make demands


And I didn't will myself into needing your kidney. That doesn't mean the state should be able to force the woman to carry the pregnancy to term, and it doesn't mean the state should be able to force you to give up your kidney.



tabzer said:


> The only reason the abortion "right" works is because the embryo has none.  You resort to language that dehumanizes it as much as possible to divorce it from the human condition.


Wrong. I am a human with rights, but that doesn't mean I have a right to your kidney.



tabzer said:


> You pretend that you are progressive, but you only inherited the name.  If we were living in  times of slavery (still there if you ask me), you'd be making the argument that slaves are "property" based on the facts the definition says they are, trying to not rock the boat and doing everything you can to maintain status quo.


There's nothing about "bodily autonomy shall not be violated" that leads to slavery. Quite the opposite, in fact.



tabzer said:


> Nothing you do suggests that you are trying to understand other people.


Just because I disagree doesn't mean I don't understand, or don't try to understand, other people. You don't have to look farther than this thread to see me asking legitimate questions to people in order to better understand their point of view, lol.



tabzer said:


> You even think it is up to you to decide what rights are for who.


Nah, that's the anti-abortion side that's literally trying to do that.



tabzer said:


> That's why you are the little tyrant.


Nothing I've advocated for could reasonably be described as tyranny. If you're looking for "little tyrants," I suggest looking at the people who want to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

You don't appear to have thought this all through.


----------



## Lacius (May 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Also, I never learned the difference between mob rule and democracy.  If you have something for me, it'd be appreciated.


"Mob rule" is what people with unpopular opinions call democracy when things don't go their way.


----------



## The Catboy (May 10, 2022)

Lacius said:


> "Mob rule" is what people with unpopular opinions call democracy when things don't go their way.


Let's be real here, "mob rule" is literally just a buzzword for shit they don't like. It's up there with "Communism," "Leftist," "the Left," Liberal," and "Democrats." It's literally just another buzzword that has lost all meaning. The fact that I've seen people in this section lump "Liberals" in with "Leftists" shows the kind of smooth brains we are dealing with.


----------



## Lacius (May 10, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Let's be real here, "mob rule" is literally just a buzzword for shit they don't like. It's up there with "Communism," "Leftist," "the Left," Liberal," and "Democrats." It's literally just another buzzword that has lost all meaning. The fact that I've seen people in this thread lump "Liberals" in with "Leftists" shows the kind of smoothbrains we are dealing with.


I don't blame them. When majorities overwhelmingly support Democratic positions and oppose Republican positions (including 66% opposed to overturning Roe), it makes sense they would become anti-democracy. The 2020 whiners and the Capitol riots almost make sense.


----------



## The Catboy (May 10, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I don't blame them. When majorities overwhelmingly support Democratic positions and oppose Republican positions (including 66% opposed to overturning Roe), it makes sense they would become anti-democracy. The 2020 whiners and the Capitol riots almost make sense.


"People don't like my shitty opinions anymore. Is it because they are contradictory and outdated? NO! It's the Liberal Left Communist Feminist gays!"


----------



## smf (May 10, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Removing it and discarding it is at least as ethically comparable as removing a healthy kidney to waste, despite the non-existence of human rights for the developing child.


Cancer cells are very "healthy" too. For the cancer cell, not so much for the host.

Do you think women who miscarry should be tried for manslaughter?



tabzer said:


> Nothing you do suggests that you are trying to understand other people.


You are making the mistake thinking that if people understand you, then they would agree with you.


----------



## Lacius (May 10, 2022)

smf said:


> Cancer cells are very "healthy" too. For the cancer cell, not so much for the host.


"They're human cells with human DNA, therefore they're human and have rights."
-Anti-abortion logic


----------



## KennyAtom (May 10, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The 2020 whiners and the Capitol riots almost make sense.


While the capitol riots were really bad and should have never happened, the 2020 whiners line doesn't make sense.


Aren't there always whiners after any election? For example, when Donald Trump won in 2016, I remember a ton of liberals were sobbing and saying they were gonna move to Canada or somewhere else.


----------



## Lacius (May 10, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> While the capitol riots were really bad and should have never happened, the 2020 whiners line doesn't make sense.
> 
> 
> Aren't there always whiners after any election? For example, when Donald Trump won in 2016, I remember a ton of liberals were sobbing and saying they were gonna move to Canada or somewhere else.


I'm referring to the idiots shouting about baseless election lies and conspiracy theories, not those who are just bummed out.

The vast majority of Republicans and Trump supporters believe the conspiracy theory that the election was stolen. It'd be funny if it weren't scary.


----------



## smf (May 10, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The vast majority of Republicans and Trump supporters believe the conspiracy theory that the election was stolen. It'd be funny if it weren't scary.


And if you don't think it's scary that those people get to vote too, then you're one of them.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 10, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The vast majority of Republicans and Trump supporters believe the conspiracy theory that the election was stolen. It'd be funny if it weren't scary.


It's the main reason that I won't vote for someone as bad as Trump again.

I'm still a conservative, I just think that anyone as diehard as trump cannot be trusted at this point.

his tweets were funny though, you have to admit


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 10, 2022)

Iamapirate said:


> Indeed. Rs seem to be in a good position now since Biden is 162 years old and Kamala Harris is disliked by everyone.



Republicans are in such a good of a position that someone leaked the Roe vs. Wade decision to as a tool to distract the general public from how bad things are right now. The democrats are really desperate, but I'm not going to let a minor distraction like abortion rights make me forgot how shitty things really are under the rule of said democrats. I'm not sure who I'll vote for yet, but it's not looking good for the blue team with their $5.00 a gallon gas, $6.00 a gallon milk and $50 steaks.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 10, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I'm referring to the idiots shouting about baseless election lies and conspiracy theories, not those who are just bummed out.
> 
> The vast majority of Republicans and Trump supporters believe the conspiracy theory that the election was stolen. It'd be funny if it weren't scary.



Russia! Russia! Russia! Trump didn't win the 2016 election! Trump didn't win the 2016 election! Trump didn't win the 2016 election!


----------



## Lacius (May 10, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Russia! Russia! Russia! Trump didn't win the 2016 election! Trump didn't win the 2016 election! Trump didn't win the 2016 election!


Trump won the 2016 election (because of the Electoral College; he didn't win the popular vote), but Russia also meddled in it. Considering how razor thin the Electoral College margin was, it's all but certain the Russian meddling tipped the election in Trump's favor.


----------



## Dakitten (May 10, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> It's the main reason that I won't vote for someone as bad as Trump again.
> 
> I'm still a conservative, I just think that anyone as diehard as trump cannot be trusted at this point.
> 
> his tweets were funny though, you have to admit


You really don't. =3 It is a dark humor at best, as Trump has moved the party norms to further extremes. More "Diehards" get the focus now.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Republicans are in such a good of a position that someone leaked the Roe vs. Wade decision to as a tool to distract the general public from how bad things are right now. The democrats are really desperate, but I'm not going to let a minor distraction like abortion rights make me forgot how shitty things really are under the rule of said democrats. I'm not sure who I'll vote for yet, but it's not looking good for the blue team with their $5.00 a gallon gas, $6.00 a gallon milk and $50 steaks.


But the Republicans actually are doing it. Kinda hard to make a distraction out of a train wreck several decades in the making, out in the open. If the ruling was going to wait until after the midterms, I might think it possibly a political ploy, but it seems more like activism or outright selling out for capitalism if anything.

Also, we all know who you're voting for, you kinda telegraph your position just a smidge.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (May 10, 2022)

smf said:


> You abort a fetus, not a baby.


I really do think this needs to be once again looked over, because its not considered a baby under any form of fact until after it is in fact born and born alive. Outside of this its a developmental mass that becomes a co-dependent organism. Once it is free and separate of co-dependency then it is no longer a fetus, but in fact a baby. 

Now I just wonder how Pro-Lifers feel about tapeworms. 



tabzer said:


> A healthy embryo is an organ of procreation.  Removing it and discarding it is at least as ethically comparable as removing a healthy kidney to waste, despite the non-existence of human rights for the developing child.


Healthy eggs are discarded all the time, its called a Menstruation cycle or simply "having a period"  if you weren't aware. Also they don't infinitely generate, they are in fact, quite finite. (Menopause anybody?)


I seriously would suggest that anyone suggesting they know what a woman should be expected to do with her body to first actually learn how the female body works. You might be surprised about the amount of differences there are inside and the intricate systems that make up of the reproductive system and the nature of how it all is connected to the general health of a woman. After all its not just a walking, talking birthing chamber.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 10, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> I really do think this needs to be once again looked over, because its not considered a baby under any form of fact until after it is in fact born and born alive. Outside of this its a developmental mass that becomes a co-dependent organism. Once it is free and separate of co-dependency then it is no longer a fetus, but in fact a baby.
> 
> Now I just wonder how Pro-Lifers feel about tapeworms.
> 
> ...



Unborn life is still precious regardless how you want to classify it and your last paragraph might make some people upset because apparently men can also have babies and you're a bigot for pointing out the differences between them and females.


----------



## tabzer (May 10, 2022)

Lacius said:


> And I didn't will myself into needing your kidney. That doesn't mean the state should be able to force the woman to carry the pregnancy to term, and it doesn't mean the state should be able to force you to give up your kidney.



The fact that keep backing up into this broken analogy shows a lack of understanding of the points raised.  I don't know why you keep thinking it was smart to begin with.  If there is a god, and god gave you a broken kidney, you would blame god for having a broken kidney.  As an advertising atheist, you'd probably simultaneously blame god while not believing in god.  Your mother issues are beginning to shine through.



Lacius said:


> "Mob rule" is what people with unpopular opinions call democracy when things don't go their way



Yes, that's true.  Also I've never seen a real democracy.  Do you have one that you can show me?



smf said:


> Cancer cells are very "healthy" too. For the cancer cell, not so much for the host.



You got me, embryos are cancer.  



smf said:


> You are making the mistake thinking that if people understand you, then they would agree with you.



The mistake is in assuming that some people have the faculties for understanding.  Does a sociopath understand empathy?  Have you ever become more intelligent in all your years here?   Does Lacius admit when he is wrong? 

Those are rhetorical.  Please don't respond.



Dr_Faustus said:


> Healthy eggs are discarded all the time, its called a Menstruation cycle or simply "having a period" if you weren't aware. Also they don't infinitely generate, they are in fact, quite finite. (Menopause anybody?)



If you were reading what I wrote, and that was your first thought, you don't have the attention span for this.  Take a seat.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The fact that keep backing up into this broken analogy shows a lack of understanding of the points raised.


It isn't a broken analogy just because you are unwilling (or unable) to understand and accept it. Feel free to point out the problem with it.



tabzer said:


> If there is a god, and god gave you a broken kidney, you would blame god for having a broken kidney.  As an advertising atheist, you'd probably simultaneously blame god while not believing in god.


If a god exists and gave me a broken kidney, that god would deserve some blame, yeah. I do not believe gods exist, so I wouldn't blame imaginary beings for my problems. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything though. Having a broken kidney isn't analogous to being pregnant. Being forced to donate a healthy kidney to someone who needs it is analogous to being forced to carry a fetus to term.



tabzer said:


> You got me, embryos are cancer.


If the pregnancy is unwanted, it can be analogous to cancer.



tabzer said:


> Does Lacius admit when he is wrong?


I admit when I'm wrong. It just happens very infrequently here. You and others like you make it very difficult to be wrong, to be fair.


----------



## tabzer (May 11, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It isn't a broken analogy just because you are unwilling (or unable) to understand and accept it. Feel free to point out the problem with it.



It doesn't account for the point that you needing my kidney is somehow a condition I created for you, where an embryo has only god (their mother) to blame for their condition.



Lacius said:


> If the pregnancy is unwanted, it can be analogous to cancer.



That's not profound.  People call things they don't like cancer all of the time.



Lacius said:


> I admit when I'm wrong. It just happens very infrequently here. You and others like you make it very difficult to be wrong, to be fair.



A rhetorical question for someone else doesn't make it non-rhetorical (or a question) for you.  Just because you may have done it before doesn't mean that it is something you do.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It doesn't account for the point that you needing my kidney is somehow a condition I created for you, where an embryo has only god (their mother) to blame for their condition.


This is irrelevant. We could change the example to say a kid needs a kidney, and the kid's estranged biological father he has never met is the only compatible donor. Should the state legally force the father to donate his kidney? The answer is "no." Nothing should violate a person's right to bodily autonomy, and it would set a dangerous precedent if the state had any say over what you could legally do to your own body.



tabzer said:


> That's not profound.  People call things they don't like cancer all of the time.


I don't care that people use the word "cancer" in reference to things they don't like. An unwanted pregnancy (i.e. something unwanted growing in your body that you want removed that may have everlasting negative effects on your body and could even kill you) is analogous to cancer.


----------



## tabzer (May 11, 2022)

Lacius said:


> We could change the example to say a kid needs a kidney, and the kid's estranged biological father he has never met is the only compatible donor.


Trying to adapt a false analogy with new conditions that still falls short and cannot be compared to pregnancy is as close to an admission that I can get with you.  Saying something is irrelevant and then trying to account for it is a mixed message.

This thread just gives and gives.  And you just take and take.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Trying to adapt a false analogy with new conditions that still fall short and cannot be compared to pregnancy is as close to an admission that I can get with you.  Saying something is irrelevant and then trying to account for it is a mixed message.
> 
> This thread just gives and gives.  And you just take and take.


It's irrelevant, and we can account for it. Don't be disingenuous. That, or learn how analogies work.

Edit: Also, lol that you didn't address the analogy.


----------



## tabzer (May 11, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It's irrelevant, and we can account for it. Don't be disingenuous. That, or learn how analogies work.


There is no learning how your analogy works because the "irrelevant" point that it fails to address is the point I am making.  Being dismissive and calling it irrelevant is disingenuous.  Getting pregnant is not "irrelevant " in the topic of abortion.  It's a prerequisite.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2022)

tabzer said:


> There is no learning how your analogy works because the "irrelevant" point that it fails to address is the point I am making.  Being dismissive and calling it irrelevant is disingenuous.  Getting pregnant is not "irrelevant " in the topic of abortion.  It's a prerequisite.


I thought I was being nice and productive by accounting for it, despite it being irrelevant, but you haven't responded to it.


----------



## tabzer (May 11, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I thought I was being nice and productive by accounting for it, despite it being irrelevant, but you haven't responded to it.


I thought you were being an idiot by suggesting that someone simply existing is the same as pregnancy.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I thought you were being an idiot by suggesting that someone simply existing is the same as pregnancy.


I guess you won't tackle the amended analogy. I'm glad we are on the same page, because I don't have a solution for it either that isn't "bodily autonomy shall not be violated."


----------



## Dakitten (May 11, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I thought I was being nice and productive by accounting for it, despite it being irrelevant, but you haven't responded to it.


There is no point here, comrade. He is a troll dragging things out.


tabzer said:


> I thought you were being an idiot by suggesting that someone simply existing is the same as pregnancy.


And that is an insane take that proves it.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> There is no point here, comrade. He is a troll dragging things out.
> 
> And that is an insane take that proves it.


I am aware. I've dealt with him for years.


----------



## tabzer (May 11, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> And that is an insane take that proves it.


Am I missing something or do you actually agree with the notion that biological father having a kidney is the same as pregnancy?  Do you have a husband?  Is his kidneys still okay after enduring two (or three) bouts of cancer?  In case you weren't paying attention to the comments you were liking, that's what we are calling it now.



Lacius said:


> I guess you won't tackle the amended analogy


The analogy still fails.  You should know better, but apparently you don't.  Biological father having a kidney and kid needing a kidney is not the same as creating a child.  Besides that, pretty sure that the biological father is still responsible, to some degree, for the child's welfare.  "Child support".  Whether that is right or not is getting off the topic of my point.  That's not the same as pregnancy.  When you get pregnant, you can (generally) know what is expected in the process.  Acting like it's cancer is just your way of brandishing your edge.

Analogies should faithfully parallel a situation, and pregnancy is very hard for someone like you to recreate faithfully.  As Dakitten indicates, being able to do so may just require the abandonment of rationale.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Biological father having a kidney and kid needing a kidney is not the same as creating a child.


A fetus is dependent on a mother's body for survival. A sick child in need of a kidney is dependent on his father's body for survival. Please explain the difference that would warrant the state allowing bodily autonomy in one case and violating it in the other case. Thanks.

Child support is irrelevant to the topic of bodily autonomy.


----------



## tabzer (May 11, 2022)

Lacius said:


> A fetus is dependent on a mother's body for survival. A sick child in need of a kidney is dependent on his father's body for survival.


In the first scenario, a mother hopefully understands what is being expected during (and after) the pregnancy.  If I could do right by words, I'd call it a biological contract.  Not to say that it cannot be nulled, but the consequence will at least have emotional and physical repercussion and it would result in a loss of life.  The second scenario, one might hope that the father would be a good father and do right by his child, but he is not actively, or "biologically", creating his child's condition.  Passing down bunk genetics may be another topic.  Still, not giving a kidney would have emotional and physical repercussion and it would result in the loss of life. 

Because these scenarios can have similarities in their conclusions *it does not mean *that their conditions are ethically parallel.  This first scenario,* the mother engages* the condition on behalf of herself and the "developing human" and, therefore, bares responsibility.  In the second, the father can only respond to a dilemma which* he did not engage*.  By proposing that these situations are comparable, you are cutting the woman's role in her pregnancy out of the picture and suggesting that pregnancy is some sort of natural abomination.  (Say hi to your mom for me)



Lacius said:


> Please explain the difference that would warrant the state allowing bodily autonomy in one case and violating it in the other case.


The only thing that "warrants" what a state does is your bureaucratic faux democracy (see topic).  I proposed that the goal for many "pro-life" people was to see that embryos are given rights.  If that were to happen, there would be a conundrum of choosing between a woman's right to an abortion and an embryo's right to gestation.  It would be possible for both to occur, but it isn't practical.  If it were practical, I don't think you'd resort to calling pregnancy "cancer" in effort to handwave the issue.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2022)

tabzer said:


> In the first scenario, a mother hopefully understands what is being expected during (and after) the pregnancy.  If I could do right by words, I'd call it a biological contract.  Not to say that it cannot be nulled, but the consequence will at least have emotional and physical repercussion and it would result in a loss of life.  The second scenario, one might hope that the father would be a good father and do right by his child, but he is not actively, or "biologically", creating his child's condition.  Passing down bunk genetics may be another topic.  Still, not giving a kidney would have emotional and physical repercussion and it would result in the loss of life.  Because they can have similarities in their conclusions does not mean that their conditions are ethically parallel.  This first scenario, the mother engages the condition on behalf of herself and the "developing human" and, therefore, bares responsibility.  In the second, the father can only respond to a dilemma which he did not engage.  By proposing that these situations are comparable, you are cutting the woman's role in her pregnancy out of the picture and suggesting that pregnancy is some sort of natural abomination.  (Say hi to your mom for me)
> 
> 
> The only thing that "warrants" what a state does is your bureaucratic faux democracy (see topic).  I proposed that the goal for many "pro-life" people was to see that embryos are given rights.  If that were to happen, there would be a conundrum of choosing between a woman's right to an abortion and an embryo's right to gestation.  It would be possible for both to occur, but it isn't practical.  If it were practical, I don't think you'd resort to calling pregnancy "cancer" in effort to handwave the issue.


Could you please tell me which scenario (pregnant woman, man with a kidney, both, or neither) should be forced by the state? That would make things more clear. You seem to be dodging the question. Thank you.


----------



## tabzer (May 11, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Could you please tell me which scenario (pregnant woman, man with a kidney, both, or neither) should be forced by the state? That would make things more clear. Thank you.


I'm not pretending that's my point.  Why are you?


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm not pretending that's my point.  Why are you?


Because it's my point.


----------



## tabzer (May 11, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Because it's my point.


You fought for human rights on the internet and wound up with cancer.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 11, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You fought for human rights on the internet and wound up with cancer.



So, you're saying you're cancer then. Thanks for the confirmation but most of us were already aware.


----------



## tabzer (May 11, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> So, you're saying you're cancer then. Thanks for the confirmation but most of us were already aware.


Embryos are cancer.  Way to keep up.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Embryos are cancer.  Way to keep up.


Embryos are not cancer. An unwanted pregnancy can, however, be considered analogous to cancer. They are each something unwanted growing in your body that you want removed, and if they aren't removed, they may have everlasting negative effects on your body and could even kill you.

A woman should have as much of a legal right to remove an embryo or fetus from her body as she does to remove cancer from her body.


----------



## tabzer (May 11, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Embryos are not cancer. An unwanted pregnancy can, however, be considered analogous to cancer. They are each something unwanted growing in your body that you want removed, and if they aren't removed, they may have everlasting negative effects on your body and could even kill you.


Comparing embryos to cancer was your shortcut to handwave the proposed embryonic rights vs woman's rights conundrum.  That's already documented.  You weren't even trying to be nuanced and I pointed that out too.


Lacius said:


> A woman should have as much of a legal right to remove an embryo or fetus from her body as she does to remove cancer from her body.


And here it is again.  You go from step 1: saying that unwanted pregnancy "can" be like cancer, to step 2: treat pregnancy like it's cancer.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Comparing embryos to cancer was your shortcut to handwave the proposed embryonic rights vs woman's rights conundrum.  That's already documented.  You weren't even trying to be nuanced and I pointed that out too.
> 
> And here it is again.  You go from step 1: saying that unwanted pregnancy "can" be like cancer, to step 2: treat pregnancy like it's cancer.


My point was never once that abortion should be legal because "pregnancy can be analogous to cancer." I didn't bring up cancer. A person should be able to do whatever they want to their body, whether it's positive, negative, or neutral.

When you argue against strawmen, it only discredits your position.


----------



## tabzer (May 11, 2022)

Lacius said:


> My point was never once that abortion should be legal because "pregnancy can be analogous to cancer."


Specifically, the point your comment makes is that she should be able to treat pregnancy like she treats cancer.  Your comment about the possibility of pregnancy being "analogous to cancer" is an attempt to make it palatable.  Ergo, your comment reads *analogous to *"a pregnancy can be like cancer, so a women should be able to treat pregnancy like cancer". 

You bring up cancer every time you talk about it, and honestly, I have no idea why you even started trying to defend the comparison other than your clear desire to come off as edgy and witty.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 11, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Comparing embryos to cancer was your shortcut to handwave the proposed embryonic rights vs woman's rights conundrum.  That's already documented.  You weren't even trying to be nuanced and I pointed that out too.
> 
> And here it is again.  You go from step 1: saying that unwanted pregnancy "can" be like cancer, to step 2: treat pregnancy like it's cancer.



VERY servere reading comprehension issues. VERY severe. Like you said, way to keep up.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You bring up cancer every time you talk about it, and honestly, I have no idea why you even started trying to defend the comparison other than your clear desire to come off as edgy and witty.


I didn't bring up cancer. I've only mentioned it when responding to you. It was never part of my argument.

An unwanted pregnancy is analogous to cancer though. I've explained how. My  point in explaining this to you is to show there are very real reasons why a woman might want to terminate a pregnancy. That is all.

I'm still waiting for you to address my point about bodily autonomy and when the state should or shouldn't be able to interfere. Thanks.



tabzer said:


> Specifically, the point your comment makes is that she should be able to treat pregnancy like she treats cancer.


Why shouldn't she be able to? In general, she should be able to do whatever she wants to her body for whatever reason she wants to do it.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (May 11, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Unborn life is still precious regardless how you want to classify it and your last paragraph might make some people upset because apparently men can also have babies and you're a bigot for pointing out the differences between them and females.


Then with that concept in mind whenever anyone tosses off to a spank mag that in itself counts as bad as an abortion since sperm is just as justifiable as being labeled "unborn life" as whenever a sperm lucks out to meet with an unfertilized egg. Hell if anything it puts it more against us men because a woman simply produces an egg, its the guy who carries the seed of life, which means any time you ejaculate you are killing thousands of potential babies that could have been just as likely walking on this earth than any one singular example that would be terminated in early development of pregnancy.


I think I get it here, perhaps we should make male masturbation illegal since that kills so much potential "unborn life". Makes just about as much sense if not more when it comes to the pro-life definition of protecting unborn life. Turn No-Nut November into an everyday permanent law!




tabzer said:


> If you were reading what I wrote, and that was your first thought, you don't have the attention span for this.  Take a seat.



Empty words to make yourself sound superior without a proper defense, unfortunately you are not a politician nor is this a political debate between two candidates. It holds no water here.

Also for someone who is not even from the states supposedly you have a lot of opinion on this. Perhaps its just Japan's insistence on life being important due to their lowering birth rate. A situation that is born out of the ass backwards culture over there of putting work and career above all else over that the idea of getting a girlfriend, getting married and having kids is not the way to succeed in life over there. Then of course you have the NEET's too but that is another problem.


----------



## Iamapirate (May 11, 2022)

Lacius said:


> They're also facts, and many of them show the system isn't as democratic as people think.
> 
> 
> Could you tell that to the majority of Republicans who continue to whine (incorrectly, I might add) the election was stolen in 2020? Thanks.
> ...


Funny to me that Democrats who haven't recognised any Republican President as legitimate since Bush 1, and also complain about Georgia 18 with unsubstantiated conspiracies about voter suppression are so vocal about 2020 election conspiracies. There's already rhetoric about how Trump/Republicans are gonna "steal" 2022 or 2024. This is just how things are now. The populace is so polarised that everyone will deem their opposition as evil and illegitimate.


----------



## Iamapirate (May 11, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Was working a job and handling kids until evening, but whatever. Medicade is tax funded at the state level with some amount of federal matching and has limitations on what it can be used on, yet PP actually still opts to pay out of pocket even when denied. As for what the topic has progressed to... you've moved on to asking for European countries that support full term abortions and  comparing zygotes and embryos to kidneys for some reason. Real progress... sorry, but you've got nothing useful to offer and never have.
> 
> So you're saying that you don't care about democracy so much as victory towards a minority agenda? Interesting stuff. Sounds kinda totalitarian, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
> 
> Also, Democrats have had full control and not done those sorts of things, so... no? I don't much care for the party myself, but they tend to at least make an effort to seem interested in compromise.


No to tell you the truth I'm not very fond of democracy given how generally stupid and uninterested the public seems to be, and the results you get from the process. But how I feel is irrelevant. I'm telling you how it is, not how it ought to be. You can't dispute that Trump or Bush won their elections and were legitimate presidents. All you can do is complain that the system is flawed.

No? Select dem senators have been pushing for abolishing the filibuster. You have influencers, pundits and figures, talking about packing the court, voter reform, abolition of electoral college etc. These would count as changing the rules.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 11, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> Then with that concept in mind whenever anyone tosses off to a spank mag that in itself counts as bad as an abortion since sperm is just as justifiable as being labeled "unborn life" as whenever a sperm lucks out to meet with an unfertilized egg. Hell if anything it puts it more against us men because a woman simply produces an egg, its the guy who carries the seed of life, which means any time you ejaculate you are killing thousands of potential babies that could have been just as likely walking on this earth than any one singular example that would be terminated in early development of pregnancy.
> 
> 
> I think I get it here, perhaps we should make male masturbation illegal since that kills so much potential "unborn life". Makes just about as much sense if not more when it comes to the pro-life definition of protecting unborn life. Turn No-Nut November into an everyday permanent law!
> ...



Sperm has yet to impregnate the egg and can be discarded, as nature intended. There's nothing wrong with discarding semen and it's nowhere comparable to a growing unborn baby regardless of what you claim.

@tabzer - It looks like calling the baby in the mothers womb by other names than a baby and classifying it as a non-human helps these satanic baby killing lunatics deal with the fact they've killed and want to kill human babies. They are pure evil and calling the baby comparable to "cancer", which @Lacius is doing is just wrong on many, many levels.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2022)

Iamapirate said:


> Funny to me that Democrats who haven't recognised any Republican President as legitimate since Bush 1


Every Republican President since Bush 1 has been "legitimate." There just haven't been any non-incumbent candidates for president from the Republican side that have won the popular vote.



Iamapirate said:


> and also complain about Georgia 18 with unsubstantiated conspiracies about voter suppression


There were very real conflict of interest and voter purge issues in Georgia in 2018. These are not conspiracy theories. You can find information here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Georgia_gubernatorial_election#Electoral_controversies



Iamapirate said:


> are so vocal about 2020 election conspiracies.


There's no evidence of widespread voter fraud in 2020.



Iamapirate said:


> There's already rhetoric about how Trump/Republicans are gonna "steal" 2022 or 2024.


Yeah. Trump tried to overturn the election in 2020, and Republicans are putting people into power who would have overturned the election in 2020, and will do it if given the chance in 2024.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> @tabzer - It looks like calling the baby in the mothers womb by other names than a baby and classifying it as a non-human helps these satanic baby killing lunatics deal with the fact they've killed and want to kill human babies.



An embryo is not a baby.
A fetus is not a baby.
I am not a Satanist. I do not believe Satan exists.
Abortion is not the killing of an embryo/fetus. It's the termination of a pregnancy. The embryo/fetus dies if it cannot survive outside the mother. Saying abortion is murder would be like saying refusing to donate a kidney to me is murdering me.
Whether or not the embryo/fetus is a baby is irrelevant to the topic of bodily autonomy.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> and want to kill human babies.


Not only do I not want to "kill human babies," but I don't even want to kill embryos and fetuses.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> They are pure evil and calling the baby comparable to "cancer", which @Lacius is doing is just wrong on many, many levels.


An unwanted pregnancy is not cancer. It is, however, analogous to cancer. I've explained ad nauseum how, and nobody can seem to explain how I'm wrong. They just don't like that I'm doing it. 

Whether or not an unwanted pregnancy is analogous to cancer is also irrelevant to the topic of bodily autonomy. Hypothetically, an unwanted pregnancy could be completely beneficial to the health of the mother with zero health risks, and it wouldn't change anything.


----------



## Megadriver94 (May 11, 2022)

Personally, I am fine with putting bans on most 3rd trimester abortions, the key exceptions being if its a last resort to save the mother's life, or if the baby was conceived from rape.
Furthermore, as far as I'm concerned, if an embryo or fetus has been found to have a substantial to pervasive mental or physical illness while still in the womb, I find it to be permissible to terminate. Not mandatory by any means, but permissible. I for one would not wish to have such mentally defective nor physically deformed children a la extra chromosome 21, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, conjoined twins, neural brain tube defects, Congenital Heart disease, Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome, and certain other conditions.


----------



## Valwinz (May 11, 2022)

49 Democrats just voted for a bill that allowed abortion on demand all the way till birth. They are on record now amazing


----------



## Megadriver94 (May 11, 2022)

Sperm cells, while they do contain key genetic information which turns an ova into a zygote, such as being able to be either X or Y in terms of the other half of the sex chromosome pair, are not children. As far as I'm concerned, the soul of a child is in the ova, and the sperm cells are basically organic activation keys (or cards) that race against each other to activate the gestation process.


----------



## Dakitten (May 11, 2022)

Iamapirate said:


> No to tell you the truth I'm not very fond of democracy given how generally stupid and uninterested the public seems to be, and the results you get from the process. But how I feel is irrelevant. I'm telling you how it is, not how it ought to be. You can't dispute that Trump or Bush won their elections and were legitimate presidents. All you can do is complain that the system is flawed.
> 
> No? Select dem senators have been pushing for abolishing the filibuster. You have influencers, pundits and figures, talking about packing the court, voter reform, abolition of electoral college etc. These would count as changing the rules.


Key term there is "talking about", not performing. Dems don't pull the trigger because it would drastically alter things. They propose, weigh, debate, consider... and often get bought out selectively by special interest groups looking to destabilize any progress with the least amount of money. They do adhere to the process, though, and are not as brazenly hypocritical and dishonest as their counterparts across the aisle.

Also, very edge, good sir. I thought the leftists are the elitists wanting a takeover, but conservatives are bashing Democracy because they are the "smart" ones who should just rule... methinks this may be projection.



Megadriver94 said:


> Personally, I am fine with putting bans on most 3rd trimester abortions, the key exceptions being if its a last resort to save the mother's life, or if the baby was conceived from rape.
> Furthermore, as far as I'm concerned, if an embryo or fetus has been found to have a substantial to pervasive mental or physical illness while still in the womb, I find it to be permissible to terminate. Not mandatory by any means, but permissible. I for one would not wish to have such mentally defective nor physically deformed children a la extra chromosome 21, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, conjoined twins, neural brain tube defects, Congenital Heart disease, Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome, and certain other conditions.


A fraction of a fraction of abortions happen that late, and my fluffy bunnies you must know nothing of the process to assume women carelessly opt for an abortion that far into the process. Typically, they would just induce premature birth if viable and required at that point.

Also, your view on souls is theological, and thus irrelevant to those not of your faith.



Valwinz said:


> 49 Democrats just voted for a bill that allowed abortion on demand all the way till birth. They are on record now amazing


That is just flatly misleading and you really ought to be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## The Catboy (May 11, 2022)

I wonder why none of the pro-lifers have addressed my concerns about the contradictions to "big government?" Why is it only "big government" when the federal government creates a law limiting state government from limiting rights? Why isn't big government for the states to limit and interfere in the lives of the people?


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> a bill that allowed abortion on demand all the way till birth.


That isn't what the bill would have done.

I'm really starting to think your account is satirical with the goal of demonstrating how ridiculous the conservatives are.


----------



## smf (May 11, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You bring up cancer every time you talk about it, and honestly, I have no idea why you even started trying to defend the comparison other than your clear desire to come off as edgy and witty.


I have no idea why you even started trying to attack the comparison other than your clear desire to come off as edgy and witty


----------



## smf (May 11, 2022)

Megadriver94 said:


> Sperm cells, while they do contain key genetic information which turns an ova into a zygote, such as being able to be either X or Y in terms of the other half of the sex chromosome pair, are not children. As far as I'm concerned, the soul of a child is in the ova, and the sperm cells are basically organic activation keys (or cards) that race against each other to activate the gestation process.


Souls don't exist, it's just brain activity (which happens around week 24-25). A fetus is not a baby or child either.

https://helloclue.com/articles/preg...fference-between-an-embryo-a-fetus-and-a-baby


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> Empty words to make yourself sound superior without a proper defense




What's the "proper defense" for an argument that I am not making?  "Did you know what menstruation is?"  Lol.  Feel free to start a Japan thread.  I might visit.




Stone_Wings said:


> VERY servere reading comprehension issues



Yes, very "servere".



smf said:


> I have no idea why you even started trying to attack the comparison other than your clear desire to come off as edgy and witty



As I mentioned a couple of times, it was an attempt to handwave a conflict that arises from the "pro-life" side's desires for embryonic rights. 



Lacius said:


> I didn't bring up cancer. I've only mentioned it when responding to you. It was never part of my argument.



If it's not a "part of your argument" then don't make the argument.  It's real simple.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> @tabzer - It looks like calling the baby in the mothers womb by other names than a baby and classifying it as a non-human helps these satanic baby killing lunatics deal with the fact they've killed and want to kill human babies. They are pure evil and calling the baby comparable to "cancer", which @Lacius is doing is just wrong on many, many levels.



He may not be a devoted satanist, but he seems to be doing his best in demonstrating where you are right.



Lacius said:


> An embryo is not a baby.
> A fetus is not a baby.
> I am not a Satanist. I do not believe Satan exists.
> Abortion is not the killing of an embryo/fetus. It's the termination of a pregnancy. The embryo/fetus dies if it cannot survive outside the mother. Saying abortion is murder would be like saying refusing to donate a kidney to me is murdering me.
> Whether or not the embryo/fetus is a baby is irrelevant to the topic of bodily autonomy.




The problem with using this sociopathic logic, is that it doesn't actually help the people you are pretending to support.  It can only set them up with false rationale and expectations, only to be blind-sighted by the overwhelming physical, emotional, and and psychological repercussions of their choices.  Dr. Lacius as a therapist gaslighting his clients with retorts like,"your baby never existed", "just look at it like it was cancer", "you didn't technically kill it, you just removed it from life support".


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If it's not a "part of your argument" then don't make the argument.  It's real simple.


I don't think I made an argument involving the word "cancer." I've only acknowledged an unwanted pregnancy and cancer can be analogous. My pro-choice arguments have nothing to do with it. 



tabzer said:


> It can only set them up with false rationale and expectations, only to be blind-sighted by the overwhelming physical, emotional, and and psychological repercussions of their choices.  Dr. Lacius as a therapist gaslighting his clients with retorts like,"your baby never existed", "just look at it like it was cancer", "you didn't technically kill it, you just removed it from life support".


I've never made an argument about what a woman's choice should be or how she should feel about it. Do you know how I feel about the morality of an abortion? The answer would probably surprise you.


----------



## smf (May 12, 2022)

tabzer said:


> As I mentioned a couple of times, it was an attempt to handwave a conflict that arises from the "pro-life" side's desires for embryonic rights.


The pro-lifers are hand waving why embryos should have rights, so it's fair.



tabzer said:


> The problem with using this sociopathic logic, is that it doesn't actually help the people you are pretending to support.  It can only set them up with false rationale and expectations, only to be blind-sighted by the overwhelming physical, emotional, and and psychological repercussions of their choices.  Dr. Lacius as a therapist gaslighting his clients with retorts like,"your baby never existed", "just look at it like it was cancer", "you didn't technically kill it, you just removed it from life support".


Thing is, if there wasn't for the pro-lifer's making stupid arguments we could actually have grown up arguments about these issues.

So in that regard, you aren't helping them either. The psychological and emotional repercussions are caused by society as a whole. If you told everyone that it wasn't a big deal from birth, then why do you think there would be repercussions?

If anything, this is the reason why the pro-lifers want to ban abortions. Because they don't want everyone to become ok with it.


----------



## Valwinz (May 12, 2022)

Lacius said:


> That isn't what the bill would have done.
> 
> I'm really starting to think your account is satirical with the goal of demonstrating how ridiculous the conservatives are.


The reason I barely reply to you is that you are clearly here to desinfo users.

Unlike you, I read the info on a bill that they try to push also 10 weeks ago and fail a bill they want so they can campaign on it to try and not get destroyed in the midterms.

 it creates a right to abortion through 9 months of pregnancy in all 50 states literally one of the things the bill does.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 12, 2022)

ROFL ... Lacius "Abortion doesn't kill the baby". I think someone needs to do a google search on the results of abortions using the picture search feature.


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> The reason I barely reply to you is that you are clearly here to desinfo users.
> 
> Unlike you, I read the info on a bill that they try to push also 10 weeks ago and fail a bill they want so they can campaign on it to try and not get destroyed in the midterms.
> 
> it creates a right to abortion through 9 months of pregnancy in all 50 states literally one of the things the bill does.


You apparently missed all the parts of the bill about fetal viability, just like when you misread the poll showing the vast majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe.


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> ROFL ... Lacius "Abortion doesn't kill the baby". I think someone needs to do a google search on the results of abortions using the picture search feature.


I said abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the killing of a fetus. There's an important distinction. The fetus dies because it cannot live outside the mother. If the fetus can survive outside the mother, it's called a birth. That's why fetal viability is so important, and it's why it comes up numerous times in the bill @Valwinz didn't read closely enough to see.

A woman has a right to bodily autonomy, so she should be able to end a pregnancy whenever she wants. If we could somehow move an embryo or fetus somewhere where it could survive after ending a pregnancy, then we wouldn't have any issues. That is, however, not an option with our medical technology.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (May 12, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I'm already in a state where it will remain legal, this isn't about me.



I wouldn't hold my breath.  It was later dismissed but he may have accidently said the quiet part out loud too soon and now he trying to backpedal to avoid sabotaging the GOP taking majority in the midterms by downplaying a federal ban and then doing it after they have majority when it's too late.

I believe depending on the level of their potential majority, they won't leave this to the states and will force this on everyone if they think they can get away with it.  This bastard has lied though his teeth before.


----------



## Lumstar (May 12, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I said abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the killing of a fetus. There's an important distinction. The fetus dies because it cannot live outside the mother. If the fetus can survive outside the mother, it's called a birth. That's why fetal viability is so important, and it's why it comes up numerous times in the bill @Valwinz didn't read closely enough to see.
> 
> A woman has a right to bodily autonomy, so she should be able to end a pregnancy whenever she wants. If we could somehow move an embryo or fetus somewhere where it could survive after ending a pregnancy, then we wouldn't have any issues. That is, however, not an option with our medical technology.



The anti-abortion people also neglect to mention there's no conceivable reason a person would act with malice toward a fetus. It doesn't have the capacity to be held responsible for pregnancy complications.

Mind you the weirdest scenarios are pretty heartless. I'd certainly be disappointed in a mother who accepted a bribe to get an abortion, but anything like that is too rare to justify restrictions.


----------



## Xzi (May 12, 2022)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> I wouldn't hold my breath.  It was later dismissed but he may have accidently said the quiet part out loud too soon and now he trying to backpedal to avoid sabotaging the GOP taking majority in the midterms by downplaying a federal ban and then doing it after they have majority when it's too late.
> 
> I believe depending on the level of their potential majority, they won't leave this to the states and will force this on everyone if they think they can get away with it.  This bastard has lied though his teeth before.


Oh yeah, I'm definitely aware that religious extremists will do just about anything to try to get their way in this issue, up to and including becoming terrorists.  I made another comment in this thread about the high likelihood of increased attacks on abortion clinics in legal states.  In a similar vein, we already get a lot of robbery of our marijuana dispensaries, and it wouldn't surprise me if many of the culprits were from out of state.


----------



## SG854 (May 12, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I wonder why none of the pro-lifers have addressed my concerns about the contradictions to "big government?" Why is it only "big government" when the federal government creates a law limiting state government from limiting rights? Why isn't big government for the states to limit and interfere in the lives of the people?


They claim to care about human life. But when it comes to wearing the mask they refused to wear the mask and walk in public exposing others to deadly virus that kills people because muh freedom of choice. Yet they want to restrict a women freedom to get abortion. They are inconsistent.


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If we could somehow move an embryo or fetus somewhere where it could survive after ending a pregnancy, then we wouldn't have any issues.


This isn't true unless you are suggesting that there is an agreement on embryonic rights to gestation, which there clearly isn't.


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2022)

smf said:


> Souls don't exist, it's just brain activity (which happens around week 24-25). A fetus is not a baby or child either.
> 
> https://helloclue.com/articles/preg...fference-between-an-embryo-a-fetus-and-a-baby



Souls exist:




tabzer said:


> "Soul" is neʹphesh and psy·kheʹ.  They refer to the living body.  Living creatures are "souls".  If you are going to focus on ethereal aspects, then you have to have a form of measurement for the ethereal.
> 
> As for white-knighting, that's what is going on both sides of the aisle.  If you need to get an abortion and your life depends on it, you will make the decision.  The idea of "economic hardship" entering the decision making process seems to attempt to put a price tag on life and may be equally as bad as the systems that have promoted the circumstances in the first place.
> 
> Afaik, abortion isn't a constitutional matter.  The connection to the 14th amendment makes as much sense to me as other stretches people take with other kinds of literature (ie. scripture).  This "controversy" appears to be a smokescreen or a fool's errand.





smf said:


> The pro-lifers are hand waving why embryos should have rights, so it's fair.



To handwave is to treat a subject as if it is no big deal, or even "irrelevant".

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/handwave 

I don't think it would be pro-lifers "hand waving why embryos should have rights" when they are the ones pushing for it.

I am not arguing about whether or not they should or should not have rights.  I am arguing that if the embryo had rights, which is what the original analogy I was responding to was not accounting for--and the second, still failing.



smf said:


> Thing is, if there wasn't for the pro-lifer's making stupid arguments we could actually have grown up arguments about these issues.
> 
> So in that regard, you aren't helping them either. The psychological and emotional repercussions are caused by society as a whole. If you told everyone that it wasn't a big deal from birth, then why do you think there would be repercussions?
> 
> If anything, this is the reason why the pro-lifers want to ban abortions. Because they don't want everyone to become ok with it.



Calling abortion no big deal doesn't make abortion no big deal.  That's sociopathic.

You could say the same thing about pedophilia and you'd still be wrong for the same logical fallacies.


----------



## smf (May 12, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> it creates a right to abortion through 9 months of pregnancy in all 50 states literally one of the things the bill does.


No, it literally doesn't.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text

_(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health._

This is another case of pro life hysteria.

The only situation where an abortion would be allowed right up to the end of a pregnancy, is if the fetus was already dead.

What pro lifers want to do is force women to carry a dead fetus for 9 months.


----------



## smf (May 12, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Souls exist:
> 
> To handwave is to treat a subject as if it is no big deal, or even "irrelevant".
> 
> ...


They are hand waving away all the logical reasons why a clumb of unviable cells shouldn't have rights that override an actual living breathing person.

Souls are mumbo jumbo. What you think of as a soul is mainly just learned behavior, which happens after birth.


----------



## smf (May 12, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Calling abortion no big deal doesn't make abortion no big deal.  That's sociopathic.


Calling a clump of unviable cells a big deal doesn't make it a big deal.

Calling something sociopathic doesn't make it sociopathic.


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2022)

smf said:


> Calling a clump of unviable cells a big deal doesn't make it a big deal.


I'm not.  Please continue.  Talk about how you are an adult.


----------



## smf (May 12, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm not.  Please continue.  Talk about how you are an adult.


You always act weird when you are losing an argument, it's funny.

Do you have anything to add to your argument?


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2022)

smf said:


> You always act weird when you are losing an argument, it's funny.



I am not "calling a clump of unviable cells a big deal".

It's literally not the argument.

Also saying souls don't exist after I demonstrated that the definition of souls refer to living creatures is childish, and/or sociopathic.

Changing your arguments retroactively indicates that I am successful in swaying you.



smf said:


> Do you have anything to add to your argument?



I would add that it's just about as much as my place to decide what an abortion means to someone as it is yours.  Saying that I don't think it is your place is not the same as saying that I think it is my place.  Hopefully you can comprehend what I am getting at.  Spelling it out and building a family of parrots is not my goal.


----------



## smf (May 12, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Also saying souls don't exist after I demonstrated that the definition of souls refer to living creatures is childish, and/or sociopathic.


Everything to you is sociopathic. I'm beginning to think it's projection.

You haven't demonstrated anything. A soul is a made up term that represents manifestations of brain activity.

That doesn't start at conception, because there is no brain at that point.

The general 24 week cutoff for abortions is because that is around when brain activity starts.

I'm not sure how you think you've swayed me, you haven't really said anything of substance.



tabzer said:


> I would add that it's just about as much as my place to decide what an abortion means to someone as it is yours.


So you support roe v wade then? Pro lifers want to decide what an abortion means to someone.
The whole point of getting rid of roe v wade is to decide what an abortion means to someone.


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2022)

smf said:


> Everything to you is sociopathic. I'm beginning to think it's projection.



Saying (believing) living creatures don't exist is the bedrock of sociopathy.  Lol.



smf said:


> You haven't demonstrated anything. A soul is a made up term that represents manifestations of brain activity.



Correction, you demonstrated that you either didn't read or comprehend what I posted about it.  You aren't even disagreeing with any points that were brought up, so you probably just didn't read.  Now, I'm leaning "childish".


----------



## smf (May 12, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Saying (believing) living creatures don't exist is the bedrock of sociopathy.  Lol.


Oh, so what you're saying is that I'm sociopathic because I disagree that soul means "living creatures" just because you says it does. Yes, I'm leaning on projection.

I read what you posted and it's basically nonsense & doesn't argue against any of the points I made. So why would I go down your rabbit hole?

For the avoidance of doubt, I mentioned soul because of this post.


Megadriver94 said:


> As far as I'm concerned, the soul of a child is in the ova, and the sperm cells are basically organic activation keys (or cards)



So by arguing against me, you appear to be in support of this magical definition of soul. Is that what you're saying? I can't work out whether you are trolling, or just not paying attention.

You might want to read what non magical thinking people say

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Physics

If you want to continue talking about souls, then please discuss the points raised there.


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2022)

smf said:


> I disagree that soul means "living creatures" just because you says it does.


Oh, so you disagree.  



smf said:


> I read what you posted and it's basically nonsense & doesn't argue against any of the points I made


It etymologically defines what a soul is.  That's not nonsense.  That's historical record.  Nonsense is your definition despite the evidence, and I don't know why you would both hold onto it _*and *_argue against it. That seems like the definition of insanity.


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2022)

smf said:


> So by arguing against me, you appear to be in support of this magical definition of soul. Is that what you're saying? I can't work out whether you are trolling, or just not paying attention.


I don't think that's considered "magical".  It's something that I cannot prove and it's more of an interesting belief than an actual argument.  I can't prove to you anything about ethereal claims about the soul.  I can only prove that the soul exists because the language which it comes from refers to a real thing, (unless you are a sociopath who cannot be convinced that life exists outside of you ).


----------



## Lumstar (May 12, 2022)

If you're going to keep this up, at least attempt to argue in the realm of something that can be clinically determined to exist.


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2022)

Lumstar said:


> If you're going to keep this up, at least attempt to argue in the realm of something that can be clinically determined to exist.


The only argument I made about the soul is one that we can determine to exist.  Beyond that it's pointless to expect consensus.  I'll take note of your frustration.


----------



## Lumstar (May 12, 2022)

Please. Try harder than "because I said so".


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2022)

Lumstar said:


> Please. Try harder than "because I said so".



It's literally not because I said so.  The words I pointed out refer to actual things.  Granted, there is lore, mythos, esoterism surrounding them, but you wouldn't reject the existence of stars and planets for the same reason.

If you are interested in the material aspects, they are there.  If you aren't interested in the transcendental aspects, then it wouldn't make much sense to concern yourself with them.


----------



## The Catboy (May 12, 2022)

SG854 said:


> They claim to care about human life. But when it comes to wearing the mask they refused to wear the mask and walk in public exposing others to deadly virus that kills people because muh freedom of choice. Yet they want to restrict a women freedom to get abortion. They are inconsistent.


It's just one of many inconsistencies and it's because their entire structure only seems to exist to be defined by what it's not. Modern Conservativism only defines itself as "against Liberalism" and "against The Left," so the entire position makes no sense as a result.


JonhathonBaxster said:


> ROFL ... Lacius "Abortion doesn't kill the baby". I think someone needs to do a google search on the results of abortions using the picture search feature.


A fetus isn't a baby and searching up these pictures doesn't change that. The time when an abortion is typically performed is long before a fetus even resembles anything more than a clump of cells. Most abortions that happen later on are typically the result of medical emergencies and is often the last resort to treat the individual. No one gets far enough into a pregnancy where the fetus is literally a complete baby and decides to just have an abortion. Abortion doesn't kill a baby because a fetus isn't a baby.


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> It's just one of many inconsistencies and it's because their entire structure only seems to exist to be defined by what it's not. Modern Conservativism only defines itself as "against Liberalism" and "against The Left," so the entire position makes no sense as a result.



Here's one.  Leftist define themselves as being against the right.  Definitely not the other way around.

Wait, the right define themselves as being against the left, not the other way around.

If you cannot see the absurdity, then you will just keep fulfilling the unfulfilling.


My favorite, by @smf.  "If nobody disagreed with us, we'd all have arguments about how we agree."

And @The Catboy "A baby isn't a fetus, because it survived abortion.  Too bad."

Even though slavery is "abolished", now all people are property of the state, and potential slaves. --13th amendment.


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2022)

tabzer said:


> This isn't true unless you are suggesting that there is an agreement on embryonic rights to gestation, which there clearly isn't.


I agree, but I'm not necessarily opposed to an "embryonic right to gestation" as long as a woman's bodily autonomy rights take precedence.


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I agree, but I'm not necessarily opposed to an "embryonic right to gestation" as long as a woman's bodily autonomy rights take precedence.


Ok, that's progress.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 12, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Yes, very "servere".



And???? Making a simple typo does not negate the fact that you have very severe reading comprehension issues.


On a side note. I think I'm going to order one of these two shirts today.


----------



## The Catboy (May 12, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Here's one.  Leftist define themselves as being against the right.  Definitely not the other way around.
> 
> Wait, the right define themselves as being against the left, not the other way around.
> 
> If you cannot see the absurdity, then you will just keep fulfilling the unfulfilling.


A "no you" isn't as clever as you think it is and I think the laundry list of inconsistencies in Consertivism proves my point. Claiming to be against "big government" while cheering on "state governments" as they enact big government laws is an inconstancy. Getting butthurt over body autonomy when asked to care about other people, while wanting to remove body autonomy from women, LGBT+ folks, and so on, is a contradiction. Claiming to care about freedom of speech, while attempting to silence minorities is a contradiction. Claiming to support freedom, while wanting to limit medical freedom doesn't make sense. These are just a handful of inconstancies in beliefs that Conservatives hold, many of which were on display in this thread.


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> And???? Making a simple typo does not negate the fact that you have very severe reading comprehension issues.


It disqualifies you as an expert on literacy.  Also, I stand by my points.  If you have an actual argument, I would entertain them.  Don't expect me to bow to your shitty, low-effort, insults.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (May 12, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Sperm has yet to impregnate the egg and can be discarded, as nature intended. There's nothing wrong with discarding semen and it's nowhere comparable to a growing unborn baby regardless of what you claim.
> 
> @tabzer - It looks like calling the baby in the mothers womb by other names than a baby and classifying it as a non-human helps these satanic baby killing lunatics deal with the fact they've killed and want to kill human babies. They are pure evil and calling the baby comparable to "cancer", which @Lacius is doing is just wrong on many, many levels.


But sperm _is the harbor of life, the seed for what life comes from._ At what point does it redefine the difference between when its stored in your testicles and when it ends up in an egg does it consider defending it as an unborn life? There is no weight in this, again the female produces an egg for the sperm to fertilize, its not like these eggs are a life upon themselves. Its simply a means to protect and help its development until it is born as a baby. Its a form of human nature but the responsibility of original life falls on us not them, especially if we ever cross the threshold of technology where we could create artificial eggs and wombs for development without the need of a female needing to bare any responsibility for carrying it. Something that is far more likely in the scope of the near future, would those that would be born of this method be considered protectable or would the be hated by the same pro-life groups because its considered "unnatural"?

Simply said, the sperm is a foreign entity to the female body, an entity that holds life in its very essence for without it life cannot be brought into this world. A woman simply does not produce life, its an acceptance and understanding of what they will have to help produce life by accepting someone's sperm and agreeing to have a child. If this is not the case, or can't be the case for the woman, then they have every right to refuse this and refuse the responsibility especially given the amount of harm and difficulty it could be for them. To not give them the right to reject and refuse means no difference in mind to basically raping them and getting away with it, with them being forced to carry because they no longer have any right to reject, refuse and fight for their own right. You want that to be taken away from them and basically turn them into unwilling tools for procreation. That's just inhuman no matter how you slice it. 

Also to go with that other conversation at the bottom there. Tell me what does a miscarriage constitute as? Also don't go throwing around shit like Satanic at shit you dislike, especially since they are far more respectable of a people than I could say for any mainline religions. Less I could very much say to you how typically Christian/Catholic of you to state such of your fellow man, woman and child. After all if you cannot respect the freedom God has given us to advance ourselves and make the choices that we are within our natural power to make happen and possible, you are rejecting his very nature of giving us free will and therefore are against God's will to substitute your own twisted mentality of right and wrong based squarely on the mental gymnastics of morality being used as a weapon rather than a personal guideline for yourself to be an example of being better for yourself and to inspire others to be good for themselves, not to push your shit onto others, even by force. That is the core problem with most modern religion mentality, you got it all wrong.


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> A "no you" isn't as clever as you think it is and I think the laundry list of inconsistencies in Consertivism proves my point. Claiming to be against "big government" while cheering on "state governments" as they enact big government laws is an inconstancy. Getting butthurt over body autonomy when asked to care about other people, while wanting to remove body autonomy from women, LGBT+ folks, and so on, is a contradiction. Claiming to care about freedom of speech, while attempting to silence minorities is a contradiction. Claiming to support freedom, while wanting to limit medical freedom doesn't make sense. These are just a handful of inconstancies in beliefs that Conservatives hold, many of which were on display in this thread.



Seems you missed my point.  I wasn't advocating one side over the other and that was the point.  

Maybe it would be more effective if I included the word "literally" somewhere (yeah I'm calling you dumb and you like it).

Now show me where the,"no u" touched you.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 12, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It disqualifies you as an expert on literacy.  Also, I stand by my points.  If you have an actual argument, I would entertain them.  Don't expect me to bow to your shitty, low-effort, insults.



A typo is not a literacy issue. It's accidently pressing the wrong button on a tiny phone keyboard. Making false accusations because of reading comprehension issues isn't the same thing whatsoever. LMFAO!


----------



## smf (May 12, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It etymologically defines what a soul is.  That's not nonsense.  That's historical record.


It's historical record that you and anyone that defines a soul as something that is distinct from the brain, is wrong.



tabzer said:


> I don't think that's considered "magical".  It's something that I cannot prove and it's more of an interesting belief than an actual argument.


It's not an interesting belief, as you cannot prove it then it's faith. 

But scientifically you are wrong & trying to say that I'm a sociopath because I don't believe in your faith is crazy talk


----------



## smf (May 12, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The only argument I made about the soul is one that we can determine to exist.


Except you cannot determine that a soul exists as something separate from brain activity.

You can say it exists because you believe it does & in a religious context you will find a lot of people will agree with you, but scientifically it's all just mumbo jumbo.



The Catboy said:


> Claiming to support freedom, while wanting to limit medical freedom doesn't make sense. These are just a handful of inconstancies in beliefs that Conservatives hold, many of which were on display in this thread.


I don't think he cares about supporting freedom, he just wants to annoy you so he can feel good about himself.


----------



## Nothereed (May 12, 2022)

Pro life: _JuST mooove_
ah yes I'd like to move or go out of state If it wasn't for the same party now trying to make it illegal to get an abortion out of your main state. Really showing the power of democracy right there.


----------



## ELY_M (May 12, 2022)

republican party must be destroyed.    they are anti-rights and nazi party.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 12, 2022)

Another fine example of pro-life, anti-baby killing conservatives.


----------



## Valwinz (May 12, 2022)

You know this whole Roe v. Wade things is insane when you have Kotaku reporters mad that the Majority of games companies are staying silent and not getting into politics. 



ELY_M said:


> republican party must be destroyed.    they are anti-rights and nazi party.


lol



Stone_Wings said:


> Another fine example of pro-life, anti-baby killing conservatives.
> 
> View attachment 309707


I guess you don't eat meat? not get me wrong i think killing lions is wrong but not sure how this compares to the current issues been discussed in this place.


----------



## Nothereed (May 12, 2022)

tabzer said:


> here's one. Leftist define themselves as being against the right. Definitely not the other way around.
> 
> Wait, the right define themselves as being against the left, not the other way around.


Except that's oversimplifying. What your using is  the "American definition", which is a interesting view point again for a Japense person to be so heavily focused in a US subject.
What do I mean the "American definition"

The Republican party entirely focuses on doing whatever is the opposite of the Democratic party.
While Democrats are a compromise (voter wise), is made up of people who agreed with the Democratic party, but also actual leftists don't have a party of their own, and have to deal with putting up for a Democrat since the two party system. The end result(Elected wise) is a middle right party.
Okay, so what is leftist define by?
Leftists are defined by understanding of class struggle, and a heavy criticism of capitalism function. Most fall also under the camp of providing more rights and a stronger democracy, through getting rid of a representative democracy (what we have now) to a policy based one done by majority vote.
This is more Democratic since we literately just had at least two presidents who didn't win the popular vote/majority vote. But won in the electoral collage. Straight up minority rule.
If you so will argue with me for just a second. Let's call these leftists... progressives.

Now let's look at the right in general. This includes Democrats (middle right) and Republicans (far right)
If anything I'd have to point out the extremes since that's the only thing giving us relativity on the subject. So I'll be separating the two extremes. Most Democrats (voters, excluding the actual leftist faction) believe in having a stronger democracy akin to leftists. However they don't see any issues with capitalism itself to the same degree actual leftists do.

For example a Democrat would say Capitalism is fine, as long as their is a government to hold it back. This is just a issue of practice. At least acknowledging that companies/capitalism is not = moral.
A leftists would say, Well if you need a government to step in to fix the problem, that most likely means it's a fundamental issue with the system itself. They want a system that can function without a government curtailing it. without also having the system cripple people's rights. Which they believe capitalism as a system does.

Now what Republicans believe is that there is no problems with such a system. And if anything, the government should just be straight up removed because it'll "empower free speech"
I put this in air quotes because as a leftist myself. Companies will just eventually become the new state. And we'll end up here at square one. If your thinking just the first generation of people. Yes, technically that is 100% fair. But once we start getting to multiple generations of people, wealth transferring and such. If the main goal was to keep a 100% fair system. You now have people who have a starting situation of $0 vs people who have two businesses from the start to be the CEO of because their dad made it.

Anyways Republicans are what we can call conservative, they want to keep the same system, and or regress.

Let's now throw another mess into the matter. Nazi's. We can both agree history is a very ugly thing right? we had racial issues, xenophobia, and a whole other ugly messes.
So what side would Nazi's agree with the most? It wouldn't be leftists or democrats. Both are in favor of increasing rights and not limiting them. And as a result of that mentality, they're more aware of other people's issues.
Republicans however, want to keep the same system, and they just believe that the government is a problem. At least Republicans pre 2014ish.

 Which as leftists again, have described, the goverment isn't the only issue. Your resource management or economic system or however you want to describe it, can also cause issues. After all, people didn't just one day think "I want to enslave another person" They did it because it made a fuck ton of money.

So which side would Nazi's want to side on most likely? It would be the side that's regressing. Regressing bad towards that ugly past. But also in favor of a system (resource management) that allows and continues to enable people to be oppressed. Regardless if you go authoritarian capitalist, or anarcho capitalist. Either the goverment oppresses and the system or just the system.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 12, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> I guess you don't eat meat? not get me wrong i think killing lions is wrong but not sure how this compares to the current issues been discussed in this place.



You know full well if some Democrat posted that they killed an animal and then shared the meat, claws, skull, sinew, body fluids, teeth, blood, organs, skin, hair, tongue, eyeballs, etc etc..." followed with a baby animal killing comment, deplorables would all be screaming some stupid "THOSE DEMONIC SATANIST DEMOCRATS AND THEIR BLOOD DRINKING ANIMAL SACRIFICES!!!!" bullshit.

I don't give one fuck about eating meat or not. That's beside the entire point and you know it. Stop playing dumb. It fits the topic perfectly fine. It demonstrates hypocrisy from the right regarding life and death as meaningful only where they see fit. You all aren't pro-life. You're pro-birth.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 12, 2022)

ELY_M said:


> republican party must be destroyed.    they are anti-rights and nazi party.


Let me guess, you support BLM, a black supremacist company that grifts money of the very same black people that they kill most of the time, and support antifa, who are funnily enough, facists themselves. Liberals are definitely the future for democracy for sure.



Stone_Wings said:


> Another fine example of pro-life, anti-baby killing conservatives.
> 
> View attachment 309707


Lame example. Hunting has been going on since the dawn of time. There's a difference between a practice that's been going on for millions of years vs. killing a baby because you're too selfish and immature to take care of it and raise it.


----------



## Nothereed (May 12, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> and support antifa, who are funnily enough, facists themselves.


do you know what antifa stands for?


----------



## The Catboy (May 12, 2022)

smf said:


> I don't think he cares about supporting freedom, he just wants to annoy you so he can feel good about himself.


Yeah, but yet I keep walking into it. I really need to take a break from this section. If anyone needs me, I am going to be spending time with my wife.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 12, 2022)

ELY_M said:


> republican party must be destroyed.    they are anti-rights and nazi party.


democratic party must be destroyed.    they are anti-rights and slave owning party. (this is true, look it up, abe lincoln created the republican party to go against racism, when the DEMOCRATIC LIBERALS wanted them.)


----------



## AleronIves (May 12, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> It looks like calling the baby in the mothers womb by other names than a baby and classifying it as a non-human helps these satanic baby killing lunatics deal with the fact they've killed and want to kill human babies. They are pure evil and calling the baby comparable to "cancer", which @Lacius is doing is just wrong on many, many levels.


Do you think women who get abortions and doctors who perform abortions should be put on trial for murder and go to prison if convicted, then?


----------



## Creamu (May 12, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I hate the term “pro-life” because there’s no such thing as “pro-life.” There’s only “pro-forced birth” and “pro-back alley abortions.”


That is a really good point. The hermetic dialectic that is at play here seems to be designed to keep debate oscillating without resolving anything in the long run. In my observation it is an useful tool to activate different voter segments and have a everlasting struggle that results in nothing.

A more productive direction would be a pro motherhood and family discourse, that is centered on the idea that mothers and families play anexistential role in society and should be valued accordingly. This direction would take an implicit anti-abortion stand while constructing a fertile cultural context, that would be critical in preventing the current fall and the liquidation of civilisation.

That this is not the direction the discourse is moving shows you that the leading actors on both sides of the debate must be cynical.


The Catboy said:


> Abortions will continue to happen but they will go back into dirty motels and cheap apartments.


That is true under a realistic perspective. There have been, however, regimes in history that were determined enough to have the constitution to stop even that. That being said, this would be very unlikely to happen.


The Catboy said:


> Abortions still happen in countries where even miscarriages come with a death penalty. The idea of outlawing abortion is just another means of controlling people’s bodies and it’s disgusting. Conservatives are hypocrites that hate freedom.


Yes, it would be better to make it highly unattractive to have abortions on a cultural route. Conservatives have never understood this, this amount of disfunction can only explained by deliberite design.


----------



## osaka35 (May 12, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> democratic party must be destroyed.    they are anti-rights and slave owning party. (this is true, look it up, abe lincoln created the republican party to go against racism, when the DEMOCRATIC LIBERALS wanted them.)


The democrats back then were the right-wing, and the republicans were human rights activist. And before that, the USA had another political party called the Whigs. There was some internal struggle in the Whigs party over slavery, and basically the anti-slavery Whigs were like "nah, brah, slavery is dumb" and formed the Republican Party in 1854. It wasn't until the 1930s they flipped, with republicans becoming right-wing and democrats being human rights activist.

here's a fun article about the transition: https://history.house.gov/Exhibitio...eeping-the-Faith/Party-Realignment--New-Deal/

I'd say now the republicans and the democrats have been pulled more and more to the right. The reasons why are beyond my pay-grade. Those of the left, and some argue the center, are not currently represented and must make do with what they can get from the democratic party.


----------



## smf (May 12, 2022)

Creamu said:


> A more productive direction would be a pro motherhood and family discourse, that is centered on the idea that mothers and families play anexistential role in society and should be valued accordingly. This direction would take an implicit anti-abortion stand while constructing a fertile cultural context, that would be critical in preventing the current fall and the liquidation of civilisation.


I think you're missing the point. Abortion doesn't devalue motherhood, if anything getting rid of abortion devalues motherhood.


----------



## Creamu (May 12, 2022)

smf said:


> I think you're missing the point. Abortion doesn't devalue motherhood, if anything getting rid of abortion devalues motherhood.


I wanted to demonstrate, that the republican side is a completly visionless entity, that moves along the line of the left with increased latency. It is a hermetic game and is meant to distract from the idea of actually funticional discoursive maneuvering.


----------



## tabzer (May 12, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> A typo is not a literacy issue. It's accidently pressing the wrong button on a tiny phone keyboard. Making false accusations because of reading comprehension issues isn't the same thing whatsoever. LMFAO!



You failed to proof-read your own insult about my literacy.  You know that's funny.  You are just being sour because that's how reasonable you are.  Now tell me about these false accusations.  Let's hear more about how you approach logic.



smf said:


> Except you cannot determine that a soul exists as something separate from brain activity.



Brain activity is actually irrelevant to the base definition.  If a potato had lungs, it would be described as having "naphesh".  That means soul, if you were paying attention.



smf said:


> It's not an interesting belief



It's interesting by definition because you concerned yourself with it.  Jeez, do you know about words?


----------



## Lumstar (May 13, 2022)

smf said:


> I think you're missing the point. Abortion doesn't devalue motherhood, if anything getting rid of abortion devalues motherhood.



Puritans rejoice. Women would be mortally terrified to have sex.


----------



## Dakitten (May 13, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Let me guess, you support BLM, a black supremacist company that grifts money of the very same black people that they kill most of the time, and support antifa, who are funnily enough, facists themselves. Liberals are definitely the future for democracy for sure.





KennyAtom said:


> democratic party must be destroyed.    they are anti-rights and slave owning party. (this is true, look it up, abe lincoln created the republican party to go against racism, when the DEMOCRATIC LIBERALS wanted them.)


Golden.

Seriously, I know PragerU has a LOVELY video about how the southern switch didn't happen, but... it did. I used to live in Tennessee, in a small town that literally had a black population of less than 30 folks and a store with a decorative placard talking about how even after being ordered not to, they refused to serve "colored folk" until the 80s. Care to guess the dominant political affiliation of the town by a huge margin?

If you want to go further, just look at how often minorities vote Democrat over Republican, or how many minorities take part in either party. There are the occasional odd ducks, but the numbers are a complete avalanche for the Dems. Republicans tend to push legislation that doesn't benefit minority households, conservatives draw in actual neo-nazis, and voter suppression tactics tend to be focused on minorities by the GOP. There really isn't a case for Dems being the "pro slavery" party in this day and age, and this whole thread is about Roe v. Wade being overturned, denying a right for women.

I wager you probably felt a bit attacked by the pretty bombastic comment about needing to destroy the Republican party, and I aknowledge that some people in this thread are getting a bit bitey, but this thread has devolved into some pretty frustrating and ugly stuff with very little being offered by the conservatives here. We've got Tabzer preaching how the soul is real (which you can't and his argument about etymology is adorable but even equating "life" to "souls" still leaves it to the debate of when life starts, which doesn't support him), Baxter who has jumped straight onto the Jesus jet, and Bit and Val who can't go five minutes without making insane suppositions like the Dems support terminating pregnancies at 9 months (which is just stupid on so many levels, at 9 months you're pushing out a self sustaining child or enduring a tragedy and emergency medical procedure, and in either case it should not be taken lightly and they should be ashamed for even insinuating that women and health care providers are just wanting to murder).

I appreciated your taking a moment earlier, and encourage you to take another. Don't just sling mud, go play the new Ogre Battle translation or something. You want nothing to do with some of the trolls that lurk in this place, and spoilers... they tend to be conservative elitists.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 13, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You failed to proof-read your own insult about my literacy.  You know that's funny.  You are just being sour because that's how reasonable you are.  Now tell me about these false accusations.  Let's hear more about how you approach logic.



A typo is not a literacy issue. It's accidently pressing the wrong button on a tiny phone keyboard. Making false accusations because of reading comprehension issues isn't the same thing whatsoever. LMFAO!

And you want to give lessons on logic.


----------



## tabzer (May 13, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> A typo is not a literacy issue. It's accidently pressing the wrong button on a tiny phone keyboard. Making false accusations because of reading comprehension issues isn't the same thing whatsoever. LMFAO!
> 
> And you want to give lessons on logic.



Your failure to comprehend the irony is the literacy issue.  Like, "learn to reed".  If you are going to try to insult someone's literacy, making typos will make you look stupid.  Needing someone to spell that out?  Well, that is actually stupid.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 13, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Your failure to comprehend the irony is the literacy issue.  Like, "learn to reed".  If you are going to try to insult someone's literacy, making typos will make you look stupid.  Needing someone to spell that out?  Well, that is actually stupid.



There is no irony when a typo is not a literacy issue. It's accidently pressing the wrong button on a tiny phone keyboard. Making false accusations because of reading comprehension issues isn't the same thing whatsoever. LMFAO!

And you want to make comments about stupidity.


----------



## tabzer (May 13, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> There is no irony when a typo is not a literacy issue. It's accidently pressing the wrong button on a tiny phone keyboard. Making false accusations because of reading comprehension issues isn't the same thing whatsoever. LMFAO!
> 
> And you want to make comments about stupidity.



You still are accusing me of making false accusations.  Care to demonstrate how?


----------



## smf (May 13, 2022)

Lumstar said:


> Puritans rejoice. Women would be mortally terrified to have sex.


Incels would be happy I guess, because they would feel more included.


----------



## tabzer (May 13, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Except that's oversimplifying. What your using is  the "American definition", which is a interesting view point again for a Japense person to be so heavily focused in a US subject.
> What do I mean the "American definition"
> 
> The Republican party entirely focuses on doing whatever is the opposite of the Democratic party.
> ...


Trump has done a lot to convince people who don't trust the government to vote for and participate in the government under the pretense that things are going to change, which I see as something that somewhat parallels the recruitment that the democratic party does of those who are against capitalism.  The government becomes emboldened and further legitimized as a result.

You might be more interested with the nuances of how the government politics work than I, but what I see is a long-term system of right hand washing the left and vice versa.  Government becomes more bureaucratic and more of a racket and I don't see an end to that trajectory.  Maybe it has always been that way, and what I am seeing is just the result of "government transparency".  Call me cynical, but I see human rights being a recruitment tool (and other) instead of an actual goal.  So far, more people find themselves more obligated to work longer and harder to maintain the idea of freedom as the government debases its own currency via inflationary practice (and their mission seems to be to find more excuses to do so).  Inflation increases the value of the assets for people who have them while decreasing the value of the working people's wages, directly contributing to class struggle.

That's my take, and I appreciated your thought out analysis.


----------



## Creamu (May 13, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Government becomes more bureaucratic and more of a racket and I don't see an end to that trajectory.


That is what Max Weber predicited. Bureaucratic goverments become increasingly unmanuveurable and the pillars that hold the increasingly bureaucratic apparatus will break eventually. It will work for a while and then quickly collapse under the weight of an increasingly growing bureaucratic apparatus..


tabzer said:


> Maybe it has always been that way, and what I am seeing is just the result of "government transparency".


There are builders of civilisation and those who leach off of their fruits. Once the civilisation is saturated with unproductive parasitic entities it collapses. The builders of that civilisation then flee and build a new one and the cycle starts over. How this will work in this uprooted globally populated world is not clear.


tabzer said:


> Call me cynical, but I see human rights being a recruitment tool (and other) instead of an actual goal.


It's a front to build a phalanx an shocktroops around the parasitic entities that can't show themselves for who they are, else it would fall flat on its face.


tabzer said:


> So far, more people find themselves more obligated to work longer and harder to maintain the idea of freedom as the government debases their own currency via inflationary practice (and their mission seems to be to find more excuses to do so).


Yes, we are approaching the end of the cycle.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 13, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You still are accusing me of making false accusations.  Care to demonstrate how?



Sure. There are PLENTY of examples, but here's one. False accusations. Case closed.



tabzer said:


> Comparing embryos to cancer was your shortcut to handwave the proposed embryonic rights vs woman's rights conundrum.  That's already documented.  You weren't even trying to be nuanced and I pointed that out too.
> 
> And here it is again.  You go from step 1: saying that unwanted pregnancy "can" be like cancer, to step 2: treat pregnancy like it's cancer.


----------



## tabzer (May 13, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> We've got Tabzer preaching how the soul is real (which you can't and his argument about etymology is adorable but even equating "life" to "souls" still leaves it to the debate of when life starts, which doesn't support him)


I'm not an end justifies the means type of guy.  I don't need to pretend something is wrong just because I'm afraid of dealing with a more complicated issue.  The fact is that naphesh (soul) does mean living creatures (or creatures that breathe) and does complicate the claim of embryos as being souls.  But it doesn't change the fact that people would have to choose to forfeit the benefit of the doubt when terminating a life.

I get that you are probably angry most of the time, and being irrational and spiteful is your way of dealing with it, but have you considered that it is a medical condition?  Maybe it's self-induced?  Are you on birth control?  I don't know for sure, but I heard a curious claim that by being on birth control, your body emulates a feeling akin to constant miscarriage, and is worse than a hypothetical 24/7 menstruation cycle.  Can you confirm?  Try a diary.



Stone_Wings said:


> Sure. There are PLENTY of examples, but here's one. False accusations. Case closed.


Showing an example of an analysis that I made (sans the actual phrasing I quoted)  doesn't demonstrate a false accusation.  If anything, it gives a link for people (and creates incentive for them) to click and be directed to a place in the thread where they can see it for themselves.  I was kind of annoyed that the tactic was switching to "ignore and bury", so thank you.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 13, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Showing an example of an analysis that I made (sans the actual phrasing I quoted)  doesn't demonstrate a false accusation.  If anything, it gives a link for people (and creates incentive for them) to click and be directed to a place in the thread where they can see it for themselves.  I was kind of annoyed that the tactic was switching to "ignore and bury", so thank you.



Accusing someone of things they didn't say is a false accusation. NIce logic. LMFAO.


----------



## tabzer (May 13, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> Accusing someone of things they didn't say is a false accusation. NIce logic. LMFAO.



Great.  I do agree and I didn't expect that.   Just one more step, though.  Point out the discrepancy.  If you could focus more on that instead of copy/pasting "LMAO" I think that would be great!  Showing where the difference exists is a vital part in demonstrating false attribution (or "accusation").

Otherwise you are falsely accusing me of making a false accusation.  Sublime, if that's the point.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 13, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Great.  I do agree and I didn't expect that.   Just one more step, though.  Point out the discrepancy.  If you could focus more on that instead of copy/pasting "LMAO" I think that would be great!  Showing where the difference exists is a vital part in demonstrating false attribution (or "accusation").
> 
> Otherwise you are falsely accusing me of making a false accusation.  Sublime, if that's the point.



I don't need to point anything out to you. That was already done for you by the person you made the false accusations against.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 13, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I said abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the killing of a fetus. There's an important distinction. The fetus dies because it cannot live outside the mother. If the fetus can survive outside the mother, it's called a birth. That's why fetal viability is so important, and it's why it comes up numerous times in the bill @Valwinz didn't read closely enough to see.
> 
> A woman has a right to bodily autonomy, so she should be able to end a pregnancy whenever she wants. If we could somehow move an embryo or fetus somewhere where it could survive after ending a pregnancy, then we wouldn't have any issues. That is, however, not an option with our medical technology.



The fetus dies when it's shredded to bits by the machine they use to suck it out of the mother with. Go load up Google Images, turn off the safe search and type in "aborted babies". I'm not sure what the hell you're thinking making claims that abortions don't end the life of the baby.

Edit: There's also this ->

https://www.whyprolife.com/abortion-methods-vacuum-aspiration-or-suction-abortion/



AleronIves said:


> Do you think women who get abortions and doctors who perform abortions should be put on trial for murder and go to prison if convicted, then?



Yes, that sounds fair.



			
				Dr_Faustus said:
			
		

> But sperm _is the harbor of life, the seed for what life comes from._ At what point does it redefine the difference between when its stored in your testicles and when it ends up in an egg does it consider defending it as an unborn life? There is no weight in this, again the female produces an egg for the sperm to fertilize, its not like these eggs are a life upon themselves. Its simply a means to protect and help its development until it is born as a baby. Its a form of human nature but the responsibility of original life falls on us not them, especially if we ever cross the threshold of technology where we could create artificial eggs and wombs for development without the need of a female needing to bare any responsibility for carrying it. Something that is far more likely in the scope of the near future, would those that would be born of this method be considered protectable or would the be hated by the same pro-life groups because its considered "unnatural"?
> 
> Simply said, the sperm is a foreign entity to the female body, an entity that holds life in its very essence for without it life cannot be brought into this world. A woman simply does not produce life, its an acceptance and understanding of what they will have to help produce life by accepting someone's sperm and agreeing to have a child. If this is not the case, or can't be the case for the woman, then they have every right to refuse this and refuse the responsibility especially given the amount of harm and difficulty it could be for them. To not give them the right to reject and refuse means no difference in mind to basically raping them and getting away with it, with them being forced to carry because they no longer have any right to reject, refuse and fight for their own right. You want that to be taken away from them and basically turn them into unwilling tools for procreation. That's just inhuman no matter how you slice it.



Sperm first needs to impregnate the egg before life can form. Before that it's natural for the sperm to be discarded in certain circumstances, such as masturbation or the eventual loss when a male ejaculates into a female.



			
				Dr_Faustus said:
			
		

> Also to go with that other conversation at the bottom there. Tell me what does a miscarriage constitute as?



A miscarriage is the _natural _death of a baby before it's born. It dies in the mothers womb.



			
				Dr_Faustus said:
			
		

> Also don't go throwing around shit like Satanic at shit you dislike, especially since they are far more respectable of a people than I could say for any mainline religions. Less I could very much say to you how typically Christian/Catholic of you to state such of your fellow man, woman and child. After all if you cannot respect the freedom God has given us to advance ourselves and make the choices that we are within our natural power to make happen and possible, you are rejecting his very nature of giving us free will and therefore are against God's will to substitute your own twisted mentality of right and wrong based squarely on the mental gymnastics of morality being used as a weapon rather than a personal guideline for yourself to be an example of being better for yourself and to inspire others to be good for themselves, not to push your shit onto others, even by force. That is the core problem with most modern religion mentality, you got it all wrong.



My relationship with God is none of you're damned business. It's between me and my maker.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 13, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Golden.
> 
> Seriously, I know PragerU has a LOVELY video about how the southern switch didn't happen, but... it did. I used to live in Tennessee, in a small town that literally had a black population of less than 30 folks and a store with a decorative placard talking about how even after being ordered not to, they refused to serve "colored folk" until the 80s. Care to guess the dominant political affiliation of the town by a huge margin?
> 
> ...


I honestly never knew that, thank you for teaching me about that.

To be honest, I was getting a little tired of the conservative hate at this point, already was having a pretty horrible day at that point, and when i saw that comment, I just jumped on it in anger trying to make their point seem stupid.

Honestly though, I think we need to start over with both parties anyway.


----------



## Lacius (May 13, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Honestly though, I think we need to start over with both parties anyway.


Just because the Republican Party is a shitty party doesn't mean both parties need to "start over."


----------



## KennyAtom (May 13, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Just because the Republican Party is a shitty party doesn't mean both parties need to "start over."


The democratic party is also shitty, just in their own way.

Source : was part of the party for 6 or 7 years before moving sides.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 13, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> The democratic party is also shitty, just in their own way.
> 
> Source : was part of the party for 6 or 7 years before moving sides.



Both parties suck. There's too many damned rules and ways you're supposed to think about things for me to be a part of either of them. I like to make up my own mind and that's what made me an Independent.


----------



## tabzer (May 14, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> I don't need to point anything out to you. That was already done for you by the person you made the false accusations against.


Nobody did anything of the sort.  No indication of discrepancy.  Just a denial and the changing of the topic.  Which, honestly, I'm okay with.  Name-calling to stick up for a friend was a nice gesture though.


----------



## tabzer (May 14, 2022)

Creamu said:


> That is what Max Weber predicited. Bureaucratic goverments become increasingly unmanuveurable and the pillars that hold the increasingly bureaucratic apparatus will break eventually. It will work for a while and then quickly collapse under the weight of an increasingly growing bureaucratic apparatus..
> 
> There are builders of civilisation and those who leach off of their fruits. Once the civilisation is saturated with unproductive parasitic entities it collapses. The builders of that civilisation then flee and build a new one and the cycle starts over. How this will work in this uprooted globally populated world is not clear.
> 
> ...


I don't know if I like it, but it's an interesting take.  I have an issue with the labelling of people as "parasitic entities" and "shocktroops" as being somewhat dehumanizing.  I would like to think that a "good education" can exist, where the knowledge (and experience) of how a prospering society may function is incentivizing enough for people to become motivated to contribute in building/fortifying life.  I would see these "parasitic entities" you speak of as being failed by their civilization--earned.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 14, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Nobody did anything of the sort.  No indication of discrepancy.  Just a denial and the changing of the topic.  Which, honestly, I'm okay with.  Name-calling to stick up for a friend was a nice gesture though.



I've already proven you wrong at your own request once. Then you move the posts, say it never happened, and make further false accusations.

And you want to talk about denial. I don't believe for a second that you're actually as dumb as you lead on. You're nothing but a troll and I don't think you even believe most of what you say. You just enjoy the drama of it all. Not sure what the deal with the right is, but why do you all need to pretend to be stupid? It's one of the weirdest tactics to defend yourselves that you could possibly use.


----------



## tabzer (May 14, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> I've already proven you wrong at your own request once. Then you move the posts, say it never happened, and make further false accusations.
> 
> And you want to talk about denial. I don't believe for a second that you're actually as incredibly fucking stupid as you lead on. You're nothing but a troll and I don't think you even actually believe most of what you say. You just enjoy the drama of it all.


You appear to be hurt.  Very imaginative though.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 14, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You appear to be hurt.  Very imaginative though.



It's even better after the edits I was making when you were replying. And hurt? Sure thing. Yeah. Oceans of tears over hear from you.  At least mine was imaginative. "You hurt bro?"... not so much. Keep trying. One day you might get it.


----------



## AdamCatalyst (May 14, 2022)

I've been following this for years now, armchair legal scholar. Here's my $0.02.

The leaked Supreme Court opinion is a legal one, and it is the correct legal one. There is nothing ideological about this. Roe v. Wade has always been an incorrect decision, bending the interpretation of the 9th Amendment beyond a reasonable interpretation of its intent. The decision with Planned Parenthood is the same. Both were always going to be vacated, it was only a question of when.

The debate over the legality and availability of abortion is absolute positively an ideological one. It is a problem that can only be solved through compromise, as it is a fundamental philosophical difference that is unlikely to ever disappear. The best we can do is seek a fair compromise. No absolute or extreme decisions will stand the test of time, they will merely encourage the pendulum to swinger harder the other way. This will be a forever war, until we resign to find a peaceful compromise, and protect it in proper legislation, something that Roe v. Wade was not.

What happens next? I have no idea, but I fear that there is little appetite for compromise. Using the 9th Amendment, one could argue that a woman could never be punished in any way for having an abortion, however, States could decide that other people who facilitate this are committing criminal actions. And other States may go so far as to allow abortion all the way up to, and after child delivery, an actual thing that has been proposed.

My solution? Admit that abortion is murder, period. Admit that forcing a woman carry a child to term against her will is cruel, unusual, and inhumane. Acknowledge the power imbalance in this relationship, in that the fetus cannot speak for itself, and it cannot live without the woman's consent. Recognize that this is a dilemma that is *impossible* to solve through rational science, and propose a symbolic compromise. The standard term for carrying a child to birth is 9 months. Allow *unconditional* abortion up until 4.5 month. Rights of the mother dominate for the first 4.5 month, rights of the unborn have precedence over the following 4.5 months. Allow all the obvious conditional (incest rape, danger to mother, etc.) abortions at the discretion of the medical professionals involved without legal limitation.


----------



## AdamCatalyst (May 14, 2022)

Creamu said:


> That is a really good point. The hermetic dialectic that is at play here seems to be designed to keep debate oscillating without resolving anything in the long run. In my observation it is an useful tool to activate different voter segments and have a everlasting struggle that results in nothing.
> 
> A more productive direction would be a pro motherhood and family discourse, that is centered on the idea that mothers and families play anexistential role in society and should be valued accordingly. This direction would take an implicit anti-abortion stand while constructing a fertile cultural context, that would be critical in preventing the current fall and the liquidation of civilisation.
> 
> ...


I'll add one more point to this interesting dialogue. No woman should *ever* have an abortion for financial reasons. That is a a complete system failure, and it happens all the time. Regardless of legislation, a just society would ensure that there were sufficient social supports so that women could make this decision solely on their moral prerogative, without consideration for the financial burdens. Those who oppose abortion must do more to support the financial security of mothers.


----------



## tabzer (May 14, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> It's even better after the edits I was making when you were replying. And hurt? Sure thing. Yeah. Oceans of tears over hear from you.  At least mine was imaginative. "You hurt bro?"... not so much. Keep trying. One day you might get it.




Cool trick, post editing. I was baited into believing that you were genuinely upset, but you were retroactively pretending*.* Props. Time travel is a good skill to have.

If you do have a calm mind, please point out how you proved me wrong.


----------



## osaka35 (May 14, 2022)

AdamCatalyst said:


> My solution? Admit that abortion is murder, period. Admit that forcing a woman carry a child to term against her will is cruel, unusual, and inhumane. Acknowledge the power imbalance in this relationship, in that the fetus cannot speak for itself, and it cannot live without the woman's consent. Recognize that this is a dilemma that is *impossible* to solve through rational science, and propose a symbolic compromise. The standard term for carrying a child to birth is 9 months. Allow *unconditional* abortion up until 4.5 month. Rights of the mother dominate for the first 4.5 month, rights of the unborn have precedence over the following 4.5 months. Allow all the obvious conditional (incest rape, danger to mother, etc.) abortions at the discretion of the medical professionals involved without legal limitation.


Basically, "the religious will never stop fighting their religious war against human rights. its best to find a compromise where we can at least establish some of the more basic human rights, even if the science has to be ignored to do."? it's a bit depressing, but hard to argue.


----------



## tabzer (May 14, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> Basically, "the religious will never stop fighting their religious war against human rights. its best to find a compromise where we can at least establish some of the more basic human rights, even if the science has to be ignored to do."? it's a bit depressing, but hard to argue.


The discrepancy here is that "the religious" probably wouldn't admit to forcing a pregnancy to term as cruel (it's a blessing), even if the politically minded could see the merit in such a solution.  There is a resolution where "church and state" can co-exist, and that's when the church is the state.

I'd argue that instead of approaching futility head on, that other societal issues can be addressed.  Issues that contribute to the demand for abortion, like poverty, education, mental health and other socially eroding elements.  Heading off the demand for abortion won't resolve the dilemma inherent in abortion as it's literally mind vs body.  I wouldn't wish anybody to be in that situation, where they'd feel the need to consider it.  The less that can occur, the better.

If there could be an agreement that less demand for abortion is better, I would see that as a socially progressive point of focus.


----------



## omgcat (May 14, 2022)

honestly this might be the wedge that finally divides america. i'm tired of my tax dollars being used to bail out failing red states, so we should agree to an amicable breakup of the union. they can have their religious craziness and failed economies.


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 14, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Cool trick, post editing. I was baited into believing that you were genuinely upset, but you were retroactively pretending*.* Props. Time travel is a good skill to have.
> 
> If you do have a calm mind, please point out how you proved me wrong.



So first you want me to point out some proof. Which I did. Now you're asking me for proof that I proved you wrong? That can easily be done, again, but it's been pointed out to you several times already. Why does it need to be done again? Then what? You'll just say something as stupid as "BUT BUT BUT!!!! Point out proof of the proof that you proved me wrong with proof of the proof that you proved me wrong with some proof of proving me wrong with proof!!!!" I'm not repeating things again, that have alrady been repeated. Not my fault those reading comprehension issues still plague you.


----------



## tabzer (May 14, 2022)

Stone_Wings said:


> So first you want me to point out some proof. Which I did. Now you're asking me for proof that I proved you wrong? That can easily be done, again, but it's been pointed out to you several times already. Why does it need to be done again? Then what? You'll just say something as stupid as "BUT BUT BUT!!!! Point out proof of the proof that you proved me wrong with proof of the proof that you proved me wrong with some proof of proving me wrong with proof!!!!" I'm not repeating things again, that have alrady been repeated. Not my fault those reading comprehension issues still plague you.



You never pointed out the discrepancy, which is required for proof of a false accusation, because there is none.

In your variety of responses to my request for the discrepancy, you went from saying things like,"look at this thing you said, it's a false accusation" (it wasn't), to saying "I don't have to, someone else did" (in which case, you didn't have to comment at all), then to "I already showed you." (no, you didn't).

You've given me nothing worthwhile.  Why should I be expected to give you more in return?


----------



## Creamu (May 14, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Creamu said:
> 
> 
> > That is what Max Weber predicited. Bureaucratic goverments become increasingly unmanuveurable and the pillars that hold the increasingly bureaucratic apparatus will break eventually. It will work for a while and then quickly collapse under the weight of an increasingly growing bureaucratic apparatus..
> ...


Oh, thank you.


tabzer said:


> I have an issue with the labelling of people as "parasitic entities" and "shocktroops" as being somewhat dehumanizing.


I can see your point. What I am getting at that you have people of different nature, some build and preserve civilisation other contribute to its downfall.


tabzer said:


> I would like to think that a "good education" can exist, where the knowledge (and experience) of how a prospering society may function is incentivizing enough for people to become motivated to contribute in building/fortifying life.


This I believed for a very long time. I have come to the following conclusion:
There are fish and birds and neither one of them are doing eachother a favor when instructing the other side to behave like themselves.


tabzer said:


> I would see these "parasitic entities" you speak of as being failed by their civilization--earned.


No, they are just different and thats okay. The question is, do you want civilisation? If so, you will have to collecitivise with people that build civilisation and make sure that people that don't build civilisation have their own places where they can do their thing.


----------



## Creamu (May 14, 2022)

AdamCatalyst said:


> Creamu said:
> 
> 
> > That is a really good point. The hermetic dialectic that is at play here seems to be designed to keep debate oscillating without resolving anything in the long run. In my observation it is an useful tool to activate different voter segments and have a everlasting struggle that results in nothing.
> ...


I'm flattered.


AdamCatalyst said:


> No woman should *ever* have an abortion for financial reasons.


Agreed. What an awful situation.


AdamCatalyst said:


> That is a a complete system failure, and it happens all the time.


Well, it may very well be not a failure at all but population control.


AdamCatalyst said:


> Regardless of legislation, a just society would ensure that there were sufficient social supports so that women could make this decision solely on their moral prerogative, without consideration for the financial burdens.


Yes, a society a culture that respects motherhood would do that.


AdamCatalyst said:


> Those who oppose abortion must do more to support the financial security of mothers.


Yes, the republicans are a smokescreen, theyre not intersted in cultivating respect for mothers.


----------



## tabzer (May 14, 2022)

Creamu said:


> There are fish and birds and neither one of them are doing eachother a favor when instructing the other side to behave like themselves.


In the case of successful education, it wouldn’t confuse fish with birds?  Obviously, with the current trend, it seems to be going the opposite direction.  Good education should be devoid of proselytization as much as possible, imo.



Creamu said:


> No, they are just different and thats okay. The question is, do you want civilisation? If so, you will have to collecitivise with people that build civilisation and make sure that people that don't build civilisation have their own places where they can do their thing.



I’m having trouble following.  If they have their own place, doing their own thing, what makes them parasitic?


----------



## Dakitten (May 14, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm not an end justifies the means type of guy.  I don't need to pretend something is wrong just because I'm afraid of dealing with a more complicated issue.  The fact is that naphesh (soul) does mean living creatures (or creatures that breathe) and does complicate the claim of embryos as being souls.  But it doesn't change the fact that people would have to choose to forfeit the benefit of the doubt when terminating a life.
> 
> I get that you are probably angry most of the time, and being irrational and spiteful is your way of dealing with it, but have you considered that it is a medical condition?  Maybe it's self-induced?  Are you on birth control?  I don't know for sure, but I heard a curious claim that by being on birth control, your body emulates a feeling akin to constant miscarriage, and is worse than a hypothetical 24/7 menstruation cycle.  Can you confirm?  Try a diary.


This is misogynistic as hell, and you accuse me of being spiteful? Also your definition of soul is pretty unique, and your "complication" of being able to use it to define fetuses as BEING souls (gods that is a weird string of words) still only satisfies your own esoteric reasoning. A machine can artificially simulate breath with a real heart attached to it, in order to keep it fresh for transplant, but the machine doesn't have a soul at that point does it? The heart has living cells, ready to be used to potentially save somebody. If you remove it from its host machine, does this constitute murder for you when the heart clearly dies? Honestly, I don't care about your actual answer, I just think your argument about a factual soul is amusing and obviously obfuscating the bigger issue that your belief makes you think you have the right to determine what the other gender is allowed to do with their own bodies.


JonhathonBaxster said:


> The fetus dies when it's shredded to bits by the machine they use to suck it out of the mother with. Go load up Google Images, turn off the safe search and type in "aborted babies". I'm not sure what the hell you're thinking making claims that abortions don't end the life of the baby.
> 
> A miscarriage is the _natural _death of a baby before it's born. It dies in the mothers womb.
> 
> My relationship with God is none of you're damned business. It's between me and my maker.


I'm really starting to think all your knowledge of abortions comes from South Park TSOT. There are actually quite a few ways to have an abortion, and if you're so far along that the baby is self sustaining, the simplest solution is to induce labor and NOT an abortion. Most abortions end in something so small and unrecognizable that it is hard to affiliate with a baby, but hey, go ahead and keep making decisions for other people simply because you don't know much on the topic but think it sounds bad...

Wait, no, your faith in a god has no damned business in policy decisions. It may surprise you to know that in my faith, your god is really damned evil and would absolutely be tried as a war criminal several times over in a court of man's law, but even if he was a flower child out to cure cancer, he'd still be imaginary until proven otherwise, and thus have no place in social policy.


KennyAtom said:


> The democratic party is also shitty, just in their own way.
> 
> Source : was part of the party for 6 or 7 years before moving sides.


This isn't untrue, but one shouldn't ignore the most obvious danger just because something else has a problem. Also off the topic, I was actually a part of the GOP for a few years in my early life, before I got a good grasp of economics. It is a good thing to shift about and get different perspectives on things!


AdamCatalyst said:


> I've been following this for years now, armchair legal scholar. Here's my $0.02.
> 
> The leaked Supreme Court opinion is a legal one, and it is the correct legal one. There is nothing ideological about this. Roe v. Wade has always been an incorrect decision, bending the interpretation of the 9th Amendment beyond a reasonable interpretation of its intent. The decision with Planned Parenthood is the same. Both were always going to be vacated, it was only a question of when.
> 
> ...


Oy, where to begin with this one...

First, the ideology of those against abortion rights is rooted in theology. Religion is not universally shared and interpretations do not all lend to the idea that abortions are bad for any faith, also it is not rooted in any sort of facts about the nature of the world. Any compromise would legitimize a state religion and that would be a pretty miserable state of affairs. Roe v Wade may not have had the strongest legal foundation, but the Supreme Court did honor it and consistently had elected officials bring it up before adding members to the bench, only to have many members betray the trust of the representatives of the people. It might have been struck down on a legal premise, but it was removed over a theological concept against the will of the populous it serves.

Admitting that abortion is murder is just wrong on its face. Unless menstruation is accidental manslaughter like Baxter's insane rant about soul vessels and "natural death", it isn't murder, it is a medical procedure done for a myriad of reasons on something with the potential for life. If you're having an issue about when something is viable or alive or whatever, I encourage you to talk with somebody who has had an abortion or even a miscarriage. It is an emotional, painful thing, something nobody would wish on themselves a second time let alone anybody else, and accusing people of being murderers on top of it is just disgusting.

Topping off, like I've said before, nobody has a 5 month abortion just because they got a wild hair up their butt one day. I don't know what kinds of scenarios guys think women get abortions for, but it just doesn't work like that. There is no room for compromise here, women are masters of their own bodies and should be able to choose if something should or shouldn't be inside of them. IF there is some lady out there who wants to endure all the pain and agony of going to 5 months routinely just so they can imagine they're a mass murderer, that person needs mental help immediately, not legal repercussions. Everyone else has reasons, and men have to learn to respect that. End of story.


osaka35 said:


> Basically, "the religious will never stop fighting their religious war against human rights. its best to find a compromise where we can at least establish some of the more basic human rights, even if the science has to be ignored to do."? it's a bit depressing, but hard to argue.


Oh, if this thread has proven anything, it is EASY to argue. Difficult to convince others on, maybe, but at least in America, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, so the argument is that religion shouldn't alter policy.


tabzer said:


> The discrepancy here is that "the religious" probably wouldn't admit to forcing a pregnancy to term as cruel (it's a blessing), even if the politically minded could see the merit in such a solution.  There is a resolution where "church and state" can co-exist, and that's when the church is the state.
> 
> I'd argue that instead of approaching futility head on, that other societal issues can be addressed.  Issues that contribute to the demand for abortion, like poverty, education, mental health and other socially eroding elements.  Heading off the demand for abortion won't resolve the dilemma inherent in abortion as it's literally mind vs body.  I wouldn't wish anybody to be in that situation, where they'd feel the need to consider it.  The less that can occur, the better.
> 
> If there could be an agreement that less demand for abortion is better, I would see that as a socially progressive point of focus.


And here we come back to my favorite. I'll tell you what, you come up with a way to have a birth with your own body in a society where all your needs for a happy and healthy life for you and your child are guaranteed by the government, and I will humor this argument endlessly. Until then, I'm going to focus on the fact that you say it is a blessing with no earthly idea of what it can do to your body and mind and pocketbook and personal goals, and that you actually said the quiet part out loud and mentioned the church becoming the state. Good luck with that in Japan.


----------



## Creamu (May 14, 2022)

tabzer said:


> In the case of successful education, it wouldn’t confuse fish with birds?  Obviously, with the current trend, it seems to be going the opposite direction.  Good education should be devoid of proselytization as much as possible, imo.


proselytize
1. To attempt to convert someone to one's own religious faith.
2. To attempt to persuade someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

What I am getting at is, that it is not a matter of ideology or religion, but a matter of different beings. Aboriginal Australians can get the best education of an eskimo and yet they will surely perish in the biosphere of an eskimo.


tabzer said:


> I’m having trouble following.  If they have their own place, doing their own thing, what makes them parasitic?


In that case nothing. I hope this will soon happen to avoid unessecary suffering.


----------



## AleronIves (May 14, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Yes, that sounds fair.


Thanks for replying and for at least being logically consistent.


----------



## Creamu (May 14, 2022)

omgcat said:


> honestly this might be the wedge that finally divides america. i'm tired of my tax dollars being used to bail out failing red states, so we should agree to an amicable breakup of the union. they can have their religious craziness and failed economies.


Okay, lets do it!


----------



## Stone_Wings (May 14, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I’m having trouble following.



Gee. Imagine that. LMFAO!!!


----------



## tabzer (May 15, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> This is misogynistic as hell, and you accuse me of being spiteful?



You are the one that said that you are a woman, took this subject personally, and are moody about what I say; as if they give merit to whatever substance you are contributing.  Contextually I attest that I am, maybe, as misogynistic as you.   Maybe I understand women better than you.



Dakitten said:


> Also your definition of soul is pretty unique, and your "complication" of being able to use it to define fetuses as BEING souls (gods that is a weird string of words) still only satisfies your own esoteric reasoning.



If a colloquialism defies a fact, and I see someone being condescending about the issue, I have no problem throwing that wrench.  The thing is alive, and "life is sacred".  Nobody is going to break through that by a claim as immaterial as "there is no soul".



Dakitten said:


> I just think your argument about a factual soul is amusing and obviously obfuscating the bigger issue that your belief makes you think you have the right to determine what the other gender is allowed to do with their own bodies.



That's illogical and not my position.  Even if it were women telling other women what to do, I don't think that's what would make it okay.



Dakitten said:


> And here we come back to my favorite. I'll tell you what, you come up with a way to have a birth with your own body in a society where all your needs for a happy and healthy life for you and your child are guaranteed by the government, and I will humor this argument endlessly. Until then, I'm going to focus on the fact that you say it is a blessing with no earthly idea of what it can do to your body and mind and pocketbook and personal goals, and that you actually said the quiet part out loud and mentioned the church becoming the state. Good luck with that in Japan.



I'm more interested in how we behave as a society than I am interested in government guarantees.

I'm not saying that the church should be the state or that pregnancy is a blessing.  That is the ideology that exists that prevents "the agreeable compromise" proposed.  You seem to agree with my point that less need for abortion is a good thing.  If you want something amicable, I think it is necessary to have the goal to find where agreement already exists.  You can't force people to agree with you because you think you are the reasonable one--that's unreasonable, lol.  You want people to respect your body but you want to disparage people's minds?



Creamu said:


> proselytize
> 1. To attempt to convert someone to one's own religious faith.
> 2. To attempt to persuade someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.
> 
> What I am getting at is, that it is not a matter of ideology or religion, but a matter of different beings. Aboriginal Australians can get the best education of an eskimo and yet they will surely perish in the biosphere of an eskimo.



Right, sorry if that was difficult to understand.  I was suggesting that successful/good education would respect the differences that you expressed and consider context.  I don't really consider that as big of an issue as education being a form of indoctrination, in regard to the current state.



Stone_Wings said:


> Gee. Imagine that. LMFAO!!!


Perhaps you did not read his response acknowledging the reason for that.  Pay attention.  Also, it's in your interest to encourage such behavior if you'd want people to admit such things to you.  It would also help if you said something thought provoking.


----------



## Dakitten (May 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You are the one that said that you are a woman, took this subject personally, and are moody about what I say; as if they give merit to whatever substance you are contributing.  Contextually I attest that I am, maybe, as misogynistic as you.   Maybe I understand women better than you.


This is fairly rich. I've never actually stated my gender here, I just stated that this topic is personal and makes me irate. If that is all you're going for, congratulations, you're extremely depressing to read without a doubt. But no, you went several steps further, displaying a lack of empathy and understanding for women on birth control and/or who have experienced the fairly serious topics here first hand. I know you're trying to be an edgy debate lord, but this just comes off as degrading and disgusting. I haven't taken ANY digs at anyone based on gender, so I'm going to say that contextually, definitely, you're full of yourself and a troll and wrong. Trifecta.


tabzer said:


> If a colloquialism defies a fact, and I see someone being condescending about the issue, I have no problem throwing that wrench.  The thing is alive, and "life is sacred".  Nobody is going to break through that by a claim as immaterial as "there is no soul".


Nobody is going to take "there is a soul" just based on your word. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and while I find the life and breath concept funny, it doesn't hold water. I've also read enough of the works of Plato to know that misogyny has existed a long damn time and I can see where you would find his and similar works convenient and interesting, it still breaks down to beliefs from a time far removed from today and even if you still cling to it personally it holds no grounds in reality.


tabzer said:


> That's illogical and not my position.  Even if it were women telling other women what to do, I don't think that's what would make it okay.


It would hold more water if women were telling other women what to do in this scenario, as they could have a direct knowledge of everything an abortion entails. Men can't, but are leading the charge anyways. Considering the long history of oppressive behavior against women in the world, you can't pretend you don't see how this would be disturbing... unless you maybe believe in a religion absolving such behavior, anyways.


tabzer said:


> I'm more interested in how we behave as a society than I am interested in government guarantees.
> 
> I'm not saying that the church should be the state or that pregnancy is a blessing.  That is the ideology that exists that prevents "the agreeable compromise" proposed.  You seem to agree with my point that less need for abortion is a good thing.  If you want something amicable, I think it is necessary to have the goal to find where agreement already exists.  You can't force people to agree with you because you think you are the reasonable one--that's unreasonable, lol.  You want people to respect your body but you want to disparage people's minds?


You are of course correct in saying there should be a drive to require fewer abortions, nobody is debating that and NOBODY but the mentally ill are giddy at the thought of getting an abortion. It would be nice for a society to exist that ensures that every mother has the ability to have their child with the best possible care, support, and resources before and after birth, but the only apparatus that can ensure that happens is a governing body over said resources. If you're interested in how we behave as a society but not how we ensure rights and privileges, you're only invested in a fraction of the big picture... which explains a lot.

Lastly, I don't care if you agree with me. You've repeatedly disrespected me and several others, droned on and on about the most irrelevant things and obfuscated actual points with weird fixations on analogies and unique descriptors of esoteric terms, and just displayed an ugly attitude towards everyone who gives you the smallest bit of attention. You don't need to agree with me, and I'm not working to convince you. I'm aiming at anybody else who comes into this thread with some confusion and are curious to what sensible viewpoints there are on the topic, and you just happen to be a wonderful tool for displaying how disingenuous and callous the other side is. To that end, thank you for not failing to disappoint! 



> *Stone_Wings:*
> It's even better after the edits I was making when you were replying. And hurt? Sure thing. Yeah. Oceans of tears over hear from you.  At least mine was imaginative. "You hurt bro?"... not so much. Keep trying. One day you might get it.


This sort of thing, however, is not helping the discourse here. Counter-trolling is cute for a minute, but at this point you're kinda dancing to the same tune of "look how annoying I can be too". Please be the bigger person and stop now, comrade.


----------



## Creamu (May 15, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> It would be nice for a society to exist that ensures that every mother has the ability to have their child with the best possible care, support, and resources before and after birth, but the only apparatus that can ensure that happens is a governing body over said resources.


Yes, hopefully people will rise to power to make this a reality


----------



## Foxi4 (May 15, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> Basically, "the religious will never stop fighting their religious war against human rights. its best to find a compromise where we can at least establish some of the more basic human rights, even if the science has to be ignored to do."? it's a bit depressing, but hard to argue.


I don’t see any issue with his reasoning. I’ve always considered abortion to be murder of convenience. It’s very clear to me that a fetus is a human life - it’s based on a unique combination of genes that is human, and it is alive, just at a very early stage of development. That’s all there is to it, I never saw a need to muddy the waters any further. The actual question is whether we care about that life enough to keep it alive by any means necessary or are we willing to make concessions in circumstances that warrant it.

In general, we agree that human life deserves some reverence from other humans, but on the flip side, we also agree, if reluctantly, that ending life is sometimes prudent. We make specific provisions to enable doing just that in certain situations, although we disagree on which ones are applicable. For example, I am perfectly okay with the death penalty being issued to exceptionally cruel criminals who cannot be reformed - housing them for life is a waste of food and cells otherwise, they’re not getting out either way, and prisons are overcrowded as it is. If anything, forcing them to stay in confinement against their will for the rest of their life seems more cruel than the mercy of death. The same can be said about euthanasia - patients in agony should be able to go out on their own terms, they deserve peace if that is what they desire, and it is not up to me to decide whether they should live or die since it’s their life, not mine. Why would I use a different measuring stick here? A life is a life. I might feel uncomfortable with the thought of ending a life, but I can understand the thought process. All other arguments on both sides are red herrings, in my opinion. Agreeing that abortion is what it is would be the first step to finding a middle ground, rather than pretending that it’s okay because “it’s just a clump of cells” or it’s not okay because “an old book says so”. We’re all clumps of cells, and I don’t expect people to live according to the same moral standards I follow, even if I advocate for them.

Legally speaking, Roe v. Wade is a bad decision - it establishes the existence of a non-existent right in order to enshrine something that should be handled by the legislature, but wasn’t because finding a mutually agreeable consensus is difficult when the issue is polarising. It was always a prime example of judicial activism and legislating from the bench. The Supreme Court was not established to legislate, and from that perspective it should be overturned. The court has been usurped to invent legislation that would otherwise sink in Congress without lengthy deliberation and plenty of concessions from both sides. In other words, it interferes in the democratic process by replacing elected representatives voting on issues with a panel of wisemen making the decision for us, often out of whole cloth. It’s egregious, whether you approve of the final outcome or not.


----------



## Creamu (May 15, 2022)

HereJustForTranslations said:


> Look at any major liberal city and you'll see mostly people of particular visuals commiting crimes in broad daylight with police not being able to do anything.


Are they wearing nightgoggles? In broad daylight???


----------



## Creamu (May 15, 2022)

HereJustForTranslations said:


> Your jokes are as dumb as your disturbing avatar and signature. You do realize you're the embodiment of a troll in a dungeon?


Okay. Are you talking about people of color?

I have EMF sensitivity and I do not appreachiate your comment.


----------



## tabzer (May 15, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> This is fairly rich. I've never actually stated my gender here, I just stated that this topic is personal and makes me irate. If that is all you're going for, congratulations, you're extremely depressing to read without a doubt. But no, you went several steps further, displaying a lack of empathy and understanding for women on birth control and/or who have experienced the fairly serious topics here first hand. I know you're trying to be an edgy debate lord, but this just comes off as degrading and disgusting. I haven't taken ANY digs at anyone based on gender, so I'm going to say that contextually, definitely, you're full of yourself and a troll and wrong. Trifecta.



You've talked about your pregnancies and posed yourself as some sort of authority on the subject.  To a degree you are right.  But at the same time, you aren't every woman.  I'm not "taking digs" at you based on gender.  I'm responding to a very personalized way of how you project yourself.  You aren't my queen bee, so pardon me for not giving you the "empathy" you act entitled to.



Dakitten said:


> Nobody is going to take "there is a soul" just based on your word. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and while I find the life and breath concept funny, it doesn't hold water.



I made a literal reference to what the transliterated word is, and provided the definition.  Both are a matter of
public record.  You are free to check yourself.



Dakitten said:


> I've also read enough of the works of Plato to know that misogyny has existed a long damn time and I can see where you would find his and similar works convenient and interesting, it still breaks down to beliefs from a time far removed from today and even if you still cling to it personally it holds no grounds in reality.



Are you projecting or are you recommending a reading list?  Does poetry or philosophical musings cancel out the existence of the subject matter (or source material)?



Dakitten said:


> It would hold more water if women were telling other women what to do in this scenario, as they could have a direct knowledge of everything an abortion entails.



So as long as someone has direct knowledge about abortion, they are in a "better" position to deny a woman to their "rights for an abortion"?  Does it have to be a woman too?  Interesting how this works.



Dakitten said:


> You are of course correct



Thanks, I know.



Dakitten said:


> If you're interested in how we behave as a society but not how we ensure rights and privileges, you're only invested in a fraction of the big picture... which explains a lot.



I do acknowledge that the government is disproportionately a bigger part of the picture, which is probably why we should be more interested in how we behave as a society.  "People first."  However, what you are responding to was that I was *more *interested in how we behave as a society than government *guarantees*.  Does your government's track record of keeping its guarantees make you more confident in them?  Are they more important or "real" than your actual experience?



Dakitten said:


> Lastly, I don't care if you agree with me. You've repeatedly disrespected me and several others, droned on and on about the most irrelevant things and obfuscated actual points with weird fixations on analogies and unique descriptors of esoteric terms, and just displayed an ugly attitude towards everyone who gives you the smallest bit of attention. You don't need to agree with me, and I'm not working to convince you. I'm aiming at anybody else who comes into this thread with some confusion and are curious to what sensible viewpoints there are on the topic, and you just happen to be a wonderful tool for displaying how disingenuous and callous the other side is. To that end, thank you for not failing to disappoint!



Nice cope.  I'm no more the "other side" than you are.  Maybe you are hurting your own interest.  We are all here for our own interests, and sometimes the points you want to focus on are kind of irrelevant to the points I want to make.  If you think you are better than me, just say it out loud.  I think some arguments here are plain shit and disrespectful.  Some analogies are crafted to bypass the discomfort of being direct about that.  I will always try my best to give you the respect you demonstrate.  It would be offensive if I gave you something different, no?



Dakitten said:


> This sort of thing, however, is not helping the discourse here. Counter-trolling is cute for a minute, but at this point you're kinda dancing to the same tune of "look how annoying I can be too". Please be the bigger person and stop now, comrade.



Thanks for having my back, comrade.


----------



## osaka35 (May 15, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t see any issue with his reasoning. I’ve always considered abortion to be murder of convenience. It’s very clear to me that a fetus is a human life - it’s based on a unique combination of genes that is human, and it is alive, just at a very early stage of development. That’s all there is to it, I never saw a need to muddy the waters any further. The actual question is whether we care about that life enough to keep it alive by any means necessary or are we willing to make concessions in circumstances that warrant it


that's more of a personal opinion and not based on a deeper understanding of genetics and how the whole thing works. which is fine, but you shouldn't just dismiss those who dig deeper because it's "inconvenient" for you to do so.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 15, 2022)

I think the liberals in this thread should contact Britney Spears and tell her that the *baby *she just lost wasn't actually a baby.

"It is with our deepest sadness we have to announce that we have lost our miracle *baby *early in the pregnancy,” the couple shared in their statement. “This is a devastating time for any parent. Perhaps we should have waiting to announce until we were further along, however, we were overly excited to share the good news. Our love for each other is our strength. We will continue trying to expand our beautiful family. We are grateful for all of your support. We kindly ask for privacy during this difficult moment."

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/britney-spears-says-she-had-220000984.html


----------



## tabzer (May 15, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> that's more of a personal opinion and not based on a deeper understanding of genetics and how the whole thing works. which is fine, but you shouldn't just dismiss those who dig deeper because it's "inconvenient" for you to do so.


Can you expound on what a deeper understanding of genetics reveals?  You are hinting at something but not coming out with it.  Are you trying to be coy?


----------



## tabzer (May 15, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I think the liberals in this thread should contact Britney Spears and tell her that the *baby *she just lost wasn't actually a baby.


Read the room dude.  Nobody want's to do that even if it was an abortion.

People say a lot of crazy shit, and a lot of it is because "the end justifies the means".

When people like @osaka35 can't feel safe enough to say what she is actually thinking, we know we are in a crisis.


----------



## Dakitten (May 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You've talked about your pregnancies and posed yourself as some sort of authority on the subject.  To a degree you are right.  But at the same time, you aren't every woman.  I'm not "taking digs" at you based on gender.  I'm responding to a very personalized way of how you project yourself.  You aren't my queen bee, so pardon me for not giving you the "empathy" you act entitled to.





tabzer said:


> I get that you are probably angry most of the time, and being irrational and spiteful is your way of dealing with it, but have you considered that it is a medical condition?  Maybe it's self-induced?  Are you on birth control?  I don't know for sure, but I heard a curious claim that by being on birth control, your body emulates a feeling akin to constant miscarriage, and is worse than a hypothetical 24/7 menstruation cycle.  Can you confirm?  Try a diary.


You're absolutely right. These remarks have nothing to do with my gender. How could I have gotten confused. And insinuating that I'm in constant misery and rage due to a mental disorder OR gender specific medication? Darn, I really fudged this one up. /sarcasm

This is why you're a troll and a jerk, comrade. You're trying to play nice after the fact, but it speaks volumes to the quality of your character. Also, everyone deserves empathy, you'll never understand anyone else without it. Nobody has a right to it, I can't demand you try to consider the feelings and mindset of those you disagree with, and that is again why I'm not arguing for your sake. Sympathy on the other hand is something that is quite up to circumstance and individuals, like how if you were to post about going to a pro choice rally to protest got you punched in the face you might not find a lot of sympathy.

Lastly I'm totally your queen bee, you respond to me with a lightning quickness and with gusto. Don't be ashamed. 


tabzer said:


> I made a literal reference to what the transliterated word is, and provided the definition.  Both are a matter of
> public record.  You are free to check yourself.


I don't know why you make it sound like a big deal. I saw your definition and justification, and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion here. Who cares how the word got its start? Beliefs on breath are still just as esoteric.


tabzer said:


> Are you projecting or are you recommending a reading list?  Does poetry or philosophical musings cancel out the existence of the subject matter (or source material)?


Plato is the oldest and most famous proponent of breath and life concepts I can think of. Might be wrong assuming your source, but it is mysticism held aloft as science and philosophy in its time much the same as your proposal of your terms today.


tabzer said:


> So as long as someone has direct knowledge about abortion, they are in a "better" position to deny a woman to their "rights for an abortion"?  Does it have to be a woman too?  Interesting how this works.


It does help to have a better understand of something to experience it yourself. Any experience you can have on a topic makes you more capable to understand it and make decisions about it, that is pretty common sense. Having more women being pro-forced conceptions would add more credibility to the issue to be sure!

Also before you even start, yes I know there is a woman supreme court justice who is pro repeal of Roe. She also is the most unqualified member of the bench and deserves no sympathy for the many more women protesting in front of her house. I empathize with her position, though. Growing up under bible thumpers and being married to one is rough, and it takes a strength of character not everyone has to buck the trends surrounding one's life. She deserves the protests, though. See how that works?


tabzer said:


> Thanks, I know.


Doesn't take much to wag your tail, does it?


tabzer said:


> I do acknowledge that the government is disproportionately a bigger part of the picture, which is probably why we should be more interested in how we behave as a society.  "People first."  However, what you are responding to was that I was *more *interested in how we behave as a society than government *guarantees*.  Does your government's track record of keeping its guarantees make you more confident in them?  Are they more important or "real" than your actual experience?


Um... you ever endure a hardship? Governments usually have programs in place to help with homelessness, joblessness, and victims of many kinds of abuse. Hell yes it makes me more confident in a government when they actively address issues and take record of how often things happen and how well their responses mend the issues! Why wouldn't it? As someone who has worked in and around government a fair bit, helping those in need and providing them with positive experiences is kinda what gives me drive. People needing help is real, governments providing aid is real, government not providing enough presently is real but that is where policy can come in... like helping women get abortions when it might permanently impact their lives in ways they can't handle even if it isn't federally protected and some states ban it! Bam, full circle!


tabzer said:


> Nice cope.  I'm no more the "other side" than you are.  Maybe you are hurting your own interest.  We are all here for our own interests, and sometimes the points you want to focus on are kind of irrelevant to the points I want to make.  If you think you are better than me, just say it out loud.  I think some arguments here are plain shit and disrespectful.  Some analogies are crafted to bypass the discomfort of being direct about that.  I will always try my best to give you the respect you demonstrate.  It would be offensive if I gave you something different, no?


See my first part of this reply. You're obviously insincere as hell and needlessly disrespectful/offensive. You're absolutely the other side so long as you continue to troll here and hand wave the anger and justification for female bodily care being without federal protection. I don't believe I'm some kind of arbiter of perfect facts and logic, and I've never proclaimed myself your superior, but if you're feeling insecure I do encourage you to take some time off the thread and to reevaluate some of your choices. Never too late to get introspective, comrade!


tabzer said:


> Thanks for having my back, comrade.


You're welcome insofar as I can acknowledge when someone on the left is getting out of hand, but you're still exacerbating the problem and instigating more posts of the same caliber by not understanding why Stone was so irate... or more likely, understanding it and getting some level of perverse joy out of his anger. Again, you do yourself no favors by taking the role of Edgemaster Trollington on one hand while trying to pretend to be seriously debating shortly afterwards.


----------



## osaka35 (May 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Can you expound on what a deeper understanding of genetics reveals?  You are hinting at something but not coming out with it.  Are you trying to be coy?


Oh, sorry, I just meant the thing I'd said earlier. Without giving an actual course on the details, i'll simplify it so folks with no experience in genetics aren't left out: an embryo is a blueprint for a human, not an actual human itself. 

While the host body is giving the raw materials needed to convert the blueprints into an actual human, it's important to note the embryo can't really be distinguished between other life forms embryos at the same stage, especially those closer to us on the evolutionary chain. the "human" characteristics come much later, with the most important part, the brain, only starting to develop around the third trimester. Using the same analogy, the third trimester is when they start building the actual building, where the first two trimesters were about putting in the foundation and wiring, the things every building will have and use.


----------



## Xzi (May 15, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I think the liberals in this thread should contact Britney Spears and tell her that the *baby *she just lost wasn't actually a baby.
> 
> "It is with our deepest sadness we have to announce that we have lost our miracle *baby *early in the pregnancy,” the couple shared in their statement. “This is a devastating time for any parent. Perhaps we should have waiting to announce until we were further along, however, we were overly excited to share the good news. Our love for each other is our strength. We will continue trying to expand our beautiful family. We are grateful for all of your support. We kindly ask for privacy during this difficult moment."
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/britney-spears-says-she-had-220000984.html


You realize red states have tried to prosecute women who had miscarriages, right?  And you're trying to appeal to compassion from the "pro-life" side?  Lol.


----------



## tabzer (May 15, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> Oh, sorry, I just meant the thing I'd said earlier. Without giving an actual course on the details, i'll simplify it so folks with no experience in genetics aren't left out: an embryo is a blueprint for a human, not an actual human itself.
> 
> While the host body is giving the raw materials needed to convert the blueprints into an actual human, it's important to note the embryo can't really be distinguished between other life forms embryos at the same stage, especially those closer to us on the evolutionary chain. the "human" characteristics come much later, with the most important part, the brain, only starting to develop around the third trimester. Using the same analogy, the third trimester is when they start building the actual building, where the first two trimesters were about putting in the foundation and wiring, the things every building will have and use.



I don't really see that as being scientifically accurate.  The embryo has it's own DNA and its genetics are unique to its development.  Visually, the differences don't come out until much later.  As you said, it's blueprint.  However, at the embryonic stage, it has already been established.  I mean, I get that it looks like a fish, but I don't think that suggests that it could be a fish.


----------



## Dakitten (May 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> You realize red states have tried to prosecute women who had miscarriages, right?  And you're trying to appeal to compassion from the "pro-life" side?  Lol.


I suppose wildly aggressive statements lead to wildly aggressive responses. We're all folks of the same make and model, and I believe the best way to defeat right-wing agendas is for the left to actively educate and better the lives of their constituents as much as possible rather than mark them for abandonment. Ignorance and hate are core parts of humanity that have to be addressed and mitigated over the course of a life, and positive guidance will lead to a more enlightened people that don't need to push the misfortune of others as reason to perpetuate suffering. 

Brittany's whole life has been a public spectacle of pain and suffering, and we do her a disservice in continuing to reinforce her self destructive tendencies when giving into her attention seeking. In short, I believe a wise man once stated...


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Read the room dude.  Nobody want's to do that even if it was an abortion.
> 
> People say a lot of crazy shit, and a lot of it is because "the end justifies the means".
> 
> When people like @osaka35 can't feel safe enough to say what she is actually thinking, we know we are in a crisis.



I was making a point. I know no one in their right mind would actually contact her. However, she clearly states that she lost her "baby" and according to Liberals it wasn't a baby. She must be confused about that, eh?


----------



## osaka35 (May 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I don't really see that as being scientifically accurate.  The embryo has it's own DNA and its genetics are unique to its development.  Visually, the differences don't come out until much later.  As you said, it's blueprint.  However, at the embryonic stage, it has already been established.  I mean, I get that it looks like a fish, but I don't think that suggests that it could be a fish.


nah, genetics are altered throughout the process. Depending on the resources and environment given by the host, and some random chance, some genes are switch on or off, are altered in some ways, etc. and yes, the final results usually follow the blueprints, but blueprints are altered as construction continues.

You also have fully formed stem cells just chilling in your neck. It is perfectly plausible in the future to force these cells to develop and become a new person. Does this mean you have several human lives just chilling in your neck?



JonhathonBaxster said:


> I was making a point. I know no one in their right mind would actually contact her. However, she clearly states that she lost her "baby" and according to Liberals it wasn't a baby. She must be confused about that, eh?


She wanted a child. a baby. She lost it. Pedantics won't make this a winning argument; it's tragic because it's tragic to her. Some women abort and it's no big deal. Some women abort and it's a huge deal.  It is a personal choice, and it should stay that way. When women aren't given a choice, it's a tragedy.


----------



## tabzer (May 15, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> nah, genetics are altered throughout the process. Depending on the resources and environment given by the host, and some random chance, some genes are switch on or off, are altered in some ways, etc. and yes, the final results usually follow the blueprints, but blueprints are altered as construction continues.
> 
> You also have fully formed stem cells just chilling in your neck. It is perfectly plausible in the future to force these cells to develop and become a new person. Does this mean you have several human lives just chilling in your neck?



I suppose it is possible I have a whole civilization that I need to protect.


----------



## tabzer (May 15, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> You're absolutely right. These remarks have nothing to do with my gender. How could I have gotten confused. And insinuating that I'm in constant misery and rage due to a mental disorder OR gender specific medication? Darn, I really fudged this one up. /sarcasm
> 
> This is why you're a troll and a jerk, comrade. You're trying to play nice after the fact, but it speaks volumes to the quality of your character. Also, everyone deserves empathy, you'll never understand anyone else without it. Nobody has a right to it, I can't demand you try to consider the feelings and mindset of those you disagree with, and that is again why I'm not arguing for your sake. Sympathy on the other hand is something that is quite up to circumstance and individuals, like how if you were to post about going to a pro choice rally to protest got you punched in the face you might not find a lot of sympathy.
> 
> Lastly I'm totally your queen bee, you respond to me with a lightning quickness and with gusto. Don't be ashamed.



Don't get me wrong.  Not everything I say is "based on your gender".  Your gender is definitely considered as you made it a point.  You receive empathy every time I talk to you.  It's just not the quality you are seeking.  Sorry?



Dakitten said:


> I don't know why you make it sound like a big deal. I saw your definition and justification, and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion here. Who cares how the word got its start? Beliefs on breath are still just as esoteric.



If it's not a big deal, you would have taken it for what it's worth.  I already told you why I introduced the concept, but if you feel that being condescending and dismissive is a greater endeavor, then good for you I guess.



Dakitten said:


> Plato is the oldest and most famous proponent of breath and life concepts I can think of. Might be wrong assuming your source, but it is mysticism held aloft as science and philosophy in its time much the same as your proposal of your terms today.



Plato didn't invent the concept of the soul as he didn't invent the concept of stars and planets.  If he talked about them, would you deny the existence of them?  I'm trying hard, but you are too stubborn.



Dakitten said:


> It does help to have a better understand of something to experience it yourself. Any experience you can have on a topic makes you more capable to understand it and make decisions about it, that is pretty common sense. Having more women being pro-forced conceptions would add more credibility to the issue to be sure!
> 
> Also before you even start, yes I know there is a woman supreme court justice who is pro repeal of Roe. She also is the most unqualified member of the bench and deserves no sympathy for the many more women protesting in front of her house. I empathize with her position, though. Growing up under bible thumpers and being married to one is rough, and it takes a strength of character not everyone has to buck the trends surrounding one's life. She deserves the protests, though. See how that works?



Part of what you said is something that I agree with.  That was both surprising but also completely off topic.  My concern was if you think that the "right to abortion" is flexible.



Dakitten said:


> Doesn't take much to wag your tail, does it?



Nope.  I can even do that by myself.  Do you want to watch?



Dakitten said:


> Um... you ever endure a hardship? Governments usually have programs in place to help with homelessness, joblessness, and victims of many kinds of abuse. Hell yes it makes me more confident in a government when they actively address issues and take record of how often things happen and how well their responses mend the issues! Why wouldn't it? As someone who has worked in and around government a fair bit, helping those in need and providing them with positive experiences is kinda what gives me drive. People needing help is real, governments providing aid is real, government not providing enough presently is real but that is where policy can come in... like helping women get abortions when it might permanently impact their lives in ways they can't handle even if it isn't federally protected and some states ban it! Bam, full circle!



Thanks.  I never worked in government, so I didn't understand this frame of mind you were coming from.   You help women get abortions when it might permanently impact their lives in ways in ways that they can't handle...?  What?  I don't understand what you are trying to say there.  It sounds like that you are helping women ruin their lives, to the untrained eye.  I suspect it is different from that.

As for me, someone who isn't indoctrinated into the government's mental framework, I work, and pay taxes.  My taxes are supposedly used for great things, like government spending that I cannot begin to comprehend.  I get promised a lot of things by politicians every election cycle.  Those things don't happen.  Maybe a lot is happening behind the scenes, but I'm still unsure about this democracy thing you guys keep bringing up.



Dakitten said:


> See my first part of this reply. You're obviously insincere as hell and needlessly disrespectful/offensive. You're absolutely the other side so long as you continue to troll here and hand wave the anger and justification for female bodily care being without federal protection. I don't believe I'm some kind of arbiter of perfect facts and logic, and I've never proclaimed myself your superior, but if you're feeling insecure I do encourage you to take some time off the thread and to reevaluate some of your choices. Never too late to get introspective, comrade!



I get that you are angry about that, but this is just one of those situations where you are caught in a contradiction.  The same government that cares about people and helps you give abortions to people, just reversed a decision that makes you feel devalued, seemingly out of nowhere.  I don't like that!  You shouldn't like that.  But... you want me to support the government and be supportive about your anger about the same government.  Excuse me, but what the heck?



Dakitten said:


> You're welcome insofar as I can acknowledge when someone on the left is getting out of hand, but you're still exacerbating the problem and instigating more posts of the same caliber by not understanding why Stone was so irate... or more likely, understanding it and getting some level of perverse joy out of his anger. Again, you do yourself no favors by taking the role of Edgemaster Trollington on one hand while trying to pretend to be seriously debating shortly afterwards.



He seemed pretty happy to me.


----------



## Xerokard (May 15, 2022)

Life is precious and should not be thrown away


----------



## Foxi4 (May 15, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> that's more of a personal opinion and not based on a deeper understanding of genetics and how the whole thing works. which is fine, but you shouldn't just dismiss those who dig deeper because it's "inconvenient" for you to do so.


There’s really nothing to dig deeper into - it’s science. Either an organism is human or it’s not. The whole sentience debate is a red herring - being a fetus is a temporary state. What’s convenient is to say that a human is non-human to feel better about killing it. I don’t judge - I don’t particularly care what women to with their pregnancies before the fetus gains even a modest degree of sentience (which, if I recall, normally starts in the third trimester, when we observe rapid growth of neurons, though the sentience part is hard to measure). That being said, I’m not going to misrepresent what the fetus is in order to feel morally justified about ending its life. Don’t mistake my capacity to separate the core issue from the minutiae with ignorance - I’m well-aware of the details, I just don’t find them relevant. A human is a human at every stage of development, so the only remaining question is whether we care about its life or not, to what degree, and when are we willing to start protecting it. Again, I’m not entirely opposed to the concept of abortion - I just don’t like sugarcoating the issue. I can imagine it being permissible, with some reasonable guidelines based on the timeline of development, but again, that’s detail - what’s the point of discussing details if we can’t even agree on what the core issue is?


----------



## Dakitten (May 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Don't get me wrong.  Not everything I say is "based on your gender".  Your gender is definitely considered as you made it a point.  You receive empathy every time I talk to you.  It's just not the quality you are seeking.  Sorry?


You ought to be. Not joking, you're absolutely failing at this, and it is pathetic. I also never said EVERYTHING is based on my gender, just your insults quoted above... As it clearly was based on my gender. Do better, if just for your own sake.



tabzer said:


> If it's not a big deal, you would have taken it for what it's worth.  I already told you why I introduced the concept, but if you feel that being condescending and dismissive is a greater endeavor, then good for you I guess.


I haven't taken it as a big deal, I waved it away because it doesn't hold any water. The soul is esoteric even if you try to define it as something related to a physical observation.



tabzer said:


> Plato didn't invent the concept of the soul as he didn't invent the concept of stars and planets.  If he talked about them, would you deny the existence of them?  I'm trying hard, but you are too stubborn.


He didn't and I didn't claim he invented the concept of a soul, just that he is the earliest individual I can recall who talked about the soul being related to breath and life specifically. I even said I might have been wrong assuming he was a source for your ramblings. I'm trying hard to work with you here, but you are too stubborn. 



tabzer said:


> Part of what you said is something that I agree with.  That was both surprising but also completely off topic.  My concern was if you think that the "right to abortion" is flexible.


It isn't "flexible", it should be an absolute. A woman should be able to choose if her body is going to go through with the process of producing a life after considering how it might impact theirs, and medical providers should not have to worry about reprocussions from demagogues and their congregations. I thought I was pretty straight forward with this, but if not, here we go.


tabzer said:


> Nope.  I can even do that by myself.  Do you want to watch?


I'd rather not.


tabzer said:


> Thanks.  I never worked in government, so I didn't understand this frame of mind you were coming from.   You help women get abortions when it might permanently impact their lives in ways in ways that they can't handle...?  What?  I don't understand what you are trying to say there.  It sounds like that you are helping women ruin their lives, to the untrained eye.  I suspect it is different from that.
> 
> As for me, someone who isn't indoctrinated into the government's mental framework, I work, and pay taxes.  My taxes are supposedly used for great things, like government spending that I cannot begin to comprehend.  I get promised a lot of things by politicians every election cycle.  Those things don't happen.  Maybe a lot is happening behind the scenes, but I'm still unsure about this democracy thing you guys keep bringing up.


So... in summary, you don't know what you're talking about, don't have any experience with it, have heard some things about it that didn't pan out the way you'd like, and take pride in remaining an outsider judging it from a place of privilege... hey, progress, this is a mirror of your stance on abortion!

Seriously, government is not a beast that roams the lands feasting on baby flesh and plotting world genocide. It is an apparatus of society to accomplish agendas, and while there are obvious cases of corruption and misuse, it is still just people. I know earlier education was brought up as an elitist indoctrination thing, but it isn't like government was grooming me from my infancy to become a nurse, soldier, teacher, etc. I chose those jobs as an adult out of a love for public service and bettering communities any was I could. I worked for Netflix and Tesla at one point too, but that doesn't make me a brainwashed capitalist.

Don't demonize the things you don't know anything about, comrade. Your ignorance is making you a menace.


tabzer said:


> I get that you are angry about that, but this is just one of those situations where you are caught in a contradiction.  The same government that cares about people and helps you give abortions to people, just reversed a decision that makes you feel devalued, seemingly out of nowhere.  I don't like that!  You shouldn't like that.  But... you want me to support the government and be supportive about your anger about the same government.  Excuse me, but what the heck?


I actually don't work with any service that particularly aids women needing abortions? Also, governments don't always work with the will of the people in mind, particularly when there is corruption, but that doesn't mean one should abandon the government. If that was the case, I'd be out in the streets with a shotgun burning down buildings and calling for revolution. This sometimes needs to happen when governments get too corrupt, but they're always replaced with new governments designed to be less susceptible to future corruption. If you personally want to lead the call to revolution, though... more power to ya. I'm not ready to join that fight, but I'll at least hear you out if you display real effort! 

TLDR version: No contradiction except the one you make up for yourself.


tabzer said:


> He seemed pretty happy to me.


Nice use of sarcasm. Again, you're obviously being a jerk.



Foxi4 said:


> There’s really nothing to dig deeper into - it’s science. Either an organism is human or it’s not. The whole sentience debate is a red herring - being a fetus is a temporary state. What’s convenient is to say that a human is non-human to feel better about killing it. I don’t judge - I don’t particularly care what women to with their pregnancies before the fetus gains even a modest degree of sentience (which, if I recall, normally starts in the third trimester). That being said, I’m not going to misrepresent what the fetus is in order to feel morally justified about ending its life.


I hesitate to take this whole shtick on from yet another individual who takes pride in triggering and trolling, but no scientist worth their salt calls fetuses, zygotes, embryos, or egg cells human beings because they aren't. They are things with the potential to become human beings, assuming conditions are optimal and work out that way.  Sorry you think that a fetus was a person, but please don't accuse active women trying to live their lives and provide for themselves having miscariages of reckless endangerment or accidental manslaughter while you're stuck in this peculiar mindset that just so happens to not impact your own bodily autonomy in any way.


----------



## Creamu (May 15, 2022)

I enjoy the chemistry between the both of you.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 15, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> I hesitate to take this whole shtick on from yet another individual who takes pride in triggering and trolling, but no scientist worth their salt calls fetuses, zygotes, embryos, or egg cells human beings because they aren't. They are things with the potential to become human beings, assuming conditions are optimal and work out that way.  Sorry you think that a fetus was a person, but please don't accuse active women trying to live their lives and provide for themselves having miscariages of reckless endangerment or accidental manslaughter while you're stuck in this peculiar mindset that just so happens to not impact your own bodily autonomy in any way.


Every scientist on the planet calls humans humans. A fetus is an early stage of development of offspring, immediately following insemination and the embryonic stage. Any person who doesn’t call it human is intellectually dishonest - it’s a living being with a complete and unique human DNA sequence. At no point in its development is a human fetus a dog, a cat, a seal or any other species - it’s human. What you’re trying to say is that it’s not conscious, or sentient, and we generally consider those to be traits of personhood. That’s not what I was discussing - I said that it’s human, and it is, there’s no debate about that.

EDIT: Let’s put it this way, since the point seems to be flying over people’s heads. Let’s say there’s a brain dead patient in a hospital bed kept alive by machinery alone. Their brain is completely scrambled, there is no chance of recovery. For all intents and purposes, you could argue that this patient is not a “person” anymore because the part that makes them one was completely destroyed. They’re non-sentient. However, if you take a sample of their blood and analyse it, you will find that they are human - they can’t be anything else, they didn’t stop being human when their brain was damaged beyond repair. The same applies to a fetus at early stages of development - fetuses are human, and arguing otherwise is silly. There’s a point at which we’re okay with ending those lives, but we can’t disagree on whether they’re human or not from the perspective of biology - they’re demonstrably human.


----------



## Creamu (May 15, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Every scientist on the planet calls humans humans. A fetus is an early stage of development of offspring, immediately following insemination and the embryonic stage. Any person who doesn’t call it human is intellectually dishonest - it’s a living being with a complete and unique human DNA sequence. At no point in its development is a human fetus a dog, a cat, a seal or any other species - it’s human.


I want to counter this notion a little bit. Throughout history we can see examples of humans dehumanizing other humans. To believe this has completly stopped in the realm of science might be overly optimistic.


----------



## osaka35 (May 15, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> There’s really nothing to dig deeper into - it’s science. Either an organism is human or it’s not. The whole sentience debate is a red herring - being a fetus is a temporary state. What’s convenient is to say that a human is non-human to feel better about killing it. I don’t judge - I don’t particularly care what women to with their pregnancies before the fetus gains even a modest degree of sentience (which, if I recall, normally starts in the third trimester, when we observe rapid growth of neurons, though the sentience part is hard to measure). That being said, I’m not going to misrepresent what the fetus is in order to feel morally justified about ending its life. Don’t mistake my capacity to separate the core issue from the minutiae with ignorance - I’m well-aware of the details, I just don’t find them relevant. A human is a human at every stage of development, so the only remaining question is whether we care about its life or not, to what degree, and when are we willing to start protecting it. Again, I’m not entirely opposed to the concept of abortion - I just don’t like sugarcoating the issue. I can imagine it being permissible, with some reasonable guidelines based on the timeline of development, but again, that’s detail - what’s the point of discussing details if we can’t even agree on what the core issue is?


I'd probably say it's much closer to not being an organism at the beginning, but in reality that's a false dilemma. because otherwise, all the stem cells in your body would need protection as well. And women who lose their pregnancies should be arrested pending an investigation on murder, which is an actual insane thing some states are trying to implement.

Yes. it's human DNA. but so are eggs and sperm and stem cells. Biology is rarely ever so clear-cut or easily defined. Biology is weird, imprecise, and changes in inconsistent and nebulous ways. That's not "sugar-coating it", that's just the tedious reality.

Though i agree on the fact that even IF it was a human life at conception (which is not the case), it still comes down to a matter of how much autonomy can you steal from one person to ensure the life of another? 

You can blame religion as for why discussing the details becomes the main conversation rather than the one about rights. religious dogma is not so good about supporting human rights.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 15, 2022)

Creamu said:


> I want to counter this notion a little bit. Throughout history we can see examples of humans dehumanizing other humans. To believe this has completly stopped in the realm of science might be overly optimistic.


Added a bit of an edit to clarify the position. It’s absolutely true that humans have the capacity to dehumanise their kin for various purposes. Science *should* be considered with data - any science based on feeling can be discarded. I know for a fact that if I take a blood sample of a fetus to a lab and ask a technician to analyse it and tell me what species it’s from, they will tell me it’s human blood. That *should* be the end of the debate. The debate over personhood is more complicated, it’s part ideology and part brain development, with the latter part being murky, since the existence of a functioning brain doesn’t automatically denote sentience or personhood. Are patients in a vegetative state persons? They are now, because we’re compassionate creatures, but are they really? It depends on what the brain is doing. We can’t communicate, of course, which makes things hard to quantify. We’d have to look at what parts of the brain are active, but even then we don’t know if we’re looking at thoughts or white noise. It’s complex - determining the species is not.


osaka35 said:


> I'd probably say it's much closer to not being an organism at the beginning, but in reality that's a false dilemma. because otherwise, all the stem cells in your body would need protection as well. And women who lose their pregnancies should be arrested pending an investigation on murder, which is an actual insane thing some states are trying to implement.
> 
> Yes. it's human DNA. but so are eggs and sperm and stem cells. Biology is rarely ever so clear-cut or easily defined. Biology is weird, imprecise, and changes in inconsistent and nebulous ways. That's not "sugar-coating it", that's just the tedious reality.
> 
> ...


I disagree - I wouldn’t consider a stem cell a separate human being, it’s a small part of the whole. Your skin is a part of you, but you are not your skin - you’re a much larger set of parts. Things get even more fun if we look at things from the Theseus’ Ship perspective, but that’s a different discussion. My point of contention is the dehumanisation of the fetus - it’s dishonest. It’s more honest to call it a human because it is in fact human, and given time, it would develop further into a child. That’s not the problem - the problem is whether we want that to happen, and at which point do we cross the line when it should no longer be permissible, if such a line exists. Some fanatics say that even a morning after pill is not permissible - that’s ridiculous, a fertilised egg has no chance at further development without nesting, even if it is human, and they’re often discarded by a woman’s body anyway. Not every fertilised egg gets to grow. On the flip side, fanatics on the other side are okay with abortion all the way up to 5 minutes before birth, when the child is fully formed. That’s equally ridiculous, and no different than infanticide. There’s a point between those two extremes that the lion’s share of society can agree on, it’s just a matter of finding that point. Scientifically speaking, the most agreeable point is before rapid brain development begins, as it’s hard to argue personhood with no brain. That’s the correct track, I think.


----------



## Creamu (May 15, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Added a bit of an edit to clarify the position. It’s absolutely true that humans have the capacity to dehumanise their kin for various purposes. Science *should* be considered with data - any science based on feeling can be discarded. I know for a fact that if I take a blood sample of a fetus to a lab and ask a technician to analyse it and tell me what species it’s from, they will tell me it’s human blood. That *should* be the end of the debate.


Yes, but science is a powerful institution, and people who seek power do this for reasons that are not scientific or  not even rational. It might even be the case that actors who engage in such institutions are practicing high levels of self deception. I think it is important to always keep an eye on this.


Foxi4 said:


> The debate over personhood is more complicated, it’s part ideology and part brain development, with the latter part being murky, since the existence of a functioning brain doesn’t automatically denote sentience or personhood.


Personhood is a nabstract concept not rooted in nature, therefore I would argue ultimativly bound to ideology. What I find troubling is that we are by objectifying things like this, dominating people of other ideology. There may be no one size fits all solution to questions like these. If in a star trek scenario another planet has a certain practice of abortion should we get involved?


Foxi4 said:


> Are patients in a vegetative state persons? They are now, because we’re compassionate creatures, but are they really? It depends on what the brain is doing. We can’t communicate, of course, which makes things hard to quantify. We’d have to look at what parts of the brain are active, but even then we don’t know if we’re looking at thoughts or white noise. It’s complex - determining the species is not.


Well, to function at all and not being trapped in a solipsistic loop for example, there have to be assumptions. A deeper and deeper observation and analysis will not be free of underlying assumptions. The conlcusion will always be a revelation of the subjective mind. What do you think?


----------



## osaka35 (May 15, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I disagree - I wouldn’t consider a stem cell a separate human being, it’s a small part of the whole. Your skin is a part of you, but you are not your skin - you’re a collection of cells that compose you. Things get even more fun if we look at things from the Theseus’ Ship perspective, but that’s a different discussion. My point of contention is the dehumanisation of the fetus - it’s dishonest. It’s more honest to call it a human because it is in fact human, and given time, it would develop further into a child. That’s not the problem - the problem is whether we want that to happen, and at which point do we cross the line when it should no longer be permissible, if such a line exists. Some fanatics say that even a morning after is not permissible - that’s ridiculous, a fertilised egg has no chance at further development without nesting, even if it is human, and they’re often discarded by a woman’s body anyway. Not every fertilised egg gets to grow. On the flip side, fanatics on the other side are okay with abortion all the way up to 5 minutes before birth, when the child is fully formed. That’s equally ridiculous, and no different than infanticide. There’s a point between those two extremes that the lion’s share of society can agree on, it’s just a matter of finding that point. Scientifically speaking, the most agreeable point is before rapid brain development begins, as it’s hard to argue personhood with no brain. That’s the correct track, I think.


your definition of human seems to include "all potentials of a person, but only after conception". dehumanization of a fetus is baking in your conclusion though; the assumption a fetus is a full human. From what I understand, it's far more scientifically accurate to think of it as a blueprint of a human. It sounds like your definition of human includes the blueprints, since those are necessary for the final creation of the actual human. Just like you can't build a building without a plan, a blueprint is indeed necessary...but i personally wouldn't include it in the definition of a building. But I think we agree, that's almost a different conversation when religion isn't brought into the conversation.

And I agree, before the third trimester is probably the best cut-off point, for a variety of reasons. Ultimately it's up to the pregnant person if and when is appropriate, as it's their body being used as an incubator, but I agree most would feel that's the most logical cut-off point to avoid any ethical issues.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 15, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Yes, but science is a powerful institution, and people who seek power do this for reasons that are not scientific or  not even rational. It might even be the case that actors who engage in such institutions are practicing high levels of self deception. I think it is important to always keep an eye on this.
> 
> Personhood is a nabstract concept not rooted in nature, therefore I would argue ultimativly bound to ideology. What I find troubling is that we are by objectifying things like this, dominating people of other ideology. There may be no one size fits all solution to questions like these. If in a star trek scenario another planet has a certain practice of abortion should we get involved?
> 
> Well, to function at all and not being trapped in a solipsistic loop for example, there have to be assumptions. A deeper and deeper observation and analysis will not be free of underlying assumptions. The conlcusion will always be a revelation of the subjective mind. What do you think?


We can draw conclusions regarding brain function based on prior experience - science is actually very helpful here, even if it is occasionally tainted with ideology. Traumatic injury can profoundly change one’s personality - calm people can become violent, introverts can become extroverted, people can lose their ability to speak or read, even if they technically have the physical capacity to do so. From that we can extrapolate that the part that makes you “you” is the brain - that’s the temple of your personhood, which is admittedly a somewhat philosophical concept (although the science of personality is very much real), but it’s how we describe our body’s interpersonal and cognitive functions. If the brain is the temple, then whether the brain functions or not becomes the determining factor, does it not? We generally care about human life, but more specifically, we care about people, meaning persons. We don’t care about meat - meat is meat, human or otherwise. A cold way to think about things, but so is most of science.


osaka35 said:


> your definition of human seems to include "all potentials of a person, but only after conception". dehumanization of a fetus is baking in your conclusion though; the assumption a fetus is a full human. From what I understand, it's far more scientifically accurate to think of it as a blueprint of a human. It sounds like your definition of human includes the blueprints, since those are necessary for the final creation of the actual human. Just like you can't build a building without a plan, a blueprint is indeed necessary...but i personally wouldn't include it in the definition of a building. But I think we agree, that's almost a different conversation when religion isn't brought into the conversation.
> 
> And I agree, before the third trimester is probably the best cut-off point, for a variety of reasons. Ultimately it's up to the pregnant person if and when is appropriate, as it's their body being used as an incubator, but I agree most would feel that's the most logical cut-off point to avoid any ethical issues.


The blueprint of a human is the DNA - it’s a sequence that has all the information required to create a complete organism, we have the technology to clone living beings, after all. I consider a fetus a growing human being because that’s what it is - it’s a growing mass of human cells, just like we all are. It’s “the ship”, not part of a ship - conceptually it’s the main body from which all other parts originate, and all future parts will belong to. I don’t distinguish between whether it’s complete or incomplete - an amputee is a human, but they are incomplete, they lack some of the parts that humans have. Completeness is another red herring that functions to dehumanise, and not the core issue. As you say, the core issue is whether we’re talking about a person or not - that’s what we *actually* care about. We generally agree that personhood requires a brain, therefore the existence of a functioning brain is the point of interest. I don’t like getting lost in the weeds, and there’s a lot of weeds in a complex issue like this. Only through separating the problem from all of the distractions can one arrive at the truth. The funny thing is that we’re arguing about this at all when we seem to be in agreement regarding the core - that’s precisely what I mean when I say that we miss the forest for the trees when we focus so much on what’s immaterial to the core. We *could* agree at this point already as we’ve arrived at a mutually satisfactory time frame, but we’re arguing instead. See my point?


----------



## Creamu (May 15, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> We can draw conclusions regarding brain function based on prior experience - science is actually very helpful here, even if it is occasionally tainted with ideology.


Would you agree with the idea that science is a product of a collective of subjective minds?


Foxi4 said:


> Traumatic injury can profoundly change one’s personality - calm people can become violent, extroverts can become extroverted, people can lose their ability to speak or read, even if they technically have the physical capacity to do so. From that we can extrapolate that the part that makes you “you” is the brain - that’s the temple of your personhood, which is admittedly a philosophical concept, but it’s how we describe our body’s interpersonal functions.


What about the microbiom, the bacteria of your gut. However they are composed has an impact on your behavior and personality.


Foxi4 said:


> If the brain is the temple, then whether the brain functions or not becomes the determining factor, does it not?


In many cultures the brain is not the temple.


Foxi4 said:


> We generally care about human life, but more specifically, we care about people, meaning persons.


The question of person is abstract. Lao Tse has a concept of defeating ones own ego/I. To overcome the concept of being an actor in a greater whole but being the whole itself (Tao). Not holding on to as static form but see all as a movment.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 15, 2022)

What I'm having a hard time understanding is where that point between "All life matters!" and "It's not my problem" these pro-lifers stand on is. Like, the comments that life is valuable and blah blah blah are weak because, you're selectively caring about issues that mean nothing to you. People want to argue that babies have a right to live, but if the parents need assistance in any form, they get hit with counter productive arguments in the form "Shouldn't have had sex" and "I'm not paying taxes for you to not work" and all this other BS. 

Plain and simple, people have become corporate products, and generations of people en masse have been bred to believe that human life is valuable, but only in the sense of corporate interests and personal affiliation. If all life is valuable, don't complain over just abortions. Complain about terrible wages, outrageous standard of living costs, a for profit prison system, and pretty much anything else that affects human life and its ability to live. Otherwise, how is it anyone's business but the select few involved?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 15, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Would you agree with the idea that science is a product of a collective of subjective minds?
> 
> What about the microbiom, the bacteria of your gut. However they are composed has an impact on your behavior and personality.
> 
> ...


The concept of science, and the scientific method, are products of our minds. The results of science are derived from observations of the world, we’re basing our science on data. Our biases don’t affect the data, they can only affect our interpretation of the data.

This isn’t really a cultural matter - some cultures dance to make it rain, that doesn’t mean the rain is controlled with the power of dance. We know this, because we’ve observed weather patterns and arrived at a more logical conclusion.

Researching personality is a science in and out of itself, and the ego is one part of it. That’s immaterial to which human organ governs personality - we know it’s the brain because altering the function of the brain alters the personality, and surprisingly, vice versa. Your brain function can be affected by the activities you engage in. Your biology affects your cognition, and your cognition affects your biology - the conclusion is inevitable.


----------



## Creamu (May 15, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The concept of science, and the scientific method, are products of our minds.


To be exact, it is the product of actors within a scientific discourse. A discourse that has different mechanism created by the same actors.


Foxi4 said:


> The results of science are derived from observations of the world, we’re basing our science on data. Our biases don’t affect the data, they can only affect our interpretation of the data.


If we produce the data how can it be divorced from our biases?


Foxi4 said:


> This isn’t really a cultural matter - some cultures dance to make it rain, that doesn’t mean the rain is controlled with the power of dance. We know this, because we’ve observed weather patterns and arrived at a more logical conclusion.


Yes, and for us that more logical conclusion works for us. Should we get involved in their affairs though? Evoltionary speaking I would argue, that the people with the "more logical" conclusion have arrived at that point because it was helpful for their survival. I would argue that the ritual of dancing for rain, has a deeper function to benefit their survival.


Foxi4 said:


> Researching personality is a science in and out of itself, and the ego is one part of it. That’s immaterial to which human organ governs personality - we know it’s the brain because altering the function of the brain alters the personality, and surprisingly, vice versa.


Same applies to the microbiom, and thats only bacteria in your body.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 15, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Same applies to the microbiom, and thats only bacteria in your body.


Skipping over the minutiae, why do you think that is?


----------



## Creamu (May 15, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Skipping over the minutae, why do you think that is?


Because the human experience form an inward or outward perspective is determined by all factors at play.


----------



## Coto (May 15, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> What I'm having a hard time understanding is where that point between "All life matters!" and "It's not my problem" these pro-lifers stand on is. Like, the comments that life is valuable and blah blah blah are weak because, you're selectively caring about issues that mean nothing to you. People want to argue that babies have a right to live, but if the parents need assistance in any form, they get hit with counter productive arguments in the form "Shouldn't have had sex" and "I'm not paying taxes for you to not work" and all this other BS.
> 
> Plain and simple, people have become corporate products, and generations of people en masse have been bred to believe that human life is valuable, but only in the sense of corporate interests and personal affiliation. If all life is valuable, don't complain over just abortions. Complain about terrible wages, outrageous standard of living costs, a for profit prison system, and pretty much anything else that affects human life and its ability to live. Otherwise, how is it anyone's business but the select few involved?


I'd be 99.9% sure these are paid people to push political agendas of the party they work with. It's very easy to identify these people. They cause segregation or tantrums to oppose people against you, by collectivizing specific groups (like young people, usually being unable to distinguish what causes them harm and whatnot) by decimating any rational-common sense, individual thought causing instead, a shift in power towards their own minority controlling the whole group.

KGB agents calls that marxism leninism


----------



## Creamu (May 15, 2022)

Coto said:


> I'd be 99.9% sure these are paid people to push political agendas of the party they work with. It's very easy to identify these people. They cause segregation or tantrums to oppose people against you, by collectivizing specific groups (like young people, usually being unable to distinguish what causes them harm and whatnot) by decimating any rational-common sense, individual thought causing instead, the control to shift towards their own minority controlling the whole group.
> 
> KGB agents calls that marxism leninism


agreed


----------



## Foxi4 (May 15, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Because the human experience form an inward or outward perspective is determined by all factors at play.


Or, or, or! More likely, your gut bacteria determine your digestion and glandular function, which in turn affects hormone production, and hormone levels affect your brain function. Brain chemistry is a thing - we know this because certain chemicals affect our cognitive function. I can independently verify that by clanking glasses with you and having a drink. I’m a gin and tonic man, you? Which poison affects your personality best? This, among other factors related to microbiome, affects your personality, but only by proxy - it does so because it affects the brain.


----------



## Creamu (May 15, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Or, or, or! More likely, your gut bacteria determine your digestion and glandular function, which in turn affects hormone production, and hormone levels affect your brain function. Brain chemistry is a thing - we know this because certain chemicals affect our cognitive function. I can independently verify that by clanking glasses with you and having a drink. I’m a gin and tonic man, you? Which poison affects your personality best?


Waterkefir, which coincidentally cultivates the microbiom.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 15, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Waterkefir, which coincidentally cultivates the microbiom.


Interesting choice! I’ll drink to that.


----------



## Creamu (May 15, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Interesting choice! I’ll drink to that.


Hopefully in a low EMF enviroment, because EMF radiation changes the DNA of your microbiom.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 15, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Hopefully in a low EMF enviroment, because EMF radiation changes the DNA of your microbiom.


There’s some scientific evidence to support that notion, so I have no reason to disagree. Radiation in general affects living beings, and the structure of DNA - this is a question of frequency and power. Whether that has a quantifiable effect on how your microbiome affects you remains to be seen.


----------



## Creamu (May 15, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> There’s some scientific evidence to support that notion, so I have no reason to disagree. Radiation in general affects living beings, and the structure of DNA - this is a question of frequency and power. Whether that has a quantifiable effect on how your microbiome affects you remains to be seen.


It's been nice talking to you. Take care!


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 16, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> What I'm having a hard time understanding is where that point between "All life matters!" and "It's not my problem" these pro-lifers stand on is. Like, the comments that life is valuable and blah blah blah are weak because, you're selectively caring about issues that mean nothing to you. People want to argue that babies have a right to live, but if the parents need assistance in any form, they get hit with counter productive arguments in the form "Shouldn't have had sex" and "I'm not paying taxes for you to not work" and all this other BS.



That's easy. Life is precious, abortions should not take place. However, the financial responsibility lies on the people who created the baby. Not random strangers. You're bitching because people like me don't want to pay for dead beat parents. You're basically saying it's okay for the parents to not feed or cloth their children and it should be my responsibility to do so when I had nothing to do with creating their child. Yeah, nope. I'm not supporting dead beat trash by making excuses for their actions or by voting to give them part of my income.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 16, 2022)

https://babylonbee.com/news/authori...h-instead-of-traditional-brain-sucking-device

no matter your stance on this issue, you have to admit this article is funny but also partially true.


----------



## AleronIves (May 16, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> the core issue is whether we’re talking about a person or not - that’s what we *actually* care about. We generally agree that personhood requires a brain, therefore the existence of a functioning brain is the point of interest.


The problem is, not everybody believes that personhood requires a brain. Much of the abortion debate in the US revolves around religious beliefs, especially the idea that some sort of supreme being gives you a supernatural, immutable essence (usually called a soul) at the moment of conception. As long as people believe such a thing, they will never support abortion, since their threshold for personhood is conception, rather than brain development in the third trimester.

Since the US has separation of church and state, one could argue that these beliefs should be ignored in favour of the third-trimester threshold of personhood, as that's the best answer science can currently give us, but that's difficult to do in practice when many elected leaders hold the "life begins at conception" viewpoint (which really means "personhood begins at conception", since everybody agrees that life begins at conception. The core issue, as you've already discussed, is whether that life matters, i.e. is it a person).


----------



## Dakitten (May 16, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> https://babylonbee.com/news/authori...h-instead-of-traditional-brain-sucking-device
> 
> no matter your stance on this issue, you have to admit this article is funny but also partially true.


I would beg to differ. Remember that abortion is not regarded by anybody but men who don't understand the effects it causes women as a form of casual birth control, especially at the third trimester, and death by drug use by the desperate is serious stuff. The Babylon Bee is pretty one note as far as comedy goes, "Oh, leftists are so dumb, they're trying to be elitist while ignoring common sense, lul!" The onion made fun of contradictions, but BB strawmans situations they don't even understand.

I wouldn't share this kind of garbage.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> The problem is, not everybody believes that personhood requires a brain. Much of the abortion debate in the US revolves around religious beliefs, especially the idea that some sort of supreme being gives you a supernatural, immutable essence (usually called a soul) at the moment of conception. As long as people believe such a thing, they will never support abortion, since their threshold for personhood is conception, rather than brain development in the third trimester.
> 
> Since the US has separation of church and state, one could argue that these beliefs should be ignored in favour of the third-trimester threshold of personhood, as that's the best answer science can currently give us, but that's difficult to do in practice when many elected leaders hold the "life begins at conception" viewpoint (which really means "personhood begins at conception", since everybody agrees that life begins at conception. The core issue, as you've already discussed, is whether that life matters, i.e. is it a person).


Of course it’s difficult - as I said, concessions would have to be made by both parties, and the deal would likely require pushing and shoving in areas well beyond abortion itself to sweeten the deal. These kinds of difficulties are not a justification for corrupting the nation’s institutions for political gain. “We can’t agree on a solution, so we’ll use the courts to impose one from the top instead” is not how this system is supposed to work, which is the crux of the issue with Roe v. Wade. You cannot agree with a demonstrably incorrect ruling just because you like the outcome, at least not in my book.


----------



## Nothereed (May 16, 2022)

deleted since I figured it out


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> deleted since I figured it out


Did you though? I’m happy to answer the question you posed before your edit, if you’re curious. Scientific conclusions are often tainted, either by ideological biases or by various forms of interest, particularly financial. The only thing that can’t lie is numbers - either the numbers are representative or manipulated and cherry-picked. We have a whole system of peer review to debate these things, the premise being “trust, but verify”.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 16, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> I would beg to differ. Remember that abortion is not regarded by anybody but men who don't understand the effects it causes women as a form of casual birth control, especially at the third trimester, and death by drug use by the desperate is serious stuff.


You do realize this is a satire site, right? Of course abortion and drug overdoses are serious, but that doesn't mean we cannot make fun of it or poke fun at it.


Dakitten said:


> The Babylon Bee is pretty one note as far as comedy goes, "Oh, leftists are so dumb, they're trying to be elitist while ignoring common sense, lul!"


I mean, are they one note? Yes, but their one note is a very true note that leftists are not the smartest bananas of the bunch. I still remember when they doxxed a twitter account for sharing tik toks of leftists acting insane.


Dakitten said:


> The onion made fun of contradictions, but BB strawmans situations they don't even understand.


The one point I will agree with, but you shouldn't go into satire sites expecting to get better understandings of situations. That's why it's a satire site, and not a news/opinionated site.


Dakitten said:


> I wouldn't share this kind of garbage.


Is this really garbage just because they make fun of abortions? Awww man, I guess everything is garbage now since they make fun of things I enjoy. This sucks.


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> You ought to be. Not joking, you're absolutely failing at this, and it is pathetic. I also never said EVERYTHING is based on my gender, just your insults quoted above... As it clearly was based on my gender. Do better, if just for your own sake.



My "insult"  was based on a few factors.  You seem angry a lot and frustrated with not being in control.  I see you putting yourself in this situation where you can react to those feelings.  I think you use this place to unload a lot.  My "insult" was also based on the fact that you are a woman, who is very much pro-abortion rights--who would more likely than not, be on birth-control.  My "insult" wasn't based on your gender.  It was based on this package of information and more.

Birth-control lending to an experience _like _constant miscarriage is new information to me.  Out of empathy, curiosity, and some irreverence to your attachments, I wanted to see if you considered it or could verify it.

Taking on my "insult" as a new drive to be angry about something is more than enough of an answer.

In regards to the soul, pointing out nephesh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephesh) should be eye-opening to people on both sides of the debate.  You call it "esoteric", but it is also a core tenet of your primary adversary on the current issue.  You could make the argument that it is not esoteric enough.  You might be uninterested in it, but your reaction in pro-actively dismissing it makes you seem unreasonable.



Dakitten said:


> So... in summary, you don't know what you're talking about, don't have any experience with it, have heard some things about it that didn't pan out the way you'd like, and take pride in remaining an outsider judging it from a place of privilege... hey, progress, this is a mirror of your stance on abortion!



This is an example of pure projection.  I didn't know what you are talking about.  I made that clear.  I know what I am talking about.  Care to tell me what my stance on abortion is?

Your government is very much a beast in the world that thrives on genocide, but I believe you call that, "spreading democracy" because it sounds nice.  I, too, would prefer the image of "Parks and Recreation".



Dakitten said:


> Again, you're obviously being a jerk.



That implies a disproportionate (re)action.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 16, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> That's easy. Life is precious, abortions should not take place. However, the financial responsibility lies on the people who created the baby. Not random strangers. You're bitching because people like me don't want to pay for dead beat parents. You're basically saying it's okay for the parents to not feed or cloth their children and it should be my responsibility to do so when I had nothing to do with creating their child. Yeah, nope. I'm not supporting dead beat trash by making excuses for their actions or by voting to give them part of my income.




At what point is life precious? Precious enough to warrant a birth regardless of situation, but not precious enough to ensure it's being born into a positive, nurturing environment? Finances aside, there are a plethora of bad situations a child could be born into, but if no one cares about the child after it's born, how precious is it? I say it's a fair point to stand on if your pro life as long as you support the changes needed to ensure that life continues to prosper, even if those ideals go against yours. However, if the moment the baby is born you lose all interest and care in it's well being, how pro life are you really? 

Also, no one is asking, demanding, implying, or otherwise coercing you into paying anything for anyone. Where exactly do you think your taxes are going? It sounds like you have a misguided view of how taxes and welfare funding work, and no amount of putting words in my mouth or attempting to build my own platform is going to help you figure that out. 

Fact of the matter is, life isn't precious outside the handful of people you truly care about. You can say you care all you want, but pro life is a weak republican platform meant to keep people subjugated and controlled. If we were truly the land of the free, you wouldn't have to fight to make a law that literally prohibits a person from living their life and their body the want they want.


----------



## AleronIves (May 16, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> These kinds of difficulties are not a justification for corrupting the nation’s institutions for political gain. “We can’t agree on a solution, so we’ll use the courts to impose one from the top instead” is not how this system is supposed to work, which is the crux of the issue with Roe v. Wade.


I concur. Sadly, many people are going to have to suffer in order to correct that flawed decision. The correct course of action is to have Congress legislate the rules surrounding abortion, rather than legislating from the bench. If anything, this failure belongs to the Democrats, who have had 50 years to codify abortion rights the correct way but have failed to do so. Now women across half the country are going to pay the price for their complacency.


----------



## Xzi (May 16, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> “We can’t agree on a solution, so we’ll use the courts to impose one from the top instead” is not how this system is supposed to work, which is the crux of the issue with Roe v. Wade.


C'mon now, as a libertarian you should know that making something federally legal is not "imposing" anything on anybody.  By letting it fall back onto the states to decide, they're letting those states impose their will on citizens, effectively legislating morality.  The reasoning for overturning Roe v Wade is also far more asinine and much more of a stretch than the reasoning for ruling the way the court did initially.  Alito literally references a 17th century witch trial judge in the majority opinion brief.



AleronIves said:


> If anything, this failure belongs to the Democrats, who have had 50 years to codify abortion rights the correct way but have failed to do so.


That's a fair criticism, but it also highlights just how broken our democracy is, as the Democratic defense of abortion rights has always been tepid at best.  They aren't a leftist party, they're center-right, or republican lite.  They know full well that Republicans haven't been playing by the rules for a solid 40 years now, but they continue to try to reach across the aisle anyway, because they're controlled opposition.  Heck, in 2017, Pelosi even insisted "pro-life" politicians should be allowed to stay in the party, and here we are.


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2022)

Xzi said:


> C'mon now, as a libertarian you should know that making something federally legal is not "imposing" anything on anybody.



That's a little confusing.  If, Federally, abortion isn't illegal then it is legal.  If it is an enforced right to access, somebody has to perform an abortion despite their conscience.  Can people choose who they serve or not?


----------



## Xzi (May 16, 2022)

tabzer said:


> That's a little confusing.  If, Federally, abortion isn't illegal then it is legal.  If it is an enforced right to access, somebody has to perform an abortion despite their conscience.


It doesn't work that way, federal law supersedes state law.  Therefore if something isn't federally legal, then states are free to make it illegal.  And nobody has ever been _forced_ to perform an abortion, or even enter into that line of work.  The whole point of legality is to declare that you _can_ do something, not that you _have to._


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2022)

Xzi said:


> It doesn't work that way, federal law supersedes state law.  Therefore if something isn't federally legal, then states are free to make it illegal.  And nobody has ever been _forced_ to perform an abortion, or even enter into that line of work.  The whole point of legality is to declare that you _can_ do something, not that you _have to._


I didn't contest anything about state law vs federal law.  I'm talking about the difference between "that's legal" and "that's a right".  The latter implies someone's compliance.

For example.  If I want an abortion, and nobody will provide one, then I do not have the right to an abortion.  Abortion may still be legal, but where is the right to it?


----------



## Dakitten (May 16, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> You do realize this is a satire site, right? Of course abortion and drug overdoses are serious, but that doesn't mean we cannot make fun of it or poke fun at it.
> 
> I mean, are they one note? Yes, but their one note is a very true note that leftists are not the smartest bananas of the bunch. I still remember when they doxxed a twitter account for sharing tik toks of leftists acting insane.
> 
> ...


It is obviously satire, but it is absolutely politically motivated satire done poorly. The right can't poke fun without providing solutions and still be taken seriously, which is why they're always shy of majority support and have to create paranoia over immigration and "the great replacement". It is opinionated as its authors are right wing activists producing content for right wing audiences in a bubble of their own design. You can knock on the Onion for being left wing, but they poked fun at both parties a fair bit and sought humor for humor's sake and found more things to mock on the right.

This is all an aside, as yes, it is garbage because they're making fun of abortions from a place of privilege and ignorance. I'll repeat it until I'm blue and then some, nobody uses an abortion as a form of birth control, and it is always a painful experience. Just like you shouldn't poke at car crash victims for humor, you shouldn't make light of those who've had abortions.

Lastly... I wouldn't compare the brainpower of the left versus the right too openly. The leader of the republican party did make light of sexual assault, assault assault, the effects and long term ramifications of a global pandemic, and how injections of disinfectants sounds like a plausible weapon against it... and he still has the party's majority support.



tabzer said:


> My "insult"  was based on a few factors.  You seem angry a lot and frustrated with not being in control.  I see you putting yourself in this situation where you can react to those feelings.  I think you use this place to unload a lot.  My "insult" was also based on the fact that you are a woman, who is very much pro-abortion rights--who would more likely than not, be on birth-control.  My "insult" wasn't based on your gender.  It was based on this package of information and more.





tabzer said:


> I get that you are probably angry most of the time, and being irrational and spiteful is your way of dealing with it, but have you considered that it is a medical condition?  Maybe it's self-induced?  Are you on birth control?  I don't know for sure, but I heard a curious claim that by being on birth control, your body emulates a feeling akin to constant miscarriage, and is worse than a hypothetical 24/7 menstruation cycle.  Can you confirm?  Try a diary.


Yeah, this isn't fixing the issue. Sorry chief, but this still confirms that you're a liar and a misogynist shooting for that trigger factor. Might not be enough to earn you any terms violations, but it is pretty ugly behavior all the same. By all means though, keep defending it, I appreciate the dedication to foot in mouth.



tabzer said:


> Birth-control lending to an experience _like _constant miscarriage is new information to me.  Out of empathy, curiosity, and some irreverence to your attachments, I wanted to see if you considered it or could verify it.


Cool, it is new information to me, too! Probably because it was pulled out of your keister, but what the hey I like throwing in some education whenever possible!

Birth control comes in many different forms, and they all can have widely different ranges of side effects! Often, the most effective methods of birth control come with stronger side effects, and can cause long term health issues or even endanger a woman over a long period of time! As birth control is something that women generally have to manage, it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't know much about this sort of thing, but it is often a life-long journey of figuring out what treatments work best for people and it isn't uncommon to try many different kinds.

Naturally, as it is impossible to figure out a one size fits all without side effects kind of birth control, success rates can also fluctuate and lessen due to issues beyond reasonable control. It also can wildly alter menstruation cycles, further complicating the issue of family readiness and abortion as a last resort.



tabzer said:


> Taking on my "insult" as a new drive to be angry about something is more than enough of an answer.


Because you obviously care about the actual side effects of birth control on an individual and aren't just looking for digs at "an angry irrational medicated woman" that disagrees with you.



tabzer said:


> In regards to the soul, pointing out nephesh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephesh) should be eye-opening to people on both sides of the debate.  You call it "esoteric", but it is also a core tenet of your primary adversary on the current issue.  You could make the argument that it is not esoteric enough.  You might be uninterested in it, but your reaction in pro-actively dismissing it makes you seem unreasonable.


Why? Nobody but those invested in the Abrahamic faiths should care for more than a minute about the hebrew etymology of the word. It is literally an ancient religion pulling from even earlier philosophers and faiths (a common occurance with the Abrahamic faiths since they weren't very original) to imagine an answer as to what is life and blindly rubbing up against nothing of significance to anyone outside their doctrine. Bring something other than religion to a social policy topic.



tabzer said:


> This is an example of pure projection.  I didn't know what you are talking about.  I made that clear.  I know what I am talking about.  Care to tell me what my stance on abortion is?





tabzer said:


> As for me, someone who isn't indoctrinated into the government's mental framework, I work, and pay taxes. My taxes are supposedly used for great things, like government spending that I cannot begin to comprehend. I get promised a lot of things by politicians every election cycle. Those things don't happen. Maybe a lot is happening behind the scenes, but I'm still unsure about this democracy thing you guys keep bringing up.


You literally gloat about being "free of government indoctrination" while being lied to by politicians trying to get elected and yet you're still paying into it. You go on to mention you don't know what is going on behind the scenes, and that you don't feel sure about democracy as a result. You're displaying that you don't want to be researched in government, and you do kinda imply that you're in a place of some level of privilege since you don't seem to have ever needed government aide.

In summary, you aren't involved and judge without experience, just like with abortions. You see yourself as above the systems that are in charge, evident by your certainty that indoctrination has corrupted your would be peers, and you don't want to comprehend why those politicians might be promising so many things and yet aren't getting the ones that catch your interest done. You don't add anything to the discourse but a flimsy philosophy you parrot from the sources you trust, and you have no relevant experience to draw from and thus cannot offer any solutions of worth to those who do have relevant experience. In this topic at the very least, you're utterly worthless for anything but filling pages with copypasta, and trolling just like Val and Bit.



tabzer said:


> Your government is very much a beast in the world that thrives on genocide, but I believe you call that, "spreading democracy" because it sounds nice.  I, too, would prefer the image of "Parks and Recreation".


I never said the government of the country I lived in operates exactly as I'd like it to, nor do I condone the actions abroad that are largely taken. I protest often and will likely continue to do so for quite some time. Y'know, like regarding abortion rights! This being said, you can judge from afar all you like, but I wouldn't judge too harshly considering Japan was an imperialist nation too. All we as individuals can do is try to do better for the future while learning from the past and resisting the errors of the present. All the better if you get involved in the government from within to best utilize its positive aspects! You should consider it, maybe it will help you figure out why the world doesn't live up to your expectations.



tabzer said:


> That implies a disproportionate (re)action.


If goading more childish behavior seems appropriate to you, it kinda proves the quality of your character for everyone else reading all this.



> [SIZE=3]AleronIves[/SIZE]*:*​





> I concur. Sadly, many people are going to have to suffer in order to correct that flawed decision. The correct course of action is to have Congress legislate the rules surrounding abortion, rather than legislating from the bench. If anything, this failure belongs to the Democrats, who have had 50 years to codify abortion rights the correct way but have failed to do so. Now women across half the country are going to pay the price for their complacency.


The failure of one party to do the job of both parties isn't exactly a fair dig. Republican politicians aren't even in lockstep with their own voters on this topic in particular, and yet not a single one voted to codify these rights while they've also made it more difficult to do so for Democrats and used hypocritical methods to bring things to this point. If anything, this shows how one party is trying to rig the system for a minority while the other struggles to exist while clinging to a status quo and the rules established to maintain it. This adds in to why the rest of the world sees the USA as a backsliding failure of a democracy, both parties might not be very good but one party is exceptionally problematic.


----------



## tabzer (May 16, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Yeah, this isn't fixing the issue. Sorry chief, but this still confirms that you're a liar and a misogynist shooting for that trigger factor. Might not be enough to earn you any terms violations, but it is pretty ugly behavior all the same. By all means though, keep defending it, I appreciate the dedication to foot in mouth.



There's nothing to fix.  I was wondering if you are angry and irrational because you are on medication, not if it is because you are a woman.  It is apparent that you are on medication and you don't want to disclose how it affects you.  That's fine. 



Dakitten said:


> Why? Nobody but those invested in the Abrahamic faiths should care for more than a minute about the hebrew etymology of the word.



I'm fairly sure that represents a nice bulk of the people you'd argue against regarding abortion.  Might be good to understand who you are talking to, or what they are even talking about.  I get that you like to display utter contempt for people you disagree with, but "the soul doesn't exist" is not a moving response when trying to rationalize abortion.



Dakitten said:


> Bring something other than religion to a social policy topic.



I addressed what was brought up, lol take a walk.



Dakitten said:


> You literally gloat about being "free of government indoctrination" while being lied to by politicians trying to get elected and yet you're still paying into it. You go on to mention you don't know what is going on behind the scenes, and that you don't feel sure about democracy as a result. You're displaying that you don't want to be researched in government, and you do kinda imply that you're in a place of some level of privilege since you don't seem to have ever needed government aide.
> 
> In summary, you aren't involved and judge without experience, just like with abortions.



You said that the, "government is not a beast that roams the lands feasting on baby flesh and plotting world genocide"  when that is an apt description of it.  It roams the world, like a beast, leaving death and genocide in its wake.  And your response?  "Oh your country did that too."  

If we strapped on boots, and performed the atrocities ourselves, then we'd be in the position to judge?  That's hardcore.

Please tell me my position on abortion.  I'd really like to know.  Still waiting.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2022)

Xzi said:


> C'mon now


…Joe? 





Xzi said:


> as a libertarian you should know that making something federally legal is not "imposing" anything on anybody.  By letting it fall back onto the states to decide, they're letting those states impose their will on citizens, effectively legislating morality.  The reasoning for overturning Roe v Wade is also far more asinine and much more of a stretch than the reasoning for ruling the way the court did initially.  Alito literally references a 17th century witch trial judge in the majority opinion brief.


You’ll have to be more specific in describing which part of me opposing the government bypassing the democratic process by way of imposing law from above using an unelected panel of judges (literally big government, focusing ultimate power in the hands of a handful of wisemen cherry-picked by presidents over the years) and being in favour of reverting the issue back to the states instead (small government elected locally) is inconsistent with my libertarian principles. I know how to pick my battles, and the battle to reduce government interference is on-going. Abortion wouldn’t be an issue if the government simply didn’t have the power to interfere, so taking that power away, one weapon at a time, is a priority. I don’t care what kinds of brain farts Alito brings up to support his objectively correct assessment of the case. This matter should’ve gone through the usual legislative pipeline, but this process was abruptly stopped in favour of ramming it through the court - that’s wrong, and should be corrected.

The process works out like this - states get the power to legislate abortion locally, and if the majority of said states come up with provisions that are similar, the federal government will have both the impetus and the broad support to pass legislation on a national level. If anything, you should be cheering on for this outcome as it effectively gives your camp the silver bullet to win elections with, provided support for abortion rights is as broad as you claim. It’s a hot button issue that candidates can and will run on, and they will win seats based on their position. People care about this, and they will vote accordingly.

The Democrats had 50 years to fix this, but they chose to coast on Roe v. Wade instead - a decision they knew was based on shaky grounds from Day 1, one that was threatened numerous times since. If you want to blame someone, blame the Democrats for bypassing the democratic process to get their desired outcome, no matter the cost. They’re the ones who transformed the Supreme Court into Congress Lite, this is their bed, and they can lay in it now.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 16, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> It is obviously satire, but it is absolutely politically motivated satire done poorly. The right can't poke fun without providing solutions and still be taken seriously, which is why they're always shy of majority support and have to create paranoia over immigration and "the great replacement". It is opinionated as its authors are right wing activists producing content for right wing audiences in a bubble of their own design. You can knock on the Onion for being left wing, but they poked fun at both parties a fair bit and sought humor for humor's sake and found more things to mock on the right.
> 
> This is all an aside, as yes, it is garbage because they're making fun of abortions from a place of privilege and ignorance. I'll repeat it until I'm blue and then some, nobody uses an abortion as a form of birth control, and it is always a painful experience. Just like you shouldn't poke at car crash victims for humor, you shouldn't make light of those who've had abortions.
> 
> Lastly... I wouldn't compare the brainpower of the left versus the right too openly. The leader of the republican party did make light of sexual assault, assault assault, the effects and long term ramifications of a global pandemic, and how injections of disinfectants sounds like a plausible weapon against it... and he still has the party's majority support.


This is an awfully long way to say "Grr, satire site bad because it mock wrong party" but i suppose i can take it apart.

"It is obviously satire, but it is absolutely politically motivated satire done poorly. The right can't poke fun without providing solutions and still be taken seriously, which is why they're always shy of majority support and have to create paranoia over immigration and "the great replacement"."
Is it really done poorly? I've always enjoyed their satire because it was done pretty damn well in my opinion, not as good as The Onion, which you mention later in the paragraph, but good for laughing at.

"It is opinionated as its authors are right wing activists producing content for right wing audiences in a bubble of their own design."
Again, harking back to "Grr, satire site bad because it mock wrong party".

"You can knock on the Onion for being left wing, but they poked fun at both parties a fair bit and sought humor for humor's sake and found more things to mock on the right."
Pretty much the only good point in this entire essay. The Onion does do satire a little better, but their content has fallen off ever since 2013.

"This is all an aside, as yes, it is garbage because they're making fun of abortions from a place of privilege and ignorance. "
Damn, I guess I can no longer make fun of rich people because I am doing it from a place of privilege (I have the privilege of never being rich.) and ignorance (I have the ignorance of knowing how it is to be rich, as i will never be rich). Sad!
But in all seriousness though, just because you don't know how it's like doesn't mean you cannot make fun of it. We don't understand how back then (like middle ages and such) was like, and we still make fun of it.

"I'll repeat it until I'm blue and then some, nobody uses an abortion as a form of birth control, and it is always a painful experience. Just like you shouldn't poke at car crash victims for humor, you shouldn't make light of those who've had abortions."
Yes, no one uses abortion as a form of birth control, and yes, it is painful, but that doesn't mean it's safe from satire and such. Hell, people do satire on 9/11, car crashes, and people addicted to drugs. Why should we allow satire on terrorist events but draw the line at a baby being sucked out of a woman?

"Lastly... I wouldn't compare the brainpower of the left versus the right too openly."
Both parties are stupid, the democratic party more so. Lets not forget they were the slave party, they avocated for slaves and jim crow, then tried to deny it much later, in this century.

"The leader of the republican party did make light of sexual assault, assault assault, the effects and long term ramifications of a global pandemic, and how injections of disinfectants sounds like a plausible weapon against it... and he still has the party's majority support."
And that's why I won't vote for him if he comes on the ballot again. Unrelated but Ron Desantis 2024.


----------



## Xzi (May 16, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I didn't contest anything about state law vs federal law.  I'm talking about the difference between "that's legal" and "that's a right".  The latter implies someone's compliance.
> 
> For example.  If I want an abortion, and nobody will provide one, then I do not have the right to an abortion.  Abortion may still be legal, but where is the right to it?


See the thing is we have no shortage of medical professionals willing to provide abortion services, even in red states.  They simply created a hostile environment surrounding abortion clinics even before this leak happened, as well as chipping away at them via malicious regulations that even other healthcare providers did not have to adhere to.



Foxi4 said:


> You’ll have to be more specific in describing which part of me opposing the government bypassing the democratic process by way of imposing law from above using an unelected panel of judges (literally big government, focusing ultimate power in the hands of a handful of wisemen cherry-picked by presidents over the years) and being in favour of reverting the issue back to the states instead (small government elected locally) is inconsistent with my libertarian principles. I know how to pick my battles, and the battle to reduce government interference is on-going.


I'm not sure how you can argue in good faith that states stepping between pregnant women and their doctors qualifies as "small government."  That equates to more government interference in peoples' everyday lives, not less.



Foxi4 said:


> I don’t care what kinds of brain farts Alito brings up to support his objectively correct assessment of the case.


If it was objectively correct, it wouldn't require brain farts and massive leaps in logic to attempt to justify the decision.



Foxi4 said:


> This matter should’ve gone through the usual legislative pipeline, but this process was abruptly stopped in favour of ramming it through the court - that’s wrong, and should be corrected.


I don't necessarily disagree, but I find the concept of unelected officials stripping away our rights one by one equally unpalatable, if not more so.  I also don't believe there was any point in the last fifty years where the pro-choice side would've had the votes to codify abortion rights into law.



Foxi4 said:


> If anything, you should be cheering on for this outcome as it effectively gives your camp the silver bullet to win elections with, provided support for abortion rights is as broad as you claim. It’s a hot button issue that candidates can and will run on, and they will win seats based on their position. People care about this, and they will vote accordingly.
> 
> The Democrats had 50 years to fix this, but they chose to coast on Roe v. Wade instead - a decision they knew was based on shaky grounds from Day 1, one that was threatened numerous times since. If you want to blame someone, blame the Democrats for bypassing the democratic process to get their desired outcome, no matter the cost. They’re the ones who transformed the Supreme Court into Congress Lite, this is their bed, and they can lay in it now.


The crux of the problem is a disconnect between popular support for a given issue and our representatives' support for that same issue.  As I've said before, Dems' defense of abortion rights has been tepid at best, and they even allow "pro-life" representatives to remain in the party on a state and federal level.  2/3rds of Americans supporting abortion as a basic right should mean that close to 2/3rds of *both* parties also support it, but the reality is that only maybe 2/3rds of one party does. Should that disparity continue to grow, literally the only recourse the American people will have left is revolution.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 16, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> At what point is life precious? Precious enough to warrant a birth regardless of situation, but not precious enough to ensure it's being born into a positive, nurturing environment? Finances aside, there are a plethora of bad situations a child could be born into, but if no one cares about the child after it's born, how precious is it? I say it's a fair point to stand on if your pro life as long as you support the changes needed to ensure that life continues to prosper, even if those ideals go against yours. However, if the moment the baby is born you lose all interest and care in it's well being, how pro life are you really?



You sound like you're pro socialism and think these parents have the right to my finances, time and effort. You're wrong. I care about the child as much as I care about any random person, but it's not my responsibility to raise it and make sure it has a decent upbringing. That's the parents job.



SyphenFreht said:


> Also, no one is asking, demanding, implying, or otherwise coercing you into paying anything for anyone. Where exactly do you think your taxes are going? It sounds like you have a misguided view of how taxes and welfare funding work, and no amount of putting words in my mouth or attempting to build my own platform is going to help you figure that out.



My taxes already go to programs that help homeless and low income individuals through direct payments, food assistance, housing assistance, etc ... I don't want any more taxes that would divert income to any parents who refuse to work and take care of their kids. The money probably wouldn't be used to take care of the child anyway.



SyphenFreht said:


> Fact of the matter is, life isn't precious outside the handful of people you truly care about. You can say you care all you want, but pro life is a weak republican platform meant to keep people subjugated and controlled. If we were truly the land of the free, you wouldn't have to fight to make a law that literally prohibits a person from living their life and their body the want they want.



I agree about the law part. There shouldn't be a need to for laws related to killing babies. People should just take responsibility for their actions and not commit murder and raise the life they brought into this world without the need of "laws". It would be the just and correct thing to do while abortion or not taking care of their child is plain out wrong.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I'm not sure how you can argue in good faith that states stepping between pregnant women and their doctors qualifies as "small government."  That equates to more government interference in peoples' everyday lives, not less.


Where was this fundamentalist attachment to bodily autonomy for the last 2 years? The states are free to legislate how they please as long as they do not infringe upon the constitution or federal law, citizens are free to vote accordingly or move to communities that reflect their values and provide services they require. Having the SCOTUS pull legislation out of a hat at will whenever Congress can’t push their agenda through is less freedom, not more - it removes one of the quintessential checks against government tyranny. If the constitution can be “interpreted” to mean whatever the court wants it to mean at any given time then it means nothing. If people want abortion rights, they will elect congressmen and congresswomen who include that in their platform. There are established pipelines for both legislating on a local and federal level, and making amendments to the constitution, should that need arise. That’s what the phrase “living document” means, not that it magically changes meaning depending on which direction you feel like twisting it.


Xzi said:


> If it was objectively correct, it wouldn't require brain farts and massive leaps in logic to attempt to justify the decision.


It’s objectively correct. Neither privacy nor abortion are enumerated or even mentioned in passing anywhere in the constitution. *Aspects* of privacy are, because privacy as a right would automatically require the government to refrain from investigating citizens, even if it has good reason to. There is nothing in or outside of the constitution that indicates its authors, or the authors of the subsequent amendments, had any intention to include abortion rights in the document.


Xzi said:


> I don't necessarily disagree, but I find the concept of unelected officials stripping away our rights one by one equally unpalatable, if not more so.  I also don't believe there was any point in the last fifty years where the pro-choice side would've had the votes to codify abortion rights into law.


Nobody’s stripping away anyone’s rights - it wasn’t a right to begin with. The ruling was erroneous, and it should be corrected. You liking the outcome of that ruling doesn’t make it a good or just ruling.


Xzi said:


> The crux of the problem is a disconnect between popular support for a given issue and our representatives' support for that same issue.  As I've said before, Dems' defense of abortion rights has been tepid at best, and they even allow "pro-life" representatives to remain in the party on a state and federal level.  2/3rds of Americans supporting abortion as a basic right should mean that close to 2/3rds of *both* parties also support it, but the reality is that only maybe 2/3rds of one party does. Should that disparity continue to grow, literally the only recourse the American people will have left is revolution.


Their defense of the issue was tepid because they operated under the impression that the SC will cover their ass until the end of time. If Roe v. Wade is repealed, it sets a precedent against using the court as means of avoiding doing the legwork required to pass proper legislation. The court should *never* be used like that, by any party - the text is what it is, and if you’re reading between the lines, you should do so both carefully and at your own peril. Nonsense that is in no way reflected in the historical values associated with the document can and should be repealed, that fact has nothing to do with whether women should have access to abortion or not and everything to do with the scope of influence the SCOTUS is supposed to have.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 16, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You sound like you're pro socialism and think these parents have the right to my finances, time and effort. You're wrong. I care about the child as much as I care about any random person, but it's not my responsibility to raise it and make sure it has a decent upbringing. That's the parents job.



You say socialism like it's a bad thing. You also seem to, again, bring up the point that you're in some way going to have to help take care of these people, which is still wrong. You care about the child about as much as a random person, but you've said yourself at least twice now that other people's problems are not yours. But then, abortions are your problem? You're being hypocritical and trying to use a proven fallacy to justify it. 



JonhathonBaxster said:


> My taxes already go to programs that help homeless and low income individuals through direct payments, food assistance, housing assistance, etc ... I don't want any more taxes that would divert income to any parents who refuse to work and take care of their kids. The money probably wouldn't be used to take care of the child anyway.



Congratulations. Welcome to living in a society that, at one point, was built upon solidarity. Too bad you don't get to choose where your taxes go. Seems to me you'd be better fit to argue against unjust tax laws than abortions. 



JonhathonBaxster said:


> I agree about the law part. There shouldn't be a need to for laws related to killing babies. People should just take responsibility for their actions and not commit murder and raise the life they brought into this world without the need of "laws". It would be the just and correct thing to do while abortion or not taking care of their child is plain out wrong.



Except there are cases of rape and incest and complicated pregnancies. And because these people don't deserve to be forced to live with a mistake they didn't create, their needs to be something established that will protect them. Blanket laws hurt just as much as they help.


----------



## AleronIves (May 16, 2022)

Xzi said:


> That's a fair criticism, but it also highlights just how broken our democracy is, as the Democratic defense of abortion rights has always been tepid at best.  They aren't a leftist party, they're center-right, or republican lite.


The lack of a true political left in the US isn't really the subject at hand. Everyone who cares about the separation of powers and other fundamental constitutional principles should be wary of the move towards executive action and legislating from the bench as a substitute for a functional legislature.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 16, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> The lack of a true political left in the US isn't really the subject at hand. Everyone who cares about the separation of powers and other fundamental constitutional principles should be wary of the move towards executive action and legislating from the bench as a substitute for a functional legislature.


Correct. If the SCOTUS can decide that just about anything fits into one of the many provisions of the constitution via some kind of convoluted and nonsensical train of thought then there really is no reason for congress or state legislatures to exist at all - all you need is a panel of wisemen making arbitrary decisions. That’s indistinguishable from dictatorship as far as I’m concerned. There are checks and balances on every level of government, the SCOTUS should not be exempt from scrutiny.


----------



## AleronIves (May 17, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> If the SCOTUS can decide that just about anything fits into one of the many provisions of the constitution via some kind of convoluted and nonsensical train of thought then there really is no reason for congress or state legislatures to exist at all - all you need is a panel of wisemen making arbitrary decisions.


Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the concept of judicial review itself? As I understand it, it's another example of a power that the SCOTUS essentially gave to itself, despite the Constitution not saying that the courts can strike down laws for being unconstitutional.

AFAIK, the UK does not have the concept of judicial review at all. If Parliament passes a law that the people don't like, they can't go to the courts to strike it down. The only way to get rid of it is to elect different MPs who can then repeal it by passing new legislation.




Foxi4 said:


> There are checks and balances on every level of government, the SCOTUS should not be exempt from scrutiny.


Recent history suggests the checks on the SCOTUS are inadequate, which is a big part of the problem. The only checks are the President's ability to nominate judges and the Senate's ability to decline them; once you're on the court, you're untouchable. The fact that all nominees essentially lie under oath during their confirmation hearings to avoid being "borked" makes the confirmation process useless if there's no way to hold nominees accountable after their appointment.

On the other hand, the SCOTUS can't worry about members being removed for making unpopular decisions without tainting the resulting decisions, so a recall process probably won't help, either. The best option appears to be term limits, although it's unclear if a Constitutional amendment is required to implement that.


----------



## Xzi (May 17, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Having the SCOTUS pull legislation out of a hat at will whenever Congress can’t push their agenda through is less freedom, not more - it removes one of the quintessential checks against government tyranny.


I disagree entirely.  If a court decision grants us more freedoms and liberties that we would not otherwise have, then reversing that decision *is* government tyranny.  Particularly if it's reversed based on unsound logic and religious dogma.



Foxi4 said:


> Neither privacy nor abortion are enumerated or even mentioned in passing anywhere in the constitution. *Aspects* of privacy are, because privacy as a right would automatically require the government to refrain from investigating citizens, even if it has good reason to. There is nothing in or outside of the constitution that indicates its authors, or the authors of the subsequent amendments, had any intention to include abortion rights in the document.


I've said it before, I'll say it again: constitutional originalism is no different from extremism.  It's a living document created for the sole purpose of being expanded upon and interpreted in such a way that the American people are granted more rights and liberties over time.  Any SCOTUS justice who would instead dig deep for interpretations that strip away our rights and liberties is a threat to both our democracy and our very way of life.



Foxi4 said:


> Nobody’s stripping away anyone’s rights - it wasn’t a right to begin with.


And what's to stop the conservative justices from claiming this about all our rights?  "Well, this amendment wasn't there when the constitution was ratified, so it grants rights that weren't rights to begin with.  Repealed."  Slow-boiling the frog has always been a major pillar of long-term fascist strategy.



Foxi4 said:


> Their defense of the issue was tepid because they operated under the impression that the SC will cover their ass until the end of time.


No, their defense of the issue is tepid because they're largely a Christian party, and they allow Republicans to define much of what Christian morals/values are in this country.  Yet another way in which they're controlled opposition, and another example of why so many US citizens don't have their beliefs and interests properly represented in government.



Foxi4 said:


> The court should *never* be used like that, by any party - the text is what it is, and if you’re reading between the lines, you should do so both carefully and at your own peril.


Again, the reasoning behind the repeal is much more of a stretch than the reasoning behind the initial decision, and the majority opinion references pretty much everything _except_ the constitution.  Whether they want to admit to it or not, I think the Buffalo mass shooter and conservative SCOTUS justices have something in common, and that's belief in the "great replacement" conspiracy theory.  Barrett's "domestic supply of infants for adoption" quote in particular comes off sounding very 1488.

Additionally, three of the justices had major conflicts of interest in this case, to the extent two of them should've recused and one should've been under investigation.  A rapist, a religious cultist, and a known insurrectionist cannot and did not remain impartial on abortion.  The court lacks both credibility and integrity right now, and there will soon come a day where their rulings are openly defied because of it.


----------



## tabzer (May 17, 2022)

Xzi said:


> See the thing is we have no shortage of medical professionals willing to provide abortion services, even in red states. They simply created a hostile environment surrounding abortion clinics even before this leak happened, as well as chipping away at them via malicious regulations that even other healthcare providers did not have to adhere to.



I was just wondering about the difference in nuance between,"it's a right" vs "it's legal".  I hear both said, seemingly interchangeably.  The primary seems to suggest that provisions will be made where the latter may suggest that it is not a concern.


----------



## Xzi (May 17, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I was just wondering about the difference in nuance between,"it's a right" vs "it's legal".  I hear both said, seemingly interchangeably.  The primary seems to suggest that provisions will be made where the latter may suggest that it is not a concern.


At least two-thirds of Americans believe it is a human right to have access to abortion services.  By default then, all of them also believe it must remain legal.


----------



## AleronIves (May 17, 2022)

Xzi said:


> And what's to stop the conservative justices from claiming this about all our rights?  "Well, this amendment wasn't there when the constitution was ratified, so it grants rights that weren't rights to begin with.  Repealed."


This is nonsense. The whole point of amendments is that they are part of the Constitution and carry equal weight with the provisions that came before (unless the amendment was written specifically to repeal a previous amendment, e.g. the 21st amendment repealing the 18th amendment's prohibition of alcohol sale and manufacture in the US). The idea that justices can simply ignore amendments is a straw man to discredit the notion that justices shouldn't claim the Constitution says things it doesn't say in order to achieve a desired outcome.

I will partially agree with you, however, when it comes to the concept of judicial review. If either the SCOTUS or a state supreme court can strike down new amendments as being unconstitutional, that seems to violate the separation of powers by giving the courts more power than the other branches. The amendments process is intentionally difficult to complete to ensure that only widely supported notions can be added as amendments, and if courts can subvert that, it undermines an enumerated power of the legislative and executive branches to change the Constitution. On the other hand, what should the courts do if the people pass an amendment that directly contradicts an existing amendment without first repealing said amendment? Constitutional law is a tricky subject.



Xzi said:


> No, their defense of the issue is tepid because they're largely a Christian party, and they allow Republicans to define much of what Christian morals/values are in this country.


I think your views of Republicans are a few decades out of date. A largely Christian party would not have chosen a serial liar, adulterer, and conman as its presidential nominee.



Xzi said:


> the reasoning behind the repeal is much more of a stretch than the reasoning behind the initial decision


It might interest you to know that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, arguably one of the most influential advocates for women's rights of her generation, was critical of Roe. In short, she thought that the right to abortion should have been secured gradually through state legislatures and courts, rather than handed down from on high, thus prematurely cutting off the abortion debate and giving anti-abortion advocates an easy single target ever since. She also thought the basis of Roe was faulty, and that it should have been rooted in equal protection for women, rather than privacy rights.


----------



## Xzi (May 17, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> The idea that justices can simply ignore amendments is a straw man to discredit the notion that justices shouldn't claim the Constitution says things it doesn't say in order to achieve a desired outcome.


This is precisely what my argument is, that the repeal of Roe v Wade took more "reading between the lines" and "creative interpretation" than the initial decision.  So in a sense I do agree with you and Foxi that these things are bad, but if takes more of them to repeal a decision, well then two wrongs don't make a right.



AleronIves said:


> I think your views of Republicans are a few decades out of date. A largely Christian party would not have chosen a serial liar, adulterer, and conman as its presidential nominee.


I was actually talking about the Democratic party there.  The Republican party's base largely consists of Evangelicals and Southern Bapists, and while I agree that they don't actually follow the teachings of the new testament in any significant way, they still call themselves Christian nonetheless.



AleronIves said:


> It might interest you to know that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, arguably one of the most influential advocates for women's rights of her generation, was critical of Roe. In short, she thought that the right to abortion should have been secured gradually through state legislatures and courts, rather than handed down from on high, thus prematurely cutting off the abortion debate and giving anti-abortion advocates an easy single target ever since. She also thought the basis of Roe was faulty, and that it should have been rooted in equal protection for women, rather than privacy rights.


And that would be a reasonable stance to take, *if* we lived in a more democratic/representative system where at least one of the major political parties was entirely and unapologetically pro-choice. We don't live in that system, however, and again I don't believe there was any point within the last fifty years where Roe could've been successfully codified into federal law. That means we have to fiercely defend any and all rights gained over time, regardless of the process through which they were gained. The ends justify the means when it comes to expanding freedoms and liberties, but never when it comes to stripping them away.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 17, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I disagree entirely.  If a court decision grants us more freedoms and liberties that we would not otherwise have, then reversing that decision *is* government tyranny.  Particularly if it's reversed based on unsound logic and religious dogma.


The government doesn’t grant freedom, liberty or rights - they are innate, or if you’re religious, god-given. In America people simply agreed to enumerate them in a document so there’s no disagreement regarding what those rights are. If people think they have more rights than what is enumerated, there’s a system permitting them to expand the document. They’re welcome to do that, they’re not welcome to pretend that they can’t read.


Xzi said:


> I've said it before, I'll say it again: constitutional originalism is no different from extremism.  It's a living document created for the sole purpose of being expanded upon and interpreted in such a way that the American people are granted more rights and liberties over time.  Any SCOTUS justice who would instead dig deep for interpretations that strip away our rights and liberties is a threat to both our democracy and our very way of life.


Living document, yes. Amended, yes. Interpreted? Only through the lens of what the words actually mean in context. 300 years from now someone will find a very dusty server hard drive with a log of this conversation - I would like to think that whoever reads it won’t “interpret” it to mean that you were my wife because I called you “buddy”, and that’s how they call wives in 2320. The author of the words had something specific in mind, and it is our job to determine what that was. If the language is archaic, we have access to their notes, personal letters and other work in which they clearly described their positions. We can’t just say they meant something different because the language has changed, that’s ridiculous.


Xzi said:


> And what's to stop the conservative justices from claiming this about all our rights?  "Well, this amendment wasn't there when the constitution was ratified, so it grants rights that weren't rights to begin with.  Repealed."  Slow-boiling the frog has always been a major pillar of long-term fascist strategy.


Oh, nothing important - just the constitution. The constitution stops that from happening.


Xzi said:


> No, their defense of the issue is tepid because they're largely a Christian party, and they allow Republicans to define much of what Christian morals/values are in this country.  Yet another way in which they're controlled opposition, and another example of why so many US citizens don't have their beliefs and interests properly represented in government.


If you say so. My take is that they got to the 1 yard line and sat down.


Xzi said:


> Again, the reasoning behind the repeal is much more of a stretch than the reasoning behind the initial decision, and the majority opinion references pretty much everything _except_ the constitution.  Whether they want to admit to it or not, I think the Buffalo mass shooter and conservative SCOTUS justices have something in common, and that's belief in the "great replacement" conspiracy theory.  Barrett's "domestic supply of infants for adoption" quote in particular comes off sounding very 1488.


I don’t care about their reasoning for the repeal. I only care about whether Roe v. Wade is a correct decision or not. It is incorrect, therefore it should be repealed.


Xzi said:


> Additionally, three of the justices had major conflicts of interest in this case, to the extent two of them should've recused and one should've been under investigation. A rapist, a religious cultist, and a known insurrectionist cannot and did not remain impartial on abortion.  The court lacks both credibility and integrity right now, and there will soon come a day where their rulings are openly defied because of it.


That’s slander, and is at odds with freedom of religion as guaranteed by the constitution.



AleronIves said:


> Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the concept of judicial review itself? As I understand it, it's another example of a power that the SCOTUS essentially gave to itself, despite the Constitution not saying that the courts can strike down laws for being unconstitutional.
> 
> AFAIK, the UK does not have the concept of judicial review at all. If Parliament passes a law that the people don't like, they can't go to the courts to strike it down. The only way to get rid of it is to elect different MPs who can then repeal it by passing new legislation.
> 
> ...


Judicial review can be logically inferred from article 3 and 4. In the instance of two or more laws conflicting with each other, it is the sworn duty of the judiciary to determine the boundaries of each law. That being said, they are not the legislature. Putting excessive checks on the SCOTUS would interfere in its function, but we may have been too trusting of those given the vote of confidence to sit on the highest court in the land. Their job, one and only job, is to determine the constitutionality of laws put before them. If a given justice gives opinions tainted by party affiliation or ideological bias, the hope is that other justices will balance that injustice out. Not a great check, but in a perfect world, the SCOTUS would be a check on itself, by the virtue of justices being appointed for life (no danger of political pressure) and by various different presidents (allowing the pendulum to swing back and forth). Sadly, sometimes a curve ball slips past the goalie, so ultimately the biggest check on all of government are the people, who can only be governed by consent. In short, I think judicial review in useful, maybe even necessary, but also dangerous. Somebody needs to have the authority to nullify unjust legislation, and justices seem to be the ideal pick, considering the judiciary exists specifically to interpret law.

As you mention in another post, abortion, like any other polarising issue, should go through the pipeline of public debate and legislation. That process was interrupted abruptly by having the court decide upon it unilaterally instead, thus ending the debate. Legal scholars have been critical of this decision from day 1, it should come as no surprise that a house built on sand eventually crumbles. The time since making this decision was wasted, so if it is repealed, we may end up back at square one. Is that a good, or a bad thing, only time can tell.


----------



## Xzi (May 17, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The government doesn’t grant freedom, liberty or rights - they are innate, or if you’re religious, god-given.


If only.  Every freedom, liberty, and right we have in America was hard won through blood, sweat, tears, and a significant portion of the populace willing to be disruptive to the system.



Foxi4 said:


> Oh, nothing important - just the constitution. The constitution stops that from happening.


A piece of paper cannot defend itself, regardless of what's written on it.  Clearly any checks and balances we have right now against SCOTUS going rogue are not sufficient enough.



Foxi4 said:


> I don’t care about their reasoning for the repeal. I only care about whether Roe v. Wade is a correct decision or not. It is incorrect, therefore it should be repealed.


Whether you care or not is irrelevant, incorrect reasoning for the repeal makes the repeal itself incorrect.  The reasoning behind their decisions represents nearly the entirety of what makes or breaks the court's reputation.



Foxi4 said:


> That’s slander, and is at odds with freedom of religion as guaranteed by the constitution.


The constitution also guarantees the freedom _from_ religion, aka separation of church and state. Barrett's entire worldview is informed by the religious cult she grew up in and continues to participate in to this day, how could it not be. For that reason she never should've been confirmed as a supreme court justice, and I'd argue even a federal judgeship is too much power to grant to a "handmaid" (actual title that she holds). She cannot simultaneously represent the roughly 1700 loonies in her cult while also representing interests of the American populace writ large.


----------



## Creamu (May 17, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You sound like you're pro socialism and think these parents have the right to my finances, time and effort. You're wrong. I care about the child as much as I care about any random person, but it's not my responsibility to raise it and make sure it has a decent upbringing. That's the parents job.


Don't you see any value in making sure you have happy healthy young people around when you grow old?


----------



## Creamu (May 17, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> There’s some scientific evidence to support that notion, so I have no reason to disagree. Radiation in general affects living beings, and the structure of DNA - this is a question of frequency and power. Whether that has a quantifiable effect on how your microbiome affects you remains to be seen.


If you are interested you can check out my thread on this topic:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/dna-changes-of-microbiomes-by-emf.612392/
take care


----------



## Foxi4 (May 17, 2022)

Creamu said:


> If you are interested you can check out my thread on this topic:
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/dna-changes-of-microbiomes-by-emf.612392/
> take care


I’m not interested - I know how radiation works. Is this some kind of 5G tinfoil thing? Because I’m not particularly concerned, based on the numbers involved.


----------



## Creamu (May 17, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m not interested - I know how radiation works.


Cool, maybe you could contribute with your knowledge.


Foxi4 said:


> Is this some kind of 5G tinfoil thing?


No, it's about repopulation of the microbiome. There are modernday factors that weren't at play throughout most of human evoltuion that impact the microbiome. An imptorant factor of many is a way more sterile lifestyle with a lot pasturized food products for example.


Foxi4 said:


> Because I’m not particularly concerned, based on the numbers involved.


I don't know the details about 5G. If you have some insight I would be happy to hear about it.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 17, 2022)

Xzi said:


> If only.  Every freedom, liberty, and right we have in America was hard won through blood, sweat, tears, and a significant portion of the populace willing to be disruptive to the system.


I’m not opposed to civil disobedience. You’re forgetting that I don’t like the government. The government governs by consent - if there’s no consent, there can be no government. Your country is built on rebellion, figure it out. Just don’t lie, which is the foundation of Roe v. Wade. A house built on sand is liable to crumble.


Xzi said:


> A piece of paper cannot defend itself, regardless of what's written on it.  Clearly any checks and balances we have right now against SCOTUS going rogue are not sufficient enough.


You’re right. Roe V. Wade exists, therefore the checks have failed. This is a corrective measure. The constitution protects itself pretty well, considering you need consent of 2/3rds of the states to meaningfully change it. Not an easy task, by any means.


Xzi said:


> Whether you care or not is irrelevant, incorrect reasoning for the repeal makes the repeal itself incorrect.  The reasoning behind their decisions represents nearly the entirety of what makes or breaks the court's reputation.


The only relevant factor is whether Roe v. Wade is constitutional or not. If it’s not constitutional then it must be repealed. The court’s reputation has been in the dumps ever since it became an activist court, it can only go up now.


Xzi said:


> The constitution also guarantees the freedom _from_ religion, aka separation of church and state. Barrett's entire worldview is informed by the religious cult she grew up in and continues to participate in to this day, how could it not be. For that reason she never should've been confirmed as a supreme court justice, and I'd argue even a federal judgeship is too much power to grant to a "handmaid" (actual title that she holds). She cannot simultaneously represent the roughly 1700 loonies in her cult while also representing interests of the American populace writ large.


Being religious doesn’t disqualify anyone from holding a position on the court.


----------



## AleronIves (May 17, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I was actually talking about the Democratic party there.


My mistake. I disagree with your characterisation of the Democratic Party as "largely Christian", though. The Republican line that Democrats are all godless heathens is a straw man, but there is some truth in it, since the number of Americans who identify as religious has been declining for years, AFAIK.



Xzi said:


> And that would be a reasonable stance to take, *if* we lived in a more democratic/representative system where at least one of the major political parties was entirely and unapologetically pro-choice. We don't live in that system, however, and again I don't believe there was any point within the last fifty years where Roe could've been successfully codified into federal law. That means we have to fiercely defend any and all rights gained over time, regardless of the process through which they were gained. The ends justify the means when it comes to expanding freedoms and liberties, but never when it comes to stripping them away.


It's a bad idea to say that the system isn't working, so our team should just jam through everything we want to accomplish by any illegitimate means necessary, because at some point your team isn't going to be in charge anymore, and then you're going to be upset when the other team uses the same tactics to accomplish things you dislike. These tactics merely accelerate the decline of American democracy by undermining its institutions. If you want to accomplish something important, you should do it in the right way when such a method exists. As you said earlier, two wrongs don't make a right.



Xzi said:


> The constitution also guarantees the freedom _from_ religion, aka separation of church and state. Barrett's entire worldview is informed by the religious cult she grew up in and continues to participate in to this day, how could it not be. For that reason she never should've been confirmed as a supreme court justice


Separation of church and state does not forbid religious people from holding office. It forbids the state from giving preferential treatment to any particular religious views. I'm no fan of Barrett, but I acknowledge that her religious beliefs do not legally prohibit her from being on the court, even if I think that her religious beliefs will cause her to make worse decisions than somebody who doesn't hold those beliefs.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 17, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Separation of church and state does not forbid religious people from holding office. It forbids the state from giving preferential treatment to any particular religious views. I'm no fan of Barrett, but I acknowledge that her religious beliefs do not legally prohibit her from being on the court, even if I think that her religious beliefs will cause her to make worse decisions than somebody who doesn't hold those beliefs.


Let’s not skate by the fact that the accusation is entirely fabricated - there’s no evidence that Barrett’s judgement is clouded by her religious views, just like there’s no evidence Kavanaugh ever raped anyone (nor was he ever convicted of that crime). The “insurrectionist” accusation is equally ludicrous since no insurrection took place - the matter was already thoroughly investigated by the F.B.I., no coup was planned. Not even the Democratic Party or liberal-leaning media use that word in reference to January 6th, but that doesn’t stop people on the Internet from making baseless accusations.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 17, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> You say socialism like it's a bad thing. You also seem to, again, bring up the point that you're in some way going to have to help take care of these people, which is still wrong. You care about the child about as much as a random person, but you've said yourself at least twice now that other people's problems are not yours. But then, abortions are your problem? You're being hypocritical and trying to use a proven fallacy to justify it.



I don't condone murder, regardless of who is doing it and why they are doing it. It's the parents responsibility to raise their children. Why are you making excuses for shitty parents?



SyphenFreht said:


> Congratulations. Welcome to living in a society that, at one point, was built upon solidarity. Too bad you don't get to choose where your taxes go. Seems to me you'd be better fit to argue against unjust tax laws than abortions.



By voting for people who are against abortion or voting myself against it could possibly result in me seeing less of my money going towards performing them.



SyphenFreht said:


> Except there are cases of rape and incest and complicated pregnancies. And because these people don't deserve to be forced to live with a mistake they didn't create, their needs to be something established that will protect them. Blanket laws hurt just as much as they help.



How the baby came to be isn't my concern. Was she raped and became pregnant? That's not the child's fault, the child in which you are killing because it's something you simply don't want.


----------



## omgcat (May 17, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I don't condone murder, regardless of who is doing it and why they are doing it. It's the parents responsibility to raise their children. Why are you making excuses for shitty parents?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



would you accept an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy? when an egg implants into the fallopian tube it will grow, eventually burst the tube and kill the mother. it is impossible to move the embryo to the proper spot because the tech just flat doesn't exist. the child needs to be aborted to save the m,others life, is it murder?


----------



## AleronIves (May 17, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Let’s not skate by the fact that the accusation is entirely fabricated - there’s no evidence that Barrett’s judgement is clouded by her religious views


Well, a rabid atheist might claim that holding religious views automatically clouds your judgement, because believing in a magic bearded man in the sky automatically makes you sound like a nut who shouldn't be on the SCOTUS.

The opposite is also true. A rabid Christian might claim that not holding religious views automatically clouds your judgement, because believing everything came about by random chance cheapens the sanctity of life, and somebody so callous shouldn't be on the SCOTUS.

The separation of church and state, as well as the freedom of religion, allows both religious and non-religious people to hold office, as well as to believe things that other people think are bad.



Foxi4 said:


> just like there’s no evidence Kavanaugh ever raped anyone (nor was he ever convicted of that crime).


Evidence is usually scarce in cases of rape. Unless you can gather DNA evidence immediately, it's just going to be a "he says, she says" situation.



Foxi4 said:


> The “insurrectionist” accusation is equally ludicrous since no insurrection took place - the matter was already thoroughly investigated by the F.B.I., no coup was planned.


Trying to murder the Vice President and members of Congress is nonetheless serious, even if the people were too disorganised to have a plan for actually overthrowing the government after halting Biden's election certification.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 17, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Well, a rabid atheist might claim that holding religious views automatically clouds your judgement, because believing in a magic bearded man in the sky automatically makes you sound like a nut who shouldn't be on the SCOTUS.
> 
> The opposite is also true. A rabid Christian might claim that not holding religious views automatically clouds your judgement, because believing everything came about by random chance cheapens the sanctity of life, and somebody so callous shouldn't be on the SCOTUS.
> 
> The separation of church and state, as well as the freedom of religion, allows both religious and non-religious people to hold office, as well as to believe things that other people think are bad.


The entire point of freedom of (and from) religion is that your belief status does not, and should not, disqualify you from any government position. As such, her personal beliefs are immaterial. The only qualification required is a good grasp of law, particularly the Constitution, and other assorted historical documents. She’s perfectly qualified for the position.


AleronIves said:


> Evidence is usually scarce in cases of rape. Unless you can gather DNA evidence immediately, it's just going to be a "he says, she says" situation.


Ford had ample opportunity to file a police report at the time. The matter was thoroughly investigated and it was concluded that her testimony has more holes than Swiss cheese. I can’t base my judgement on he-said-she-said - either there’s evidence of impropriety or not. The man is innocent, unless he can be proven guilty. Since he was not found guilty in a court of law, calling him a rapist is slander. We’ve been over this, in this specific section, and we arrived at the conclusion that slanderous accusations have no place on the board. Everyone was up in arms when the other side of the aisle was calling Joe Biden a rapist (he was also accused of sexual impropriety, not to mention his weird penchant for sniffing people), but when it’s Kavanaugh we’re supposed to accept accusations at face value. Double standards are not a good way to have a balanced debate - either we’re calling both of them rapists based on nothing *or* we follow the “innocent until proven guilty” train of thought and don’t throw baseless accusations around. I don’t care either way - the man’s not a rapist, he was never convicted of rape.


> Trying to murder the Vice President and members of Congress is nonetheless serious, even if the people were too disorganised to have a plan for actually overthrowing the government after halting Biden's election certification.


Trying to, or talking crap during a riot? Nobody denies that a riot took place. If memory serves, when arsonists tried to burn down a federal building during the BLM riots, we called that a “summer of peace”. I can’t muster the strength to care about a bunch of crazies entering a building, making a mess and then leaving in an orderly fashion when prompted to. At the end of the day, what happened doesn’t fit the definition of an insurrection - there was no forward planning, no organised group of individuals with a plot and no actual attempt to overthrow the government. It was a large group of very discontent citizens who took out their frustrations in the worst way possible. Those are the findings of America’s top law enforcement agency, and I have no reason to distrust those findings. If anything, given prior record of anti-Trump bias within the F.B.I. (lest we forget the Strzok messages, or the fabricated Steele dossier that launched a long investigation into absolutely nothing), the fact that they found nothing to support the insurrection theory is even more convincing than if the investigators were unbiased.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 18, 2022)

omgcat said:


> would you accept an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy? when an egg implants into the fallopian tube it will grow, eventually burst the tube and kill the mother. it is impossible to move the embryo to the proper spot because the tech just flat doesn't exist. the child needs to be aborted to save the m,others life, is it murder?



In that specific circumstance the baby is going to die so there should be no reason it shouldn't be removed, but this circumstance isn't your normal pregnancy. The removal from what I can tell pertains of specialized surgery. This is not a normal abortion procedure that we all have been discussing.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 18, 2022)

omgcat said:


> would you accept an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy? when an egg implants into the fallopian tube it will grow, eventually burst the tube and kill the mother. it is impossible to move the embryo to the proper spot because the tech just flat doesn't exist. the child needs to be aborted to save the m,others life, is it murder?


This is an interesting point, and one that was addressed long before the birth of Christ, if we’re talking strictly about religious reservations against abortion. Jewish tradition explicitly permits abortion if the life of the mother is threatened, be it by medical circumstances like pre-natal complications, or the risk of suicide if the woman is adamant that she will resort to self-harm if she is forced to carry to term. In fact, fetuses are called “merely water” until they reach 40 days of gestation. It’s in the Mishnah, so if Christianity and Islam are based on Jewish religion, presumably the same rules could apply. If we’re talking strictly about passages in the Bible, the book of Exodus features a passage about this issue. If a man strikes a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage, but no other injury is sustained, the man is to be fined to the extent decided by the husband. If further injury is present (which presumably means grievous injury/death), the man is to be put to death - life for a life. Clearly, from a religious standpoint, ending the life of an unborn child is not considered murder, or if it is, it doesn’t carry the same penalty as the murder of a full-grown person. It’s worth noting that both the Torah and the Bible prohibit “spilling the blood of man in man”, which is broadly understood as a prohibition of abortion, but it’s not considered murder, if Exodus is anything to go by. The Jewish word used in reference to a forced miscarriage translates to “accident” or “misfortune”.


----------



## AleronIves (May 18, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The entire point of freedom of (and from) religion is that your belief status does not, and should not, disqualify you from any government position.


That's what I said. I was responding to your assertion that the accusations are fabricated. To some people, having or lacking religious belief is all the evidence they need that somebody is unqualified. The critical difference is that those people are not in charge of confirming judges to the SCOTUS, because if they were, using such a standard would be unconstitutional.



Foxi4 said:


> If memory serves, when arsonists tried to burn down a federal building during the BLM riots, we called that a “summer of peace”.


Not everybody called it that. Peaceful protests are a constitutionally protected right. Riots are not.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 18, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Not everybody called it that. Peaceful protests are a constitutionally protected right. Riots are not.



I remember the entire left wing news establishments calling them not only that, but "mostly peaceful protests". They supported the thousands of riots and then when a single right wing one takes place they pounce on it completely overlooking what their side has done (arson, looting, raping, murder, destruction of property, trespassing, oh did I mention "arson"?).


----------



## Foxi4 (May 18, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> That's what I said. I was responding to your assertion that the accusations are fabricated. To some people, having or lacking religious belief is all the evidence they need that somebody is unqualified. The critical difference is that those people are not in charge of confirming judges to the SCOTUS, because if they were, using such a standard would be unconstitutional.


Of course. Thing is, we’re having a discussion in public, so other than you being the recipient, there are others following the exchange. As such, it’s often prudent to get into a little more detail and clarify a position. That sometimes involves stating the obvious.


AleronIves said:


> Not everybody called it that. Peaceful protests are a constitutionally protected right. Riots are not.


The mayor of Seattle called the wave of BLM riots that sweeped the country a “summer of love”. It’s on tape - I didn’t come up with it, Jenny Durkan did. How am I supposed to interpret that if not as a double standard?

EDIT: Slight correction. Now that I look it up, she was more specifically referring to the whole Chaz/Chop debacle, which was no less egregious considering these people took over and vandalised a police precinct (needless to say, state property) and four city blocks.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...tmosphere_could_turn_into_summer_of_love.html


----------



## AleronIves (May 18, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I remember the entire left wing news establishments calling them not only that, but "mostly peaceful protests".


My understanding is that there were many peaceful protests, and there were also many riots. I don't have numbers to be able to comment on whether "mostly peaceful" is an accurate assessment. I would like to think that at least 51% of the protests were peaceful, but since violence generates more clicks, I have no doubt that the protests that turned violent got more coverage than the protests where everyone obeyed the law, so it might seem like a higher percentage of protests were violent than peaceful, even if that was not the case.



Foxi4 said:


> The mayor of Seattle called the wave of BLM riots that sweeped the country a “summer of love”.



I meant that those of us who try not to treat politics like a team sport where "our side is always right" did not condone those riots. The rules should be the same for everybody, and rioting should be condemned, regardless of why people are doing it. When you said, "we" called it a summer of peace, I interpreted that as "we the people", not "we the news media".


----------



## Foxi4 (May 18, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I meant that those of us who try not to treat politics like a team sport where "our side is always right" did not condone those riots. The rules should be the same for everybody, and rioting should be condemned, regardless of why people are doing it. When you said, "we" called it a summer of peace, I interpreted that as "we the people", not "we the news media".


I used the royal “we”, but of course you are right. I very much doubt anyone can really condone riots in their deepest heart of hearts, that’s not how you institute long-lasting change. It only breeds further resentment, and the way the media has approached the issue of rioting over the last few years is both schizophrenic and polarising. I was always under the impression that the constitution guaranteed the right to peacefully protest for redress of grievances, I never imagined that at some point we’d be looking the other way as cities burn and stores are being looted. It is what it is, I suppose.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 18, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Not everybody called it that. Peaceful protests are a constitutionally protected right. Riots are not.


"Firey but mostly peaceful protests" we see shit burning in the background

seems pretty peaceful to me!


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 18, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I don't condone murder, regardless of who is doing it and why they are doing it. It's the parents responsibility to raise their children. Why are you making excuses for shitty parents?



Who's making excuses? I think if you're willing to commit the act, you should commit to the outcome. However, not every case is black and white and this overturn is a blanket effect that affects everyone. You're condemning every woman to the same fate regardless of happening. It's akin to punishing every crime with death, regardless of whether it's murder itself or jaywalking. 




JonhathonBaxster said:


> By voting for people who are against abortion or voting myself against it could possibly result in me seeing less of my money going towards performing them.



Good luck. 




JonhathonBaxster said:


> How the baby came to be isn't my concern. Was she raped and became pregnant? That's not the child's fault, the child in which you are killing because it's something you simply don't want.



I mean if a 14 year old gets raped by her father and forced to keep the baby, how badly do you think the mother actually wants the baby? But see, this stance highlights how the Republican party in general tends to inadvertently show its lack of human empathy and understanding. The "only" portion they care about is the death of a baby; not how it gets here, not what it's born into, not what happens afterward. At that point, it's a control issue, not one that's in the best interest of the individuals involved.


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The only relevant factor is whether Roe v. Wade is constitutional or not. If it’s not constitutional then it must be repealed.


You yourself admit there's an implicit right to privacy written into the constitution, and it doesn't get any more private than a pregnant woman discussing the possibility of needing to terminate that pregnancy with her doctor.  I continue to hold the position that the reasoning for overturning Roe is much more unconstitutional than the reasoning behind the initial decision establishing it as precedent.  It's also obvious that the justices of the time were far more impartial on this topic, whereas naked political and religious motivations show up everywhere in the majority opinion overturning it.



Foxi4 said:


> Being religious doesn’t disqualify anyone from holding a position on the court.


No, but being in a certifiably insane cult certainly should.  I'd say the same thing about a justice who believes in Scientology, and that's a cult with a much larger mainstream footprint.



AleronIves said:


> My mistake. I disagree with your characterisation of the Democratic Party as "largely Christian", though. The Republican line that Democrats are all godless heathens is a straw man, but there is some truth in it, since the number of Americans who identify as religious has been declining for years, AFAIK.


Correct, but despite that decline, the religious minority continues to hold undue power over our laws and government.  How many of our federal representatives identify as practicing Christians?  80%?  More?



AleronIves said:


> If you want to accomplish something important, you should do it in the right way when such a method exists.


*When* such a method exists, sure.  As I already said though, there's no point in the last fifty years where we would've had the votes necessary to codify Roe into federal law.  At a time when our rights are actively under attack, I'll take an expansion of rights however I can get it.  And if the only language some of these authoritarians understand when it comes to defending our rights is violence, so be it.



AleronIves said:


> Separation of church and state does not forbid religious people from holding office. It forbids the state from giving preferential treatment to any particular religious views.


Precisely my point: she represents the 1700 people in her puritanical, medieval cult, and therefore she's incapable of representing anyone else.  Just her being on the bench qualifies as giving preferential treatment to those extremist beliefs, let alone allowing her to vote on issues where her beliefs present a serious conflict of interest.

On top of that, at least three justices lied under oath about their intentions to overturn Roe v Wade during their confirmation hearings.  That alone should be enough to trigger a recall in a properly functioning system, as lying about this one thing could mean they lied about absolutely everything else too.


----------



## AleronIves (May 18, 2022)

Xzi said:


> No, but being in a certifiably insane cult certainly should.  I'd say the same thing about a justice who believes in Scientology, and that's a cult with a much larger mainstream footprint.


The problem is, who gets to decide what qualifies as an insane cult and what qualifies as a religion that enjoys Constitutional protections? Scientology isn't that much crazier than Christianity; it's just newer.



Xzi said:


> As I already said though, there's no point in the last fifty years where we would've had the votes necessary to codify Roe into federal law.


Well of course not, since Democrats gave up the fight for abortion rights after Roe and blithely assumed it would never be overturned, despite Republicans having exactly that as a major plank of the party platform ever since.



Xzi said:


> At a time when our rights are actively under attack, I'll take an expansion of rights however I can get it.  And if the only language some of these authoritarians understand when it comes to defending our rights is violence, so be it.


In that case, it appears you don't believe in democracy or the Constitution. Getting your way by force is how dictatorships operate, and dictatorships never end with expanded rights for the people. Do you not see the inherent contradiction in saying, "These authoritarians are unfairly imposing their will on us! The democratic process has failed, so we must use violence to impose our will on them!" You're merely advocating for the other side of the same coin.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 18, 2022)

Xzi said:


> You yourself admit there's an implicit right to privacy written into the constitution, and it doesn't get any more private than a pregnant woman discussing the possibility of needing to terminate that pregnancy with her doctor.  I continue to hold the position that the reasoning for overturning Roe is much more unconstitutional than the reasoning behind the initial decision establishing it as precedent.  It's also obvious that the justices of the time were far more impartial on this topic, whereas naked political and religious motivations show up everywhere in the majority opinion overturning it.


No, I didn’t. I said the constitution covers aspects of privacy, not privacy itself.


Xzi said:


> No, but being in a certifiably insane cult certainly should.  I'd say the same thing about a justice who believes in Scientology, and that's a cult with a much larger mainstream footprint.


Who decided that and when? Religion is religion. If this is your main complaint, all that tells me is that you don’t actually believe in constitutional protections.


AleronIves said:


> In that case, it appears you don't believe in democracy or the Constitution. Getting your way by force is how dictatorships operate, and dictatorships never end with expanded rights for the people. Do you not see the inherent contradiction in saying, "These authoritarians are unfairly imposing their will on us! The democratic process has failed, so we must use violence to impose our will on them!" You're merely advocating for the other side of the same coin.


“When I like the outcome, it’s democracy at work. When I don’t like the outcome, it’s time to use force!” - who’s the authoritarian here?


----------



## tabzer (May 18, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> “When I like the outcome, it’s democracy at work. When I don’t like the outcome, it’s time to use force!” - who’s the authoritarian here?



This is the most potent lesson I am learning from this thread.  End justifies the means for some people.  For those people, more words are needed to explain simple truths.  Otherwise their ideology risks being undone.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 18, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> My understanding is that there were many peaceful protests, and there were also many riots. I don't have numbers to be able to comment on whether "mostly peaceful" is an accurate assessment. I would like to think that at least 51% of the protests were peaceful, but since violence generates more clicks, I have no doubt that the protests that turned violent got more coverage than the protests where everyone obeyed the law, so it might seem like a higher percentage of protests were violent than peaceful, even if that was not the case.



I think your misunderstood what I wrote. The liberal left wing media was calling the riots themselves "mostly peaceful protests".



SyphenFreht said:


> Who's making excuses? I think if you're willing to commit the act, you should commit to the outcome. However, not every case is black and white and this overturn is a blanket effect that affects everyone. You're condemning every woman to the same fate regardless of happening. It's akin to punishing every crime with death, regardless of whether it's murder itself or jaywalking.



I think you should be focused on the people who create the baby and not on random strangers like me that share no responsibility for their actions. You seem to be making excuses for the parents not taking care of their children. You stated "if you're willing to commit the act, you should commit to the outcome", yet this only applies to me and not the actual people who created the child? Where's the outrage for the parents not taking care of their child? Why are you focused on random strangers as opposed to the people who are actually responsible for the child? Your priorities are all messed up.


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> The problem is, who gets to decide what qualifies as an insane cult and what qualifies as a religion that enjoys Constitutional protections? Scientology isn't that much crazier than Christianity; it's just newer.


Scientology is all about indentured servitude, and Barrett's "People of Praise" is all about trying to return society to the dark ages.  Both are objectively cult-like in their beliefs and everyday operations.



AleronIves said:


> Well of course not, since Democrats gave up the fight for abortion rights after Roe and blithely assumed it would never be overturned, despite Republicans having exactly that as a major plank of the party platform ever since.


We've been over this, it's not that they "gave up," it's that they never had fifty pro-choice Dems in the Senate.  There are always just enough DINOs to block progress, and that's largely by design.  A two-party system is always going to be fundamentally broken.



AleronIves said:


> In that case, it appears you don't believe in democracy or the Constitution. Getting your way by force is how dictatorships operate, and dictatorships never end with expanded rights for the people. Do you not see the inherent contradiction in saying, "These authoritarians are unfairly imposing their will on us! The democratic process has failed, so we must use violence to impose our will on them!" You're merely advocating for the other side of the same coin.


You're putting words in my mouth, I specifically said that if violence is required in _defense_ of our rights, then so be it.  With any luck it won't be required, as SCOTUS has no real power to enforce the decisions they make anyway, but the way things are going it seems they might rely on fascists and religious extremists to do that for them.


----------



## Creamu (May 18, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > “When I like the outcome, it’s democracy at work. When I don’t like the outcome, it’s time to use force!” - who’s the authoritarian here?
> ...


----------



## tabzer (May 18, 2022)

Creamu said:


>




While I'm not sure how that relates to what I said, it does make me think about something.  Who owns "fake news"?  Propaganda is an idealogy's best friend.  Those who speak against cults are probably in competition.


----------



## Creamu (May 18, 2022)

tabzer said:


> While I'm not sure how that relates to what I said, it does make me think about something.  Who owns "fake news"?  Propaganda is an idealogy's best friend.  Those who speak against cults are probably in competition.


Thats the relation. Look closely at your hegemon.


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2022)

tabzer said:


> This is the most potent lesson I am learning from this thread.  End justifies the means for some people.  For those people, more words are needed to explain simple truths.  Otherwise their ideology risks being undone.


I did explicitly state that I believe the ends do justify the means when it comes to expanding our rights, liberties, and freedoms, and I stick by that.  The idea that progress is destined to happen over time no matter what is largely a neoliberal one, and it's total nonsense meant to keep the populace content no matter how blatant the failures of the system become.  Authoritarianism comes from the top down, not the bottom up.

If not for so many people believing the same as I do, the French and American revolutions never would've occured.  If not for the riots following George Floyd's murder, Chauvin never would've been held accountable at all.  If not for the Stonewall riots, gay people would never have become an accepted part of society in any capacity.  The history of progress is also a history of righteous violence.  Does it need to be that way always?  Hopefully not, but it's currently the language that those in power seem to understand best.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 18, 2022)

https://babylonbee.com/news/9-terrifying-consequences-of-roe-being-overturned

this is kinda funny


----------



## tabzer (May 18, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I did explicitly state that I believe the ends do justify the means when it comes to expanding our rights, liberties, and freedoms, and I stick by that.  The idea that progress is destined to happen over time no matter what is largely a neoliberal one, and it's total nonsense meant to keep the populace content no matter how blatant the failures of the system become.  Authoritarianism comes from the top down, not the bottom up.


Usually it comes from both sides.  Someone dons the boots.   Do you think it is the "privileged" volunteering?

Progress has been made on a number of counts, but is it in the quality of the people or the quality of the rule?


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 18, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I think you should be focused on the people who create the baby and not on random strangers like me that share no responsibility for their actions.



I only focus on you because you initially quoted and responded to my post. Otherwise, my focus is on letting people make these kinds of decisions in peace, uninhibited by people who have control issues. 



JonhathonBaxster said:


> You seem to be making excuses for the parents not taking care of their children.



Rape and incest aren't excuses. The fact that you think so implies you have very little regard to women, and people in general. 




JonhathonBaxster said:


> You stated "if you're willing to commit the act, you should commit to the outcome", yet this only applies to me and not the actual people who created the child?



What. Who said anything about it only applying to you? I think if two people enter into a relationship with the intent on having a child, they should go through with it. However, I still believe they should have the right to abort if needed. 



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Where's the outrage for the parents not taking care of their child? Why are you focused on random strangers as opposed to the people who are actually responsible for the child? Your priorities are all messed up.



This thread isn't covering the outrage, it's covering the morality regarding abortions. If a couple can't raise a child without putting its life in detriment, why be forced to carry the baby just to have its life wasted anyway? I'd like to prevent a life that's being born into active detriment then to keep forcing births that put kids in volatile homes, an already over crowded adoption system, so on and so forth. I'm for freedom of choice, not forced bodily regulation.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 18, 2022)

Xzi said:


> If not for so many people believing the same as I do, the French and American revolutions never would've occured.  If not for the riots following George Floyd's murder, Chauvin never would've been held accountable at all.  If not for the Stonewall riots, gay people would never have become an accepted part of society in any capacity.  The history of progress is also a history of righteous violence.  Does it need to be that way always?  Hopefully not, but it's currently the language that those in power seem to understand best.



Yes, make excuses and glorify the thousands of violent riots yet lambast a single one when it happens to come from the other side. Makes perfect sense.



SyphenFreht said:


> This thread isn't covering the outrage, it's covering the morality regarding abortions. If a couple can't raise a child without putting its life in detriment, why be forced to carry the baby just to have its life wasted anyway? I'd like to prevent a life that's being born into active detriment then to keep forcing births that put kids in volatile homes, an already over crowded adoption system, so on and so forth. I'm for freedom of choice, not forced bodily regulation.



You may think those types of lives are worthless, but they aren't. You're making excuses for murdering babies just because they might not have what you consider an ideal upbringing. If what the parents are doing is so wrong then why not focus on the parents? Why not encourage them to take responsibility for the life they create?


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Usually it comes from both sides. Someone dons the boots.


Correct, and I'm talking about sending a message to the people who don the boots, not necessarily overthrowing them except perhaps as a last resort.



tabzer said:


> Do you think it is the "privileged" volunteering?


Of course not, the priviledged never want to rebel against a system that granted them their privilege in the first place, even if it's an objectively reprehensible one.



tabzer said:


> Progress has been made on a number of counts, but is it in the quality of the people or the quality of the rule?


Government needs reminding from time to time that they are servants of the people, not the other way around.  Based on the bill currently making its way through Congress, SCOTUS justices believe their enumerated rights to privacy should be greater than those for the rest of the American populace, and that's total horse shit.


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Yes, make excuses and glorify the thousands of violent riots yet lambast a single one when it happens to come from the other side. Makes perfect sense.


Yes, yes it does.  Why?  Because one side is fighting for justice and expanded rights, while the other is fighting for oligarchy, dictatorship, and a total abolition of all rights for everyone except the "chosen few."  As dark as American history is, it would've been at least ten times worse had the South won the Civil War.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 18, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Yes, yes it does.  Why?  Because one side is fighting for justice and expanded rights, while the other is fighting for oligarchy, dictatorship, and a total abolition of all rights for everyone except the "chosen few."  As dark as American history is, it would've been at least ten times worse had the South won the Civil War.



Except your insurrection accusations are complete horse shit. All that happened was a few hundred people out of a couple hundred thousand decided to riot. There was no plan of attack, no coordination. It was just a bunch of pissed off conservatives that decided to ransack the capital building. Trump never instructed any of them to riot and after the riots started he told them to stop and go home, which they did. Your claims of an insurrection are just more bullshit lies, but at least you make yourself clear that you support violence to get your way and you just look stupid attacking a single riot when you glorify thousands of them.


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Except your insurrection accusations are complete horse shit. All that happened was a few hundred people out of a couple hundred thousand decided to riot. There was no plan of attack, no coordination. It was just a bunch of pissed off conservatives that decided to ransack the capital building. Trump never instructed any of them to riot and after the riots started he told them to stop and go home, which they did. Your claims of an insurrection are just more bullshit lies, but at least you make yourself clear that you support violence to get your way and you just look stupid attacking a single riot when you glorify thousands of them.


I didn't even mention the failed attempt at an insurrection.  I was talking about the ideology of fascists, authoritarians, and oligarchs in general.  That said, there's no denying that a significant portion of the Republican party would install Donald Trump as dictator if they could.  They've made it very clear that democracy no longer interests them, and that hurting the "other" is of far higher priority than improving their own lives in any capacity.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (May 18, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I was making a point. I know no one in their right mind would actually contact her. However, she clearly states that she lost her "baby" and according to Liberals it wasn't a baby. She must be confused about that, eh?


You do realize that not all celebrities are liberal right? Especially ones who were born in the deep south. Of course she would have her own thoughts on the matter, especially since it was something she was planning to have. That said if you want to have your argument based on someone who had been in and out of mental instability so much that her father had taken Conservatorship of her for many years and even forced her to get an IUD against her wishes, which may have been the cause of the miscarriage since those tend to have complications with internal damage and infertility issues during implantation and removal.

But hey, what am I saying, you probably would want women to be downgraded to being like Britney Spears and just be stripped of their freedoms for most of their life.


JonhathonBaxster said:


> That's easy. Life is precious, abortions should not take place. However, the financial responsibility lies on the people who created the baby. Not random strangers. You're bitching because people like me don't want to pay for dead beat parents. You're basically saying it's okay for the parents to not feed or cloth their children and it should be my responsibility to do so when I had nothing to do with creating their child. Yeah, nope. I'm not supporting dead beat trash by making excuses for their actions or by voting to give them part of my income.


*Then don't take part in the effort to preserve life when you do not want to support life. *When you want to defend life up to the point when it is born and then drop any and all care about it afterwards, you are showing exactly the fulcrum of why the Pro-Life movement is flawed. You only care about its existence until its actually born, in which case its no longer your problem to care anymore. You might as well be a goddamn slacktivist and more so a hypocrite because when those who will need help to support that life after its born you nor anyone of your movement will want to lift a finger. Its not about preserving life, its about your religious driven belief that makes you do this shit. Its about pushing your belief onto others so much that it could destroy their lives and the life that you helped force into this world that will not get any help and will suffer because of it. You and the pro-lifers who believe this is the right thing to do and feel this way are absolute monsters and should have *no right to have any influence on anyone or their choices in life. *

People like you talk about the whereabouts of the soul and protecting all forms of life, but when it comes down to it to make a statement as such and believe it proves that some people simply do not have a soul. 



JonhathonBaxster said:


> You may think those types of lives are worthless, but they aren't. You're making excuses for murdering babies just because they might not have what you consider an ideal upbringing. If what the parents are doing is so wrong then why not focus on the parents? Why not encourage them to take responsibility for the life they create?


If they cannot take care of it then it is not even an issue of declaration. To make it a problem after the case is what the whole argument is supposed to be about preventing. If you run someone over who was crossing the street do you take any responsibility because you did not see them or do you simply brush it off and say "well maybe they should not have crossed the street when I was driving." Its a flawed concept that does not fit in the very nature of our reality. Shit happens and there are ways to handle or take care of the situation from getting worse. To simply assume otherwise or brush it off as not a big problem to solve because it does not affect you directly is absolutely heartless and just shows how disconnected you are from humanity you can get.

"Oh there is poverty in the world and people can't afford housing and care? Well why can't they just get more money then?! Just sounds like they are being lazy to me.." <-Shit like this, that kind of mentality is poison to society. When you assume the problems of the world can be simply solved by "stop being lazy and step up" you are completely ignoring the actual problems in the world because you set everything on a base level of yourself and your very fortunate life. Congrats, pat yourself on the back for getting so far in your life and being able to survive. But don't go assuming everyone is born with the same advantages you had growing up. This is the very definition of the "privileged" mindset. 

Again, if you care so much then step up and be the help for those that are "waiting to be born without the help they need". Otherwise shut the hell up about being Pro-Life and what people should do because you clearly are not helping any life at all with your shit.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 18, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> You do realize that not all celebrities are liberal right? Especially ones who were born in the deep south. Of course she would have her own thoughts on the matter, especially since it was something she was planning to have. That said if you want to have your argument based on someone who had been in and out of mental instability so much that her father had taken Conservatorship of her for many years and even forced her to get an IUD against her wishes, which may have been the cause of the miscarriage since those tend to have complications with internal damage and infertility issues during implantation and removal.
> 
> But hey, what am I saying, you probably would want women to be downgraded to being like Britney Spears and just be stripped of their freedoms for most of their life.
> 
> ...



Raising other peoples children is not my responsibility. Abortion is murder.


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Raising other peoples children is not my responsibility. Abortion is murder.


Playing devil's advocate here and assuming it's true that abortion is murder, at least it's murder that you yourself had no part in.  If you're advocating for a forced birth policy which causes more children to starve to death or die from neglect, then that blood is at least partially on your hands.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 18, 2022)

Xzi said:


> As dark as American history is, it would've been at least ten times worse had the South won the Civil War.


I agree, America would have been 10 times as dark if the DEMOCRATS ran it.

(this is a true fact, democrats loved slaves and jim crow, and seceeded during jim crow)


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 18, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Playing devil's advocate here and assuming it's true that abortion is murder, at least it's murder that you yourself had no part in.  If you're advocating for a forced birth policy which causes more children to starve to death or die from neglect, then that blood is at least partially on your hands.



No one should starve to death. What the hell is wrong with their parents? Shouldn't someone be addressing the fact its the parents job to raise their kids and not some random stranger that has nothing to do with the situation?



KennyAtom said:


> I agree, America would have been 10 times as dark if the DEMOCRATS ran it.
> 
> (this is a true fact, democrats loved slaves and jim crow, and seceeded during jim crow)



The normal programmed response from the democrats is that both parties switched sides, which is utter horseshit. All of the republicans didn't suddenly turn into democrats over night like they want you to believe, that's a lie. The republican party did change positions on some topics, but they are the ones who fought a war to in part free the slaves against the democrats. The same democrats that created the KKK as a way to intimidate republicans and blacks and try to stop them from voting. Yes, and the same democrats that created the jim crowe laws and the same democrats that constantly bring up the race of other people in their news and discussions.  They also accuse anyone that disagrees with them of being racist simply for disagreeing with them, regardless if the subject has to do with race or not. The republicans didn't suddenly all turn into racists after the war. What they want you to believe and what they tell you is all based on lies. So watch out, it's their normal programmed response to try to avoid taking responsibility for their actions (it seems there's a lot of that coming from the democrats).


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 18, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You may think those types of lives are worthless, but they aren't.



In order for a life to be worth something, it needs to have value. If the parents don't value it, and society will only value it once it contributes to society (which it will have an exponentially harder time to do so with terrible parents), then at what point does it actually have value beyond leverage for control?



JonhathonBaxster said:


> You're making excuses for murdering babies just because they might not have what you consider an ideal upbringing.



No, I'm saying people should be in charge of their body, regarding pregnancy and possible abortion. 



JonhathonBaxster said:


> If what the parents are doing is so wrong then why not focus on the parents? Why not encourage them to take responsibility for the life they create?



Isn't that what an abortion is? Taking responsibility for their actions? You make it sound like having a child should be a punishment, when in fact if life was so precious, every possible facet of choice should be considered in regards to raising said child. But how will you encourage a new teen parent who recently lost their income due to covid, for example? You've already stated you shouldn't have to help bear the financial responsibility, so how will you help encourage responsibility? 

And yes, I know rape and incest are small percentages. And ectopic pregnancies and pre-eclampsia. And sudden financial and health hardship. So on and etc. But all these 1 and 2 percents add up quick, and far outweigh the amount of people having abortions just because. If you're so worried about precious life, it needs to be done for those currently living before those being born into an already broken society.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 18, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> No one should starve to death. What the hell is wrong with their parents? Shouldn't someone be addressing the fact its the parents job to raise their kids and not some random stranger that has nothing to do with the situation?



You're right, no one should. But if some college kids rape a homeless girl and get her pregnant, you're saying that baby should be born to the streets and left to die because it's no longer your interest now that it's been born? You advocate forced birth and then completely absolve yourself of interest afterward?

Abortion might be murder,  but you're outright declaring gender control should be government enforced. Way to pick the lesser of two evils, huh?

You keep pushing the narrative that the parents should try harder, but not off your dime. Where should they go if they financial help until that first check clears? It shouldn't be anyone else's responsibility, right?




KennyAtom said:


> I agree, America would have been 10 times as dark if the DEMOCRATS ran it.
> 
> (this is a true fact, democrats loved slaves and jim crow, and seceeded during jim crow)



You're absolutely correct. You did forget, however, to include that once the democratic party starting evolving to what it is today, the racist democrats left to form what came to be today's Republican party, and still hold many of the same values those same racist democrats originally had. It's almost like, to some extent, both political parties had their inception based on racist roots. It's a shame it's more prominent in the modern republican party.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> The normal programmed response from the democrats is that both parties switched sides, which is utter horseshit. All of the republicans didn't suddenly turn into democrats over night like they want you to believe, that's a lie. The republican party did change positions on some topics, but they are the ones who fought a war to in part free the slaves against the democrats. The same democrats that created the KKK as a way to intimidate republicans and blacks and try to stop them from voting. Yes, and the same democrats that created the jim crowe laws and the same democrats that constantly bring up the race of other people in their news and discussions. They also accuse anyone that disagrees with them of being racist simply for disagreeing with them, regardless if the subject has to do with race or not. The republicans didn't suddenly all turn into racists after the war. What they want you to believe and what they tell you is all based on lies. So watch out, it's their normal programmed response to try to avoid taking responsibility for their actions (it seems there's a lot of that coming from the democrats).



"Republicans might be bad but Democrats did it first!"


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 18, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> In order for a life to be worth something, it needs to have value. If the parents don't value it, and society will only value it once it contributes to society (which it will have an exponentially harder time to do so with terrible parents), then at what point does it actually have value beyond leverage for control?



Just because you don't see the value in human life unless it meets your criteria doesn't mean that's how everyone thinks or should think.



SyphenFreht said:


> No, I'm saying people should be in charge of their body, regarding pregnancy and possible abortion.



I agree, I don't think the government should be making abortion legal or illegal. It just shouldn't be happening. We don't need to kill babies because having them would be a simple inconvenience.



SyphenFreht said:


> Isn't that what an abortion is? Taking responsibility for their actions? You make it sound like having a child should be a punishment, when in fact if life was so precious, every possible facet of choice should be considered in regards to raising said child. But how will you encourage a new teen parent who recently lost their income due to covid, for example? You've already stated you shouldn't have to help bear the financial responsibility, so how will you help encourage responsibility?



No, an abortion is skirting their responsibility, which the democrats seem to be aces at. They want to act and take no responsibility for their actions, because it makes them feel good or having to raise a child isn't what they wanted. Let's all kill the babies we create just because we don't want them. That's all I see coming from the pro-choice side.



SyphenFreht said:


> And yes, I know rape and incest are small percentages. And ectopic pregnancies and pre-eclampsia. And sudden financial and health hardship. So on and etc. But all these 1 and 2 percents add up quick, and far outweigh the amount of people having abortions just because. If you're so worried about precious life, it needs to be done for those currently living before those being born into an already broken society.



The mother and father generally have 9 months to sort shit out before the baby comes into the world. All I see is you making excuses for shitty parents. You're not focused on the problem, which the problem is shitty parents that don't want to take responsibility for their actions. Why not put the focus on the people who decided to make a child? Why should it be my problem that they acted irresponsibly? What the hell are you thinking by telling me I need to take care of other peoples children? What's wrong with you?



SyphenFreht said:


> You're absolutely correct. You did forget, however, to include that once the democratic party starting evolving to what it is today, the racist democrats left to form what came to be today's Republican party, and still hold many of the same values those same racist democrats originally had. It's almost like, to some extent, both political parties had their inception based on racist roots. It's a shame it's more prominent in the modern republican party.



All lies. Every single person in the Republican party didn't simply become racist over night because a few democratic senators realized they were in the wrong party and changed sides. By changing sides they rejected the democrats and everything they stood for. Your side trying to manipulate the issue to cover your asses because your party has a racist history is not working and never will work. Not at least while there are people like me that see through your lies.


----------



## Xzi (May 18, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I agree, America would have been 10 times as dark if the DEMOCRATS ran it.
> 
> (this is a true fact, democrats loved slaves and jim crow, and seceeded during jim crow)


No shit Sherlock, the parties completely switched platforms sometime in the late 60s, early 70s.  Republicans love to try to claim Lincoln for their own, yet they're the only political affiliation who still fly the confederate flag.  Now, if you called Democrats controlled opposition, that I would agree with.  They're center-right, while Republicans are far-right.  Neither party wants to see the working populace gain any ground from the left, which is why it took massive numbers of people protesting in favor of Communism just to get the New Deal passed.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> No one should starve to death. What the hell is wrong with their parents? Shouldn't someone be addressing the fact its the parents job to raise their kids and not some random stranger that has nothing to do with the situation?


See, you don't get to play dumb here.  It's a _forced birth_ policy in a system that you know can't support it.  Most of those kids will be given up for adoption, and few will find happy, loving families willing to adopt them, because almost 70% of Americans already live paycheck to paycheck.  On top of everything else, there's an infant formula shortage going on right this moment, because the corporations that manufactured it had successfully lobbied to significantly diminish bacteria testing standards.  There will be a lot of human suffering as a direct result of such a policy in the states that have it, so I'd think twice about advocating for it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 18, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Just because you don't see the value in human life unless it meets your criteria doesn't mean that's how everyone thinks or should think.



Except that's exactly how value works in terms of life. My criteria are just different than yours. Actually, my criteria probably aren't too different from yours, but it's hard to be objective when the society you live in clearly doesn't value any human life outside what it can gain from it.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> I agree, I don't think the government should be making abortion legal or illegal. It just shouldn't be happening. We don't need to kill babies because having them would be a simple inconvenience.



Then maybe we should come together as a society to ensure that everyone has what they need to survive and thrive? 



JonhathonBaxster said:


> No, an abortion is skirting their responsibility, which the democrats seem to be aces at. They want to act and take no responsibility for their actions, because it makes them feel good or having to raise a child isn't what they wanted. Let's all kill the babies we create just because we don't want them. That's all I see coming from the pro-choice side.



You have no idea how abortions even work, do you? Or why anyone gets them? 



JonhathonBaxster said:


> The mother and father generally have 9 months to sort shit out before the baby comes into the world. All I see is you making excuses for shitty parents. You're not focused on the problem, which the problem is shitty parents that don't want to take responsibility for their actions. Why not put the focus on the people who decided to make a child? Why should it be my problem that they acted irresponsibly? What the hell are you thinking by telling me I need to take care of other peoples children? What's wrong with you?



You seem to be completely ignorant to any hardship any person could possibly have. Tell me, what do you think should happen if a woman can't have an abortion? What next?



JonhathonBaxster said:


> All lies. Every single person in the Republican party didn't simply become racist over night because a few democratic senators realized they were in the wrong party and changed sides. By changing sides they rejected the democrats and everything they stood for. Your side trying to manipulate the issue to cover your asses because your party has a racist history is not working and never will work. Not at least while there are people like me that see through your lies.



Ho boy, you weren't good in history, were you? Back in the days of racism, almost everyone was racist. Democrats, Republicans, Whigs, f*cking everyone. The democrats of today acknowledge their racist history, and try to make amends for it. Republicans just want to skirt the blame onto someone else because they're embarrassed. I mean, that's just absurd, skirting responsibility like that. Why can't they just claim responsibility for what they did instead of making everyone else pay for it?


----------



## Dr_Faustus (May 18, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> No one should starve to death. What the hell is wrong with their parents? Shouldn't someone be addressing the fact its the parents job to raise their kids and not some random stranger that has nothing to do with the situation?



Let's do some math shall we?

"Based on the most recent data from the Consumer Expenditures Survey, in *2015*, a family will spend approximately $12,980 annually per child in a middle-income ($59,200-$107,400), two-child, married-couple family. Middle-income, married-couple parents of a child born in 2015 may expect to spend $233,610 ($284,570 if projected inflation costs are factored in*) for food, shelter, and other necessities to raise a child through age 17. This does not include the cost of a college education."
Source


The majority of Minimum Wage in most states is $7.25 (In 20 States no less!)
Source

"The mean or average monthly mortgage payment for U.S. homeowners is $1,487, according to the latest American Housing Survey from the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census also reports that the median monthly mortgage payment for U.S. homeowners is $1,200. That’s up slightly from the last study when the median monthly payment was $1,100."
Source

So lets see here, 7.25 x a 40 hour week equals $290, x 4 is $1,160 (and that does not of course count taxes being taken out each check!) Which means on a per month your single income is barely a grand in most states. Its hardly enough to cover most rent or mortgages not to mention utilities as well. We did not even factor in healthcare, food, gas, and anyone else besides one person. In a better situation of 2 people the amount doubles to $2,320 a month, which will cover for much more but will not be able to support much if you are having a child. Especially since the average from more than 5 years ago would be around $1,080 to take care of a child. This last bit being from 5 years ago does not factor in the inflation and current issues that have risen over the pandemic period coming and passing as well.   

$2,320 - $1,200 - $1,080 = $40 remaining, again not factoring in taxes, utilities, healthcare, food, gas, etc. 

This is not a sustainable way to live or have a family with, and again that is if this was a _couple_. If this was a single woman it would be essentially impossible for her to raise a child on her own with that income. That said this is an unfortunately common scenario which is why financial stability in raising kids is such a big fucking deal. Even if you get government kickbacks and freebees it will not last forever and you may not even get approved for them as falling between the cracks of the system is way more common than you think. 

Hell I did not even touch on the fact that what is the parent(s) supposed to do when they reach a point of pregnancy that they might not be able to work for awhile, what about post birth? How will they be able to watch over the baby and care for it when both people will need to work to just keep a roof over their head and food on the table? Most places do not offer maternal leave or even pay for that period so you are even more so screwed and will likely be laid off during this leave since they cannot wait for you to come back to work. This is all common and accepted fact for most low income employment opportunities. 

Simply said its not as simple of a problem as "its all on the parents to figure it out and do their job" as you may think it is. That is if there are even two parents involved in this situation. You assume far too much about how you think this world works..


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 18, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Ho boy, you weren't good in history, were you? Back in the days of racism, almost everyone was racist. Democrats, Republicans, Whigs, f*cking everyone. The democrats of today acknowledge their racist history, and try to make amends for it. Republicans just want to skirt the blame onto someone else because they're embarrassed. I mean, that's just absurd, skirting responsibility like that. Why can't they just claim responsibility for what they did instead of making everyone else pay for it?



My history knowledge is fine, which is why I know that the entire party swap crap is complete and utter bullshit.

Democrats haven't changed much since they fought a war to keep their black slaves, created the KKK and the came up with the Jim Crowe laws.

The party swap nonsense is just a way the Democrats are skirting responsibility. You say they take responsibility for their racist past? Yeah, that's why they need an elaborate lie to cover their assess when its brought up, right?



Dr_Faustus said:


> Let's do some math shall we?
> 
> "Based on the most recent data from the Consumer Expenditures Survey, in *2015*, a family will spend approximately $12,980 annually per child in a middle-income ($59,200-$107,400), two-child, married-couple family. Middle-income, married-couple parents of a child born in 2015 may expect to spend $233,610 ($284,570 if projected inflation costs are factored in*) for food, shelter, and other necessities to raise a child through age 17. This does not include the cost of a college education."
> Source
> ...



I'm not assuming anything. Your example is not the norm.

Let's see ...

1) Don't work a minimum wage job.

2) Don't get pregnant until you are able to afford the child.

3) If you do get pregnant for any reason you have 9 months to find a job that can cover the bills.

4) Make sure the father is also working.

5) Take advantage of the low cost services and free support already established for low income people.

It's not rocket science. It's actually pretty easy to take responsibility for the life you create you just actually have to want to do it. Shitty people bring life into this world and then abandon it or murder it. I'm not a shitty person, however the parents you're defending are utter trash. I'm not going to focus on telling strangers they need to pay the way for other peoples kids when its the responsibility of the parents to do so. If anything I'll focus on the deadbeats that refuse to work to take care of the life they brought into this world.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 18, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> My history knowledge is fine, which is why I know that the entire party swap crap is complete and utter bullshit.
> 
> Democrats haven't changed much since they fought a war to keep their black slaves, created the KKK and the came up with the Jim Crowe laws.
> 
> The party swap nonsense is just a way the Democrats are skirting reposiblity. You say they take responsibility for their racist past? Yeah, that's why they need an elaborate lie to cover their assess when its brought up, right?



Where's the lie? Do you have anything substantial to back this claim up or is this going to turn into a witch hunt? You can claim whoever is racist all you want, all you're doing is derailing the conversation because you have nothing else legitimate to add to your pro-life stance.

https://www.usnews.com/news/educati...ke-aim-at-efforts-to-ban-critical-race-theory

Just because, here's an article about Democrats being racist by fighting against the Republican led efforts to white wash American history by leaving out racist events over history. Just like those racist Democrats to fight racism with education. 




JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not assuming anything. Your example is not the norm.
> 
> Let's see ...
> 
> ...



1. Excellent. Let's all get Masters Degrees and no one who works at McDonald's deserves to have a child. Sounds like elitism and sympathizing with employers shirking their responsibility to ensure all workers have living wages. 

2. Good thing rape doesn't exist. 

3. Hopefully that Technical College degree can be attained in 9 months. On top of working, doctors appointments, making sure #4 is enforced...

4. What if he dies after conception? Gets arrested? Drafted and sent overseas? What if he turns into a deadbeat and disappears? What if he beats the mother? Who can't leave because of reasons? You say you assume nothing, but you're assuming every pregnancy involves a literal Garden of Eden. If pregnancy was like that, I'd get pregnant. 

5. Impossible. It's no one's responsibility to take care of the parents or their child. If they try and try and can't get on their feet, well, they shouldn't have gotten pregnant. But now that they are, they need to suffer for 18 years because they can't get on their feet and they get actively criticized when they ask for help. But none of that matters, because all life is important. 

Well, until you need to orgasm. Then who cares? 



JonhathonBaxster said:


> It's not rocket science. It's actually pretty easy to take responsibility for the life you create you just actually have to want to do it. Shitty people bring life into this world and then abandon it or murder it. I'm not a shitty person, however the parents you're defending are utter trash. I'm not going to focus on telling strangers they need to pay the way for other peoples kids when its the responsibility of the parents to do so. If anything I'll focus on the deadbeats that refuse to work to take care of the life they brought into this world.



Except you're not focusing on the deadbeats. At all. You sit there and whine they need to do better, then chastise every choice they make. You keep trying to take a pro-life stance, but again, you're just showing your control issues.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 18, 2022)

I honestly wish i was aborted if i knew the world was gonna turn out to be such a ****hole and would've save me 35 years of a  physical disablility/mental illness......


----------



## Creamu (May 18, 2022)

chrisrlink said:


> I honestly wish i was aborted if i knew the world was gonna turn out to be such a ****hole and would've save me 35 years of a  physical disablility/mental illness......


I'm sorry to hear that. I hope we can contriubte to a brighter future. Stay strong.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 18, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Where's the lie? Do you have anything substantial to back this claim up or is this going to turn into a witch hunt? You can claim whoever is racist all you want, all you're doing is derailing the conversation because you have nothing else legitimate to add to your pro-life stance.
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/news/educati...ke-aim-at-efforts-to-ban-critical-race-theory
> 
> ...



Instead of focusing on making excuses for bad behavior you could be focusing on how to encourage others to act responsibly. You my friend are part of why kids are abused and go hungry.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 18, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Instead of focusing on making excuses for bad behavior you could be focusing on how to encourage others to act responsibly. You my friend are part of why kids are abused and go hungry.



What a weird twist of fate. You, someone who themselves said they don't care about children after they're born, calling me, someone who deserves society should work together so everyone can progress, a part of why kids are abused and go hungry. Even though if many of the parents in these situations could have had guilt free abortions, there would be a lot less child abuse and neglect. 

If critical thinking is tough for you just say so. What comes out of your mouth (metaphorically) will be taken with more credibility afterward.


----------



## Nothereed (May 18, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> 1) Don't work a minimum wage job.


Do you hear this guy?
*did you hear him*
"Just don't work a minimum wage job guys, it's just that easy. It's not like a fuck ton of places still pay at or around minimum wage."
Dude, where I live, and I'm looking for another job since my boss is treating me like shit. Most jobs I'm seeing are 7.25-12.50
with about 50% of them being below 10 dollars an hour.

_Just stop being depressed 4head it's just that easy_


----------



## KennyAtom (May 18, 2022)

https://babylonbee.com/news/left-panics-that-millions-of-babies-might-live

man they just keep coming out with good ones


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 18, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> https://babylonbee.com/news/left-panics-that-millions-of-babies-might-live
> 
> man they just keep coming out with good ones



What even that site? Republican satire?


----------



## chrisrlink (May 19, 2022)

imagine if they roll back completely to the days marital rape was legal (I actually feel that may happen it'll be the 50's all over again)


----------



## chrisrlink (May 19, 2022)

or worse like i said i am disabled, i'll be forced sterelized and institutionalized with no future what so ever


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 19, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> What a weird twist of fate. You, someone who themselves said they don't care about children after they're born, calling me, someone who deserves society should work together so everyone can progress, a part of why kids are abused and go hungry. Even though if many of the parents in these situations could have had guilt free abortions, there would be a lot less child abuse and neglect.
> 
> If critical thinking is tough for you just say so. What comes out of your mouth (metaphorically) will be taken with more credibility afterward.



Just because I don't want to raise other peoples children doesn't mean I don't care about them. I care about other peoples children as much as I care about any other person. It's just not my job to raise other peoples kids or give them money to help them raise theirs. If I want to donate I'll donate, but it should be my choice where the money goes. You seem to think because I disagree with your left wing talking point that I don't care about kids or you're just saying that to offend me, but you're wrong. I'm not the one going around making excuses for bad behavior on the parents part, which you are doing. Who's worse? The people who speak out against child neglect and abuse or the people who make excuses for it?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Just because I don't want to raise other peoples children doesn't mean I don't care about them. I care about other peoples children as much as I care about any other person. It's just not my job to raise other peoples kids or give them money to help them raise theirs. If I want to donate I'll donate, but it should be my choice where the money goes. You seem to think because I disagree with your left wing talking point that I don't care about kids or you're just saying that to offend me, but you're wrong. I'm not the one going around making excuses for bad behavior on the parents part, which you are doing. Who's worse? The people who speak out against child neglect and abuse or the people who make excuses for it?


The argument is silly, and easily countered, considering it’s equivalent to “You think stabbing homeless people is wrong? If you care about them so much, you should invite them into your home, feed and clothe them”. It’s an illogical train of thought. Murder is wrong, having moral objections against stabbing homeless people is normal, and in no way denotes financial liability over the homeless. Preventing a homeless person from getting murdered does not equate to adopting them, that doesn’t logically follow. Caring about a life doesn’t transfer the responsibility for that life’s well-being - we’re not responsible for strangers. If someone operates from the position of “abortion is murder”, and murder is immoral, it is perfectly reasonable for them to object to it, and completely unreasonable to transfer liability onto them. Preventing a third-party from committing an immoral action is not equivalent to accepting liability. Whether operating from that position is reasonable or not is another matter entirely.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 19, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Just because I don't want to raise other peoples children doesn't mean I don't care about them. I care about other peoples children as much as I care about any other person. It's just not my job to raise other peoples kids or give them money to help them raise theirs. If I want to donate I'll donate, but it should be my choice where the money goes. You seem to think because I disagree with your left wing talking point that I don't care about kids or you're just saying that to offend me, but you're wrong. I'm not the one going around making excuses for bad behavior on the parents part, which you are doing. Who's worse? The people who speak out against child neglect and abuse or the people who make excuses for it?



Except you're literally the only one who's brought up, time and again, that you're not going to pay for them, which isn't even an issue at this point, because that's not how taxes work. And even if it was, producing more children that don't get taken care of because they have terrible parents and having them supplemented with government assistance or sent to orphanages would cost more than just letting them have the abortion. 

You, and others, seem to have confused "taking responsibility for others actions" with "helping to keep society progressive and life affordable through working together". 

It seems like it would make more sense to attack the government for not providing its every citizen with some kind of stability rather than attacking these people who have had to make these choices. 

I say you don't care about kids because you don't. It's one thing to take a specific stance in regards to another, even when situations are similar, but in this case you're fighting for the rights of a clump of cells to be born before fighting to have the children already born to have a better life. You've mentioned it several times yourself that other people's problems aren't yours to worry about, and that's fine. That's normal. But the fact that you're up in arms about taking someone's rights away because you don't like what they're doing? That sounds a little bigoted.


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2022)

The only thing I am learning from this thread is that pro-lifers are just pro-forced birth, then go through hoops to justify not wanting to help when a child is forced into this world. If you don't want abortions, then support better education, support easier access to contraceptives, support social programs for families, support better parental leave for work, and support the programs that stop the need for abortions. If you don't support these programs and you want to ban abortions, then you just support outlawing safe abortions. You don't support safe abortions, you support dirty motel abortions. You don't support safe abortions, you support neglected children. You only support controlling people and abusing them.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 19, 2022)

abortion is the senseless murder of babies and nothing can change that.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 19, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> abortion is the senseless murder of babies and nothing can change that.



The easier everyone can get along behind the idea of desensitization, the better, huh?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> The easier everyone can get along behind the idea of desensitization, the better, huh?


It’s hard to argue from the desensitisation angle when you’re a proponent of prematurely ending human life. Now, I personally don’t care that much about the issue, and I’d be more than willing support allowing abortion (provided the guidelines are sensible), but you’ve picked a losing argument to support your case in favour of the procedure. It’s pretending that fetuses aren’t human that’s an attempt at desensitisation, not the other way around.


The Catboy said:


> The only thing I am learning from this thread is that pro-lifers are just pro-forced birth, then go through hoops to justify not wanting to help when a child is forced into this world. If you don't want abortions, then support better education, support easier access to contraceptives, support social programs for families, support better parental leave for work, and support the programs that stop the need for abortions. If you don't support these programs and you want to ban abortions, then you just support outlawing safe abortions. You don't support safe abortions, you support dirty motel abortions. You don't support safe abortions, you support neglected children. You only support controlling people and abusing them.


If only they gave away medals for logical leaps, this would take the Olympic gold, for the reason I described above.


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> If only they gave away medals for logical leaps, this would take the Olympic gold, for the reason I described above.


By what means are preventative programs a problem? I don't see how my post is a leap as it addresses concerns that should be held. If someone doesn't support abortions, then they should support either means that prevent them or means that make having a child easier. If one doesn't support those programs, then they on;y support forcing life into this world and nothing else.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 19, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s hard to argue from the desensitisation angle when you’re a proponent of prematurely ending human life. Now, I personally don’t care that much about the issue, and I’d be more than willing support allowing abortion (provided the guidelines are sensible), but you’ve picked a losing argument to support your case in favour of the procedure. It’s pretending that fetuses aren’t human that’s an attempt at desensitisation, not the other way around.



At what point are we pretending fetuses aren't human? At some point they become human, but far sooner than that are they "routinely" aborted, when they're nothing more than cells. Anything after that is an active refute of broadly accepted science. 

The desensitization comes from people having so much access to information all the time and often without filter, to the point where abolishing basic human rights becomes a normalcy. Without going off topic, the more one sees atrocities of any form, of any severity, the more they become immune to it. Yes, the same could be said about being pro abortion, but in light of stripping away the concepts that make already established people human? I'd much rather extinguish life before it becomes sentient than take away any sense of humanization an already established sentience already has.


----------



## appleburger (May 19, 2022)

Some users on both sides here are taking logical leaps in your arguments, imo.  I really think this boils down to where you draw the line on potential human life being present.  That line can be drawn as far back as masturbation for some, 2 weeks into pregnancy, or longer for others.  I think that's the main point of contention.

If we start arguing around things like media, anecdotal hot takes from "the left" or "the right" then we're just spinning our wheels.

What I'd like to read from you all is where your line on life beginning is, and why.  I've always felt that it makes sense there is no baby present the beginning of a pregnancy - more of a blueprint, instead.  I don't know where to draw the line from there, to be honest.  I've just accepted on faith that the majority of people who are deep into this issue (I'm not) have taken the science and philosophical consensus into consideration.  I'm only loosely educated on this topic.

Currently, I'm pro-choice, and that's purely from an angle that a blueprint for a potential baby does not equate to a living baby, based on what little I understand so far.  I don't think the logic that the initial stage "is a baby" even holds up.  If I were pro-life, I would argue that once a sperm penetrates the egg, the events of life are now set into motion.  By stopping that process, you are snuffing out a human life that otherwise would be given a chance to thrive.  

But, given that the early stages of pregnancy do not even guarantee a living baby, I don't personally feel it makes much sense to label that first stage as "human life" just yet.  

This is coming from a 31 year old dude who has been taught the basic science around human pregnancy, some light googling, and maybe a debate or two over the years.  I'm sure there's more for me to learn that would help solidify my position.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 19, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> If one doesn't support those programs, then they on;y support forcing life into this world and nothing else.


I mean, I'm pro life and I don't want to support those programs, but only because the government would fuck up the programs themselves, plus I already pay enough in taxes, I don't want to lose more of my hard earned money.


----------



## smf (May 19, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> At what point are we pretending fetuses aren't human? At some point they become human, but far sooner than that are they "routinely" aborted, when they're nothing more than cells. Anything after that is an active refute of broadly accepted science.


Ok, so on balance. When do you think abortions should be allowed up to?


----------



## smf (May 19, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I mean, I'm pro life and I don't want to support those programs, but only because the government would fuck up the programs themselves, plus I already pay enough in taxes, I don't want to lose more of my hard earned money.


What should happen is anyone who is denied an abortion should have their all their childs expenses paid for by the government by raising taxes.

Problem sorted.


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I mean, I'm pro life and I don't want to support those programs, but only because the government would fuck up the programs themselves, plus I already pay enough in taxes, I don't want to lose more of my hard earned money.


I like where I didn't say these needed to be government-funded or run but that's where you went. That being said, I would prefer my tax money to go to these programs over killing children for cheaper oil prices.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 19, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I like where I didn't say these needed to be government-funded or run but that's where you went. That being said, I would prefer my tax money to go to these programs over killing children for cheaper oil prices.


I mean "programs" basically infers government funded. For example, Social Security is a program, Welfare is a program, and they are government funded, therefore this must be as well.

Also I'd much rather have cheaper oil prices then support babies being murdered.


----------



## smf (May 19, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Also I'd much rather have cheaper oil prices then support babies being murdered.


Getting gas prices cheaper, killed babies & children. And had a measured increase in crime.

https://interestingengineering.com/thomas-midgley-jr-the-man-who-harmed-the-world-the-most

He knew how dangerous it was, because he became ill from lead poisoning.

FWIW Fetus only turn into a baby at birth. So abortion cannot kill a baby.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 19, 2022)

smf said:


> Ok, so on balance. When do you think abortions should be allowed up to?



It's hard for me to answer because on the one hand, I do agree with pro lifers to a point. I don't want to see abortion "as a convenience", even though I know that's not even remotely close to being an issue in general. On the other, I don't believe a risk to the mother should be taken just to birth a life,  especially one that might come into a life of hardship (severe financial/ mental instability, drug addicted parents, etc) and, I mean who am I to say what a woman can do with her body? Even if I was a woman, how many abortions other women have is literally none of my business outside having the freedom to do so when necessary. 

If we're talking in terms of how far along the life should be for abortion to be widely accepted, well... I'm not entirely sure,  honestly. I just know that pro choice holds many more positive opportunities for all parties involved, so if the choice to abort is made, I would hope it's made as soon as possible.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 19, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I mean "programs" basically infers government funded. For example, Social Security is a program, Welfare is a program, and they are government funded, therefore this must be as well.
> 
> Also I'd much rather have cheaper oil prices then support babies being murdered.



Abortion clinics are privately funded. If we had more programs, government and privatized, that ensured people and children were actually taken care of, similar to what someone else mentioned earlier, the amount of abortions would drop drastically.


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I mean "programs" basically infers government funded. For example, Social Security is a program, Welfare is a program, and they are government funded, therefore this must be as well.
> 
> Also I'd much rather have cheaper oil prices then support babies being murdered.


Fetuses aren’t babies. Still, you should support means to preventing abortions or helping people with their kids. Abortions are still going to happen regardless of your stance but the best means of preventing them is through proactive means. Punishment has been to not work at preventing abortions because even countries that punish miscarriages with death, still have abortions. 
Programs can also be private, religious, community, and so on. I understand people might see them as government run but that’s not always the case. I actually help and advertise several programs helping people, none of which are government funded or run.


----------



## smf (May 19, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> It's hard for me to answer because on the one hand, I do agree with pro lifers to a point. I don't want to see abortion "as a convenience", even though I know that's not even remotely close to being an issue in general.



What do you mean by "as a convenience"?

I think we traumatize women enough from birth that the majority of women seeking abortions aren't doing it frivolously.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 19, 2022)

smf said:


> What do you mean by "as a convenience"?
> 
> I think we traumatize women enough from birth that the majority of women seeking abortions aren't doing it frivolously.



96.50% of abortions are done simply because its an convenience.

https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 19, 2022)

smf said:


> What do you mean by "as a convenience"?
> 
> I think we traumatize women enough from birth that the majority of women seeking abortions aren't doing it frivolously.



Literally only in the sense that how many pro lifers view these situations. "Didn't want a kid? Too late now". "Boyfriend left you? Too bad, shouldn't have had sex". Stupid comments like that. I don't know. I probably didn't necessarily choose my words the right way. I can't foresee a woman ever getting an abortion as convenience, but I don't want that to ever become an issue, either. Like realistically, moreso than just assumed pro lifer mindsets.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> 96.50% of abortions are done simply because its an convenience.
> 
> https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/



That particular article stems from what is already prominently inherently pro republican website (bias does not equal fact), not to mention those statistics are from 6 states, not indicative of the greater population, and if I remember correctly those states in particular are pretty harsh on abortions in general, which means they most likely took very specific statistics from a particular subset of Americans that still doesn't represent the larger portion.

Good try though.

Edit*

I don't know why it took me three different glances to notice its a CHRISTIAN website, so... definitely some bias there, huh?


----------



## AleronIves (May 19, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I care about other peoples children as much as I care about any other person. It's just not my job to raise other peoples kids or give them money to help them raise theirs.


What do you think should happen in cases of rape? Most of your arguments revolve around personal responsibility of the parents, but the woman is not responsible when she is impregnated against her will. Should she be forced to carry the baby to term, at which point the rapist is forced to carry all the responsibility of raising the child? What do you do if the rapist is never caught and cannot be held responsible for his actions? If your stance is that the woman is even partially responsible for the resulting life, that would seem to go against your "it's not my job to raise other people's kids or give them money" argument, because a rape victim bears no responsibility for that life, at least after birth, since she gave no consent for becoming a parent.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 19, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> What do you think should happen in cases of rape? Most of your arguments revolve around personal responsibility of the parents, but the woman is not responsible when she is impregnated against her will. Should she be forced to carry the baby to term, at which point the rapist is forced to carry all the responsibility of raising the child? What do you do if the rapist is never caught and cannot be held responsible for his actions? If your stance is that the woman is even partially responsible for the resulting life, that would seem to go against your "it's not my job to raise other people's kids or give them money" argument, because a rape victim bears no responsibility for that life, at least after birth, since she gave no consent for becoming a parent.



Well here's his stance on responsibility...



JonhathonBaxster said:


> If what the parents are doing is so wrong then why not focus on the parents? Why not encourage them to take responsibility for the life they create?



And we know orphanages are out...



JonhathonBaxster said:


> It's just not my job to raise other peoples kids or give them money to help them raise theirs. If I want to donate I'll donate, but it should be my choice where the money goes.



I'm curious to know what the answer is myself.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> At what point are we pretending fetuses aren't human? At some point they become human, but far sooner than that are they "routinely" aborted, when they're nothing more than cells. Anything after that is an active refute of broadly accepted science.
> 
> The desensitization comes from people having so much access to information all the time and often without filter, to the point where abolishing basic human rights becomes a normalcy. Without going off topic, the more one sees atrocities of any form, of any severity, the more they become immune to it. Yes, the same could be said about being pro abortion, but in light of stripping away the concepts that make already established people human? I'd much rather extinguish life before it becomes sentient than take away any sense of humanization an already established sentience already has.


I would argue that dehumanising the fetus (using terms like “clump of cells”, for instance) serves to desensitise in regards to the idea of terminating pregnancy. That was my only point. I hear it all the time, some acknowledgement of what’s actually going on would be more honest. I’ve touched upon this before in the thread.


The Catboy said:


> By what means are preventative programs a problem? I don't see how my post is a leap as it addresses concerns that should be held. If someone doesn't support abortions, then they should support either means that prevent them or means that make having a child easier. If one doesn't support those programs, then they on;y support forcing life into this world and nothing else.


The idea that being against one thing automatically means being for another thing is a logical leap. It’s called a false dilemma - “either you’re for abortion, or you’re against children’s well-being”. Those are two separate issues - you can care about not terminating pregnancies, care about the well-being of the resulting children and recognise that they’re not your responsibility. The responsibility falls squarely on the parents.


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The idea that being against one thing automatically means being for another thing is a logical leap. It’s called a false dilemma - “either you’re for abortion, or you’re against children’s well-being”. Those are two separate issues - you can care about not terminating pregnancies, care about the well-being of the resulting children and recognise that they’re not your responsibility. The responsibility falls squarely on the parents.


Then you only care about forcing a life into the world, it’s not a leap that’s just a matter of fact. If you don’t support programs that lower the need for abortions, then you don’t care about the children nor the parents. Sorry, not sorry


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Then you only care about forcing a life into the world, it’s not a leap that’s just a matter of fact. If you don’t support programs that lower the need for abortions, then you don’t care about the children nor the parents. Sorry, not sorry


It’s the definition of a logical leap, actually. There’s a significant gap in your argument. To reiterate the previous analogy, most people care about other people not getting stabbed in the middle of the street. As such, we have moral objections in regards to murdering the homeless. That fact alone doesn’t mean that we must necessarily make an effort to reduce homelessness - we just don’t want to see them getting stabbed. We are not required to remove the homeless from the streets so that they don’t get stabbed - they shouldn’t be getting stabbed regardless. Those two things are disconnected. Your argument is no different. You don’t have to be “sorry” about it, I’m just pointing out that it’s not a logical argument - it’s just how you feel about the issue.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 19, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I would argue that dehumanising the fetus (using terms like “clump of cells”, for instance) serves to desensitise in regards to the idea of terminating it. That was my only point. I hear it all the time, some acknowledgement of what’s actually going on would be more honest. I’ve touched upon this before in the thread.



At what point is a baby, a baby, and not a clump of cells to you? 




Foxi4 said:


> The idea that being against one thing automatically means being for another thing is a logical leap. It’s called a false dilemma - “either you’re for abortion, or you’re against children’s well-being”. Those are two separate issues - you can care about not terminating pregnancies, care about the well-being of the resulting children and recognise that they’re not your responsibility. The responsibility falls squarely on the parents.



Except in this case it's more being either pro-life, substantiating all life, regardless of current period of growth, and being pro-choice, meaning you believe people should have a choice in having an abortion or not. When you have someone claim they're pro-life, it's an accepted expectation to think that they mean all life, not just unborn fetuses. Maybe if people labeled themselves as pro-birthers and identified themselves as only caring about babies being born and not hiding behind tiny veiled constructs of pro-life lies, there'd probably be less confusion.



Foxi4 said:


> I’m just pointing out that it’s not a logical argument - it’s just how you feel about the issue.



Aside from religious background, isn't that how most pro-life supporters argue? Based on how they feel as opposed to logic?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 19, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Then you only care about forcing a life into the world, it’s not a leap that’s just a matter of fact. If you don’t support programs that lower the need for abortions, then you don’t care about the children nor the parents. Sorry, not sorry


hey, would you kill homeless people? No? Then you better take them into your home and give them all your money, or you don't care about homeless people nor the homeless veterans who helped you keep your freedom. Sorry, not sorry


----------



## AleronIves (May 19, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Then you only care about forcing a life into the world, it’s not a leap that’s just a matter of fact.


You're missing his point entirely. He's not talking about whether abortion should be allowed or not. He's saying that you shouldn't sugarcoat what's going on. A fetus is inevitably going to become a baby given enough time and lack of pregnancy complications, so calling it a "clump of cells" to make yourself feel better about killing it is intellectually dishonest. The fact that you're killing a human in the early stages of development cannot be denied, so don't try. The question is whether that fetus is enough of a person yet to make killing it wrong. There is widespread disagreement on the second point. There is no intellectually honest disagreement on the first.


----------



## appleburger (May 19, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I would argue that dehumanising the fetus (using terms like “clump of cells”, for instance) serves to desensitise in regards to the idea of terminating pregnancy. That was my only point. I hear it all the time, some acknowledgement of what’s actually going on would be more honest. I’ve touched upon this before in the thread.
> 
> The idea that being against one thing automatically means being for another thing is a logical leap. It’s called a false dilemma - “either you’re for abortion, or you’re against children’s well-being”. Those are two separate issues - you can care about not terminating pregnancies, care about the well-being of the resulting children and recognise that they’re not your responsibility. The responsibility falls squarely on the parents.


Speaking for myself, when I refer to a "clump of cells" it's because the fetus isn't considered to have formed until eight weeks into the pregnancy.  It's in response to the notion of "a baby" being present throughout the entire course of a pregnancy.

I think both sides are just trying to say "this is when life starts" when they say "clump of cells" or "murder a baby".  We're trying to draw that line of when human life begins.  It's a colorful way to say it, but I've always interpreted each as a response to the other side disagreeing on what is or isn't a "human life".


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> At what point is a baby, a baby, and not a clump of cells to you?


A baby is a baby when it’s born. The cycle of human development is fairly well-defined. “Clump of cells” isn’t a defined stage in that cycle. You’re a clump of cells too, that’s irrelevant to whether you deserve legal protections or not.


SyphenFreht said:


> Except in this case it's more being either pro-life, substantiating all life, regardless of current period of growth, and being pro-choice, meaning you believe people should have a choice in having an abortion or not. When you have someone claim they're pro-life, it's an accepted expectation to think that they mean all life, not just unborn fetuses. Maybe if people labeled themselves as pro-birthers and identified themselves as only caring about babies being born and not hiding behind tiny veiled constructs of pro-life lies, there'd probably be less confusion.


There is no confusion, pro lifers recognise fetuses as human life because that’s what they are - that’s not the problem. The problem is that they’re not willing to make reasonable concessions that minimise unnecessary loss of human life while maximising prosperity and human happiness. Conversely, pro choice people do not recognise fetuses as human life and often dehumanise, or otherwise deny personhood of unborn offspring regardless of stage of development. There’s a point in time between conception and birth when a fetus begins to display rapid neuron growth and measurable brain activity - logically that’s the point when we should probably start caring about it a little bit more than as if it were a “clump of cells”. That point can be determined scientifically, and usually occurs in the third trimester. Things won’t move forward until both sides can come to an agreement when exactly we should grant the offspring protection.


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s the definition of a logical leap, actually. There’s a significant gap in your argument. To reiterate the previous analogy, most people care about people not getting stabbed in the middle of the street. As such, we have moral objections about murdering the homeless. That fact alone doesn’t mean that we must necessarily make an effort to reduce homelessness. Those two things are disconnected. Your argument is no different. You don’t have to be “sorry” about it, I’m just pointing out that it’s not a logical argument - it’s just how you feel about the issue.


My logic is simple, don’t want abortions, then support programs that prevent them. You can’t claim to care about the children, then toss them out to dry. Claiming to be against abortion, while also being against the means to preventing them is bullshit. It’s not an argument against abortion, it’s an argument for forced-birth and controlling the lives and bodies of people.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> You're missing his point entirely. He's not talking about whether abortion should be allowed or not. He's saying that you shouldn't sugarcoat what's going on. A fetus is inevitably going to become a baby given enough time and lack of pregnancy complications, so calling it a "clump of cells" to make yourself feel better about killing it is intellectually dishonest. The fact that you're killing a human in the early stages of development cannot be denied, so don't try. The question is whether that fetus is enough of a person yet to make killing it wrong. There is widespread disagreement on the second point. There is no intellectually honest disagreement on the first.


10 points for Griffindor.


The Catboy said:


> My logic is simple, don’t want abortions, then support programs that prevent them. You can’t claim to care about the children, then toss them out to dry. Claiming to be against abortion, while also being against the means to preventing them is bullshit. It’s not an argument against abortion, it’s an argument for forced-birth and controlling the lives and bodies of people.


Then you don’t actually have a point. One doesn’t follow from the other. You’re not obligated to pay for other people’s mistakes, even if you’re actively advocating for preventing more mistakes from being made.


appleburger said:


> Speaking for myself, when I refer to a "clump of cells" it's because the fetus isn't considered to have formed until eight weeks into the pregnancy.  It's in response to the notion of "a baby" being present throughout the entire course of a pregnancy.
> 
> I think both sides are just trying to say "this is when life starts" when they say "clump of cells" or "murder a baby".  We're trying to draw that line of when human life begins.  It's a colorful way to say it, but I've always interpreted each as a response to the other side disagreeing on what is or isn't a "human life".


I think a developing human organism based on a completely unique combination of DNA that’s in the process of growth deserves more reverence than that - we should identify it for what it is, otherwise the whole discussion is dishonest. Pretending that it’s anything else, or lying through omission, serves no purpose than tricking yourself to make yourself feel better about the whole ordeal. It’s not something that should be celebrated, it’s an extreme measure one opts for when forced by their circumstances, stuck between a rock and a hard place.


----------



## tabzer (May 19, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Then you only care about forcing a life into the world, it’s not a leap that’s just a matter of fact. If you don’t support programs that lower the need for abortions, then you don’t care about the children nor the parents. Sorry, not sorry



I think I already posed the suggestion that everyone agrees that less demand for abortion would be a good thing.  How that is approached can be another highly debated topic.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 19, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Literally only in the sense that how many pro lifers view these situations. "Didn't want a kid? Too late now". "Boyfriend left you? Too bad, shouldn't have had sex". Stupid comments like that. I don't know. I probably didn't necessarily choose my words the right way. I can't foresee a woman ever getting an abortion as convenience, but I don't want that to ever become an issue, either. Like realistically, moreso than just assumed pro lifer mindsets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just because you are bias against Christians and don't like how the statistics came to be doesn't mean they are inaccurate. It's probably in the top results of search engines because it holds some weight.

Here's another result from the top of the search engine results, which features similar figures.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589



AleronIves said:


> What do you think should happen in cases of rape? Most of your arguments revolve around personal responsibility of the parents, but the woman is not responsible when she is impregnated against her will. Should she be forced to carry the baby to term, at which point the rapist is forced to carry all the responsibility of raising the child? What do you do if the rapist is never caught and cannot be held responsible for his actions? If your stance is that the woman is even partially responsible for the resulting life, that would seem to go against your "it's not my job to raise other people's kids or give them money" argument, because a rape victim bears no responsibility for that life, at least after birth, since she gave no consent for becoming a parent.



It's not the baby's fault that it got created. No abortion should be performed and if possible the father should be financially responsible to help aid the life he created.


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Then you don’t actually have a point. One doesn’t follow from the other. You’re not obligated to pay for other people’s mistakes, even if you’re actively advocating for preventing more mistakes from being made.


Then people should be allowed to have abortions. If they aren’t allowed means of being helped, then they should an out. People aren’t going to stop having abortions, no laws will change that. So the options are, they have safe abortions in a professional setting. Or they get help preventing abortions or taking care of their child. Or they have abortions in motels and more kids end up abused and neglected. This is what was like in the past, this is what it’s like in countries that outlawed abortions, and this is what pro-lifers seem to want to go back to. My logic is simple, either keep abortions safe or deal with the consequences.


----------



## AleronIves (May 19, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> It's not the baby's fault that it got created. No abortion should be performed and if possible the father should be financially responsible to help aid the life he created.


Yes, but that's only a partial answer to my question. What do you do if the father can't be held responsible? Is adoption the only option in your eyes?


----------



## appleburger (May 19, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I think a growing human organism based on a completely unique combination of DNA that’s in the process of growth deserves more reverence than that - we should identify it for what it is, otherwise the whole discussion is dishonest. Pretending that it’s anything else, or lying through omission, serves no purpose than to trick yourself to make yourself feel better about the whole ordeal. It’s not something that should be celebrated, it’s an extreme measure one opts for when forced by their circumstances, stuck between a rock and a hard place.


It depends on the intent with the language - I think this is literally semantic, although still important to address.

I don't think it's much different than your use of "celebrated" in your response.  I of course recognize that you don't literally mean "celebrate", because nobody is arguing that abortion is to be celebrated, of course, but it's effective in communicating the idea of your post.  You're trying to say that this decision comes with a high degree of consequence either way, from what I can tell.

While I'm sure there are weak pro-choice arguments calling early pregnancies "just a pool of cells", my response was pointing out that in some cases it's an oxymoron in response to calling the early stages "a baby" rather than trying to actually de-humanize early pregnancies.  To be a bit more fair to myself, I tend to go the "it's more of a blueprint at that stage" angle for this reason, to your point.


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> hey, would you kill homeless people? No? Then you better take them into your home and give them all your money, or you don't care about homeless people nor the homeless veterans who helped you keep your freedom. Sorry, not sorry


I actually do want homeless people to have programs to help get them off the streets and I am willing to pay for those programs.


----------



## tabzer (May 19, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I actually do want homeless people to have programs to help get them off the streets and I am willing to pay for those programs.



This is about your accusation that people who don't pay for programs "don't care".  It was rhetorical and should be enough to demonstrate the fault in your line of logic.

"If you don't join the CPS, then you must hate children."


----------



## ChibiMofo (May 19, 2022)

Viri said:


> I don't really care at all. But, it'll be fun to see how people react.


I feel the same way about genocide. But in fairness no gamer should care about abortion because it couldn't possibly affect them.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Then people should be allowed to have abortions. If they aren’t allowed means of being helped, then they should an out. People aren’t going to stop having abortions, no laws will change that. So the options are, they have safe abortions in a professional setting. Or they get help preventing abortions or taking care of their child. Or they have abortions in motels and more kids end up abused and neglected. This is what was like in the past, this is what it’s like in countries that outlawed abortions, and this is what pro-lifers seem to want to go back to. My logic is simple, either keep abortions safe or deal with the consequences.


It’s rich that you speak of consequences when discussing abortion - a medical procedure explicitly designed to prevent facing the consequences of one’s irresponsible actions. Abortions of pregnancies resulting from rape, the only instance in which the woman had no say in the matter, constitute about 2% of the total, last I checked. In all other instances the woman made a series of poor decisions that led to her becoming pregnant. Your penchant for facing consequences is very selective, and only concerns the side of the argument you don’t like. Not that it matters anyway since complete strangers are not required to face the consequences of the action of other people. Slice the pie however you want - those are not my babies. For the sake of an argument, let’s say that I’m now vehemently against abortion - give me one *good* reason why I should pay for those kids? I didn’t even get to participate in the fun part, what gives? All I’m saying is that you shouldn’t be killing them - what you do with them is not my problem.


----------



## Lacius (May 19, 2022)

tabzer said:


> This is about your accusation that people who don't pay for programs "don't care".


They don't.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2022)

ChibiMofo said:


> I feel the same way about genocide. But in fairness no gamer should care about abortion because it couldn't possibly affect them.


You right, ain’t nobody in this thread getting laid, thread locked.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 19, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Yes, but that's only a partial answer to my question. What do you do if the father can't be held responsible? Is adoption the only option in your eyes?



I said "if possible" regarding having the father support the child. If *it's possible* then he should have to pay child support and if not then there are other possibilities, such as the women marrying someone or raising the child by herself. Adoption is irrelevant, the women could give the child up for adoption or keep it, but that decision would have no bearing on the fact that she should not be getting an abortion.


----------



## tabzer (May 19, 2022)

Lacius said:


> They don't.


They care more about their ideological approaches.  It's not the same to say that they don't care about the issues.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 19, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Just because you are bias against Christians and don't like how the statistics came to be doesn't mean they are inaccurate. It's probably in the top results of search engines because it holds some weight.
> 
> Here's another result from the top of the search engine results, which features similar figures.
> 
> https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589



https://www.axios.com/2022/05/04/abortion-surpreme-court-women-map

https://theconversation.com/less-th...rd-trimester-heres-why-people-get-them-182580

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/better-birth-control-hasnt-made-abortion-obsolete/

Your argument about not liking statistics and being biased holds no weight considering a few comments ago you were denying the origins of racism in political parties despite evidence showing otherwise, showing your bias against Democrats and not liking the data that's been painfully abundant.

And yes, bias does not make good news. Is it news? Of course. Is it reliable? Well, it's a Christian website pushing a notably Christian agenda, and is primarily aimed at Christians. So yeah, I'd say more than happily that it's using doctored data to prove a point.

"It's probably in the top search results because it holds some weight"

Yeah, probably to the tune of paid advertisements. Try harder next time.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> ...If it's possible then he should have to pay child support and if not then there are other possibilities, such as the women marrying someone or raising the child by herself...



"I'm so sorry you got raped, but instead of an abortion, why don't you just go get married and make some other man raise it? "

Wow.


----------



## Lacius (May 19, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It's not the same to say that they don't care about the issues.


Yes it is.


----------



## AleronIves (May 19, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Adoption is irrelevant, the women could give the child up for adoption or keep it, but that decision would have no bearing on the fact that she should not be getting an abortion.


I already assumed abortion was not an option, because I was directly asking you what you think should happen, and I already know that abortion is not an option you will accept. I'm asking you, "Since abortion is not an option in your view, what should the solution be in this situation?"



JonhathonBaxster said:


> I said "if possible" regarding having the father support the child. If *it's possible* then he should have to pay child support and if not then there are other possibilities, such as the women marrying someone or raising the child by herself.


Are you seriously saying that if the rapist cannot be located that the woman has to either raise the rapist's baby herself or with some other person? That sounds to me like you're violating your rule of "it's not my job to raise other people's kids or give them money to help them raise theirs". The man bears sole responsibility if the woman had no say in whether to become pregnant, yet you want her to take responsibility for the man's actions and raise/pay for his child.


----------



## tabzer (May 19, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Yes it is.


If you think so.  Ineffective programs exist.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 19, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> https://www.axios.com/2022/05/04/abortion-surpreme-court-women-map
> 
> https://theconversation.com/less-th...rd-trimester-heres-why-people-get-them-182580
> 
> ...



None of your sources give percentages on why women are having their abortion and that's what I linked to. Why did you link to them? They are irrelevant compared to the two sources I linked. I also have no intention on playing this game with you as no matter how many links I give you that are backed up by actual doctors and their data are going to pass because they help make my point. I'm also done speaking with someone like you that supports killing babies. You're now on my ignore list.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 20, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I already assumed abortion was not an option, because I was directly asking you what you think should happen, and I already know that abortion is not an option you will accept. I'm asking you, "Since abortion is not an option in your view, what should the solution be in this situation?"



I've already answered that question and also the question you listed below in my previous replies. The baby isn't murdered, that's the solution.



AleronIves said:


> Are you seriously saying that if the rapist cannot be located that the woman has to either raise the rapist's baby herself or with some other person? That sounds to me like you're violating your rule of "it's not my job to raise other people's kids or give them money to help them raise theirs". The man bears sole responsibility if the woman had no say in whether to become pregnant, yet you want her to take responsibility for the man's actions and raise/pay for his child.



Yes.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 20, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> None of your sources give percentages on why women are having their abortion and that's what I link to. Why did you link to them? They are irrelevant compared to the two sources I linked. I also have no intention on playing this game with you as no matter how many links I give you that are backed up by actual doctors and their data are going to pass because they help make my point. I'm also done speaking with someone like you that supports killing babies. You're now on my ignore list.



The first link I posted literally has statistics as soon as you load the page. If you don't understand how to read statistics just ask someone. Hell, I'll even help you. 

You have yet to link anything with any factual backdrop rooted in anything other than religious science. 

Wow, I'm being ignored. There goes the rest of my day 

It's ok though. I might support killing a fetus before it's technically alive, but at least I'm not a rapist sympathizer. Holy f*ck


----------



## AleronIves (May 20, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Yes.


Right, so at the risk of being excessively snarky, I guess you're pro life, pro rapist, and anti woman. Got it. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## The Catboy (May 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s rich that you speak of consequences when discussing abortion - a medical procedure explicitly designed to prevent facing the consequences of one’s irresponsible actions. Abortions of pregnancies resulting from rape, the only instance in which the woman had no say in the matter, constitute about 2% of the total, last I checked. In all other instances the woman made a series of poor decisions that led to her becoming pregnant. Your penchant for facing consequences is very selective, and only concerns the side of the argument you don’t like. Not that it matters anyway since complete strangers are not required to face the consequences of the action of other people. Slice the pie however you want - those are not my babies. For the sake of an argument, let’s say that I’m now vehemently against abortion - give me one *good* reason why I should pay for those kids? I didn’t even get to participate in the fun part, what gives? All I’m saying is that you shouldn’t be killing them - what you do with them is not my problem.


My argument is abortions should be safe, clean, and done by professionals. Anything less is only going to kill more people than help. And you are already paying for those kids the second they end up in the system. You are paying for them when parents need to go on government assistance. You are already paying for them, why not make it easier for these services instead of pretending their lives are less valuable? The only argument I am getting from you is that you don't really value other people.


----------



## appleburger (May 20, 2022)

Rape victims being in the minority of abortion cases does not strengthen the pro-life stance.  It's a moot point.  Of the *reported* rape pregnancies we know about, it's roughly 25k-30k of these per year.  That's a lot of people with a very horrible problem at hand, that directly relates to the abortion issue.  And we all should know here that most rapes do not get reported.

To suggest these cases are irrelevant to the debate simply because it's the minority of reported cases, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater .


----------



## AleronIves (May 20, 2022)

Yes, my point is that the solution to unwanted pregnancies must be applicable in all cases. The fact that abortions due to rape are a small percentage of overall abortions doesn't matter. If you say, "The woman has to carry and raise the rapist's baby, because abortions are wrong," well, now you're violating the rights of an adult to protect the rights of a fetus, which sounds pretty wrong, too.


----------



## smf (May 20, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> 96.50% of abortions are done simply because its an convenience.
> 
> https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/


I'm surprised they didn't find it was 110%
Probably hoped it would look credible.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 20, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Right, so at the risk of being excessively snarky, I guess you're pro life, pro rapist, and anti woman. Got it. Thanks for clarifying.



I am pro-life. Rape is wrong. I'm not anti-women.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 20, 2022)

appleburger said:


> Rape victims being in the minority of abortion cases does not strengthen the pro-life stance.  It's a moot point.  Of the *reported* rape pregnancies we know about, it's roughly 25k-30k of these per year.  That's a lot of people with a very horrible problem at hand, that directly relates to the abortion issue.  And we all should know here that most rapes do not get reported.
> 
> To suggest these cases are irrelevant to the debate simply because it's the minority of reported cases, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater .



It's reverse whataboutism. Using a pretend statistic to reinforce a blanket law that protects no one, regardless of reasoning. Even if less 1% of all abortions are from rape, that's still not enough to enact a blanket law demonizing every decision. Every life counts, right? Except for those women who have direct need for an abortion?



JonhathonBaxster said:


> I am pro-life. Rape is wrong. I'm not anti-women.



For not being anti women, someone certainly has a funny idea of how women should treated.


----------



## smf (May 20, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> well, now you're violating the rights of an adult to protect the rights of a fetus, which sounds pretty wrong, too.


You're violating the rights of a rapist to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy?


----------



## smf (May 20, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> to make yourself feel better about killing it is intellectually dishonest.


Calling it a baby when it's 9 weeks since conception is also dishonest


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 20, 2022)

smf said:


> You're violating the rights of a rapist to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy?


 
Calm down bucko, it's being said... ironically? Either way, it's being called to an earlier comment by HeWhoPlacedMeOnTheIgnoreList implying that a woman who was raped now has less viability than the rape baby she's being forced to carry. 

Because to force a woman to carry her rapists baby is being so pro-women it's progressive.  /s


----------



## smf (May 20, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> For not being anti women, someone certainly has a funny idea of how women should treated.


You're surprised he has funny ideas?


----------



## AleronIves (May 20, 2022)

smf said:


> You're violating the rights of a rapist to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy?


The woman is an adult, and you're violating her rights. I thought it would be obvious that I was talking about the woman's rights.



smf said:


> Calling it a baby when it's 9 weeks since conception is also dishonest


I didn't call it a baby. I called it a human in the early stages of development. You're correct that it's not a baby yet.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 20, 2022)

smf said:


> You're surprised he has funny ideas?



At this point I can't honestly be surprised at some of the responses I've seen on this thread alone. Non progressive people are baffling.


----------



## tabzer (May 20, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> At this point I can't honestly be surprised at some of the responses I've seen on this thread alone. Non progressive people are baffling.



I'm finding issue with your suggesting that carrying a baby to term (one that was a result of rape) is an act of sympathizing with rapists.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 20, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm finding issue with your suggesting that carrying a baby to term (one that was a result of rape) is an act of sympathizing with rapists.



Isn't it though? You can say all you want you sympathize for the baby, but the rapist, more often that not, gets off with little to no punishment, while the woman has to live with that product the rest of its life, hers is she dies first. 

Where's her sympathy for having to be reminded every day what happened?


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 20, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm finding issue with your suggesting that carrying a baby to term (one that was a result of rape) is an act of sympathizing with rapists.



It's not. The rapist if he is found needs to pay child support for the duration of the child's upbringing. What would be best is that the rape never took place. It's shit situation to be in, but it's not the developing human's fault that it was created. The world is far from perfect and bad things happen, but that's no reason to murder a baby.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 20, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> It's not. The rapist if he is found needs to pay child support for the duration of the child's upbringing. What would be best is that the rape never took place. It's shit situation to be in, but it's not the developing human's fault that it was created. The world is far from perfect and bad things happen, but that's no reason to murder a baby.



Why not force the rapist to take care of the baby and let the woman do as she pleases?


----------



## AleronIves (May 20, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Why not force the rapist to take care of the baby and let the woman do as she pleases?


That only works if you manage to catch the rapist, so that solution doesn't work in all situations.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 20, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> That only works if you manage to catch the rapist, so that solution doesn't work in all situations.



Does it matter though? Pro-lifers don't care about extenuating circumstances, so not being able to find the rape daddy should be inconsequential as well, right? 

At least until we get to the point that someone points out that this am unequatable comparison, avoiding the fact that this same logic is how every pro-lifer approaches any pro-choice argument.


----------



## seany1990 (May 20, 2022)

So Republicans just voted against feeding the babies they are forcing you to have?


----------



## tabzer (May 20, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Isn't it though? You can say all you want you sympathize for the baby, but the rapist, more often that not, gets off with little to no punishment, while the woman has to live with that product the rest of its life, hers is she dies first.
> 
> Where's her sympathy for having to be reminded every day what happened?



It is possible to sympathize with a child despite the actions of its father.  Perhaps even in spite of the actions of the father.  The offense was in the crime itself.   I also think it is unreasonable to expect the mother to be okay with it.  Both mother and child can be seen as victims, but the child can still be a good thing to the mother and its community.

People who commit bad acts aren't the only ones that live with the consequences.


----------



## AleronIves (May 20, 2022)

seany1990 said:


> So Republicans just voted against feeding the babies they are forcing you to have?


Republicans would say it's your responsibility to create a stable financial situation for yourself before you have children, because it's not their responsibility to feed your family. It's yours.

They don't seem to have a satisfactory answer for how to handle cases of rape and other unwanted pregnancies. Even if the sex is consensual and his condom breaks or her IUD fails, the reply is just, "Too bad! You shouldn't have had sex! See you in 18 years!"


----------



## seany1990 (May 20, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Republicans would say it's your responsibility to create a stable financial situation for yourself before you have children, because it's not their responsibility to feed your family. It's yours.


That's a very pro-life attitude to have, I'm sure Jesus is proud


----------



## AleronIves (May 20, 2022)

I didn't say I was a Republican. I said that's what a Republican would say. You must understand the arguments on all sides of an issue before you can have an informed opinion of your own. If you don't, the opposition will be able to easily poke holes in your case.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 20, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It is possible to sympathize with a child despite the actions of its father.  Perhaps even in spite of the actions of the father.  The offense was in the crime itself.   I also think it is an unreasonable expectation of the mother, to expect her to be okay with it.  Both mother and child can be seen as victims, but the child can still be a good thing to the mother and its community.
> 
> People who commit bad acts aren't the only ones that live with the consequences.



Of course. I can't speak for others, but please don't assume I lack all sympathy for children of any kind. However, even by just asking a woman to carry that kind of weight, even moreso forcing her to do it, to me is more of an injustice than eliminating something that, scientifically proven, has little to no brain movement during the early stages of pregnancy. 

A common theme seems to be that pro- choicers pack sympathy for the fetus, but from what I've seen personally that's far from the truth. One can sympathize and still be willing to terminate because of the current state of environment, knowing what the child has to expect from the moment of conception onward. 

Consequences also come in many forms. Just because a woman terminates her pregnancy doesn't mean she's absolved of consequences. Even aside from the metaphorical Scarlet Letter she dons, think about all the hormonal changes, the emotional and mental wear and tear on a person. Some abortions still lead to the death of the mother, even in cases where it was assured that the abortion was needed to save the mothers life. Just because they don't get to raise the child doesn't mean they're consequence free.


----------



## tabzer (May 20, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Of course. I can't speak for others, but please don't assume I lack all sympathy for children of any kind. However, even by just asking a woman to carry that kind of weight, even moreso forcing her to do it, to me is more of an injustice than eliminating something that, scientifically proven, has little to no brain movement during the early stages of pregnancy.
> 
> A common theme seems to be that pro- choicers pack sympathy for the fetus, but from what I've seen personally that's far from the truth. One can sympathize and still be willing to terminate because of the current state of environment, knowing what the child has to expect from the moment of conception onward.
> 
> Consequences also come in many forms. Just because a woman terminates her pregnancy doesn't mean she's absolved of consequences. Even aside from the metaphorical Scarlet Letter she dons, think about all the hormonal changes, the emotional and mental wear and tear on a person. Some abortions still lead to the death of the mother, even in cases where it was assured that the abortion was needed to save the mothers life. Just because they don't get to raise the child doesn't mean they're consequence free.



My position was against the stigmatization of children (and mothers) involved by rape.  I don't think that carrying the child to term is sympathetic to rape.  My comment about consequences was about how victims have unpleasant realities to deal with, not an attempt in pursuing justice.


----------



## smf (May 20, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm finding issue with your suggesting that carrying a baby to term (one that was a result of rape) is an act of sympathizing with rapists.


Because you don't understand it?
Because you don't understand it and you're offended by it?
Because you don't understand it, so you're offended by it?


----------



## smf (May 20, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> but that's no reason to murder a baby.


Nobody is talking about murdering babies, the conversation is about aborting a pregnancy.

If you are either having a different conversation, or using words incorrectly then this isn't going to get anywhere.



AleronIves said:


> I didn't say I was a Republican. I said that's what a Republican would say. You must understand the arguments on all sides of an issue before you can have an informed opinion of your own. If you don't, the opposition will be able to easily poke holes in your case.



Sure, though if this thread is anything to go by they will just straw man you anyway.


----------



## tabzer (May 20, 2022)

smf said:


> Because you don't understand it?
> Because you don't understand it and you're offended by it?
> Because you don't understand it, so you're offended by it?



For you?  Sure, why not?



tabzer said:


> It is possible to sympathize with a child despite the actions of its father. Perhaps even in spite of the actions of the father. The offense was in the crime itself. I also think it is unreasonable to expect the mother to be okay with it. Both mother and child can be seen as victims, but the child can still be a good thing to the mother and its community.
> 
> People who commit bad acts aren't the only ones that live with the consequences.





tabzer said:


> My position was against the stigmatization of children (and mothers) involved by rape. I don't think that carrying the child to term is sympathetic to rape. My comment about consequences was about how victims have unpleasant realities to deal with, not an attempt in pursuing justice.


----------



## AleronIves (May 20, 2022)

smf said:


> Nobody is talking about murdering babies, the conversation is about aborting a pregnancy.
> 
> If you are either having a different conversation, or using words incorrectly then this isn't going to get anywhere.


It's important to take intended meaning into account. Although it's technically correct to say a fetus is not a baby, that's not what anti-abortion people are getting at, so trying to discredit their argument on a technicality is not persuasive.

When anti-abortion people say abortion is the same as killing babies, what they mean is that they consider a fetus to be a person, just as a baby is a person. The key question is, "At what point do a sperm and egg become a person?" A fetus isn't a baby, but it might be considered a person depending on how far the pregnancy has progressed and what your criteria are for personhood. If you think a fetus is a person, then you can only conclude that killing it is wrong. If it's not a person yet, you could conclude that killing it is acceptable.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 20, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> My argument is abortions should be safe, clean, and done by professionals. Anything less is only going to kill more people than help. And you are already paying for those kids the second they end up in the system. You are paying for them when parents need to go on government assistance. You are already paying for them, why not make it easier for these services instead of pretending their lives are less valuable? The only argument I am getting from you is that you don't really value other people.


You’re not very good at this. You grab a saw with the intention of cutting the opponent down, but you just end up sawing your own leg off instead and falling flat. You *just* said, not 5 posts ago, that people who are opposed to abortion should pay for the unwanted children who end up in this world as a result of their mothers being unable to abort them. Now, conveniently, you tell us that they already do (even though I outlined that it is not encumbent on them to do so, logically speaking). Is there anything else you’d like to undercut in your argument before we proceed? For the record, I’m all for medical procedures being safe, clean and done by professionals. I noticed that you dropped the “rare” part of the “safe, legal and rare” mantra usually associated with the abortion debate. Are we still on-board with the rare bit, or are we feeling unusually honest today?


----------



## tabzer (May 20, 2022)

Some people just want what they cannot have.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 20, 2022)

appleburger said:


> Rape victims being in the minority of abortion cases does not strengthen the pro-life stance.  It's a moot point.  Of the *reported* rape pregnancies we know about, it's roughly 25k-30k of these per year.  That's a lot of people with a very horrible problem at hand, that directly relates to the abortion issue.  And we all should know here that most rapes do not get reported.
> 
> To suggest these cases are irrelevant to the debate simply because it's the minority of reported cases, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater .


I disagree. You do not create policy to cater to the exception, you make general rules *with* exceptions. You’re not primarily concerned with the 2% that we can generally agree on (with very few dissenting voices, although they do exist), you’re primarily concerned with the 98%. We’re not taking about throwing the baby out with the bath water, we’re talking about forgetting about the baby in the tub for the sake of saving the rubber ducky.


AleronIves said:


> Republicans would say it's your responsibility to create a stable financial situation for yourself before you have children, because it's not their responsibility to feed your family. It's yours.
> 
> They don't seem to have a satisfactory answer for how to handle cases of rape and other unwanted pregnancies. Even if the sex is consensual and his condom breaks or her IUD fails, the reply is just, "Too bad! You shouldn't have had sex! See you in 18 years!"


Having sex carries the inherent possibility of causing a pregnancy - this is pretty much priced into the equation. We take reasonable precautions to prevent that (or we should, if we don’t want unwanted pregnancies), but the failure of those precautions does not transfer the responsibility onto third-parties. Similarly, driving carries the inherent risk of death or injury. We generally try to drive responsibly, but we can’t control for every variable and accidents do happen. That doesn’t transfer the responsibility onto the rest of society - somebody caused the accident, be it by negligence or an unfortunate twist of fate. It’s not my fault, and I don’t see any convincing reason why I should be burdened with the consequences of somebody else’s failure to drive safely.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 20, 2022)

Full stop. Watch the videos to know what that means.


----------



## smf (May 20, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> It's important to take intended meaning into account. Although it's technically correct to say a fetus is not a baby, that's not what anti-abortion people are getting at, so trying to discredit their argument on a technicality is not persuasive.


Just trying to stop them being disingenuous. Because until they stop doing that, the debate won't move forward.

Which makes me think they don't want the debate to move forward.


----------



## smf (May 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Having sex carries the inherent possibility of causing a pregnancy


Crossing the road carries the possibility of getting run over. We don't force people into the ultimate conclusion.

If a pregnancy is caused, then what is the reason for forcing them to go full term? If the person abstained or their contraception worked, then the potential baby would not exist either.


----------



## tabzer (May 20, 2022)

You can't stop people from being disengenious, but you can stop being disengenious.    If the unintended consequence of driving results in your accidental injury as sex results in unintended pregnancy, abortion does no more to undo pregnancy as does pressing charges, and/or corrective surgery, undoes injury from a driving accident.  As far as I can see, you are setting the conversation back, or at least trying to stall.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 20, 2022)

smf said:


> Crossing the road carries the possibility of getting run over. We don't force people into the ultimate conclusion.
> 
> If a pregnancy is caused, then what is the reason for forcing them to go full term? If the person abstained or their contraception worked, then the potential baby would not exist either.


But it does, so the question is what we do about it. In order to ascertain that, we have to make a value judgement. I’m not terribly opposed to it before the growing fetus gains any semblance of sentience - it’s a human life, to be sure, but one that’s unaware, so I can make a reasonable concession. The bridge we shouldn’t cross is equating abortion with contraception - it isn’t contraception, it’s an emergency procedure, one that should be avoided if human life has any meaning to us at all. Morning after pills are widely available - those alone give a woman 72 hours to react. If the current rules are any indication, after that fact she still has a couple weeks to react. There comes a point at which the pregnancy becomes so advanced that we cross the threshold between dealing with one sentient human and two sentient humans - what then? The bodily autonomy perspective recognises that the woman should have the right to terminate up to 5 minutes before birth if that is her fancy, but I fail to see how that’s different than infanticide unless we assume that the opening of her vagina is a magical portal that grants personhood upon exit, which is ridiculous. At some point we have to recognise the bodily autonomy of the body growing inside her, maybe even its personhood, which is a difficult balancing act. It’s the crossroads of philosophy and biology, bioethics can be tricky.

Here’s the tl;dr - the woman can abstain from penetrative sex altogether, but since sex is a biological need, let’s assume she doesn’t. She can use contraception before intercourse, both in the forms of pills and physical/chemical barriers. If the barrier fails, operating on the assumption that the pill might fail also, she can opt for a morning after. If that fails and somehow pregnancy does develop, she has weeks to get that sorted before the fetus grows a brain. At which point in this series of individual decisions and failures does the responsibility fall on me to fix the problem? How many life preservers must be sprinkled on the path before it’s not my problem anymore? Because there’s a number most people can agree on.


----------



## AleronIves (May 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Having sex carries the inherent possibility of causing a pregnancy - this is pretty much priced into the equation. We take reasonable precautions to prevent that (or we should, if we don’t want unwanted pregnancies), but the failure of those precautions does not transfer the responsibility onto third-parties. Similarly, driving carries the inherent risk of death or injury. We generally try to drive responsibly, but we can’t control for every variable and accidents do happen. That doesn’t transfer the responsibility onto the rest of society - somebody caused the accident, be it by negligence or an unfortunate twist of fate.


I'm not sure you can compare car accidents to unwanted pregnancies, but let's try to make the comparison as fair as possible. Let's say you're obeying traffic laws and minding your own business when somebody crashes into your car. It's not your fault, so insurance pays for the damages, and your premiums do not increase. Everyone is required to carry auto insurance to account for situations such as this. The woman would be you in this example, and the rapist would be the person who crashes into you. Does this mean women need to carry rapist insurance so that if they get raped, the insurance will pay out enough money to support them through the pregnancy and the next 18 years? I don't think that's a viable solution. It honestly sounds pretty dystopian.



Foxi4 said:


> It’s not my fault, and I don’t see any convincing reason why I should be burdened with the consequences of somebody else’s failure to drive safely.


In the insurance model, you're already burdened with the consequences of somebody else's failure to drive safely. Premiums are set so the insurance company can make money, and people who drive safely pay into the system to help people who get into accidents, because they could one day be the person who's in an accident. If you're never in an accident, you could argue that it's unfair for you to have to pay auto insurance premiums, but if everyone who didn't get into accidents didn't pay premiums, then the concept of insurance wouldn't work anymore since insurance companies would go out of business.


----------



## tabzer (May 20, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I'm not sure you can compare car accidents to unwanted pregnancies, but let's try to make the comparison as fair as possible. Let's say you're obeying traffic laws and minding your own business when somebody crashes into your car. It's not your fault, so insurance pays for the damages, and your premiums do not increase. Everyone is required to carry auto insurance to account for situations such as this. The woman would be you in this example, and the rapist would be the person who crashes into you. Does this mean women need to carry rapist insurance so that if they get raped, the insurance will pay out enough money to support them through the pregnancy and the next 18 years? I don't think that's a viable solution. It honestly sounds pretty dystopian.
> 
> 
> In the insurance model, you're already burdened with the consequences of somebody else's failure to drive safely. Premiums are set so the insurance company can make money, and people who drive safely pay into the system to help people who get into accidents, because they could one day be the person who's in an accident. If you're never in an accident, you could argue that it's unfair for you to have to pay auto insurance premiums, but if everyone who didn't get into accidents didn't pay premiums, then the concept of insurance wouldn't work anymore since insurance companies would go out of business.



The analogy isn't compatible outside of the scope of the context of making the choice of participation in a "dangerous" activity.  As much as you hope to not get into an accident, the act of driving carries risk of that potential.  Of course dying in an accident isn't the same as getting pregnant, but for the small window "if I do this, then certain risks are taken" I think it's ok enough.

Of course, in that sense, sitting at home and having a car ram through your house and hit you could be comparable to rape.

Perhaps there is a commentary about the nature of insurance in his analogy.  I didn't think that was the point though.


----------



## AleronIves (May 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> At which point in this series of individual decisions and failures does the responsibility fall on me to fix the problem? How many life preservers must be sprinkled on the path before it’s not my problem anymore? Because there’s a number most people can agree on.


What do you mean by "my problem"?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 20, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> What do you mean by "my problem"?


Well, it’s either the woman’s problem or “my” problem. More collectively, “our” problem, that we have to tend to as a society. Someone’s responsible, yes?


AleronIves said:


> I'm not sure you can compare car accidents to unwanted pregnancies, but let's try to make the comparison as fair as possible. Let's say you're obeying traffic laws and minding your own business when somebody crashes into your car. It's not your fault, so insurance pays for the damages, and your premiums do not increase. Everyone is required to carry auto insurance to account for situations such as this. The woman would be you in this example, and the rapist would be the person who crashes into you. Does this mean women need to carry rapist insurance so that if they get raped, the insurance will pay out enough money to support them through the pregnancy and the next 18 years? I don't think that's a viable solution. It honestly sounds pretty dystopian.


Slow down, Stretch Armstrong - we’re not talking about insurance, we’re talking about establishing responsibility for the accident, which is a traffic law concept. Either you’re at fault or someone else hit you. It theoretically could be an act of God (meaning an accident beyond anyone’s control) but I think we can rule out immaculate conception, so we don’t really need to touch upon that.


> In the insurance model, you're already burdened with the consequences of somebody else's failure to drive safely. Premiums are set so the insurance company can make money, and people who drive safely pay into the system to help people who get into accidents, because they could one day be the person who's in an accident. If you're never in an accident, you could argue that it's unfair for you to have to pay auto insurance premiums, but if everyone who didn't get into accidents didn't pay premiums, then the concept of insurance wouldn't work anymore since insurance companies would go out of business.


Rape insurance sure sounds like taxation, considering we pay taxes to fund the police. They’re supposed to keep rapists off the streets, and for the most part, they do. They can’t catch everyone. As @tabzer mentioned above, you’ve stepped outside of the confines of the analogy, but we can keep stretching if that’s what you desire. It’s not productive, but can be mildly entertaining as a mental exercise.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 20, 2022)

smf said:


> Nobody is talking about murdering babies, the conversation is about aborting a pregnancy.
> 
> If you are either having a different conversation, or using words incorrectly then this isn't going to get anywhere.



I'm not going to dehumanize a developing human to make its murder more easy on the mind. *Abortion is killing babies*. If you think "the argument going forward" results in me changing my mind and accepting abortions, which are the killing of babies then you're dead wrong.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 20, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not going to dehumanize a developing human to make its murder more easy on the mind. *Abortion is killing babies*. If you think "the argument going forward" results in me changing my mind and accepting abortions, which are the killing of babies then you're dead wrong.


You don't have to accept abortions. You just need to understand that they're going to keep happening regardless of the law because you can't just take away someone's rights and expect everyone to fall in line.


----------



## appleburger (May 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I disagree. You do not create policy to cater to the exception, you make general rules *with* exceptions. You’re not primarily concerned with the 2% that we can generally agree on (with very few dissenting voices, although they do exist), you’re primarily concerned with the 98%. We’re not taking about throwing the baby out with the bath water, we’re talking about forgetting about the baby in the tub for the sake of saving the rubber ducky.


I wasn't suggesting we enact a single law, which applies to all, to cater explicitly to the rape victim group.  I said it's *relevant* to the debate.  It's a real issue that's directly related to the abortion discussion.  It should be taken into consideration with regards to the laws.  Laws certainly allow for nuance and exceptions, so I don't think your rebuttal is compatible with my point.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, so feel free to help me better understand what you mean by that policy comment.

I can confidently say that 2% figure is off by a good margin.  The current consensus is that it's closer to 5% - and again, that's only *reported* rape pregnancies.  I claimed that this figure cannot be accurate due to us knowing many rapes go unreported.  This is likely leaving out a large chunk of incest cases, which are swept under the rug for obvious reasons.

My position, currently, is drawing the line around when we think consciousness develops to allow for early term abortion, and keep late term abortions illegal.  It's ending consciousness that disturbs me, not ending [other] biological processes.  Pulling the plug on somebody who's become a vegetable, while still horrible, is not equivalent to first degree murder in my eyes.  I'm not saying pulling the plug is equivalent to abortion, I'm explicitly illustrating the point that ending consciousness is where I draw the moral line.  To me, aborting an early fetus is also not equivalent to a fully developed person with a conscious, either.

I concede that this line is drawn in different places depending on one's philosophy, and it's where I think the root of the debate on this issue lies.  I'm interested in hashing out this point also, because it then leads into other discussion on consciousness, personhood, etc. and I think it's a neat exercise to really parse how we think about this stuff individually, because we can build on these implications to further cement our stance on other issues.

I do think exceptions should (legally) be considered for those who are victims or at risk of being killed for continuing the pregnancy, and while that will be contentious for some (same with any murder exceptions we already debate over), it's still very much *relevant* to the debate as a whole.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 20, 2022)

appleburger said:


> I wasn't suggesting we enact a single law, which applies to all, to cater explicitly to the rape victim group.  I said it's *relevant* to the debate.  It's a real issue that's directly related to the abortion discussion.  It should be taken into consideration with regards to the laws.  Laws certainly allow for nuance and exceptions, so I don't think your rebuttal is compatible with my point.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, so feel free to help me better understand what you mean by that policy comment.
> 
> I can confidently say that 2% figure is off by a good margin.  The current consensus is that it's closer to 5% - and again, that's only *reported* rape pregnancies.  I claimed that this figure cannot be accurate due to us knowing many rapes go unreported.  This is likely leaving out a large chunk of incest cases, which are swept under the rug for obvious reasons.
> 
> ...


The 2% figure actually includes both rape and incest - not sure where you’re getting your 5% from. My data comes from the Guttmacher Institute which performs surveys nationwide about this very topic with healthcare institutions. Not that it really matters, we’re splitting hairs - the point was that the number of these exceptional cases is infinitesimally small and, in my opinion, constitutes a different discussion altogether as we’re talking about remedy from a crime rather than a personal reproductive choice. I don’t have a problem with abortion after rape - the child would only serve as a reminder of the traumatic experience. As long as it hasn’t crossed the threshold we talked about earlier, you’ll hear no objections from me.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The 2% figure actually includes both rape and incest - not sure where you’re getting your 5% from. My data comes from the Guttmacher Institute which performs surveys nationwide about this very topic with healthcare institutions. Not that it really matters, we’re splitting hairs - the point was that the number of these exceptional cases is infinitesimally small and, in my opinion, constitutes a different discussion altogether as we’re talking about remedy from a crime rather than a personal reproductive choice. I don’t have a problem with abortion after rape - the child would only serve as a reminder of the traumatic experience. As long as it hasn’t crossed the threshold we talked about earlier, you’ll hear no objections from me.



That study collaborates the figures I already linked to in my two previous posts. The figures are all around the same amount. If you forgot already @smf asked how many abortions are done out of convenience and the figures are all around the same regardless of who is publishing it. Thank you for sharing your source for this invaluable information.

_Edit: "Convenience" is all of the results not including rape, incest, mutations/defects and danger to the mothers life. Convenience covers most of the rest of the reasons._

https://www.guttmacher.org/perspectives50/womens-reasons-having-abortion
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals...ons-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives


----------



## AleronIves (May 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, it’s either the woman’s problem or “my” problem. More collectively, “our” problem, that we have to tend to as a society. Someone’s responsible, yes?


I guess I don't see what your point is. The only way I can see how somebody else's pregnancy can become a collective problem is if a) abortion is always illegal and b) the rest of us are forced to pay taxes to help women raise children they never wanted. Unless the second condition is true, somebody else's pregnancy is never "our" problem, at least not directly.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 20, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I guess I don't see what your point is. The only way I can see how somebody else's pregnancy can become a collective problem is if a) abortion is always illegal and b) the rest of us are forced to pay taxes to help women raise children they never wanted. Unless the second condition is true, somebody else's pregnancy is never "our" problem, at least not directly.


It sounds to me like I’m paying either way, so yes, it is “my problem”.


----------



## appleburger (May 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The 2% figure actually includes both rape and incest - not sure we’re you’re getting your 5% from. My data comes from the Guttmacher Institute which performs surveys nationwide about this very topic with healthcare institutions. Not that it really matters, we’re splitting hairs - the point was that these exceptional cases are infinitesimally small and, in my opinion, constitute a different discussion altogether as we’re talking about remedy from a crime rather than a personal reproductive choice. I don’t have a problem with abortion after rape - the child would only serve as a reminder of the traumatic experience. As long as it hasn’t crossed the threshold we talked about earlier, you’ll hear no objections from me.


*Sorry for the crazy long post - I'm trying to respond to more than one user here at a time and could have formatted this better.  Forgive me.

The 5% figure comes from multiple sources, including:

1) *Conception rate *- the takeaway here being that the odd of conception are equal whether or not rape occurred

2) *Reported rapes vs. estimated rapes* - (multiple surveys for this figure, and I'd be spamming sources; all I've done is watch a couple debates and sifted through sources from those and the wikipedia articles)

3) *Multiple surveys on reported abortions*, including the Guttmacher Institute surveys you mentioned.  There are more surveys mentioned and collected in the this wikipedia article for rape pregnancies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_from_rape#:~:text=A 1996 study of 44,college students in the US.

I believe the initial 5% figure you'll see from googling "rape pregnancy rate" is drawn from this study.  A big benefit here was that we had phone interviews, which added a lot of context.  Guttmacher had interviews as well, although not nearly as many: https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevie...d-descriptive-characteristics-from-32QW43qNqR

But from what I've read and listened to, the consensus of ~5% comes from putting all these pieces together, and it's a very loose estimate, from what I can gather.  There are people who try to argue closer to 10%, but the data supports ~5%, from what I can tell.  The reported pregnancy rapes range from 2%-7% depending on control factors from the surveys.  I can share more sources, but this post is already getting pretty bloated.  I'll admit I've only looked at the two surveys mentioned above in themselves, the rest I garnered from others collecting these and citing in a few articles.

4)


> These exceptional cases are infinitesimally small


I wouldn't call 25,000 - 30,000 people small.  You could fill 8+ stadiums with these victims every year.  This is *approaching vehicle accident deaths *(~38,000 in 2020).  Therefore I feel strongly that it should be addressed as part of the discussion.  Representing these people with a percentage makes it far more easy to disassociate with the real size and scope of the problem everyone has been tasked with answering.

5)


> Constitute a different discussion altogether as we’re talking about remedy from a crime rather than a personal reproductive choice.


I'd argue that what you are proposing is not a different discussion, but a different take depending on the context - allowing for nuance to the discussion of abortion.  That would simply be moving the discussion in one direction to address that scenario.  Your viewpoint should be able to withstand any real scenarios I throw at you.  The goal isn't to have the "correct" viewpoint - it's for it to be as sound and convincing as possible & let us see where you're coming from so we can get to a compromise or agreement, since we will have different core philosophical views (you and I went over that in another Politemp thread previously).  Bringing up these cases is effective in arguing for abortion, because it *challenges* the viewpoint that this is "murdering a baby".  It's brought up to make you truly consider what you feel is human by bringing up a scenario that puts your view to the test.  I'm arguing that pushing this "insignificance" issue absolutely belongs in the discussion of abortion.

6)


> As long as it hasn’t crossed the threshold we talked about earlier, you’ll hear no objections from me.


The brain activity/consciousness angle, right?

7)
The motivations of the parents who abort has no bearing on a moral argument.  If it is immoral to abort, due to it being murder, then why is @JonhathonBaxster (sorry to pick on you, no offense meant) bringing up parents being "trash", and the minority being insignificant?  He's already established that this is murder, so who cares why the parents are murdering their children?  Why aren't we elaborating on this take when it's challenged?

Murder is sometimes legal.  There's nuance.  So to say "abortion = murder" and then ignore scenarios which challenge that view is to fundamentally have a weak argument, imo.  That person would lose points in an official debate.  Doesn't mean any of you are "wrong" per se, but it does make the points being drawn far less convincing.

Consistent:
Appleburger: Murder is not morally permissible and should be met with consequences
Opposition: How about in the case of self defense?
Appleburger: Yes, I still feel that is morally unacceptable.  It's still consistent with my viewpoint.

Inconsistent:
Appleburger: Murder is not morally permissible and should be met with consequences
Opposition: How about in the case of self defense?
Appleburger: That is incredibly rare.  I don't know why people bring that up.  That's another discussion entirely.

Consistent:
Appleburger: Murder is not morally permissible and should be met with consequences
Opposition: How about in the case of self defense?
Appleburger: Murder is not morally permissible, because it infringes on one's right to live.  If that is threatened, we may uphold our right by taking the others' away.  There is an implicit contract, and they have broken it.  In this case, murder is permissible.

Inconsistent:
Appleburger: When do you think personhood begins?
Opposition: Immediately upon conception.  Therefore abortion is murder.
Appleburger: What about rape pregnancies?
Opposition: That is incredibly rare.  I don't know why people bring that up.  That's another discussion entirely.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 20, 2022)

appleburger said:


> The 5% figure comes from multiple sources, including:
> 
> 1) *Conception rate *- the takeaway here being that the odd of conception are equal whether or not rape occurred
> 
> ...


Arguing over a 3% of a difference while there’s 95-98% of a remainder to worry about is a waste of time, for the reasons I’ve already stated. How many stadiums do the remaining abortions fill? Is this some kind of misdirection? I’m not going to count droplets on a leaf while I’m standing next to a lake, it’s simply not productive.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 20, 2022)

Look, i'm going to be completely honest. Every bad group has dehumanized groups they wanted killed, why do babies deserve to be dehumanized as well?

Do you enjoy murdering babies and sleeping at night because you dehumanized them?


----------



## AleronIves (May 20, 2022)

appleburger said:


> Consistent:
> Appleburger: Murder is not morally permissible and should be met with consequences
> Opposition: How about in the case of self defense?
> Appleburger: Yes, I still feel that is morally unacceptable.  It's still consistent with my viewpoint.


The problem with your examples is that killing somebody in self defense is not murder. Murder is the premeditated killing of another person. Killing somebody in self defense does not require you to formulate a plan to kill the person ahead of time. That's why there are legal terms such as first/second degree murder, as well as (in)voluntary manslaughter. If somebody attacks you and you fight back, your primary motivation is not dying, and you take whatever action you think in the moment will prevent that outcome. Sometimes the action you take will kill the attacker, and sometimes it won't, but it's not murder if the attacker happens to die while you're trying to save your own life.



Foxi4 said:


> Arguing over a 3% of a difference while there’s 95-98% of a remainder to worry about is a waste of time


I disagree. If you're going to formulate a set of rules for when abortion is allowed (if ever) and when it is not, the rules need to cover every possible circumstance for how a woman could become pregnant so you know ahead of time what the abortion rules are in that case.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 20, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Look, i'm going to be completely honest. Every bad group has dehumanized groups they wanted killed, why do babies deserve to be dehumanized as well?
> 
> Do you enjoy murdering babies and sleeping at night because you dehumanized them?


No, we enjoy giving the mothers the freedom to make the choice on whether it's a viable course to raise the baby or not. You shouldn't have to strip the rights of one being in order for another to have some. There's enough rights for everyone.


----------



## appleburger (May 20, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> The problem with your examples is that killing somebody in self defense is not murder. Murder is the premeditated killing of another person. Killing somebody in self defense does not require you to formulate a plan to kill the person ahead of time. That's why there are legal terms such as first/second degree murder, as well as (in)voluntary manslaughter. If somebody attacks you and you fight back, your primary motivation is not dying, and you take whatever action you think in the moment will prevent that outcome. Sometimes the action you take will kill the attacker, and sometimes it won't, but it's not murder if the attacker happens to die while you're trying to save your own life.
> 
> 
> I disagree. If you're going to formulate a set of rules for when abortion is allowed (if ever) and when it is not, the rules need to cover every possible circumstance for how a woman could become pregnant so you know ahead of time what the abortion rules are in that case.


You're right - there's reasons "killing" gets grouped into degrees and other crimes like "manslaughter".  It's the logic of the examples that really matters.  Adding nuance to move the discussion forward was the point of that bit.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 20, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I disagree. If you're going to formulate a set of rules for when abortion is allowed (if ever) and when it is not, the rules need to cover every possible circumstance for how a woman could become pregnant so you know ahead of time what the abortion rules are in that case.


Disagree, for reasons already stated twice. Nobody is basing general rules on outliers. In fact, outliers are specifically eliminated from any statistical analysis. Exceptional circumstances are covered by exceptions.


appleburger said:


> You're right - there's reasons "killing" gets grouped into degrees and other crimes like "manslaughter".  It's the logic of the examples that really matters.  Adding nuance to move the discussion forward was the point of that bit.


A very good point - one that ties directly to what I’ve been arguing all along. It would be *ludicrous* to use the same measuring stick for premeditated murder, accidental manslaughter and criminal negligence resulting in death just because they all boil down to a death of a human. Similarly, it is asinine to treat elective abortion, abortion for medical reasons and abortion in the event of rape as one and the same, applying the same rule that covers 100% of abortions. Those three things *are not alike*, and treating them as the same thing only wastes time on otherwise unnecessary mental gymnastics.

To give you a specific example, the life of the mother always trumps the life of the fetus. As such, abortion for the purposes of saving a mother’s life should *always* be allowed and is a textbook example of healthcare - you are preventing death or bodily harm to a patient. On the flip side, elective abortion raises different ethical questions and it’s debatable what the cut-off time should be. You can’t use the same rule for both because those two cases are completely different, even if they concern the same medical procedure.

What you *actually* need to do is make a general ruling that applies to the gross majority of cases and add very specific exceptions to that rule which cover the remainder of the problem. This allows you to expand in the future if you’ve managed to neglect some relevant circumstances, as opposed to rewriting the entire bill from scratch to account for the new variable you were previously unaware of, but one that doesn’t flip your general ruling upside down.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 20, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> No, we enjoy giving the mothers the freedom to make the choice on whether it's a viable course to raise the baby or not. You shouldn't have to strip the rights of one being in order for another to have some. There's enough rights for everyone.


look, aren't we forgetting a group's rights? you know, the fucking *babies *rights? their right to be born, and not get their brain sucked out with a vacuum or mangled up with a weird instrument?


----------



## AleronIves (May 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Nobody is basing general rules on outliers.


I never said that we should. I said that the rules need to cover every circumstance, so once you figure out the general rules surrounding abortion, you need to cover the edge cases, too.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 20, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I never said that we should. I said that the rules need to cover every circumstance, so once you figure out the general rules surrounding abortion, you need to cover the edge cases, too.


In that case we’ve wasted a great number of posts arguing about nothing, because this clarification makes our positions the same. I started by saying that you should be primarily concerned about the 95%+ and make exceptions for the rest, and I haven’t moved an inch from that initial assessment because it’s the most reasonable way to approach a problem.


----------



## Lacius (May 20, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> look, aren't we forgetting a group's rights? you know, the fucking *babies *rights? their right to be born, and not get their brain sucked out with a vacuum or mangled up with a weird instrument?


An embryo/fetus is not a baby, and even if it were, it doesn't have the right to another person's body.

The nonexistent don't have a right to exist.


----------



## appleburger (May 20, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> In that case we’ve wasted a great number of posts arguing about nothing, because this clarification makes our positions the same. I started by saying that you should be primarily concerned about the 95%+ and make exceptions for the rest, and I haven’t moved an inch from that initial assessment because it’s the most reasonable way to approach a problem.


If you look at my initial criticism that you defended, I was calling out users for saying the outliers *didn't belong in the discussion, at all.*  I built a case for why they do belong in the discussion, regardless of the number, because it brings the view into challenge - to allow for nuance in the policy.  

I never noticed a post suggesting one rule should cover all cases of abortion.  I stated in my first post that I'm pro-choice up until the line is drawn for "personhood", and that I feel that's where the true debate lies.


----------



## AleronIves (May 20, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> look, aren't we forgetting a group's rights? you know, the fucking *babies *rights? their right to be born, and not get their brain sucked out with a vacuum or mangled up with a weird instrument?


It's a fetus, not a baby, and if it's early in the pregnancy, it doesn't have a brain. Most people who support abortion rights seem to agree that abortions should not be legal after brain development has begun, because this is when the fetus becomes, as closely as we can define it, a person.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 20, 2022)

appleburger said:


> If you look at my initial criticism that you defended, I was calling out users for saying the outliers *didn't belong in the discussion, at all.*  I built a case for why they do belong in the discussion, regardless of the number, because it brings the view into challenge - to allow for nuance in the policy.
> 
> I never noticed a post suggesting one rule should cover all cases of abortion.  I stated in my first post that I'm pro-choice up until the line is drawn for "personhood", and that I feel that's where the true debate lies.


I maintain my position that arguing about exceptions is a matter for when a general rule is formulated. You come up with a reasonable middle ground which applies to most people, you look at it and you ask two questions - “who doesn’t this rule cover” and “should those people be covered by an exception due to their unusual circumstances”. Maybe it’s a character flaw, but I’m very goal oriented. Get to point B, and maybe be prepared for a trek to point C before you make plans on reaching point Z. Worrying about the outliers is distracting you from worrying about the majority of cases, and the purpose of any law is to cater to the most people possible. The alternative to that is to start from a point of agreement - “these are the cases we all agree on”, then look at the rest of the cases and formulate something agreeable for them. We all agree that saving the mother is always the priority, the overwhelming majority agrees that abortion in the case of rape is acceptable, here’s the rest of it all, discuss. Boils down to the same result.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 20, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Look, i'm going to be completely honest. Every bad group has dehumanized groups they wanted killed, why do babies deserve to be dehumanized as well?
> 
> Do you enjoy murdering babies and sleeping at night because you dehumanized them?


But our Lord Satan needs sacrifices. I mean, what else are we supposed to sacrifice? Goats? That's just savagery.


----------



## AleronIves (May 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I maintain my position that arguing about exceptions is a matter for when a general rule is formulated.


Well, there are at least two conversations happening in this thread. The first is the conversation you're talking about, and it seems like most of us have formulated the general rule: abortion is permissible until the point where the fetus has a brain, because at that point it becomes a person and has the same rights as any other person.

The second conversation we're having is with the anti-abortion advocates in the thread. In this sub-conversation, we have another general rule: abortion is never permissible. If we accept this as the rule for the sake of argument, then we must figure out what to do in the outlier situations. Is an exception to the abortion rule permissible in the case of rape? If not, what happens then? At least in the case of @JonhathonBaxster  , his rule is that the woman must carry the fetus to term and then either a) put it up for adoption, b) raise it herself with no financial assistance from the government, or c) marry somebody else to help her raise the rape baby.

Since he is not the only anti-abortion advocate in the thread, it's worth discussing what exceptions, if any, other anti-abortion advocates can accept. Unfortunately, it's hard to have two coherent conversations in a single thread, but the first conversation appears to have been resolved.


----------



## appleburger (May 21, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Well, there are at least two conversations happening in this thread. The first is the conversation you're talking about, and it seems like most of us have formulated the general rule: abortion is permissible until the point where the fetus has a brain, because at that point it becomes a person and has the same rights as any other person.
> 
> The second conversation we're having is with the anti-abortion advocates in the thread. In this sub-conversation, we have another general rule: abortion is never permissible. If we accept this as the rule for the sake of argument, then we must figure out what to do in the outlier situations. Is an exception to the abortion rule permissible in the case of rape? If not, what happens then? At least in the case of @JonhathonBaxster  , his rule is that the woman must carry the fetus to term and then either a) put it up for adoption, b) raise it herself with no financial assistance from the government, or c) marry somebody else to help her raise the rape baby.
> 
> Since he is not the only anti-abortion advocate in the thread, it's worth discussing what exceptions, if any, other anti-abortion advocates can accept. Unfortunately, it's hard to have two coherent conversations in a single thread, but the first conversation appears to have been resolved.


Yes, this 100% @Foxi4


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 21, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> But our Lord Satan needs sacrifices. I mean, what else are we supposed to sacrifice? Goats? That's just savagery.


You're right. Not like anyone's been sacrificed in the Christian Bible. Isn't there a passage where the lord God killed a bunch of kids because they were ridiculing some guy? And then there's Job, who had all his kids killed by God to prove to Satan that God was deserving of Job's love. And then all of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for profane practices, but it's not really mentioned what happened to the children...I mean, unless they were doing the sodomy thing too...

Your Christian God has had more children killed in his name than Satan ever had. 

Get outta here with that religious crap. We've got enough separation of church and state problems as it is.


----------



## Lacius (May 21, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> But our Lord Satan needs sacrifices. I mean, what else are we supposed to sacrifice? Goats? That's just savagery.


Please stop saying the quiet part out loud. Thank you.


----------



## AleronIves (May 21, 2022)

Also, leave the poor goats out of this.


----------



## appleburger (May 21, 2022)

I haven't finished this one yet, but found it pretty interesting to see two people debate where they feel the Libertarian stance on abortion should be.  Definitely worth a listen:


----------



## seany1990 (May 21, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Do you enjoy murdering babies and sleeping at night because you dehumanized them?


No but it doesn't weigh on my conscience, even the slightest


----------



## tabzer (May 21, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Also, leave the poor goats out of this.



All lives matter life matters.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 21, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> You're right. Not like anyone's been sacrificed in the Christian Bible. Isn't there a passage where the lord God killed a bunch of kids because they were ridiculing some guy? And then there's Job, who had all his kids killed by God to prove to Satan that God was deserving of Job's love. And then all of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for profane practices, but it's not really mentioned what happened to the children...I mean, unless they were doing the sodomy thing too...
> 
> Your Christian God has had more children killed in his name than Satan ever had.
> 
> Get outta here with that religious crap. We've got enough separation of church and state problems as it is.


I'm not going anywhere


----------



## AleronIves (May 21, 2022)

appleburger said:


> I haven't finished this one yet, but found it pretty interesting to see two people debate where they feel the Libertarian stance on abortion should be.


Although I don't agree with all the points being made and the conclusions being drawn, the debate was an excellent exploration of the Libertarian point of view. Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 21, 2022)

appleburger said:


> Yes, this 100% @Foxi4


Normally when someone quotes me, I make the reasonable assumption they’re talking about what I said. No harm done either way.


----------



## appleburger (May 21, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Normally when someone quotes me, I make the reasonable assumption they’re talking about what I said. No harm done either way.


That's not quite it.  It was a misinterpretation/misunderstanding, not me quoting you in response to somebody else.  I said the minority group still belongs in the conversation in response to the "abortion is murder" group on the thread.  You responded to me saying you disagreed, and this is where the misunderstanding starts.

It reads like you thought I wanted to say "abortion should be legal because of this 5% group", which was not my position, but given all the users on here arguing, it's very understandable why you'd lump what I said into the opinions of other pro-choice people on the thread.  Very easy to do with this many voices in one place.  

If you go look at the posts, you can see me try and clear this up a couple times.

Agreed on no harm done, and I do enjoy arguing with you on here.  

Also, to keep this post on topic, I have learned a lot about abortion arguments in general since making my first post on this thread, so this has been a pretty fun excursion.  I wouldn't have gone sifting through so much info as quickly as I did had I not been bickering with people on here haha.  

And while I don't agree with the pro-life group, I do feel like I better understand their position now.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 21, 2022)

appleburger said:


> And while I don't agree with the pro-life group, I do feel like I better understand their position now.



This is something most liberals don't even try to do. I'm not sure why understanding what the opposition is thinking is shunned by them, but to tackle issues you need to know both sides of the issue at hand. Even though I dislike the liberal media I still visit their sites to see what they are thinking and doing. In fact most sites I visit reflect the attitude that abortion should be legal up until birth, which is weird because nothing magical happens at birth that makes the baby any more or less a baby.


----------



## Lacius (May 21, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> This is something most liberals don't even try to do. I'm not sure why understanding what the opposition is thinking is shunned by them, but to tackle issues you need to know both sides of the issue at hand. Even though I dislike the liberal media I still visit their sites to see what they are thinking and doing. In fact most sites I visit reflect the attitude that abortion should be legal up until birth, which is weird because nothing magical happens at birth that makes the baby any more or less a baby.


A pregnancy should be able to be ended at any time. If it's before fetal viability, it's an abortion. If it's after fetal viability, it's a birth.


----------



## seany1990 (May 21, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I didn't say I was a Republican. I said that's what a Republican would say.


I never said you were, I was sarcastically responding to the argument you made regardless of who believes it.



AleronIves said:


> You must understand the arguments on all sides of an issue before you can have an informed opinion of your own.


Rich people good, poor people bad.

From that above statement I clearly understand the conservative position


----------



## appleburger (May 21, 2022)

> This is something most liberals don't even try to do.


This phenomenon is not unique to "liberals".  It's a people thing.  We're hard wired to pick a team and die on that hill.  There are lots of studies that reveal how easily our opinions are manipulated by bias and the need to fit in.  Some of the conformity studies were really shocking to me the first time I read about them.  So, while its frustrating to see people lazily pick teams, it is human nature, to their credit.  This is why if there's ever one single issue I will ever push, it's education.


> ...to tackle issues you need to know both sides of the issue at hand. Even though I dislike the liberal media I still visit their sites to see what they are thinking and doing


I feel this is certainly a healthy way to look at debate and testing your own assumptions & beliefs.  It's not easy for us to do.  It takes time and patience to allow yourself to possibly be wrong.  We also have to accept that "knowing" the full story for either side of a debate on every issue, even just in the US, is nearly impossible.  We're all ignorant and learning to some extent.



> In fact most sites I visit reflect the attitude that abortion should be legal up until birth, which is weird because nothing magical happens at birth that makes the baby any more or less a baby.


Sites can say whatever they want, but the majority of Americans feel abortion should be legal/illegal depending on the circumstance: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/

The reality is that while the US has a two party system, there aren't simply two sets of beliefs, obviously.  It's not two sides, it's fractal.  Even within our government the Democrats and Republicans are split into more sub-groups than I can even bear to remember.  So, while roughly half of the country picks a team and sticks to it, the rest of us make an effort to actually form an individual opinion, rather than selecting one and defending it without really knowing _why_ we believe what we do.

So all that being said, I wouldn't put too much energy into what you're seeing on media outlets, as that's a very limited look into the issues at hand.  I personally have never given the major news outlets for either side much credit at all.  They are entertaining though, I'll give them that.


----------



## Nothereed (May 21, 2022)

I've really had it reading this.
So let's me ask the question. At what point are we calling this a baby?
All the "pro-lifers", because let's be honest it's more like anti abortion and nothing but that. You don't take into consideration of rape, you don't consider if condoms fail or birth control failing, you even said that it's the parents responsibility to take care of said child they are forced to carry. Forced being you cannot by law have an abortion. And nor will you take responsibility for forcing people to have that child but simply state that it's the person's problem to deal with.
At what point are we calling a baby a baby?
1 week? The immediate moment the egg is fertilized? At what point because this is getting ridiculous. People who are pro abortion have already substantiated that there is a defined acceptable point for abortion, that most of the public is okay. While here your wanting to enforce something the majority of people disagree with.
With this vague unclear "but your killing a baby" please define at what point is a baby a baby. Seriously. If you say the immediate moment sperm and egg meet and it's fertilized, that constitutes a baby. That's bullshit.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 21, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> At what point are we calling a baby a baby?


The moment any part of the baby is visible.

Also please learn grammar, I can barely read your mashed up sentences.


----------



## Nothereed (May 21, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> The moment any part of the baby is visible



Okay, by this logic a Caterpillar is a butterfly right?


----------



## appleburger (May 21, 2022)

> The moment any part of the baby is visible.


That's not a good answer to the question.  That makes it sound we're defining the baby as a quantum particle.

I'll try and re-ask my question to others from earlier.  When does personhood begin?  We can all agree that the sperm and egg themselves are not people, but they are organisms.  At a certain point, we go from organism(s) to person.  

Does the organism(s) become a person when the zygote is formed?  Or does this happen when the brain activity begins?  Does this happen at birth?  Where's your line?

So far, I think everyone in this thread who's answered this has gone with "when the zygote forms" or "when brain activity begins", and those are the two most popular opinions, based on polls - but there are outliers who draw the line elsewhere.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 21, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Okay, by this logic a Caterpillar is a butterfly right?


if it is in the cocoon, yes. otherwise, it is still a caterpillar.



appleburger said:


> I'll try and re-ask my question to others from earlier.  When does personhood begin?  We can all agree that the sperm and egg themselves are not people, but they are organisms.  At a certain point, we go from organism(s) to person.


I'd say when the heartbeat starts, but i'm still really wary of aborting babies unless they're a product of rape or someone would die from giving birth.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 21, 2022)

Honestly, all this reminds me of a few funny babylon bee articles.

https://babylonbee.com/news/pro-lif...st-burned-down-free-pregnancy-resource-center
https://babylonbee.com/news/dangero...court-to-demand-the-right-to-sacrifice-babies
https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-enraged-they-may-have-to-drive-a-few-hours-to-commit-murder
https://babylonbee.com/news/authori...h-instead-of-traditional-brain-sucking-device

they're funny, but also partially true at the same time.


----------



## appleburger (May 21, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> if it is in the cocoon, yes. otherwise, it is still a caterpillar.
> 
> 
> I'd say when the heartbeat starts, but i'm still really wary of aborting babies unless they're a product of rape or someone would die from giving birth.


I hear you.  Let me be clear what you and I mean by "baby".  When I refer to a baby, I'm talking about a human that has reached personhood.  I would not call a sperm a baby, and by extension  - you wouldn't call a zygote a baby.  If I were to accept that a heartbeat is the beginning of personhood, we would then both agree that this organism, while human, is not a "baby" until the heartbeat is present.  You are of course free to elaborate or re-explain if I'm misrepresenting your point.

So, you feel personhood begins when the heartbeat starts.  I'll just refer to a human organism that's reached personhood as a "baby" to make this simple moving forward if you accept this, so far.  We can build on that - I'm trying to get to where I fully understand why you think about this the way you do:

1) If a heartbeat is necessary for a baby to be present, then the lack of a heartbeat would mean there is no baby present, yet.  If there is no baby present, then what is your objection to the abortion in this case?

2) If rape or inevitable death of the mother makes abortion okay with you, does this apply to late term abortions then, as well?  Is it morally permissible to kill the baby in this case, or to not interfere and let the mother die, instead?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 21, 2022)

appleburger said:


> 1) If a heartbeat is necessary for a baby to be present, then the lack of a heartbeat would mean there is no baby present, yet.  If there is no baby present, then what is your objection to the abortion in this case?


My objection is that I'm still wary of aborting anything that can become a baby. I wholeheartedly oppose abortion, but I suppose if it had to exist, I'd prefer it to be banned after a heartbeat is detected. (6 weeks into pregnancy)


appleburger said:


> 2) If rape or inevitable death of the mother makes abortion okay with you, does this apply to late term abortions then, as well?  Is it morally permissible to kill the baby in this case, or to not interfere and let the mother die, instead?


If the mother is going to die, then I'm fine with abortion, no matter how late. I'd prefer 2 people to survive, but if one's going to die to give birth to another, who would probably die right after as well, then i'd prefer one to survive, but otherwise it shouldn't be allowed.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 21, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> My objection is that I'm still wary of aborting anything that can become a baby. I wholeheartedly oppose abortion, but I suppose if it had to exist, I'd prefer it to be banned after a heartbeat is detected. (6 weeks into pregnancy)
> 
> If the mother is going to die, then I'm fine with abortion, no matter how late. I'd prefer 2 people to survive, but if one's going to die to give birth to another, who would probably die right after as well, then i'd prefer one to survive, but otherwise it shouldn't be allowed.


Ok, so we've established that you have exceptions to your stance abortion, which is good to hear, but let me ask you this:

We've seen recent cases where women that have had abortions been convicted of manslaughter at the least. Assuming this becomes a trend, punishing women who have abortions, do you also draw a line between when a punishment should be acceptable? 

For example, in the hypothetical you presented above, should a woman have to abort due to medical necessity, should she be subject to the same punishment as a woman who got an abortion "willy nilly"?


----------



## Nothereed (May 21, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> if it is in the cocoon, yes. otherwise, it is still a caterpillar.


Okay then, why are you calling fetuses, babies then? Yes the fetus has human DNA, and can look like a human. But it doesn't have the brain function to react to stimuli as a baby does. They are, if you will for a moment, haven't developed enough to be considered a baby. Akin to the caterpillar and butterfly.

A Caterpillar has butterfly DNA technically speaking, but as you clearly described here, just because the Caterpillar can/will later become a butterfly, does not classify it as a butterfly outright.

So I must ask again, where does the line between "this is definitely a baby that is conscious, and capable reacting to stimuli and "this is not"


----------



## appleburger (May 21, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> My objection is that I'm still wary of aborting anything that can become a baby. I wholeheartedly oppose abortion, but I suppose if it had to exist, I'd prefer it to be banned after a heartbeat is detected. (6 weeks into pregnancy)
> 
> If the mother is going to die, then I'm fine with abortion, no matter how late. I'd prefer 2 people to survive, but if one's going to die to give birth to another, who would probably die right after as well, then i'd prefer one to survive, but otherwise it shouldn't be allowed.


*My objection is that I'm still wary of aborting anything that can become a baby. I wholeheartedly oppose abortion, but I suppose if it had to exist, I'd prefer it to be banned after a heartbeat is detected. (6 weeks into pregnancy)*

I'm guessing this starts at conception for you and not before, then right?  Let's assume for a moment we will obtain the ability to successfully make zygotes with all sperm and egg cells people produce.  Would we be facing a moral dilemma if we opt to still "waste that seed"?  Or does the "anything that can become a baby" notion begin with conception, and why?  I'm asking this, because we've established that a baby becomes present at a heartbeat, but at what point does something that can become a baby become inevitable?  One could argue then, that spilling seed is snuffing out the flame of life for all those sperm that otherwise would have a chance of reaching conception.  What separates you from that argument (I have family members that have this stance)?

*If the mother is going to die, then I'm fine with abortion, no matter how late. I'd prefer 2 people to survive, but if one's going to die to give birth to another, who would probably die right after as well, then i'd prefer one to survive, but otherwise it shouldn't be allowed.*

That makes sense. Does this also apply to the rape victims?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 21, 2022)

appleburger said:


> It reads like you thought I wanted to say "abortion should be legal because of this 5% group", which was not my position, but given all the users on here arguing, it's very understandable why you'd lump what I said into the opinions of other pro-choice people on the thread.  Very easy to do with this many voices in one place.


I call that a “wedge issue”. It’s what people use to dishonestly argue about policy. “This problem affects *insert infinitesimally small percentage of people here*, therefore you need to *insert policy here* for everyone, it’s only fair”. It’s a trick that makes you open a door you didn’t want to open, just a little bit, only for a flood to pour in immediately through the crack. Don’t worry, I wasn’t suspecting you of trying that with me - I’m too old for that, and dare I say, a little bit more well-versed than the average bear, so it wouldn’t work anyway.


----------



## appleburger (May 21, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Okay then, why are you calling fetuses, babies then? Yes the fetus has human DNA, and can look like a human. But it doesn't have the brain function to react to stimuli as a baby does. They are, if you will for a moment, haven't developed enough to be considered a baby. Akin to the caterpillar and butterfly.
> 
> A Caterpillar has butterfly DNA technically speaking, but as you clearly described here, just because the Caterpillar can/will later become a butterfly, does not classify it as a butterfly outright.
> 
> So I must ask again, where does the line between "this is definitely a baby that is conscious, and capable reacting to stimuli and "this is not"


I actually have to call out something here - organisms respond to stimuli, it's not exclusive to human life.  So, sperm, plants, starfish, etc. all respond to stimuli.  It's part of the criteria for what makes something "alive".

The fetus is alive and an organism, by definition.  However, so do sperm and egg cells - they also have human DNA, just with only half the chromosomes.  This is why many consider the zygote to the be starting point of a human being. Personhood is debated to be anywhere within a range depending on who you ask.  It's up for debate and is currently more philosophical than anything.

EDIT: nah I was wrong on this. Sperm cells aren’t considered organisms


----------



## KennyAtom (May 21, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> So I must ask again, where does the line between "this is definitely a baby that is conscious, and capable reacting to stimuli and "this is not"


When the heartbeat starts.

Also thank you for separating sentences instead of mashing them all together this time.


SyphenFreht said:


> Ok, so we've established that you have exceptions to your stance abortion, which is good to hear, but let me ask you this:
> 
> We've seen recent cases where women that have had abortions been convicted of manslaughter at the least. Assuming this becomes a trend, punishing women who have abortions, do you also draw a line between when a punishment should be acceptable?
> 
> For example, in the hypothetical you presented above, should a woman have to abort due to medical necessity, should she be subject to the same punishment as a woman who got an abortion "willy nilly"?


honestly, I don't believe women who've gotten an abortion should be convicted of manslaughter at all, that's when it gets absurd. I do believe doctors who can be proven to have done abortions for women who don't fall under one of the 2 categories should be allowed to be sued though.


appleburger said:


> One could argue then, that spilling seed is snuffing out the flame of life for all those sperm that otherwise would have a chance of reaching conception.  What separates you from that argument (I have family members that have this stance)?


I'd say that if we're going this route, then gay people are snuffing out any chances of life as well since they're not putting that sperm in women. Of course, that's a stupid argument, and so is saying spilling seed means you're as bad as abortion.


appleburger said:


> That makes sense. Does this also apply to the rape victims?


I'd say yes, since rape is a traumatic thing to go through, and you shouldn't be forced to hold a reminder of it at all, especially in cases of 12 - 17 year olds who shouldn't be a mother yet.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 21, 2022)

appleburger said:


> The fetus is alive and an organism, by definition.  However, so do sperm and egg cells - they also have human DNA, just with only half the chromosomes.  This is why many consider the zygote to the be starting point of a human being. Personhood is debated to be anywhere within a range depending on who you ask.  It's up for debate and is currently more philosophical than anything.


I will offer a counterpoint to this. Sperm and eggs (gametes) have half of the individual donor’s DNA. A fertilised egg in the stage of cell division (zygote) has a complete sequence of DNA that is *dissimilar* to that of the sperm donor or the egg donor. As such, sperm is not an individual organism, but rather a part of, and an excretion of the sperm donor, while the egg is a part of, and an excretion of the egg donor. Upon combining, the resulting cell belongs to neither and becomes an independent entity.


----------



## AleronIves (May 21, 2022)

appleburger said:


> When does personhood begin?





Nothereed said:


> Okay then, why are you calling fetuses, babies then?


A big problem in the abortion debate is the lack of specific and accurate language when articulating your position. As I've already mentioned, intent is an important aspect of any argument. When anti-abortion advocates say things like "a fetus is a baby," it's easy to dismiss this with "a fetus is not a baby," but that doesn't really further the discussion. What do these statements mean, and what is the intent behind them?

The reason anti-abortion advocates don't get anywhere with this argument is because at face value, it doesn't encapsulate their true argument. Consider this example:

"A child is an adult."

This is demonstrably false. Both a child and an adult are humans, but they are at different points in the human growth process. A child is no more an adult than an adult is a baby. Therefore, when the anti-abortion advocates claim that "a fetus is a baby," it's easy to dismiss the argument as nonsense, because at face value, it is. However, if you're actually interested in having productive dialogue, you have to figure out the intent behind what anti-abortion advocates are trying to say, because they wouldn't keep saying this without reason. Based on @KennyAtom  's recent posts, we can reasonably conclude that when anti-abortion advocates say:

"A fetus is a baby."

What they really mean is:

"A fetus is a person."

Since Kenny has stated his position that abortion may be permissible if no fetal heartbeat has been detected yet, we can conclude that we actually agree on the same metric for when abortion should be permitted:

"Abortion is pemissible before the fetus attains personhood."

Kenny's threshold for personhood is a fetal heartbeat, whereas the threshold agreed upon by several other thread participants is brain development. Our positions are not so far apart, after all. We just need to use common language so that we can express our positions in a way the other side can understand.


----------



## appleburger (May 21, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> A big problem in the abortion debate is the lack of specific and accurate language when articulating your position. As I've already mentioned, intent is an important aspect of any argument. When anti-abortion advocates say things like "a fetus is a baby," it's easy to dismiss this with "a fetus is not a baby," but that doesn't really further the discussion. What do these statements mean, and what is the intent behind them?
> 
> The reason anti-abortion advocates don't get anywhere with this argument is because at face value, it doesn't encapsulate their true argument. Consider this example:
> 
> ...


Logic is powerful.



Foxi4 said:


> I will offer a counterpoint to this. Sperm and eggs (gametes) have half of the individual donor’s DNA. A fertilised egg in the stage of cell division (zygote) has a complete sequence of DNA that is *dissimilar* to that of the sperm donor or the egg donor. As such, sperm is not an individual organism, but rather a part of, and an excretion of the sperm donor, while the egg is a part of, and an excretion of the egg donor. Upon combining, the resulting cell belongs to neither and becomes an independent entity.


Just checked myself on this, and you’re right


----------



## tabzer (May 21, 2022)

A child is a baby adult and a fetus is a baby baby.  You are your mother's baby.  Are we clear?


----------



## Lacius (May 21, 2022)

tabzer said:


> A child is a baby adult and a fetus is a baby baby.  You are your mother's baby.  Are we clear?


No.


----------



## RivenMain (May 22, 2022)

When it comes to things like abortion there's a reason to why laws are gray. If a a pregnant woman get's murdered; it's considered a double homicide. If  a  lady has an abortion without the approval of her child's father that's also a wrong. If she were to claim she was raped to have an abortion and try to put a man to jail for life. That's wrong too.  Being an adults accepting responsibility for the things you do. There are some things we can't control, but lust is one we can.  In a country where nobody wants to work I think it's a good wake up call.


----------



## smf (May 22, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not going to dehumanize a developing human to make its murder more easy on the mind. *Abortion is killing babies*. If you think "the argument going forward" results in me changing my mind and accepting abortions, which are the killing of babies then you're dead wrong.


If you're going to keep talking about abortion as if it is killing babies, then nobody is going to listen to you.

So if nobody is going to listen to you and you aren't going to listen to anyone else then I wonder why you bother.



appleburger said:


> *My objection is that I'm still wary of aborting anything that can become a baby. I wholeheartedly oppose abortion, but I suppose if it had to exist, I'd prefer it to be banned after a heartbeat is detected. (6 weeks into pregnancy)*


Having an arbitrary cut off point that happens to be before most women would be aware they were pregnant, is a little disingenuous.

You would get more consensus around 12 weeks. Can you make up some reason around the 12 week mark?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 22, 2022)

smf said:


> Having an arbitrary cut off point that happens to be before most women would be aware they were pregnant, is a little disingenuous.
> 
> You would get more consensus around 12 weeks. Can you make up some reason around the 12 week mark?


”Most” women? I think not. No period after 6 weeks since intercourse means she’s missing her period by anywhere between 7 and 21 days (the gap between periods can be anywhere between 21 and 35 days). 14-25% of women who menstruate have irregular periods, so they might not be certain, the remaining 75-86% of women know what’s up, and should take a pregnancy test. There’s a small possibility that the woman might experience one last small flow despite being in early stages of pregnancy, which can be misleading, but I wouldn’t say “most” women are unaware that something’s going on 6 weeks down the line. The opposite is true - most women would have cause for concern.


----------



## smf (May 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> ”Most” women? I think not. No period after 6 weeks after initial intercourse means she’s missing her period by anywhere between 7 and 21 days (the gap between periods can be anywhere between 21 and 35 days). 14-25% of women who menstruate have irregular periods, so they might not be certain, the remaining 75-86% of women know what’s up, and should take a pregnancy test. There’s a small possibility that the woman might experience one last small flow despite being in early stages of pregnancy, which can be misleading, but I wouldn’t say “most” women are unaware that something’s going on 6 weeks down the line. The opposite is true - most women would have cause for concern.


But how quickly do you think you can get an abortion?

"Oh, sorry. While you noticed just in time, we can't fit you in for a week".

https://www.self.com/story/realize-pregnancy

Putting a 6 week deadline would likely increase abortions (as you would have to make a decision quickly without reflection & if in doubt, take it out) and it would increase the number of pregnancy tests that women take.

Does that make you happy to enforce an arbitrary deadline?

I think it's hilarious that you have such a strong opinion on women's periods though.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 22, 2022)

smf said:


> But how quickly do you think you can get an abortion?
> 
> "Oh, sorry. While you noticed just in time, we can't fit you in for a week".
> 
> ...


You’re moving the goal post. You said that most women are unaware that they’re pregnant at the 6 weeks mark. That’s not true. My feelings on the matter are irrelevant - they don’t affect the timeframe of pregnancy. If a woman’s period is severely late and she doesn’t take a pregnancy test despite knowing that she recently had intercourse, whose fault is it? She has all the tools at her disposal. I refuse to infantilise women - they’re not children. I expect them to make reasonable observations and judgement calls, I expect that from any grown adult.


> I think it's hilarious that you have such a strong opinion on women's periods though.


I think it’s hilarious you think women are so stupid that they don’t know how their own reproductive organs work despite most of them having regular periods every single month since puberty. Stop infantilising women - it’s insulting.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 22, 2022)

tabzer said:


> A child is a baby adult and a fetus is a baby baby.  You are your mother's baby.  Are we clear?



When women are pregnant they don't refer to the developing baby as "my fetus". How would that even sound? "I'm pregnant with a fetus!", yeah, nope. Also every single pregnant women who has offered to let me feel her baby kick in her stomach has referred to the developing human as their baby or their child. This also isn't isolated to me, as most movies that feature pregnant women they always refer to the developing child as their baby. Just because the liberals want to gloss over the fact abortion kills babies doesn't mean the rest of the world shares their views.



AleronIves said:


> "A fetus is a baby."
> 
> What they really mean is:
> 
> "A fetus is a person."



No, this isn't what I mean. When I refer to a pregnant women's baby I am talking about their baby that is in their stomach. The developing human is their baby. There's the medical terminology, which is "fetus" and then there's what most of the world calls the developing human. I'm not confused and of course whatever you call the baby as it is indeed its own person separate from the mother.


----------



## smf (May 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> If a woman’s period is severely late and she doesn’t take a pregnancy test despite knowing that she recently had intercourse, whose fault is it? She has all the tools at her disposal.


And you clearly have contempt for women.

So sure, pregnancy test companies and abortion providers would LOVE this. Loads more tests and abortions.

Let's do it & make it all government funded.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 22, 2022)

smf said:


> And you clearly have contempt for women.


Women aren’t children, they’re responsible for their own health. Treating them like children is patronising and demeaning. You’re the one who has contempt for women, since you maintain they’re too stupid to realise their period is weeks late.


> So sure, pregnancy test companies and abortion providers would LOVE this. Loads more tests and abortions.
> 
> Let's do it & make it all government funded.


Somebody else’s uterus is not my concern. Nobody’s buying me my condoms - I buy them myself because I’m a responsible adult.


----------



## smf (May 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Women aren’t children, they’re responsible for their own health. Treating them like children is patronising and demeaning. You’re the one who has contempt for women, since you maintain they’re too stupid to realise their period is weeks late.
> Somebody else’s uterus is not my concern. Nobody’s buying me my condoms - I buy them myself because I’m a responsible adult.


I'm not treating them like children, I'm treating them like humans.

You are not. Your puritanical views are out of date.

Maybe you should go out in the street and lecture women on it, that would be hilarious.

You can tell them how they are doing their periods wrong, I'm sure they'd love that.

Remember to tell them to grow up and not act like children.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 22, 2022)

smf said:


> I'm not treating them like children, I'm treating them like humans.
> 
> You are not. Your puritanical views are out of date.
> 
> Maybe you should go out in the street and lecture women on it, that would be hilarious.



Maybe you and the rest of the liberals should go to the street and tell every single pregnant woman you come across that they are wrong when they say they are pregnant with a baby or refer to the developing human in their stomach as their baby. That would be hilarious.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 22, 2022)

smf said:


> I'm not treating them like children, I'm treating them like humans.
> 
> You are not. Your puritanical views are out of date.
> 
> ...


Grown adults face the consequences of their actions as well as their inaction. If a woman’s period is severely late, she should take a pregnancy test - they’re inexpensive and widely available. Your emotional appeal is falling flat - you said something that was demonstrably incorrect, got flustered when corrected using simple biology, and now you’re infantilising women by pretending they’re so dumb they need us to step in when they fail to take perfectly reasonable precautions that they have unimpeded access to. I treat women as grown adults who are equal to me, you’re displaying all the tell-tale signs of bigotry of low expectations. You don’t respect women enough to trust in their own agency, and that’s sad. All this flailing is immaterial to your initial point anyway - you said most women are unaware that they might be pregnant at the 6 week mark. That cannot be correct, as it would make their period 1-3 weeks late, and most women have relatively regular periods. That’s all there is to it.

EDIT: Since you’re suggesting giving lectures, I strongly believe in sexual education being a cornerstone of reproductive health. Now, personally I believe women are fairly well-aware how a period works, but if you think lectures would help then why not. Maybe some pamphlets would work too, anything to educate. You can join me, and patronise them so more, as you have done up to this point.

You need to stop trying to slide these little edits under the radar after the fact. This will never work - you won’t catch me slipping. If you want me to answer a new query, you can make a new post.


----------



## Lacius (May 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You said that most women are unaware that they’re pregnant at the 6 weeks mark. That’s not true.


It might not be a majority, but a significant number of women (about 1/3) reasonably don't know they're pregnant until the 6+ weeks mark. About 1/5 women find out after the 7+ weeks mark.



Foxi4 said:


> If a woman’s period is severely late and she doesn’t take a pregnancy test despite knowing that she recently had intercourse, whose fault is it? She has all the tools at her disposal.


Many women don't have regular periods. False negative pregnancy tests also occur. Some women have increased difficulty accessing pregnancy tests that can delay getting one.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 22, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It might not be a majority, but a significant number of women (about 1/3) reasonably don't know they're pregnant until the 6+ weeks mark. About 1/5 women find out after the 7+ weeks mark.
> 
> Many women don't have regular periods. False negative pregnancy tests also occur. Some women have increased difficulty accessing pregnancy tests that can delay getting one.


Both points have been touched upon, with percentage figures already supplied. @smf used the term “most”, which makes his statement not true.


Foxi4 said:


> ”Most” women? I think not. No period after 6 weeks since intercourse means she’s missing her period by anywhere between 7 and 21 days (the gap between periods can be anywhere between 21 and 35 days). 14-25% of women who menstruate have irregular periods, so they might not be certain, the remaining 75-86% of women know what’s up, and should take a pregnancy test. There’s a small possibility that the woman might experience one last small flow despite being in early stages of pregnancy, which can be misleading, but I wouldn’t say “most” women are unaware that something’s going on 6 weeks down the line. The opposite is true - most women would have cause for concern.


Here’s the post where I have acknowledged your concerns, in case you missed it. “Most women” are aware that they might be pregnant at the 6 week mark, or have all the tools to enable them to find out if they are, since pregnancy tests are cheap as chips and can be found in any supermarket. I’m not even suggesting the 6-week mark myself, I’m simply correcting him since what he said is objectively wrong.


----------



## Lacius (May 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Both points have been touched upon, with percentage figures already supplied. @smf used the term “most”, which makes his statement not true.


Then I hope we are in agreement that these women should have access to legal abortion.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 22, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Then I hope we are in agreement that these women should have access to legal abortion.


That’s what’s being discussed in this thread. I was correcting an objectively incorrect statement. The 6-week suggestion wasn’t even mine, and I don’t necessarily consider fetal heartbeat to be relevant - the heart is a muscle. I’m more interested in brain activity, personally.


----------



## appleburger (May 22, 2022)

smf said:


> If you're going to keep talking about abortion as if it is killing babies, then nobody is going to listen to you.
> 
> So if nobody is going to listen to you and you aren't going to listen to anyone else then I wonder why you bother.
> 
> ...


You quoted me instead of @KennyAtom


----------



## AleronIves (May 22, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> When women are pregnant they don't refer to the developing baby as "my fetus".


When people record television broadcasts, they still say, "I taped the game last night," but that doesn't mean they're still using VHS. People regularly use layman's terms to express themselves, even if what they're saying is not technically accurate. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, it's a good idea to use the correct terminology, because refusing to do so after being corrected multiple times just shows that you're not being intellectually serious about making your case.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 22, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> When people record television broadcasts, they still say, "I taped the game last night," but that doesn't mean they're still using VHS. People regularly use layman's terms to express themselves, even if what they're saying is not technically accurate. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, it's a good idea to use the correct terminology, because refusing to do so after being corrected multiple times just shows that you're not being intellectually serious about making your case.



No, starting to use the terminology that baby killers use to justify murder is something I'm never going to do. Killing babies is wrong. I don't give two fucks if I'm not taken seriously by them. I'll probably just end up putting every single abortion supporter on ignore because I don't need to associate with evil people.


----------



## Lacius (May 22, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> No, starting to use the terminology that baby killers use to justify murder is something I'm never going to do. Killing babies is wrong. I don't give two fucks if I'm not taken seriously by them. I'll probably just end up putting every single abortion supporter on ignore because I don't need to associate with evil people.


Do you believe a single-celled zygote is a baby? Just curious.


----------



## AleronIves (May 22, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'll probably just end up putting every single abortion supporter on ignore because I don't need to associate with evil people.


Why have you spent so much time posting in this thread if you think people who support abortion rights are evil? If that were true, you would have made one post about how abortion is wrong and then never opened the thread again, because you can't reason with evil people. The fact that you've made so many posts suggests that you don't truly believe such a thing.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 22, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Why have you spent so much time posting in this thread if you think people who support abortion rights are evil? If that were true, you would have made one post about how abortion is wrong and then never opened the thread again, because you can't reason with evil people. The fact that you've made so many posts suggests that you don't truly believe such a thing.


Because it's not about persuasion, it's about control. A lot of what I've seen and experienced personally has revolved around limiting women, their bodies, their rights, with no care to the "baby" whatsoever. It's one thing to try and understand the opposite point of view, but people like this one don't even try. They just care about having control and don't care to educate enough to compromise.


----------



## AleronIves (May 22, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Because it's not about persuasion, it's about control.


It was a rhetorical question.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 22, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Do you believe a single-celled zygote is a baby? Just curious.



Once the egg is fertilized it has its own unique DNA and has started to form a human. Seeings that a zygote is a fertilized egg with its own DNA then yes, I consider it to be a baby.



AleronIves said:


> Why have you spent so much time posting in this thread if you think people who support abortion rights are evil? If that were true, you would have made one post about how abortion is wrong and then never opened the thread again, because you can't reason with evil people. The fact that you've made so many posts suggests that you don't truly believe such a thing.



I like to share my opinion as much as anyone else does. I haven't swayed from my opinion that I started with nor will I regardless of how many attempts like this are made to persuade me. If most of society calls a developing human in the mothers womb a baby I'm not going to start calling it otherwise to appease baby killers.


----------



## Lacius (May 22, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Once the egg is fertilized it has its own unique DNA and has started to form a human. Seeings that a zygote is a fertilized egg with its own DNA then yes, I consider it to be a baby.


It doesn't even have a brain, let alone any other organs for that matter, but thank you for clearing things up. We know now your opposition to abortion is based on some religious beliefs that shouldn't be forced on others.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 22, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It doesn't even have a brain, let alone any other organs for that matter, but thank you for clearing things up. We know now your opposition to abortion is based on some religious beliefs that shouldn't be forced on others.


That became apparent when he tried using that Christian anti abortion site.


AleronIves said:


> It was a rhetorical question.


Oh I know lol. At this point I'm waiting to see if HeWhoPlacedMeUponHisIgnoreList notices lol


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 22, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It doesn't even have a brain, let alone any other organs for that matter, but thank you for clearing things up. We know now your opposition to abortion is based on some religious beliefs that shouldn't be forced on others.



Baseless assumptions are also a useless tactic.


----------



## AleronIves (May 22, 2022)

Religious beliefs are not a requirement for believing that human life must be protected at all developmental stages.


----------



## Lacius (May 22, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Baseless assumptions are also a useless tactic.


Are you telling me I'm wrong?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 22, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Are you telling me I'm wrong?


In all fairness, he didn’t mention any religious beliefs at all. You did.


----------



## Lacius (May 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> In all fairness, he didn’t mention any religious beliefs at all. You did.


When someone says something becomes a baby at conception, and provides an unsatisfactory reason as to why, it's a reasonable conclusion to make. We all know what these anti-choice people believe and why. I'm not delusional.


----------



## MicroNut99 (May 22, 2022)

A step backwards and a dark time in human history.
I don't think that it's the future anymore.
We are moving away from cooperation and towards war and suffering again.
imho we have a short window of opportunity to move forward.
This is it... now is the time.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 22, 2022)

Lacius said:


> When someone says something becomes a baby at conception, and provides an unsatisfactory reason as to why, it's a reasonable conclusion to make. We all know what these anti-choice people believe and why. I'm not delusional.


It’s a conclusion based on no evidence - he didn’t give you any indication that his objection is religious in nature. Quite the opposite, he gave you a specific scientific reason for why he believes what he believes, however odd that reason might be. Delusional or not, you’re just guessing.


----------



## AleronIves (May 22, 2022)

Lacius said:


> We all know what these anti-choice people believe and why.


Mind reading is a risky business. It's much more reliable to ask people why they believe something, rather than to assume you know their beliefs and motivations better than they do.


----------



## Lacius (May 22, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> It's much more reliable to ask people why they believe something


I asked.



AleronIves said:


> Mind reading is a risky business


Can't read what isn't there.


----------



## MicroNut99 (May 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s a conclusion based on no evidence - he didn’t give you any indication that his objection is religious in nature. Quite the opposite, he gave you a specific scientific reason for why he believes what he believes, however odd that reason might be. Delusional or not, you’re just guessing.


Mercurial in nature these anti-choice people are.
Wait until they come for your "rights" next.
I've seen it and I am not waiting.


----------



## Lacius (May 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s a conclusion based on no evidence - he didn’t give you any indication that his objection is religious in nature. Quite the opposite, he gave you a specific scientific reason for why he believes what he believes, however odd that reason might be. Delusional or not, you’re just guessing.


In fairness, I asked him to tell me himself if I was mistaken.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 22, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> Mercurial in nature these anti-choice people are.
> Wait until they come for your "rights" next.
> I've seen it and I am not waiting.


I always welcome a challenge. I hope they come in a pretty big boat, I’m a 2A guy. While my right to own means of self-defense as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of 1689 was infringed upon in the UK (which is regrettable and should be corrected), I have other means to defend my rights, some more creative than others.


Lacius said:


> In fairness, I asked him to tell me himself if I was mistaken.


Making assumptions is still an odd way to make a point. He gave you an answer. If you want to argue with him, argue against that answer. You started off with doing that, then veered into the bushes.


----------



## AleronIves (May 22, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Can't read what isn't there.


Now you're just trolling.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 22, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Now you're just trolling.


He would never do that. 

All in good humour, boys.


----------



## Lacius (May 22, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Making assumptions is still an odd way to make a point.


It's hardly an assumption. We'll just have to wait and see what his answer to my question is.



Foxi4 said:


> I hope they come in a pretty big boat, I’m a 2A guy. While my right to own means of self-defense as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of 1689 was infringed upon in the UK (which is regrettable and should be corrected), I have other means to defend my rights, some more creative than others.


Are you suggesting that when rights like abortion access are taken away, women can get those rights back by arming themselves?



AleronIves said:


> Now you're just trolling.


It was a joke.


----------



## MicroNut99 (May 22, 2022)

Pro-Choice.
Whether you think it right or not, its just not anyone else decision to make.
The Woman, her family and her doctors are all that's need to be involved.
Making a blanket medical decision completely blind to all of facts of a specific situation is plainly wrong.
Stripping a women the right to make a medical choice takes all the people involved and facts out of the decision making.
How could that even be remotely ok?
A women must have the right to choose.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It's hardly an assumption. We'll just have to wait and see what his answer to my question is.


Waiting to be proven correct or incorrect leaves a considerable margin for error. You wouldn’t be at risk of being wrong if you didn’t engage in guesswork. Besides, regardless of what his answer’s going to be, you’re not going to believe him anyway - you’ve shown your hand in the first post already by making the accusation, it’s not like he can change your mind by denying it.


> Are you suggesting that when rights like abortion access are taken away, women can get those rights back by arming themselves?


They’d certainly be safer, both from government interference and from strangers in dark alleys. More women should carry, and be familiar with firearms. Statistically, they’re smaller, weaker and slower than a potential assailant, just on average - a gun in a situation like that is the great equaliser. The possibility of becoming part of that 2-5% statistic that makes abortion access necessary in certain cases would be ever so slightly alleviated if that were the case.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 23, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> 96.50% of abortions are done simply because its an convenience.
> 
> https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/





Foxi4 said:


> In all fairness, he didn’t mention any religious beliefs at all. You did.



In all fairness it's not hard to make that jump when someone presents you with Christian backed science. While it could still be argued that he himself doesn't hold Christian beliefs, you can't call someone out for assumption based off what's presented.


----------



## AleronIves (May 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> More women should carry, and be familiar with firearms. Statistically, they’re smaller, weaker and slower than a potential assailant, just on average - a gun in a situation like that is the great equaliser.


I suggest you start a new thread if you want to debate the merits of gun ownership/policy, as that issue is nearly as divisive as abortion in the US and could derail the thread.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> In all fairness it's not hard to make that jump when someone presents you with Christian backed science. While it could still be argued that he himself doesn't hold Christian beliefs, you can't call someone out for assumption based off what's presented.


Quoting a statistic from a given source doesn’t automatically mean that you align ideologically or religiously with the source, especially not in the age of Google. Most internet arguments are conducted by angrily punching at keyboards in a separate tab and scrolling through results until something more-or-less legitimate shows up. HLI is one of the biggest anti-abortion organisations in the United States, of course it provides statistics on the subject. An educated guess is a guess nonetheless.


AleronIves said:


> I suggest you start a new thread if you want to debate the merits of gun ownership/policy, as that issue is nearly as divisive as abortion in the US and could derail the thread.


I’m mentioning it in passing. Americans are enjoying freedoms most nations in the world can’t. They have clearly defined and enumerated rights, including the second amendment so as to defend all of the other ones. This is relevant, because a small but concerning number of abortions are performed to alleviate the consequences of rape. If anyone is a strong defender of bodily integrity, they should be a proponent of women bearing arms.


----------



## SexiestManAlive (May 23, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> All life is sacred. There's no excuse for terminating a pregnancy that would acquit the women of murdering an unborn child.
> 
> Also, do you know how much of those things you listed happen percentage wise compared to people who just want to have sex and get pregnant?
> 
> ...


nope, if someone raped me and i was carrying a baby, i would get an abortion instantly without question, im not bringing a child in this world just for it to have to be put up for adoption.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> In that very rare circumstance, yes.


wow, you are, and I don't usually say this, because I try and be a decent person by not disrespecting people to this extent, but you are a terrible human, like, a child is in danger, and your gonna be okay with that child potentially dying because you want the world to be continuously overpopulated no matter what? man.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 23, 2022)

smf said:


> Having an arbitrary cut off point that happens to be before most women would be aware they were pregnant, is a little disingenuous.
> 
> You would get more consensus around 12 weeks. Can you make up some reason around the 12 week mark?


For one, wrong person.
For two, heartbeats mean a person is alive, meaning that the babies are alive. I'm not going to budge on this at all, considering I'm already for allowing rape victims and women who will die from giving birth at any time. 6 weeks is more than enough.


----------



## Lacius (May 23, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> For one, wrong person.
> For two, heartbeats mean a person is alive, meaning that the babies are alive. I'm not going to budge on this at all, considering I'm already for allowing rape victims and women who will die from giving birth at any time. 6 weeks is more than enough.


Many women don't know that they're pregnant at 6 weeks.


----------



## El_Misterioso (May 23, 2022)

The Abort never become Legal, if you abort you are killing ¿you think this is good? You are a mental illness, if you don't have care in your things... is your fault no of the live who you now Should help in your life, this world is becoming down, down and down

#TheAbortIsKilling


----------



## SexiestManAlive (May 23, 2022)

El_Misterioso said:


> The Abort never become Legal, if you abort you are killing ¿you think this is good? You are a mental illness, if you don't have care in your things... is your fault no of the live who you now Should help in your life, this world is becoming down, down and down
> 
> #TheAbortIsKilling


your the mental illness thinking its okay for rape victims to be forced to have a child because of some bastard.


----------



## El_Misterioso (May 23, 2022)

SexiestManAlive said:


> your the mental illness thinking its okay for rape victims to be forced to have a child because of some bastard.


You are the mental illness if you think "Kill someone is good"


----------



## SexiestManAlive (May 23, 2022)

El_Misterioso said:


> You are the mental illness if you think "Kill someone is good"


welp I accept my mental illness if it means im not bringing a child into this world which will either A: be put up for adoption and possibly never see his real parents. B: their mother growing to resent them because they can only think of the rapist when they look at them. or C: them being completely unable to support having a child due to either the mother possibly dying because of issues, or not having the mentality to care for them.


----------



## El_Misterioso (May 23, 2022)

SexiestManAlive said:


> your the mental illness thinking its okay for rape victims to be forced to have a child because of some bastard.


The truth is I don't even know why I'm talking about this on a page about videogames, unlocking consoles and homebrew, I came here for help with homebrew not to talk about things that are clearly bad like abortion


----------



## SexiestManAlive (May 23, 2022)

El_Misterioso said:


> The truth is I don't even know why I'm talking about this on a page about videogames, unlocking consoles and homebrew, I came here for help with homebrew not to talk about things that are clearly bad like abortion


its only "clearly bad" to people with the inability to use their brains and think about the future of that child and or the mother. Its not difficult AT ALL.


----------



## El_Misterioso (May 23, 2022)

SexiestManAlive said:


> welp I accept my mental illness if it means im not bringing a child into this world which will either A: be put up for adoption and possibly never see his real parents. B: their mother growing to resent them because they can only think of the rapist when they look at them. or C: them being completely unable to support having a child due to either the mother possibly dying because of issues, or not having the mentality to care for them.


for every person who has a child and does not want it, there are 10 who want a child and cannot, and don't come to me with your progressive excuses, Although I am not a 100% conservationist, I know what things are not right and what are


SexiestManAlive said:


> its only "clearly bad" to people with the inability to use their brains and think about the future of that child and or the mother. Its not difficult AT ALL.


Literary two progress things are who I don't accept, I am 80% progress and 20% conservationist, "the Abort is bad" the 10% of conservationist I have



SexiestManAlive said:


> its only "clearly bad" to people with the inability to use their brains and think about the future of that child and or the mother. Its not difficult AT ALL.


Now I will  install homebrew in my Wii U, bye


----------



## SexiestManAlive (May 23, 2022)

El_Misterioso said:


> Now I will  install homebrew in my Wii U, bye


whatever, ciao, at the end of the day we don't agree, we both think each other are shit human beings, and wont change each others minds, have a good day


----------



## El_Misterioso (May 23, 2022)

SexiestManAlive said:


> whatever, ciao, at the end of the day we don't agree, we both think each other are shit human beings, and wont change each others minds, have a good day


Have a good day too


----------



## MicroNut99 (May 23, 2022)

El_Misterioso said:


> The truth is I don't even know why I'm talking about this on a page about videogames, unlocking consoles and homebrew, I came here for help with homebrew not to talk about things that are clearly bad like abortion


Yes, its bad.
But its not your choice to make.
You're guessing if you think you know everyone's experience in life.


----------



## El_Misterioso (May 23, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> Yes, its bad.
> But its not your choice to make.
> You're guessing if you think you know everyone's experience in life.


The Discussion ended, I'm trying to fix the Environment Loader always load at I Power On my Wii U


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2022)

El_Misterioso said:


> The Discussion ended, I'm trying to fix the Environment Loader always load at I Power On my Wii U


You’re in the wrong section.


----------



## El_Misterioso (May 23, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You’re in the wrong section.


Do you think?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 23, 2022)

El_Misterioso said:


> Do you think?


I mean, considering this is about abortion and you're talking about the Wii U, pretty much.

Also abortion sucks and shouldn't be allowed after 6 weeks for most cases.


----------



## El_Misterioso (May 23, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I mean, considering this is about abortion and you're talking about the Wii U, pretty much.
> 
> Also abortion sucks and shouldn't be allowed after 6 weeks for most cases.


I think the same


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 23, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I mean, considering this is about abortion and you're talking about the Wii U, pretty much.
> 
> Also abortion sucks and shouldn't be allowed after 6 weeks for most cases.
> 
> ...


It's nice to see people get their message count


----------



## smf (May 23, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> For two, heartbeats mean a person is alive,


_A person who is brain dead may appear alive – *there may be a heartbeat*, they may look like they're breathing, their skin may still be warm to the touch. But doctors say there is no life when brain activity ceases._


----------



## KennyAtom (May 23, 2022)

smf said:


> _A person who is brain dead may appear alive – *there may be a heartbeat*, they may look like they're breathing, their skin may still be warm to the touch. But doctors say there is no life when brain activity ceases._


That may be true for coma patients, but I believe that that is untrue when it comes to babies. 

Think about it, if a heartbeat didn't mean life, then what the hell would it mean?


----------



## Xzi (May 23, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> That may be true for coma patients, but I believe that that is untrue when it comes to babies.
> 
> Think about it, if a heartbeat didn't mean life, then what the hell would it mean?


Belief has nothing to do with it, a fetus has a heartbeat long before it shows any brain activity.  Kind of a necessary prerequisite.


----------



## SexiestManAlive (May 23, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> That may be true for coma patients, but I believe that that is untrue when it comes to babies.
> 
> Think about it, if a heartbeat didn't mean life, then what the hell would it mean?


heartbeat doesn't matter if they cant feel, just cause they have a heart, doesn't mean their alive and can feel pain.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 23, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Belief has nothing to do with it, a fetus has a heartbeat long before it shows any brain activity.  Kind of a necessary prerequisite.


but the heartbeat leads to the brain developing, therefore we must base it on heartbeat and not brain activity.


----------



## Xzi (May 23, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> but the heartbeat leads to the brain developing, therefore we must base it on heartbeat and not brain activity.


That doesn't make any sense.  The brain is what determines consciousness and allows us to understand the concept of pain.  Both worms and fish have a heartbeat, but they don't register pain in the same way that fully-developed humans do, they only react to stimuli.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 23, 2022)

Xzi said:


> That doesn't make any sense.  The brain is what determines consciousness and allows us to understand the concept of pain.  Both worms and fish have a heartbeat, but they don't register pain in the same way that fully-developed humans do, they only react to stimuli.


But if the heartbeat starts, then that's a sign it's developing. Therefore, to base it on brain activity is just criminal.


----------



## Xzi (May 23, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> But if the heartbeat starts, then that's a sign it's developing. Therefore, to base it on brain activity is just criminal.


There was never any question that fetuses are in the process of developing at the time of abortion, the cells spend several weeks multiplying before most women even become aware that they're pregnant.  The question is: at what point does it go from just a ball of cells passively existing, to a human being with active thoughts and feelings? And my answer would be: not until there's a significant amount of brain activity, which is fairly late into a pregnancy.


----------



## tabzer (May 23, 2022)

I wouldn't take anyone's words about my consciousness over my own.  So, I wouldn't advocate people doing that, in general.

If you think your grandfather, who is on life support, should be unplugged--it is probably because you think there is no hope for him.

But to do that for developing baby?  I doubt you are aware enough to speak on the awareness of others.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 23, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Are you telling me I'm wrong?



I gave you the metric I use when life starts and that if you've already forgotten its when the egg is fertilized. I do believe in God, but I don't measure when life starts from any passage in the Bible. I simply have a gut feeling that I go by. I did link to a religious organization as one of 2 links I provided, but I didn't link to it because I'm a Christian. I linked to them because I wanted to provide the most accurate answer to @smf 's question, which was what percentage of women get an abortion out of convenience.

Of course, I am attacked over the sources because they shine a light on the percentages, which are all 80-90% of women have abortions over simple convenience and that makes the pro-choice people look bad. However, I don't need to post manipulated statistics. I simply wanted to answer smf's question. I could care less if the figures were 10%, 33% or the 80-90%. @Foxi4 even provided his own link containing statistics that also answer smf's question and the results are around the same as the two sites I linked to. @SyphenFreht also provided 3 links to sites, but they didn't answer smf's question so I'm not even sure why he linked to them.

So to sum it up I am religious, but my opinion comes from a gut feeling. So yes, your assumption was wrong.



			
				SexiestManAlive said:
			
		

> blah, blah, blah



Ignored.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 23, 2022)

Xzi said:


> There was never any question that fetuses are in the process of developing at the time of abortion, the cells spend several weeks multiplying before most women even become aware that they're pregnant.  The question is: at what point does it go from just a ball of cells passively existing, to a human being with active thoughts and feelings? And my answer would be: not until there's a significant amount of brain activity, which is fairly late into a pregnancy.


but the brain cannot live without the heart, artificial heart or real.

Therefore, it must be based on heartbeat.


----------



## smf (May 23, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I linked to them because I wanted to provide the most accurate answer to @smf 's question, which was what percentage of women get an abortion out of convenience.


You use pejorative terms all the time.

Women get an abortion because they want an abortion.

You can pretend that some of those reasons are more valid than others, but it doesn't make it so.

Saying it's "out of convenience" just makes you irrelevant.



KennyAtom said:


> but the brain cannot live without the heart, artificial heart or real.
> 
> Therefore, it must be based on heartbeat.


The fetus can't live without the mother, so remove it and it's dead.

Doesn't your argument therefore support abortion?? You seem to be making emotional decisions and then trying to justify them with science rather than vice versa.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 23, 2022)

smf said:


> The fetus can't live without the mother, so remove it and it's dead.
> 
> Doesn't your argument therefore support abortion?? You seem to be making emotional decisions and then trying to justify them with science rather than vice versa.


The argument is for abortion until a heartbeat is detected, then i'm against it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 23, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I gave you the metric I use when life starts and that if you've already forgotten its when the egg is fertilized. I do believe in God, but I don't measure when life starts from any passage in the Bible. I simply have a gut feeling that I go by. I did link to a religious organization as one of 2 links I provided, but I didn't link to it because I'm a Christian. I linked to them because I wanted to provide the most accurate answer to @smf 's question, which was what percentage of women get an abortion out of convenience.
> 
> Of course, I am attacked over the sources because they shine a light on the percentages, which are all 80-90% of women have abortions over simple convenience and that makes the pro-choice people look bad. However, I don't need to post manipulated statistics. I simply wanted to answer smf's question. I could care less if the figures were 10%, 33% or the 80-90%. @Foxi4 even provided his own link containing statistics that also answer smf's question and the results are around the same as the two sites I linked to. @SyphenFreht also provided 3 links to sites, but they didn't answer smf's question so I'm not even sure why he linked to them.
> 
> ...


You're only getting attacked for your sources because they're biased. Regardless of how true the statistics may or not be, you can't argue proven science with religious backed ideals (not even yours, those of the person(s) providing the statistics. If you found a general consensus showing the same statistics across non biased sources, that includes the majority of women across the globe, not six historically religious and anti abortion states, then you'd have more credibility. As you saw but apparently did not understand earlier with my links, anyone can Google a standpoint, cherry pick a website that fits their narrative, and hype it up like it's accurate. 

You want people to see your side? Show some unbiased statistics and science. Otherwise, arguing over feeling will get no one anywhere. 

Well, except ignored


----------



## AleronIves (May 23, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Think about it, if a heartbeat didn't mean life, then what the hell would it mean?


The question isn't whether a heartbeat means life. It obviously does. The question is what value do we place upon that life? Chickens have heartbeats, but most people have no problem with killing and eating them. We allow that because although they are alive, they are not people. The same is true of a braindead patient in a hospital. If there's no brain activity, the heartbeat is just pumping blood to keep an empty shell alive; it's not a person anymore. As such, some people opt to pull the plug, and they don't get charged with murder.

Abortion is the same way. People who support abortion rights generally aren't disputing that the fetus is alive. They're saying that the rights of the mother are more important than the rights of a fetus that cannot think or feel and thus doesn't qualify for the protections enjoyed by a person.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Of course, I am attacked over the sources because they shine a light on the percentages, which are all 80-90% of women have abortions over simple convenience and that makes the pro-choice people look bad.


People who support abortion rights don't care why a woman chooses to have an abortion. It's her right to do it whenever she wants and for whatever reason, although it doesn't free her from the consequences (e.g. a broken marriage because she got an abortion without consulting the father). Trying to shame people who support abortion rights by saying women get abortions out of "convenience" isn't an effective tactic.


----------



## SexiestManAlive (May 23, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I gave you the metric I use when life starts and that if you've already forgotten its when the egg is fertilized. I do believe in God, but I don't measure when life starts from any passage in the Bible. I simply have a gut feeling that I go by. I did link to a religious organization as one of 2 links I provided, but I didn't link to it because I'm a Christian. I linked to them because I wanted to provide the most accurate answer to @smf 's question, which was what percentage of women get an abortion out of convenience.
> 
> Of course, I am attacked over the sources because they shine a light on the percentages, which are all 80-90% of women have abortions over simple convenience and that makes the pro-choice people look bad. However, I don't need to post manipulated statistics. I simply wanted to answer smf's question. I could care less if the figures were 10%, 33% or the 80-90%. @Foxi4 even provided his own link containing statistics that also answer smf's question and the results are around the same as the two sites I linked to. @SyphenFreht also provided 3 links to sites, but they didn't answer smf's question so I'm not even sure why he linked to them.
> 
> ...


lmfao, cant even make a proper argument because you know im right, if the baby isnt physically hurt by having an abortion, its perfectly ok, hearts dont dictate pain, the brain does,  thats the end of it.


----------



## SexiestManAlive (May 23, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I gave you the metric I use when life starts and that if you've already forgotten its when the egg is fertilized. I do believe in God, but I don't measure when life starts from any passage in the Bible. I simply have a gut feeling that I go by. I did link to a religious organization as one of 2 links I provided, but I didn't link to it because I'm a Christian. I linked to them because I wanted to provide the most accurate answer to @smf 's question, which was what percentage of women get an abortion out of convenience.
> 
> Of course, I am attacked over the sources because they shine a light on the percentages, which are all 80-90% of women have abortions over simple convenience and that makes the pro-choice people look bad. However, I don't need to post manipulated statistics. I simply wanted to answer smf's question. I could care less if the figures were 10%, 33% or the 80-90%. @Foxi4 even provided his own link containing statistics that also answer smf's question and the results are around the same as the two sites I linked to. @SyphenFreht also provided 3 links to sites, but they didn't answer smf's question so I'm not even sure why he linked to them.
> 
> ...


if your against abortion regardless of wether there's danger to the child and or mother, your just a bad person.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 23, 2022)

Also while we're talking about abortion, the people who exposed Planned Parenthood for doing illegal stuff with fetuses were charged with 9 & 8 felonies respectively.

Kinda makes you think twice about wanting to allow abortion, doesn't it? The fact that they take something with your body and do illegal acts with it? And punish the innocent people trying to whistle-blow on it?


----------



## SexiestManAlive (May 23, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Also while we're talking about abortion, the people who exposed Planned Parenthood for doing illegal stuff with fetuses were charged with 9 & 8 felonies respectively.
> 
> Kinda makes you think twice about wanting to allow abortion, doesn't it? The fact that they take something with your body and do illegal acts with it? And punish the innocent people trying to whistle-blow on it?


no, it doesn't, because your trying to make it seem as if what happened there is gonna happen with the majority of abortion, just cause some idiots wanted to do some illegal shit, doesn't mean everyone is.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 23, 2022)

SexiestManAlive said:


> no, it doesn't, because your trying to make it seem as if what happened there is gonna happen with the majority of abortion, just cause some idiots wanted to do some illegal shit, doesn't mean everyone is.


i mean, arresting them for daring to call out the illegal shit they were doing seems kinda wack.

Going by that logic, everyone who calls out something illegal happening should go to jail for 8 or 9 felonies, because hey, we love those guys, protect them at all costs and punish anyone going against the norm!


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 23, 2022)

smf said:


> You use pejorative terms all the time.
> 
> Women get an abortion because they want an abortion.
> 
> ...



You're the one who asked how many women get abortions out of convenience, which is why I responded with two different sites with similar statistics. Foxi4 also shared a site with similar statistics. I was just trying to answer your question.

https://gbatemp.net/threads/u-s-sup...n-rights-decision.611748/page-49#post-9830210

https://gbatemp.net/threads/u-s-sup...n-rights-decision.611748/page-50#post-9830290



AleronIves said:


> People who support abortion rights don't care why a woman chooses to have an abortion. It's her right to do it whenever she wants and for whatever reason, although it doesn't free her from the consequences (e.g. a broken marriage because she got an abortion without consulting the father). Trying to shame people who support abortion rights by saying women get abortions out of "convenience" isn't an effective tactic.



Smf asked how many women get abortions out of convenience. I was just responding to his question. I realize that most abortion supporters don't care what the reason is for the women getting the abortion and a large part of them could care less if the baby is aborted 3 seconds before birth.


----------



## Lacius (May 23, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I gave you the metric I use when life starts and that if you've already forgotten its when the egg is fertilized. I do believe in God, but I don't measure when life starts from any passage in the Bible. I simply have a gut feeling that I go by. I did link to a religious organization as one of 2 links I provided, but I didn't link to it because I'm a Christian. I linked to them because I wanted to provide the most accurate answer to @smf 's question, which was what percentage of women get an abortion out of convenience.
> 
> Of course, I am attacked over the sources because they shine a light on the percentages, which are all 80-90% of women have abortions over simple convenience and that makes the pro-choice people look bad. However, I don't need to post manipulated statistics. I simply wanted to answer smf's question. I could care less if the figures were 10%, 33% or the 80-90%. @Foxi4 even provided his own link containing statistics that also answer smf's question and the results are around the same as the two sites I linked to. @SyphenFreht also provided 3 links to sites, but they didn't answer smf's question so I'm not even sure why he linked to them.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure which is worse: Wanting to legislate your own religious beliefs onto others, or wanting to take away people's rights on a "gut feeling."


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 23, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I'm not sure which is worse: Wanting to legislate your own religious beliefs onto others, or wanting to take away people's rights on a "gut feeling."



Every single day you act on gut feelings so unless you're not human I don't know what to tell you. I also don't care if you dislike my gut feelings or how I act on them.


----------



## Lacius (May 23, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Also while we're talking about abortion, the people who exposed Planned Parenthood for doing illegal stuff with fetuses were charged with 9 & 8 felonies respectively.
> 
> Kinda makes you think twice about wanting to allow abortion, doesn't it? The fact that they take something with your body and do illegal acts with it? And punish the innocent people trying to whistle-blow on it?


If you're referring to the 2015 undercover videos, Planned Parenthood was found to have done nothing wrong, and it was the people who did the recordings and manipulatively edited them who were charged with felonies.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Every single day you act on gut feelings so unless you're not human I don't know what to tell you. I also don't care if you dislike my gut feelings or how I act on them.


I've never taken away a person's legal rights on the basis of "gut feeling," and I'm not sure why anyone would want to. If you can't articulate a good justification for taking away those rights, then doesn't that mean you have no way to know whether you're right or wrong?


----------



## smf (May 23, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Smf asked how many women get abortions out of convenience. I was just responding to his question. I realize that most abortion supporters don't care what the reason is for the women getting the abortion and a large part of them could care less if the baby is aborted 3 seconds before birth.


I actually don't remember asking you, I certainly don't believe you in any case.

I also don't think it's helpful to talk about convenience. If you break your leg, it's convenient to have it put in a cast. If you are dying of covid it's convenient to be put on a ventilator.

_convenient: fitting in well with a person's needs, activities, and plans._

Nobody plans to be raped, therefore an abortion as a result of rape is convenient. Being raped is very inconvenient. Condom bursting is very inconvenient. It's unhelful to use that term, unless your point is to make us ignore your opinion (in which case it's working)

You are clinically delusional if you realize that "most abortion supporters" "could care less if the baby is aborted 3 seconds before birth"

You don't seem interested in correcting your misconceptions anyway.


----------



## SexiestManAlive (May 23, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You're the one who asked how many women get abortions out of convenience, which is why I responded with two different sites with similar statistics. Foxi4 also shared a site with similar statistics. I was just trying to answer your question.
> 
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/u-s-sup...n-rights-decision.611748/page-49#post-9830210
> 
> ...


bruh, what the fuck, all i can do is laugh


----------



## smf (May 23, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Every single day you act on gut feelings so unless you're not human I don't know what to tell you. I also don't care if you dislike my gut feelings or how I act on them.


Every day people act on gut feelings and end up in prison.

They are ok for deciding what kind of sandwich you should have today, but not for making important decisions.

Which is why you don't get to make those decisions.


----------



## AleronIves (May 23, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I realize that most abortion supporters don't care what the reason is for the women getting the abortion and a large part of them could care less if the baby is aborted 3 seconds before birth.


What's your source for that? Roe's threshold is more conservative than that.


----------



## smf (May 23, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> What's your source for that? Roe's threshold is more conservative than that.


He made it up because by dehumanizing his opponents, it makes his gut feelings feel better.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 23, 2022)

smf said:


> He made it up because by dehumanizing his opponents, it makes his gut feelings feel better.


hey, he's only doing what you guys are doing to babies.

dehumanizing hurts everyone.


----------



## SexiestManAlive (May 23, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> hey, he's only doing what you guys are doing to babies.
> 
> dehumanizing hurts everyone.


that's the thing though, their cells, human cells, since you wanna say were "dehumanizing them"


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 23, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> hey, he's only doing what you guys are doing to babies.
> 
> dehumanizing hurts everyone.


But dehumanising the mother in the process of giving rights to something that barely has a conscience, at best, is ok? How many women haters do we have on this forum?


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> hey, he's only doing what you guys are doing to babies.
> 
> dehumanizing hurts everyone.


I'm not doing anything to babies.

We're discussing fetus' Please keep up


----------



## AleronIves (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> hey, he's only doing what you guys are doing to babies.
> 
> dehumanizing hurts everyone.


Even if we accept this absurd premise for the sake of argument, what happened to two wrongs don't make a right?


----------



## gnmmarechal (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> but the brain cannot live without the heart, artificial heart or real.
> 
> Therefore, it must be based on heartbeat.


that is absurd....


----------



## AleronIves (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> but the brain cannot live without the heart, artificial heart or real.


The whole point of an artificial heart is to keep you alive after your natural heart fails. If your artificial heart isn't keeping your brain alive, you should probably be having a talk with both the doctor who installed it and the company that made it, because it's defective.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> The whole point of an artificial heart is to keep you alive after your natural heart fails. If your artificial heart isn't keeping your brain alive, you should probably be having a talk with both the doctor who installed it and the company that made it, because it's defective.


If your brain isn’t alive, you’re not going to have any conversations going forward as you are effectively dead. The whole fetal heartbeat discussion is silly, I don’t know why you’re all having it. A heart is nothing more than a muscle, it’s a pump that moves blood around. It has no bearing on whether we’re dealing with a person or not.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> How many women haters do we have on this forum?


Yes, I am a massive hater of women because I don't want babies murdered. I hate women so much, how dare I not want babies dead, the mother has a right to murder her children.



smf said:


> I'm not doing anything to babies.
> 
> We're discussing fetus' Please keep up


fetuses are babies.


----------



## AleronIves (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> If your brain isn’t alive, you’re not going to have any conversations going forward as you are effectively dead.


No kidding?!


----------



## SexiestManAlive (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Yes, I am a massive hater of women because I don't want babies murdered. I hate women so much, how dare I not want babies dead, the mother has a right to murder her children.
> 
> 
> fetuses are babies.


nope, wrong, a fetus is an unborn child, a baby is a born child. yes she has the right to murder cells, are you gonna call me a murderer because I beat my dick and flush my sperm down the drain?


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Yes, I am a massive hater of women because I don't want babies murdered. I hate women so much, how dare I not want babies dead, the mother has a right to murder her children.
> 
> 
> fetuses are babies.


By your logic, organ donation should become compulsory if it means saving lives, right? The state should, of course, be able to take one of your kidneys under penalty of law.

I don't hate you. I just don't want people in need of organs to be murdered by you.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Yes, I am a massive hater of women because I don't want babies murdered. I hate women so much, how dare I not want babies dead, the mother has a right to murder her children.
> 
> 
> fetuses are babies.


The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. The next step is education.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> By your logic, organ donation should become compulsory if it means saving lives, right? The state should, of course, be able to take one of your kidneys under penalty of law.
> 
> I don't hate you. I just don't want people in need of organs to be murdered by you.


A fallacy in logic.

People need organs to live, you don't need to abort literal babies to live.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. The next step is education.


what problem?


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> A fallacy in logic.
> 
> People need organs to live, you don't need to abort literal babies to live.


You got the analogy backwards, lol. The person with the extra kidney (you) is the pregnant woman. The person who needs the kidney to live is the fetus that needs the woman's body to live. Please keep up. This is far from the first time this has been brought up in this thread.

You should also learn what a logical fallacy is, and the next time you accuse me of commiting one, please tell me by name which one it is. Thank you.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

also that's ignoring the fact that it's not my fault that the person lost both their kidneys.

if a woman had a baby, it's most likely her fault.

(rape I would deem acceptable for abortions, but if it isn't rape, and if it won't kill her, then it's quite literally the consequences of your actions, and you need to suffer through them until birth, when you can give it up for adoption if you aren't ready.)


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I am a massive hater of women
> 
> ...
> 
> Fetuses are babies.





KennyAtom said:


> what problem?



The one above



KennyAtom said:


> if a woman had a baby, it's most likely her fault....



Also this one


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> also that's ignoring the fact that it's not my fault that the person lost both their kidneys.
> 
> if a woman had a baby, it's most likely her fault.
> 
> (rape I would deem acceptable for abortions, but if it isn't rape, and if it won't kill her, then it's quite literally the consequences of your actions, and you need to suffer through them until birth, when you can give it up for adoption if you aren't ready.)


Thank you for admitting this is about sex and not really about anything else.

Also, please respond to my posts directly of at least tag me so I get an alert. Otherwise, I might miss your post.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> The one above


You do realize the I hate women comment was sarcasm right? Then again, half the people here aren't the smartest bananas of the bunch. Also, fetuses are babies and that won't ever change.


SyphenFreht said:


> Also this one


I didn't say all the time, I admitted there were exceptions such as rape. But sure, make a mountain out of a molehill I guess.


Lacius said:


> Thank you for admitting this is about sex and not really about anything else.


personal responsibility = sex. I should have known. My mistake!


Lacius said:


> Also, please respond to my posts directly of at least tag me so I get an alert. Otherwise, I might miss your post.


Sure, I can do that.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> personal responsibility = sex. I should have known. My mistake!


The only reason you have for why my forced kidney donation analogy is bad, but forced pregnancy isn't, is because the woman had sex. (side note: we could say men who have sex automatically get added to the state's compulsory organ donation list. Is that okay?)

You even made my point for me by also saying that abortions without willful sex are okay.

Like I said, thank you for admitting that sex is the issue. Did I miss something?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Like I said, thank you for admitting that sex is the issue. Did I miss something?


It's not the sex, hell, have all the goddamn sex you want, it ain't none of my beeswax.

The problem I have is when people get abortions to get out of the consequences of having sex. That's when it irks me.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> It's not the sex, hell, have all the goddamn sex you want, it ain't none of my beeswax.
> 
> The problem I have is when people get abortions to get out of the consequences of having sex. That's when it irks me.


"It's not about sex except when it's about sex."

Side note: We could say men who have sex automatically get added to the state's compulsory organ donation list. Is that okay?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Side note: We could say men who have sex automatically get added to the state's compulsory organ donation list. Is that okay?


While I know you're being sarcastic here, this actually would make for an abusive list, people lying and saying they had sex as revenge, plus it's easy to lie and say no sex took place.



Lacius said:


> "It's not about sex except when it's about sex."


It's literally not about sex, it's about taking personal fucking responsibility.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> While I know you're being sarcastic here, this actually would make for an abusive list, people lying and saying they had sex as revenge, plus it's easy to lie and say no sex took place.


This wasn't sarcasm. I was making the point that a situation you likely consider to be foolish and abhorrent (compulsory organ donation, with or without sex as a prerequisite) is analogous to a state restricting what a woman can do with her own body. It speaks volumes that I've brought up this analogy in this thread before, and nobody has been able to tell me why one is good while the other is bad. You either take one or take both.



KennyAtom said:


> It's literally not about sex, it's about taking personal fucking responsibility.


Taking personal fucking responsibility... for fucking.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> This wasn't sarcasm. I was making the point that a situation you likely consider to be foolish and abhorrent (compulsory organ donation, with or without sex as a prerequisite) is analogous to a state restricting what a woman can do with her own body. It speaks volumes that I've brought up this analogy in this thread before, and nobody has been able to tell me why one is good while the other is bad. You either take one or take both.


That doesn't make any fucking sense though. If no one can tell you how one is good and the other isn't, maybe you just made a bad fucking analogy.



Lacius said:


> Taking personal fucking responsibility... for fucking.


Not for fucking, but for the thing that comes from fucking.


----------



## SG854 (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> It's not the sex, hell, have all the goddamn sex you want, it ain't none of my beeswax.
> 
> The problem I have is when people get abortions to get out of the consequences of having sex. That's when it irks me.





KennyAtom said:


> Not for fucking, but for the thing that comes from fucking.


Look if you want to get laid so badly why not go to eHarmony.com?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Look if you want to get laid so badly why not go to eHarmony.com?


what?


----------



## SG854 (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> what?


What?


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> That doesn't make any fucking sense though. If no one can tell you how one is good and the other isn't, maybe you just made a bad fucking analogy.


It means it's a good analogy. 



KennyAtom said:


> Not for fucking, but for the thing that comes from fucking.


You already said this isn't about the fetus (otherwise, abortion in the case of rape would be bad in your view). You said this was about the consequences of having sex. Your problem is with women having sex.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You already said this isn't about the fetus (otherwise, abortion in the case of rape would be bad in your view). You said this was about the consequences of having sex. Your problem is with women having sex.


Again, since you seem to be dense enough to not get the point, I don't care about sex. I care when you want to kill a baby to avoid the consequences of having sex.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Again, since you seem to be dense enough to not get the point, I don't care about sex. I care when you want to kill a baby to avoid the consequences of having sex.


But you don't care about "killing a baby" if it's a consequence of rape. Therefore, your issue is with the sex.


----------



## SG854 (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Again, since you seem to be dense enough to not get the point, I don't care about sex. I care when you want to kill a baby to avoid the consequences of having sex.


I can take you to meet some Women. Your life doesn't have to be empty.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> But you don't care about "killing a baby" if it's a consequence of rape. Therefore, your issue is with the sex.


fine, no more abortions for anyone. There, you happy? Everyone can just give up their baby when they're done giving birth.



SG854 said:


> I can take you to meet some Women. Your life doesn't have to be empty.


I'm fine, completely happy.

Just because someone is against abortion doesn't mean their life has no meaning.


----------



## SG854 (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I'm fine, completely happy.
> 
> Just because someone is against abortion doesn't mean their life has no meaning.


Hmmmm.......


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> fine, no more abortions for anyone. There, you happy? Everyone can just give up their baby when they're done giving birth.


Are you making this up as you go?

It should also be noted that this position wouldn't solve the precedent that leads to things like compulsory organ donation. To be truly consistent, you would have to accept that one too.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Are you making this up as you go?
> 
> It should also be noted that this position wouldn't solve the precedent that leads to things like compulsory organ donation. To be truly consistent, you would have to accept that one too.


not making it up as I go, just tired of people saying I want to control women having sex just because I dare want exceptions for rape victims. They already went through one trauma, why make them go through another? Are you just that heartless that you want consistency for all?

Also Roe v Wade never solved any precedent like that, it just said abortion was required federally. Closest thing I can think of that it set a precedent for other than abortion is gay sex.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> not making it up as I go, just tired of people saying I want to control women having sex just because I dare want exceptions for rape victims. They already went through one trauma, why make them go through another?


You didn't even mention anything about rape exceptions until it was mentioned by someone arguing against you. It seems like you relented so you can seem... cooperative, at best. 

Like abortion isn't traumatic? At least at that point they can choose to go through with the procedure, it's not being forced upon them. 

Also, do you know what a woman goes through having an abortion? It's not as glamorous as you pro lifers make it out to be. It weighs pretty heavily on one's shoulders to have to make that decision, regardless of reasoning.



KennyAtom said:


> You do realize the I hate women comment was sarcasm right? Then again, half the people here aren't the smartest bananas of the bunch. Also, fetuses are babies and that won't ever change.
> 
> I didn't say all the time, I admitted there were exceptions such as rape. But sure, make a mountain out of a molehill I guess.



Sarcasm? Sure. But the way you present your arguments and reasoning? Doesn't seem that far fetched. 

Mountain out of a molehill? Kinda like saying removing cells constitutes killing a baby?


----------



## AleronIves (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> just tired of people saying I want to control women having sex just because I dare want exceptions for rape victims. They already went through one trauma, why make them go through another? Are you just that heartless that you want consistency for all?


If we accept your premise that abortion is "murdering babies", then it doesn't matter how the woman got pregnant. Just because she's a crime victim doesn't give her the right to commit a crime against somebody else. That's the problem with the position that women can't have abortions, because the rights of the fetus come first. If that's true, then exceptions for other circumstances don't make sense. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 24, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> If we accept your premise that abortion is "murdering babies", then it doesn't matter how the woman got pregnant. Just because she's a crime victim doesn't give her the right to commit a crime against somebody else. That's the problem with the position that women can't have abortions, because the rights of the fetus come first. If that's true, then exceptions for other circumstances don't make sense. You can't have it both ways.



"The rights of those yet exist outweigh the rights of those already in existence", basically. But you don't see these people arguing against masturbating. Sperm eventually becomes a baby, so they should have rights too, right?



Lacius said:


> But you don't care about "killing a baby" if it's a consequence of rape. Therefore, your issue is with the sex.





KennyAtom said:


> ... Closest thing I can think of that it set a precedent for other than abortion is gay sex.



Seems to me like you do have a problem with sex.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> not making it up as I go


You literally changed a major position before our eyes.



KennyAtom said:


> just tired of people saying I want to control women having sex just because I dare want exceptions for rape victims.


You said you are only for laws against abortion if the pregnancy is the consequence of willful sex. The issue is, clearly and objectively, sex.



KennyAtom said:


> They already went through one trauma, why make them go through another?


The life of a fetus/embryo? I'm sorry, I mean "baby."



KennyAtom said:


> Are you just that heartless that you want consistency for all?


I think a woman should be able to end a pregnancy whenever she wants. Pointing out your inconsistencies, and the fact that you've all but admitted to your problem being with sex, are separate issues.



KennyAtom said:


> Also Roe v Wade never solved any precedent like that, it just said abortion was required federally.


If laws against abortion are upheld by the courts, then laws for compulsory organ donation would have to be upheld as well.

Both are issues of bodily autonomy and saving "lives."



KennyAtom said:


> Closest thing I can think of that it set a precedent for other than abortion is gay sex.


If we are talking about the legal precedent Roe set, then yes, the fall of Roe would necessarily mean the fall of Lawrence (which made laws against gay sex, oral sex, etc. unconstitutional) if brought before the courts.

As a separate issue, the fall of Roe being largely because "abortion isn't in the Constitution" means the fall of lots of other constitutional rights (gay marriage, interracial marriage, and many more) if brought before the courts.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> By your logic, organ donation should become compulsory if it means saving lives, right? The state should, of course, be able to take one of your kidneys under penalty of law.
> 
> I don't hate you. I just don't want people in need of organs to be murdered by you.


False dichotomy. In the event of an organ transplant, the donor loses an organ and the recipient gains one. You are forcing one party to relinquish a part of their body on behalf of the other party. In the event of a pregnancy, which is temporary and transitory, the woman is walking out with just as many organs as she walked in with - the only quantifiable loss is time (unless you want to count losing the placenta and umbilical cord, but she’s losing them anyway, so it makes no difference). You used this argument last time we talked about this, it’s not a very good one. Being forced to carry to term is more akin to imprisonment than it is to organ theft, and there’s ample precedent for the state robbing us of our time.


----------



## AleronIves (May 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Sperm eventually becomes a baby, so they should have rights too, right?


A sperm has a zero percent chance of becoming a baby if there is no egg nearby, so no. Even extreme anti-abortion advocates generally don't say that.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> False dichotomy. In the event of an organ transplant, the donor loses an organ and the recipient gains one. In the event of a pregnancy, which is temporary and transitory, the woman is walking out with just as many organs as she walked in with - the only quantifiable loss is time. You used this argument last time we talked about this, it’s not a very good one. Being forced to carry to term is more akin to imprisonment than it is to organ theft, and there’s ample precedent for the state robbing us of our time.


We had this conversation a long time ago where you refused to acknowledge that a pregnancy can cause irreparable change, harm, or even death, and you refused to acknowledge how that made it comparable to organ donation. Frankly, I'm not interested in reading the same disingenuous points again.

Lol, we could also make the hypothetical use of the kidney temporary, and your objections would fall apart regardless.



Foxi4 said:


> False dichotomy.


This also isn't the fallacy you meant to say. Whether or not you're right about the problems with my analogy (you aren't right), it wouldn't be a false dichotomy. It'd be a false analogy.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> We had this conversation a long time ago where you refused to acknowledge that a pregnancy can cause irreparable change, harm, or even death, and you refused to acknowledge how that made it comparable to organ donation. Frankly, I'm not interested in reading the same disingenuous points again.
> 
> Lol, we could also make the hypothetical use of the kidney temporary, and your objections would fall apart regardless.


My objection is perfectly valid - your argument is based on a false dichotomy. You’re taking the slim possibility of bodily harm and stretching it to an inevitability in order to make a point. There is precedent for the state restricting a citizen’s freedom and agency, that always has the potential of negatively affecting their health. It has never been equated to organ theft because that’s ridiculous. You’re pretending that the only two options are abortion or doing harm when that’s not the case.



Lacius said:


> This also isn't the fallacy you meant to say. Whether or not you're right about the problems with my analogy (you aren't right), it wouldn't be a false dichotomy. It'd be a false analogy.


It’d be both, as a false dichotomy is a fallacy which erroneously limits options (either the state allows abortion *or* it’s doing quantifiable harm to the body - in reality there’s another option, doing neither and just waiting until the problem solves itself), but I suppose you are correct - a false analogy is more appropriate since I’m taking strictly about your example. Well-spotted.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 24, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> A sperm has a zero percent chance of becoming a baby if there is no egg nearby, so no. Even extreme anti-abortion advocates generally don't say that.



You're right, but in regards to that of an actual baby, a sperm is just another step to forming said baby, much like a "clump of cells" and so on. It's a half assed attempt at showing similarly absurd arguments.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You’re taking the slim possibility of bodily harm and stretching it to an inevitability in order to make a point.


The risk of permanent bodily change is pretty significant with pregnancy, even if we aren't talking about major health risks. The same goes for kidney donation. Both also carry surprisingly similar health and mortality risks. They're comparable, particularly with regard to the whole point being about bodily autonomy, and it's ridiculously disingenuous to suggest they aren't.

A pregnancy could have a 0% mortality risk (it definitely doesn't), and a kidney donation could have a 70% mortality risk (it definitely doesn't), and it still wouldn't be a false analogy when you stop and consider my point.



Foxi4 said:


> There is precedent for the state restricting a citizen’s freedom and agency, that always has the potential of negatively affecting their health.


I'd like to hear some specific examples so we are on the same page, but only after you concede the above. If you can't do that, I'd rather end the conversation here.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The risk of permanent bodily change is pretty significant with pregnancy, even if we aren't talking about major health risks. The same goes for kidney donation. Both also carry surprisingly similar health and mortality risks. They're comparable, particularly with regard to the whole point being about bodily autonomy, and it's ridiculously disingenuous to suggest they aren't.
> 
> A pregnancy could have a 0% mortality risk (it definitely doesn't), and a kidney donation could have a 70% mortality risk (it definitely doesn't), and it still wouldn't be a false analogy when you stop and consider my point.


Of course it would be. Pregnancy has a small chance of causing bodily harm, a compulsory kidney transplant inevitably leads to losing a kidney. I can’t hold the state liable for unexpected twists of fate, I can hold it liable for deliberate organ theft. There is no uncertainty in regards to a compulsory organ transplant - the donor is losing an organ, at minimum.

_*hums “one of those things is not like the other”*_

*If* a woman were to be forced to carry to term by the state, for instance due to how advanced the pregnancy is (there’s a strictly medical cut-off point for when an abortion is a viable option, ethics aside), the only duty the state has is duty of care.


Lacius said:


> I'd like to hear some specific examples so we are on the same page, but only after you concede the above. If you can't do that, I'd rather end the conversation here.


You’d like to hear a specific example of the state restricting a citizen’s freedom and agency? Have you not heard of prison?  Why would I “concede” when the state does things like this routinely, and always has?

EDIT: Just to put things into perspective, around 6% of pregnancies encounter high-risk complications which, if left untreated, may be detrimental to the health of the mother or the child in question. If the state were to force the woman to carry to term, duty of care would dictate that it has to provide a reasonable standard of medical care in order to alleviate such issues. By comparison, 100% of kidney transplants leave the donor a kidney short, and there is no way to alleviate this - the only thing one can ensure is that the procedure itself is safe. Comparing the two as if they’re similar is silly - they’re not. Even if potential health risks were exactly the same, only one of those procedures involves direct and deliberate harm via organ removal.


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> A sperm has a zero percent chance of becoming a baby if there is no egg nearby, so no. Even extreme anti-abortion advocates generally don't say that.


There are some Republican candidates pitching a ban on all contraceptives however, including Trump-backed candidates (which I suppose makes them "mainstream" by today's shitshow standards).  That's the level of insanity we're dealing with here.  The ruling class are total dipshits if they think they can force a baby boom without first providing the material conditions necessary to support one.  They don't even provide that for the current working class, let alone the future one.


----------



## AleronIves (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> _*hums “one of those things is not like the other”*_


Whoa now, sir. Leave Sesame Street out of this! 



Xzi said:


> There are some Republican candidates pitching a ban on all contraceptives


There is no shortage of politicians with bad ideas. That's for sure.


----------



## omgcat (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Pregnancy has a small chance of causing bodily harm


this is patently false, pregnancies regularly cause bodily harm to women. blood pressure issues, pre-eclampsia, anemia, Hyperemesis Gravidarum, esophageal damage due to morning sickness, pelvic floor damage, gestational diabetes. this is on top of the HUNDREDS of complications from childbirth that can have permanent effects on the woman's body, such as uterine rupture, Retained Placenta, good ol infections, pelvic floor prolapse, Perineal tears and the classic excessive bleeding.

what you consider  fine, others consider "bodily harm" to themselves. i had a friend end up with GERD so bad from her pregnancy that it burned a hole in her esophagus.

birth is not a safe process, and anyone should be able to abort for whatever reason they wish (granted the current laws really only allow before 28 weeks anyways. maybe if the USA had stellar maternal mortality rates it'd be less fucked. but we have 3rd world country levels of maternal mortality rates.







these numbers are getting worse, not better, especially since states have defunded planed parenthood (one of the largest supplier of pre-natal and neo-natal care).


----------



## Haloman800 (May 24, 2022)

JaapDaniels said:


> what about rape? what about when the semen donor gone missing? what about children? what about those not capable of understanding the consequences? what about those forced?


Rape and incest is less than 1% of abortions. For the sake of argument, if we said "you can murder your unborn child if they are the product of rape/incest", are you on board with protecting the life of the other 99%?

Let me guess, you aren't. So stop bringing up "rape" as an excuse to justify murdering unborn children.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Whoa now, sir. Leave Sesame Street out of this!


Sometimes I feel like I am on Sesame Street when I’m around these parts.

“This hamburger is too hot, I lost my appetite, I’m going to throw it away. I don’t want to burn my mouth.”
“Hey, why won’t you just leave it for a minute and wait for it to cool down? Would that help?”
“How is that different than me eating your arm instead?”


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 24, 2022)

Haloman800 said:


> Rape and incest is less than 1% of abortions. For the sake of argument, if we said "you can murder your unborn child if they are the product of rape/incest", are you on board with protecting the life of the other 99%?
> 
> Let me guess, you aren't. So stop bringing up "rape" as an excuse to justify murdering unborn children.


If rape by itself isn't enough to justify an abortion, then stop using the protection of unborn "babies" to excuse your outdated opinion on how women should control their bodies. Regardless of whether that statistic is accurate or not, that's still around 40 million women globally who have to suffer the consequences of something they had no control over. But who cares about their lives being ruined when we can save lives that haven't even formed executive brain activity yet.

How do you say you have no empathy for women of any kind without actually saying it?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

omgcat said:


> this is patently false, pregnancies regularly cause bodily harm to women. blood pressure issues, pre-eclampsia, anemia, Hyperemesis Gravidarum, esophageal damage due to morning sickness, pelvic floor damage, gestational diabetes. this is on top of the HUNDREDS of complications from childbirth that can have permanent effects on the woman's body, such as uterine rupture, Retained Placenta, good ol infections, pelvic floor prolapse, Perineal tears and the classic excessive bleeding.
> 
> what you consider  fine, others consider "bodily harm" to themselves. i had a friend end up with GERD so bad from her pregnancy that it burned a hole in her esophagus.
> 
> ...


All this just to tell us that it’s 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births, or 0.02%? We must have a different threshold of acceptable risk. For the record, we are comparing the 100% certainty of losing a kidney (since that is the purpose of the operation) plus other associated risks on top to the normal risk of carrying a pregnancy to term. Unless we can agree that one of those things is not like the other, which is the entire point of this silly thought experiment, your point has no merit.


----------



## omgcat (May 24, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Whoa now, sir. Leave Sesame Street out of this!
> 
> 
> There is no shortage of politicians with bad ideas. That's for sure.





Foxi4 said:


> All this just to tell us that it’s 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births, or 0.02%? We must have a different threshold of acceptable risk. For the record, we are comparing the 100% certainty of losing a kidney (since that is the purpose of the operation) plus other associated risks on top to the normal risk of carrying a pregnancy to term. Unless we can agree that one of those things is not like the other, which is the entire point of this silly thought experiment, your point has no merit.



dude, you said bodily harm, you don't need to die to have bodily harm. the 23 deaths per 100k was to accentuate the point that our medical care is fucked. talk about dense.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

omgcat said:


> dude, you said bodily harm, you don't need to die to have bodily harm. the 23 deaths per 100k was to accentuate the point that our medical care is fucked. talk about dense.


I said that the risk of bodily harm is low, and it is - I never said it’s perfectly safe. We’re arguing a hypothetical here, it’s not a comment on the healthcare system. We’re comparing giving birth to donating a kidney, as a (admittedly silly) thought experiment. Only one of those procedures is associated with a 100% chance of losing a kidney, lest we forget. Talk about dense indeed - context is key. I even *gave you* the figure you’re looking for in the post you’re quoting - high-risk complications occur in around 6% of pregnancies. I also specifically stated that in the event of such compulsion, the duty of care would lay squarely on the state. I’m already aware of what you’re saying, it’s just that what you’re saying has no bearing on what’s being argued here.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

I've made the point before @Lacius, that the analogy of forced organ transplant does not coordinate with the conditions of a forced pregnancy.  It is a broken analogy of convenience.  You apparently hate analogies, and only use them as a last resort.  (You are bad at them)

A life is created and it is indentured to its condition.  Those responsible to creating this indentured condition are responsible for maintaining it, or providing an alternative that is better, not worse--unless they are willing to sacrifice that life.  Your organ transplant analogy will not acknowledge a situation where the person being forced to give an organ made the organ transplant necessary.

And yes, sex does lead to pregnancy, if done correctly.  The pregnancy is a reasonable expectation.  When would you argue that people should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions when the consequences are the expected outcome?


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> There is no shortage of politicians with bad ideas. That's for sure.


It's not just a few politicians and it's not just a "bad idea," though.  It's one of the only two major political parties in this country openly strategizing on ways to implement those disastrous ideas, and in some states actually succeeding.  Quite dystopian.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

If these were about kids, RepubliKKKans would worry about the after-birth. All this debacle is about controlling women.


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> And yes, sex does lead to pregnancy, if done correctly. The pregnancy is a reasonable expectation. When would you argue that people should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions when the consequences are the expected outcome?


If something is "done correctly," as you describe it, why should there be any "consequences" for it?  For that matter, why do you feel the need to ascribe consequences to sex when it's done simply for pleasure?  Seems awfully prudish of you.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> And yes, sex does lead to pregnancy, if done correctly.  The pregnancy is a reasonable expectation.  When would you argue that people should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions when the consequences are the expected outcome?


This language is extremely troubling. Are you looking with enjoyment at the idea of punishing women because they dare enjoying sex?


Xzi said:


> If something is "done correctly," as you describe it, why should there be any "consequences" for it?  For that matter, why do you feel the need to ascribe consequences to sex when it's done simply for pleasure?  Seems awfully prudish of you.


It's not prudish, it's mysoginist. Even in the Middle Ages you'd abort until the 20th week or something. These people are literally more backwards than Middle Age priests. Which is even funnier as the only time abortion is mentioned in the Bible is when instructions are provided.


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's not prudish, it's mysoginist. Even in the Middle Ages you'd abort until the 20th week or something. These people are literally more backwards than Middle Age priests. Which is even funnier as the only time abortion is mentioned in the Bible is when instructions are provided.


It does feel mostly like an "I hate women..." type of thing, but the other half of that sentence is usually "...because they aren't having sex with me specifically."  Only reason I can think of for getting pissed off over other people having sex strictly for pleasure.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

Xzi said:


> It does feel mostly like "I hate women..." type of thing, but the other half of that sentence is usually "...because they aren't having sex with me specifically."  Only reason I can think of for getting pissed off over other people having sex strictly for pleasure.


That's kinda what it is.


----------



## AleronIves (May 24, 2022)

Xzi said:


> If something is "done correctly," as you describe it, why should there be any "consequences" for it?  For that matter, why do you feel the need to ascribe consequences to sex when it's done simply for pleasure?


He doesn't have to "ascribe" consequences to sex. Pregnancy is the natural and often inevitable result if you don't take precautions to prevent it. He's saying that people who have sex without protection shouldn't be free from the natural consequence of that sex, which is pregnancy. It doesn't strike me as a controversial stance at all. If you want to have sex for fun, either take precautions to prevent pregnancy or be prepared to deal with the natural result.

Remember that @tabzer 's post was made in reply to the organ donation analogy. I don't think he's accusing women of deliberately having sex without protection so they can get abortions, because as anyone who knows anything about abortions is aware... they're not something you get "for fun".


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> He's saying that people who have sex without protection shouldn't be free from the natural consequence of that sex, which is pregnancy. It doesn't strike me as a controversial stance at all.


It should strike you as controversial, because in a lot of parts of the US they don't teach teenagers about contraceptives.  They only teach abstinence, and that obviously doesn't work well at all.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

Xzi said:


> It should strike you as controversial, because in a lot of parts of the US they don't teach teenagers about contraceptives.  They only teach abstinence, and that obviously doesn't work well at all.


Correct. Since "parents know best" schools in states like Kentucky don't even feature Sex Ed. And kentucky features some of the highest abortion rates.


----------



## AleronIves (May 24, 2022)

These days, I suspect kids learn about sex on the Internet long before any sex ed happens in schools that bother to teach it.

Also, isn't this thread about adults? Even in states that allow abortion, don't minors need parental permission to get one? Permission is usually required to undergo significant medical procedures, AFAIK.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> These days, I suspect kids learn about sex on the Internet long before any sex ed happens in schools that bother to teach it.


And as we all know, the Internet is a perfectly safe environment with age appropriate filters and content verification innit.


AleronIves said:


> Also, isn't this thread about adults? Even in states that allow abortion, don't minors need parental permission to get one? Permission is usually required to undergo significant medical procedures, AFAIK.


Teens can be adults too, if only legally.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Sex is "mysoginist" because it only makes the women pregnant.

Ok.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Sex is "mysoginist" because it only makes the women pregnant.
> 
> Ok.


Literally no one said that, thank you for the example of usual gaslighting and lies typical of rightwingers.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> This language is extremely troubling. Are you looking with enjoyment at the idea of punishing women because they dare enjoying sex?





Dark_Ansem said:


> It's not prudish, it's mysoginist.



These are your responses to my claim that pregnancy is an expected outcome of sex.  Literally stupid.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> These are your responses to my claim that pregnancy is an expected outcome of sex.  Literally stupid.


No, these are my responses to your abominable language.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Xzi said:


> If something is "done correctly," as you describe it, why should there be any "consequences" for it?  For that matter, why do you feel the need to ascribe consequences to sex when it's done simply for pleasure?  Seems awfully prudish of you.



It is a consequence to those who'd see pregnancy as an equivalency of being forced to donate an organ-- unless you like being forced to donate organs and are advocating for that.



Dark_Ansem said:


> No, these are my responses to your abominable language.



Being able to read and write is an acquired taste.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Being able to read and write is an acquired taste.


Unlike being able to think critically, which is a gift you lack.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Unlike being able to think critically, which is a gift you lack.


So... you think my breakdown of the analogy is false because "the words are gross".

I'm not here to make you feel good, and I have yet to see you make good on your claim of "thinking critically".


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> So... you think my breakdown of the analogy is false because "the words are gross".


I didn't say a single thing about that, are you on drugs? Or sick?


tabzer said:


> I'm not here to make you feel good,


You don't make anyone feel good, which is why your partner seeks solace elsewhere. Also thank you for once again derailing the thread into a flame fest, it's clearly in your DNA to be as uncivil as possible. In addition to your other glaring flaws.


tabzer said:


> I have yet to see you make good on your claim of "thinking critically"


Perhaps you need spectacles, or a rewiring of your synapses. Probably both.


----------



## _47iscool (May 24, 2022)

Someone knew ahead of time.


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2022)

_47iscool said:


> View attachment 311099View attachment 311099


Wow this is dumb even by right-wing conspo standards.  They didn't need to know the leak was coming because everyone's known for a long time that SCOTUS' decision on the matter would be coming soon, and Trump appointed three unqualified nutjobs to the court.  For anyone paying attention, the assumption has always been that they'd overturn Roe v Wade despite promises made under oath to the contrary.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I didn't say a single thing about that, are you on drugs? Or sick?
> 
> You don't make anyone feel good, which is why your partner seeks solace elsewhere. Also thank you for once again derailing the thread into a flame fest, it's clearly in your DNA to be as uncivil as possible. In addition to your other glaring flaws.
> 
> Perhaps you need spectacles, or a rewiring of your synapses. Probably both.



You either agree with my statement and dislike the language, or disagree with my statement because you dislike the language.  Which is it?  "You're a cuck" is not an argument.  Pretending that you are privy to my sexual relationships just makes you a pervert.


----------



## _47iscool (May 24, 2022)

removed


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

_47iscool said:


> View attachment 311103


Story seems fabricated/manipulated - the lady’s suing for defamation. Fetuses don’t have vocal cords developed enough to make any noise whatsoever, and the state this lady worked in prohibits partial birth abortions.

https://apnews.com/article/5067293c0e5d4780a180bbbcdf29d351

In other words, _*clears throat*_ it’s bollocks.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Xzi said:


> It does feel mostly like an "I hate women..." type of thing, but the other half of that sentence is usually "...because they aren't having sex with me specifically." Only reason I can think of for getting pissed off over other people having sex strictly for pleasure.


It has nothing to do with hating women or casual sex.  It's about an analogy that doesn't work.  Considering that you've already stated that the end justifies the means in regards to political matters, it shouldn't be all that surprising that you'd resort to projection in lieu of an actual argument.

Would you have people believe that you have sex, a baseless claim, so my argument is to be discredited?


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> fetuses are babies.


No, they aren't. Please use the correct scientific term.



tabzer said:


> It has nothing to do with hating women or casual sex.


Just because you say that, doesn't mean it's true.

A lot of murderers claim they did it because they love the person they murdered. Which is clearly not true.

All you can say is you think you don't hate women. Your actions will betray you though.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It is a consequence to those who'd see pregnancy as an equivalency of being forced to donate an organ-- unless you like being forced to donate organs and are advocating for that.


Isn't that true though? A fetus can't survive without the mother.

If it's ok to force a woman to continue a pregnancy, then should we not force people to go along with direct blood transfusions if they are a compatible match?


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> No, they aren't. Please use the correct scientific term.
> 
> 
> Just because you say that, doesn't mean it's true.
> ...


It is true because it is a statement contained to the propositions supplied.  It adds nothing new nor does it change the context.  If you see hate for women in it, it would be because you consider the biological function of pregnancy, exclusive to women, to being an affliction.  That is something I never suggested.  The stupid analogy does that.  Go be dumb somewhere else.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you see hate for women in it, it would be because you consider the biological function of pregnancy, exclusive to women, to being an affliction.  That is something I never suggested.  The stupid analogy does that.  Go be dumb somewhere else.


Again, just because you say that is the only way that hate for women could manifest in your argument, doesn't mean it's true.

I'd suggest you follow your own advice. We don't need you to build any more straw men.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Again, just because you say that is the only way that hate for women could manifest in your argument, doesn't mean it's true.
> 
> I'd suggest you follow your own advice. We don't need you to build any more straw men.


You should be presenting an argument, but so far, you've only demonstrated that you didn't read the corresponding post (which you criticized).


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Isn't that true though? A fetus can't survive without the mother.
> 
> If it's ok to force a woman to continue a pregnancy, then should we not force people to go along with direct blood transfusions if they are a compatible match?



This is the comment in question:

"I've made the point before @Lacius, that the analogy of forced organ transplant does not coordinate with the conditions of a forced pregnancy. It is a broken analogy of convenience. You apparently hate analogies, and only use them as a last resort. (You are bad at them)

A life is created and it is indentured to its condition. Those responsible to creating this indentured condition are responsible for maintaining it, or providing an alternative that is better, not worse--unless they are willing to sacrifice that life. Your organ transplant analogy will not acknowledge a situation where the person being forced to give an organ made the organ transplant necessary.

And yes, sex does lead to pregnancy, if done correctly. The pregnancy is a reasonable expectation. When would you argue that people should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions when the consequences are the expected outcome?"

If you could point out where the hate for women exists, I'd be happy to either prove you wrong or show you where the language originated (also proving you wrong).

You make these random posts pretending to know what's going on, but in subsequent posts prove that you don't even read.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You should be presenting an argument, but so far, you've only demonstrated that you didn't read the corresponding post (which you criticized).


Again, you say I've demonstrated that. But that doesn't make it true.
You seem to like to keep making these accusations, without backing them up.

You clearly don't like women as they really are and wish they were different.



tabzer said:


> A life is created and it is indentured to its condition. Those responsible to creating this indentured condition are responsible for maintaining it,


You're using your assumption to justify your assumption.

There is no responsibility, other than that which people have arbitrarily decided.

In nature, animals will abandon their young or even eat them. While we have a cut off time for abortions, after which you have a reasonable responsibility. But the west don't usually (at present) prosecute for miscarriages, therefore even then we don't make the mother liable for what happens.

If you could make a non circular argument, then it might be worth reading.


----------



## MicroNut99 (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> but the brain cannot live without the heart, artificial heart or real.
> 
> Therefore, it must be based on heartbeat.


Heartbeat does not equal brain. We know this.


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It has nothing to do with hating women or casual sex.


Suuure...


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Again, you say I've demonstrated that. But that doesn't make it true.



It's not because I said it that makes it true.  It's because it's true that it's true.  It's a matter of record now.  You brought up blood transfusions as if they changed the point.  You are either an idiot or did not read.  I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.



smf said:


> You clearly don't like women as they really are and wish they were different.



You seem to like to keep making these accusations, without backing them up.



smf said:


> You're using your assumption to justify your assumption.
> 
> There is no responsibility, other than that which people have arbitrarily decided.



A woman is responsible for her body, whether she is pregnant or not.  "Responsibility" is not a moral claim, here.  Whether she gets an abortion or carries to term, that is her response-ability.  If the state could force a woman to carry to term, or abort, that would make it the state's responsibility.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Suuure...


Care to back up that pent up sexual frustration?


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If the state could force a woman to carry to term, or abort, that would make it the state's responsibility.


States will be forcing a woman to carry to term by removing her choice to have an abortion.



tabzer said:


> You brought up blood transfusions as if they changed the point.


Being forced to give a blood transfusion to prolong someones life and being forced to continue with a pregnancy to prolong the life of a fetus are the same.

Don't you agree? If not, how is it different?


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> States are forcing a woman to carry to term by removing her choice to have an abortion.
> 
> You don't seem to have a clear argument


My only argument was about a broken analogy, and it should be acknowledged by people on either side of the debate.  My argument is not about what the state, federal government, or women should do.

What are you looking for?


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Care to back up that pent up sexual frustration?


I must've missed the part where we swapped roles in this discussion and I became the conservative prude obsessed with consequences for premarital sex.  Whenever I feel the need for sex I go find it.  Thankfully I've never accidentally impregnated a woman, but if I had, you can bet I'd pay half for the abortion in a heartbeat.  I more or less live paycheck to paycheck like most Americans, and having to support a kid would be enough to put me on the street.  Precisely the reason that you cannot be allowed to force your authoritarian and dogmatic beliefs on other people.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> My only argument was about a broken analogy, and it should be acknowledged by people on either side of the debate.  My argument is not about what the state, federal government, or women should do.
> 
> What are you looking for?


You can't just say it's a broken analogy without making a compelling case for why it's broken. One side things it's broken, the other side does not. Why would both sides acknowledge it is broken, if they believe it is not broken?

It seems like you want to make it appear broken, because it fits your argument rather than because you have an argument for why it's broken.

All your posts come over as that. I'm looking for you to only make an argument for something you believe, with a clear reason for why.

Otherwise, why don't you accept that all your arguments are broken?


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I must've missed the part where we swapped roles in this discussion and I became the conservative prude obsessed with consequences for premarital sex.



I never assumed roles.  You came up with them.  They were always your roles.  Now you would have us believe that you are successful at "finding sex", with language like that?



smf said:


> You can't just say it's a broken analogy without making a compelling case for why it's broken.



I doubt I could compel you if you aren't literate enough to address the actual complaint that I had about it.


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I never assumed roles. You came up with them. They were always your roles.


So then you concede that the concept of "consequences" for any sort of sex is a ridiculous one?  I'll take it.  There are only consequences for it if they're forced upon people by government or religious overreach.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Xzi said:


> So then you concede that the concept of "consequences" for any sort of sex is a ridiculous one?  I'll take it.  There are only consequences for it if they're forced upon people by government or religious overreach.


I already told you why I used the word "consequence", and I find it daft that I would have to explain the biological role of sex.

Though consequence isn't always negative, in the analogy it was likened as an affliction.  It was out of respect to the nomenclature used, not a personal belief. 

If A -> B.  Even though many people respond to pregnancy with a Pikachu face, it isn't because the outcome is an unreasonable one.


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I already told you why I used the word "consequence", and I find it daft that I would have to explain the biological role of sex.
> 
> Though consequence isn't always negative, in the analogy it was likened as an affliction.  It was out of respect to the nomenclature used, not a personal belief.
> 
> If A -> B.  Even though many people respond to pregnancy with a Pikachu face, it isn't because the outcome is an unreasonable one.


A state-enforced forced birth policy creates new consequences where there needn't be any.  The analogy was perfectly serviceable, as medical complications with pregnancy are not uncommon, and they can cause damage to or total shutdown of organs.  Therefore unless the state can be held financially liable for the damage incurred by forcing women to carry pregnancies to term, the policy is an unreasonable one.


----------



## SexiestManAlive (May 24, 2022)

Haloman800 said:


> Rape and incest is less than 1% of abortions. For the sake of argument, if we said "you can murder your unborn child if they are the product of rape/incest", are you on board with protecting the life of the other 99%?
> 
> Let me guess, you aren't. So stop bringing up "rape" as an excuse to justify murdering unborn children.


if the baby or mothers life is in danger because of the birth, or if someone is raped, they should 100% be able to get an abortion, if you wanna say protect the rest go ahead, but removing that ability from rape victims and people that can die from it, is just outright retarded. And if its murdering unborn children, as I said to someone else, my sperm leaving my body and going splash into the toilet is also murder.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Xzi said:


> A state-enforced forced birth policy creates new consequences where there needn't be any.  The analogy was perfectly serviceable, as medical complications with pregnancy are not uncommon, and they can cause damage or total shutdown of organs.  Therefore unless the state can be held financially liable for the damage incurred by forcing women to carry pregnancies to term, the policy is an unreasonable one.



I understand your perspective about the role of the state and that the state should be held liable in forcing harmful outcomes on its people.  I disagree that the analogy was "perfectly serviceable" for the reason I already pointed.

If you have a complaint about the argument I made, then I would like to hear it.  Diversions to hating women or not being capable of "finding sex" are not appreciated.

In attempt to be progressive, if someone stabbed  you in your kidney, and they are a good match as a donor, would you consider it justice that you take their kidney?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> No, they aren't. Please use the correct scientific term.


Fetuses = Babies, and nothing will change my mind.


smf said:


> Just because you say that, doesn't mean it's true.
> 
> A lot of murderers claim they did it because they love the person they murdered. Which is clearly not true.
> 
> All you can say is you think you don't hate women. Your actions will betray you though.


So I hate women because I hate seeing babies murdered? Man, what a society. 

 But in all seriousness, I don't hate women just because I don't like seeing babies die. Again, I'm fine with rape victims or women in risk of death with getting it, I just don't think it should be allowed to be used as something that removes the consequences of having unprotected sex on purpose.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Fetuses = Babies, and nothing will change my mind.


Your opinion = irrelevant, and nothing will change my mind.



KennyAtom said:


> So I hate women because I hate seeing babies murdered? Man, what a society.


Babies aren't being murdered. Fetus are being aborted.

There is a big difference, which society as a whole understands.



KennyAtom said:


> I just don't think it should be allowed to be used as something that removes the consequences of having unprotected sex on purpose.


How do you know they had unprotected sex? How would they prove that? Protection doesn't always work.

Women aren't having unprotected sex and then routinely getting abortions. I know women who have had a single abortion, it wasn't due to them having unprotected sex.

You very much do seem to hate women, if you can even think that this is what is going on.

Preventing all women from having abortions, just because there might be a single case of someone who did what you think not reasonable either.


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I disagree that the analogy was "perfectly serviceable" for the reason I already pointed.


I'm not saying there aren't better analogies available, one example being forced vasectomy which would infringe on male bodily autonomy and sexuality in a similar fashion to forced birth for women.  The big difference being that a vasectomy is fully and safely reversible.  If the possibility of losing an organ from forced pregnancy exists, however, and it very much does, then forced organ donation is not a terrible analogy.



tabzer said:


> In attempt to be progressive, if someone stabbed you in your kidney, and they are a good match as a donor, would you consider it justice that you take their kidney?


Now _that_ is a terrible analogy. It would at least make a little more sense if said stabber was a police officer, since they'd then be the enforcement arm of the state. And thankfully in my state at least, that would indeed give me grounds to win a civil lawsuit against the officer. They'd also face criminal charges.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Your opinion = irrelevant, and nothing will change my mind.


Then why quote me, why reply to me? It seems as my opinion is very relevant, and you're just coping.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Then why quote me, why reply to me? It seems as my opinion is very relevant, and you're just coping.


I don't have a problem quoting people with irrelevant opinion.

But thanks, because you clearly think that you would only quote people with a relevant opinion & you quoted me.

My opinions are therefore very relevant. All of them.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 24, 2022)

if abotion is murder then BJ's are pure Canibalism


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Now _that_ is a terrible analogy. It would at least make a little more sense if said stabber was a police officer, since they'd then be the enforcement arm of the state. And thankfully in my state at least, that would indeed give me grounds to win a civil lawsuit against the officer



I agree.  But why can't you answer the question?  Your response is everything but.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I don't have a problem quoting people with irrelevant opinion.
> 
> But thanks, because you clearly think that you would only quote people with a relevant opinion & you quoted me.


nah, I was quoting to ask why you quoted me if my opinion, was, per say, "irrelevant".

If you want to debate over this or that, go ahead, but just know neither of us are wrong, it's just a matter of opinion.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Your opinion = irrelevant, and nothing will change my mind.
> 
> 
> Babies aren't being murdered. Fetus are being aborted.
> ...


and considering they want contraception banned too is pure dumbassery it's like they WANT to over populate the world til we starve


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course it would be. Pregnancy has a small chance of causing bodily harm, a compulsory kidney transplant inevitably leads to losing a kidney. I can’t hold the state liable for unexpected twists of fate, I can hold it liable for deliberate organ theft. There is no uncertainty in regards to a compulsory organ transplant - the donor is losing an organ, at minimum.
> 
> _*hums “one of those things is not like the other”*_
> 
> ...


Your issue appears to boil down to "but the risks associated with pregnancy are lower than the risks associated with kidney donation."

1. That wouldn't matter even if true. It's still an issue of the state interfering with bodily autonomy, which is the point.
2. In terms of the detrimental effects to the patient of donating a kidney, it can range from not much at all to fatal, similar to pregnancy. The odds of health risks are comparable between the two (again, not that it matters).
3. Like I mentioned earlier, we could change the hypothetical to be about temporarily losing a kidney, and it'd fix all your bad objections.
4. We could change the analogy to be about blood donation instead of kidney donation, and that would also fix any bad objections you have.
5. Your objections are absurd, and the idea that forced pregnancy isn't "direct and deliberate harm" would be laughable if it weren't sad.



tabzer said:


> I've made the point before @Lacius, that the analogy of forced organ transplant does not coordinate with the conditions of a forced pregnancy.  It is a broken analogy of convenience.  You apparently hate analogies, and only use them as a last resort.  (You are bad at them)
> 
> A life is created and it is indentured to its condition.  Those responsible to creating this indentured condition are responsible for maintaining it, or providing an alternative that is better, not worse--unless they are willing to sacrifice that life.  Your organ transplant analogy will not acknowledge a situation where the person being forced to give an organ made the organ transplant necessary.


Should all parents be forced to be organ donors to their biological children, regardless of the circumstances, if the need arises?


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> nah, I was quoting to ask why you quoted me if my opinion, was, per say, "irrelevant".
> 
> If you want to debate over this or that, go ahead, but just know neither of us are wrong, it's just a matter of opinion.



If you want to have a debate, then you need to step back from your current trolling strategy of using wrong words.

But you clearly said that you considered quoting someone as thinking they were relevant. I disagree with that, so it doesn't describe my actions, but it describes yours.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Should all parents be forced to be organ donors to their biological children, regardless of the circumstances, if the need arises?


This perfectly misses the point.  Well done.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> 4. We could change the analogy to be about blood donation instead of kidney donation, and that would also fix any bad objections you have.


I already tried that, he straw manned me.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> This perfectly misses the point.  Well done.


No it doesn't, if you can be forced to sustain a fetus using your body before birth then why not your biological children after birth.

It's just inconvenient because it doesn't fit your black/white narrative.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> And yes, sex does lead to pregnancy, if done correctly.  The pregnancy is a reasonable expectation.  When would you argue that people should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions when the consequences are the expected outcome?


For >99% of human sex on this planet, sex that does not lead to pregnancy was sex done correctly. In other words, for the vast majority of sex, pregnancy is not the goal.

Sex is not consent to pregnancy, regardless of the risks and regardless of any other circumstance for that matter.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> This perfectly misses the point.  Well done.


I asked you a question that addresses your objections. If you're having a conversation about abortion in good faith (lol), you'll answer it. I could have addressed your objections one by one, but this should clear things up much more efficiently.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Sex is not consent to pregnancy, regardless of the risks


Similarly crossing the road, is not consent to being run over. Even though there is that risk.



Lacius said:


> If you're having a conversation about abortion in good faith (lol),


If that ever happens then I'll organize a street party.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 24, 2022)

chrisrlink said:


> and considering they want contraception banned too is pure dumbassery it's like they WANT to over populate the world til we starve


People are products. Without a working class, without someone to exploit, many political infrastructures would collapse. If women were forced to give birth regardless of scenario or outcome, then those at the top would have a never ending supply of workers to exploit, soldiers to fight for them, and people to manipulate. Same thing with Christianity as a whole and a few other nationwide religions.

Every baby we kill takes potential money away from the wealthy and powerful.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Your opinion = irrelevant, and nothing will change my mind.
> 
> 
> Babies aren't being murdered. Fetus are being aborted.
> ...


did you really just add on to think I wouldn't notice? Man, we live in a society where people try to go behind your back, but I will reply to this.



smf said:


> Babies aren't being murdered. Fetus are being aborted.
> 
> There is a big difference, which society as a whole understands.


Then society is dumb.



smf said:


> How do you know they had unprotected sex? How would they prove that? Protection doesn't always work.
> 
> Women aren't having unprotected sex and then routinely getting abortions. I know women who have had a single abortion, it wasn't due to them having unprotected sex.
> 
> ...


While it's true that you cannot prove they had unprotected sex, you still shouldn't snuff out a human life just because it's inconvenient for you. 
I also understand that they aren't routinely getting abortions, but it still makes me think horribly of the practice itself, especially when it was proven they sell the fetuses for profit. If we had to have abortion, I'd much prefer that clinics like planned parenthood be banned.
Finally, I'll repeat what I just said, just because I don't want to see babies die does not mean I hate women. That's some backwards ass way of thinking, and it's pretty goddamn fucking stupid of someone to presume you hate women because you hate seeing babies die, and are willing to compromise on cases of rape or death.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 24, 2022)

SexiestManAlive said:


> if the baby or mothers life is in danger because of the birth, or if someone is raped, they should 100% be able to get an abortion, if you wanna say protect the rest go ahead, but removing that ability from rape victims and people that can die from it, is just outright retarded. And if its murdering unborn children, as I said to someone else, my sperm leaving my body and going splash into the toilet is also murder.


yah and that evil PA GOP candidate endorsed by trump just wan't that NO exeptions (just wait for the wrongful death lawsuits  in that state to pile up due to mother's dying for fatal pregnancy/child birtth speaking of i'm supprised no exceptions occur for prepubesic pregnancy from rape or othewise (I heard stories of children as young as 10 giving birth it does happen


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> did you really just add on to think I wouldn't notice? Man, we live in a society where people try to go behind your back, but I will reply to this.


It's called not double posting, you really are a piece of work.



KennyAtom said:


> While it's true that you cannot prove they had unprotected sex, you still shouldn't snuff out a human life just because it's inconvenient for you.


Well I don't consider a fetus a "human life". But if you do & you said earlier that you supported abortion for rape. Then your argument is seriously fucked up.

How would you even deal with that? Only allow an abortion after a successful prosecution for rape?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> It's called not double posting, you really are a piece of work.


Never called it that, and the fact you're willing to lie about something as small as that shows that you are a pathological liar and cannot be trusted. I said you edited your post to try and get behind me, make me look stupid.



smf said:


> Well I don't consider a fetus a "human life". But if you do & you said earlier that you supported abortion for rape. Then your argument is seriously fucked up.
> 
> How would you even deal with that? Only allow an abortion after a successful prosecution for rape?


If there was a court case going on for it, then yeah. No point in waiting for a successful trial, actually getting the grand jury to have a doubt enough to indict the person into a actual trial is enough.

Also how is it fucked up? Do you support rape itself? Do you support having women give birth to rape babies? If not, then my argument isn't fucked up, it's just the pathological liar side coming out.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

SexiestManAlive said:


> or if someone is raped, they should 100% be able to get an abortion,


If you haven't seen a fatal flaw in that argument, then you probably hate men too..

If a woman, can only get an abortion if she goes to the police and says she was raped and she can't cope & wants an abortion. How many men do you think will end up in court having to prove they didn't rape them (which is basically impossible).


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Never called it that, and the fact you're willing to lie about something as small as that shows that you are a pathological liar and cannot be trusted. I said you edited your post to try and get behind me, make me look stupid.


I added to my post because I had something else I wanted to say. I've been criticized for writing multiple posts in the past and to go back to edit my current post.

You look stupid by your own actions and now you're looking paranoid or disingenuous .


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> For >99% of human sex on this planet, sex that does not lead to pregnancy was sex done correctly. In other words, for the vast majority of sex, pregnancy is not the goal.
> 
> Sex is not consent to pregnancy, regardless of the risks and regardless of any other circumstance for that matter



The biological function of sex is reproduction.  Having sex is consent to the "risks" involved.



Lacius said:


> I asked you a question that addresses your objections. If you're having a conversation about abortion in good faith (lol), you'll answer it. I could have addressed your objections one by one, but this should clear things up much more efficiently.



Your question didn't factor in how the parents are creating the conditions for their children's ailments.  It is intentionally blurring causality.  If you want to ask me if one thinks a parent should be required to feed and shelter their children, well I doubt anyone would contest that.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The biological function of sex is reproduction.  Having sex is consent to the "risks" involved.


The biological function of sex is orgasm. Reproduction just tagged along as an occasional side effect.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> You look stupid by your own actions and now you're looking paranoid or disingenuous .


Nah man, I know I don't look stupid, now you're just trying to gaslight me, editing your posts and then calling me paranoid, trying to make me second guess myself.



smf said:


> I added to my post because I had something else I wanted to say. I've been criticized for writing multiple posts in the past and to go back to edit my current post.


That makes sense, but that doesn't explain why you called me stupid or paranoid. Now I'm beginning to think this is all a ruse to make me look really stupid.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Nah man, I know I don't look stupid,


As someone who refuses to use words correctly, you always look stupid.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> As someone who refuses to use words correctly, you always look stupid.


Now we've resorted to name calling, when will the left learn this never works to discourage people from speaking out?


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> That makes sense, but that doesn't explain why you called me stupid or paranoid. Now I'm beginning to think this is all a ruse to make me look really stupid.


Paranoid because you think I edited my post to make you look stupid.

Stupid because you said I was trying to make you look stupid, when I don't have to.

You bought up looking stupid.


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I agree.  But why can't you answer the question?  Your response is everything but.


The question is ridiculous, so I did answer a more realistic form of it.  No, an eye for an eye is not "progressive" in any sense of the word, that's some old testament shit which is something pretty much only conservatives and boomers believe in.  I would naturally defend my life and/or my family to the death if it truly came to that, but that's a very different subject.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Now we've resorted to name calling, when will the left learn this never works to discourage people from speaking out?


You resorted to name calling. You only think it's the left that needs to learn this, because you always argue with people on the left and insult them, then do this whole victim act.

If you want to speak out, rather than troll for page after page then please go ahead.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> You resorted to name calling. You only think it's the left that needs to learn this, because you always argue with people on the left and insult them, then do this whole victim act.
> 
> If you want to speak out, rather than troll for page after page then please go ahead.


again, just because I call out stuff doesn't mean i'm trolling. I do genuinely believe the stuff I say. Just because you cannot handle this doesn't mean I'm a troll.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Xzi said:


> The question is ridiculous, so I did answer a more realistic form of it.  No, an eye for an eye is not "progressive" in any sense of the word, that's some old testament shit which is something pretty much only conservatives and boomers believe in.



It's progressive because it allows us to escalate our points of interest.

So...  You don't think it's just to get a kidney to replace a kidney that was taken from you because it's "old testament".

But you'd be okay with dying ,due to lack of a transplant, as long as your estate (family) can sue?


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> and it's pretty goddamn fucking stupid of someone to presume you hate women because you hate seeing babies die, and are willing to compromise on cases of rape or death.


You aren't seeing babies die, fetus aren't babies.

If you want to put your point across then you should say you hate fetus die.

Compromise on cases of rape or death? Well then expect an increase in wrongful rape allegations and suicides.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Your issue appears to boil down to "but the risks associated with pregnancy are lower than the risks associated with kidney donation."


No, it doesn’t. The risk associated with pregnancy is potential - it’s a possibility, not a definite outcome. The outcome of stealing a kidney is definite and inevitable - you set out to take an organ away, and you do just that. The kidney donation scenario directly violates bodily integrity by *opening someone’s body up and removing an organ*. It doesn’t matter if you’re planning to give it back or not - you shouldn’t have taken it in the first place, the damage is done. By comparison, not assisting someone in the pursuit of abortion violates nothing - pregnancy isn’t an illness, but rather a natural state of being for a woman’s body to be in. Nobody is obligated to intervene in it upon request. The only thing that’s absurd in this exchange so far is that you’ve somehow managed to equate action with inaction, potential harm with definite harm, sickness with health etc. and see absolutely nothing wrong with any of it. I’m not even advocating for any of this and I can see how nonsensical your position is - your analogy is bad. It was bad when you presented it in the past, and it’s bad this time around.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> again, just because I call out stuff doesn't mean i'm trolling. I do genuinely believe the stuff I say. Just because you cannot handle this doesn't mean I'm a troll.


You're not calling out stuff, you're making your point in a provocative way for the purposes of trolling.

If you could stop yourself from doing that, then I wouldn't call you a troll.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> You aren't seeing babies die, fetus aren't babies.
> 
> If you want to put your point across then you should say you hate fetus die.
> 
> Compromise on cases of rape or death? Well then expect an increase in wrongful rape allegations and suicides.


So they're going to kill themselves to get an abortion? That sounds stupid.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> You're not calling out stuff, you're making your point in a provocative way for the purposes of trolling.
> 
> If you could stop yourself from doing that, then I wouldn't call you a troll.


I am not trolling, just because you cannot handle the fact that someone has a different opinion doesn't mean they're trolling.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> No, it doesn’t. The risk associated with pregnancy is potential - it’s a possibility, not a definite outcome. The outcome of stealing a kidney is definite and inevitable - you set out to take an organ away, and you do just that..


But you can live with only one kidney.


----------



## Xzi (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It's progressive because it allows us to escalate our points of interest.
> 
> So...  You don't think it's just to get a kidney to replace a kidney that was taken from you because it's "old testament".


To force that person to give up their kidney is not necessary, there's a 99% chance that there's a better, healthier donor available anyway.



tabzer said:


> But you'd be okay with dying ,due to lack of a transplant, as long as your estate (family) can sue?


Obviously not.  A person can survive with a single kidney for a long time.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I am not trolling, just because you cannot handle the fact that someone has a different opinion doesn't mean they're trolling.


I am perfectly happy discussing opinions respectfully with people I disagree with, I do it all the time.

I'm only accusing you of trolling, because of your behavior. The whole gaslighting act confirmed it.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Xzi said:


> To force that person to give up their kidney is not necessary, there's a 99% chance that there's a better, healthier donor available anyway.


You're assuming they are willing, we are talking about if they are not.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> So they're going to kill themselves to get an abortion? That sounds stupid.


They are going to kill themselves because they can't cope with trauma of having to go through a pregnancy.

Not only does that not sound stupid, but it happens already.

If you didn't hate women, you would have compassion for them.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> But you can live with only one kidney.


You can live after 12 pregnancies. What point are you making, exactly?

The analogy is bad. Adding 865 provisos or additional conditions to it won’t make it any less bad. If we’re not going to agree that the theft of an organ and a pregnancy are not equivalent, there’s really no point in continuing with this thought experiment - the premise is ludicrous, for the reasons mentioned above and more. Even if the risks involved in the two procedures were indentical, one assumes the state directly acting upon a citizen to deprive them of an organ (as in, literally tearing into their body and removing it) while the other assumes the state does absolutely nothing to the body in question (and nature takes its course). One is a clear violation, the other is not. The two situations are not alike, regardless of the risks involved. Even someone who *doesn’t* advocate for such a solution can see that.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I am perfectly happy discussing opinions respectfully with people I disagree with, I do it all the time.
> 
> I'm only accusing you of trolling, because of your behavior. The whole gaslighting act confirmed it.


just because i misunderstood the meaning of the word doesn't mean I'm trolling.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You can live after 12 pregnancies. What point are you making, exactly?


I made a point very clearly. The fact you then make a non point, is irrelevant.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Not only does that not sound stupid, but it happens already.
> 
> If you didn't hate women, you would have compassion for them.


Here we go again with the "you hate women" drivel spouted by dumbasses.

Yes, it sucks when people kill themselves, yes i feel sorry for anyone who is driven to that.

Doing it because you have to give birth is kinda stupid.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> just because i misunderstood the meaning of the word doesn't mean I'm trolling.


Using words wrong and refusing to accept that you use them wrong and that you will never stop using them wrong, is though.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I made a point very clearly. The fact you then make a non point, is irrelevant.


Your point boils down to “you can live with one kidney, so it’s okay to steal organs”, which is the single dumbest thing I’ve heard all day. You don’t believe that, so I don’t know why you’d use it as an argument in a discussion.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Xzi said:


> To force that person to give up their kidney is not necessary, there's a 99% chance that there's a better, healthier donor available anyway.
> 
> 
> Obviously not.  A person can survive with a single kidney for a long time.



I am not interested in playing D&D with you.  No offense.  I was trying approach a point of mutual understanding, but you are very attached to your "ackshually" persona.  You win, and you suck for it.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Doing it because you have to give birth is kinda stupid.


I don't think you understand quite what it's like for the women that go through an abortion.

You don't want to understand. You just want to judge them from your ivory tower.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Your point boils down to “you can live with one kidney, so it’s okay to steal organs”, which is the single dumbest thing I’ve heard all day. You don’t believe that, so I don’t know why you’d use it as an argument in a discussion.


I don't believe that, I'm saying that the state forcing you to give up a kidney when you have two is no different to forcing a woman go through a single pregnancy rather than having an abortion. Women don't repeatedly have abortions, so why would my analogy include taking organs multiple times?

Single dumbest thing? Well from where I'm sitting, I have to say you lot are far ahead of me.

Do all pro lifers act like trolls, as I'm starting to see a trend here.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I don't believe that, I'm saying that stealing a kidney from someone who has two is no different to forcing a woman go through a single pregnancy rather than having an abortion.


Forcing? There’s no force involved - she’s already pregnant. It’s different than stealing a kidney, in every possible way. The biggest way it’s different in is the part where you open someone’s body and tear an organ out - that doesn’t normally happen.

You guys are something else. I’ve lost interest in discussing the kidney scenario, it’s obviously not being argued in good faith anyway, so there’s nothing to be gained from delving deeper.

For the record, I haven’t even stated an opinion on this matter - I just saw a stupid analogy, and pointed it out. In response, all of you got together single file and started jumping off a cliff like lemmings to double down. It’s like watching a movie.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I don't think you understand quite what it's like for the women that go through an abortion.
> 
> You don't want to understand. You just want to judge them from your ivory tower.


Or maybe I hate seeing babies die.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Forcing? There’s no force involved - she’s already pregnant. It’s different than stealing a kidney, in every possible way.


No it's not, you already have two kidneys. We can take one and you'll live.

She already has a fetus inside her, we'll force her to carry it to term and she'll live.

If she doesn't want to carry the fetus, but you take away her right to an abortion then you are forcing her.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Or maybe I hate seeing babies die.


Why are you watching them die then?


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> For the record, I haven’t even stated an opinion on this matter - I just saw a stupid analogy, and pointed it out. In response, all of you got together single file and started jumping off a cliff like lemmings to double down. It’s like watching a movie.



This is a good analogy, about a bad analogy, for anyone paying attention.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> No it's not, you already have two kidneys. We can take one and you'll live.


It’s my kidney. You actually *can’t* take it, regardless of whether it threatens my life or not. You don’t have my permission. If you’re planning to take it against my will, you’ll have to use force.


smf said:


> She already has a fetus inside her, we'll force her to carry it to term and she'll live.
> 
> If she doesn't want to carry the fetus, but you take away her right to an abortion then you are forcing her.


I’m not forcing her to do anything - I don’t have to participate in every single endeavour offered to me.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s my kidney. You actually *can’t* take it, regardless of whether it threatens my life or not. You don’t have my permission. If you’re planning to take it against my will, you’ll have to use force.


And the fetus doesn't have the woman's permission to stay.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> And the fetus doesn't have the woman's permission to stay.


Who put it in there?


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Who put it in there?


Kidneys, duh.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Who put it in there?


Legally, consent and biological processes are two separate things.

You can't use the argument that because a woman had an orgasm, that she consented to sex.

Therefore you can't use consenting to sex and getting pregnant as consenting to the pregnancy either.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Legally, consent and biological processes are two separate things.
> 
> You can't use the argument that a woman had an orgasm, that she consented to sex.
> 
> Therefore you can't use a pregnancy to construe that she consented to it either.


I am asking you how it ended up in there. Are you answering the question or not? Funnily enough, if abortion worked according to the same principles you guys have regarding evictions, your entire argument would be fucked. You don’t want to tell the truth, or operate from a point of mutual understanding, so I’m not interested in discussing anything with you.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I am asking you how it ended up in there.



You don't know? I assumed you did.

A man and a woman have a special cuddle....

The other points were obviously too difficult for you to argue with, so I'll take that as a win.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> You don't know?


You’re wasting everyone’s time.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You’re wasting everyone’s time.


I made a rational point which you ignored and instead you focused on that I didn't tell you how babies were made, which I had assumed was a rhetorical question.

So it falls upon you, as it always does, as the person who is wasting everyone's time.

Women are born with all the eggs that they will ever ovulate, they did not consent to them being put in their bodies.
Men's testicles create sperm all the time, without the man's consent.

The sperm reaches the egg and fertilizes it, without either the man or woman's consent.

Happy now?


----------



## SexiestManAlive (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> If you haven't seen a fatal flaw in that argument, then you probably hate men too..
> 
> If a woman, can only get an abortion if she goes to the police and says she was raped and she can't cope & wants an abortion. How many men do you think will end up in court having to prove they didn't rape them (which is basically impossible).


took me a bit to realize but yea your right


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

SexiestManAlive said:


> took me a bit to realize but yea your right


It's the rule of unintended consequences, the best option is always a compromise that everyone hates equally than trying to go for something you like.

Roe vs Wade was the closest to perfect you'll ever have, it's all down hill from here.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I made a rational point which you ignored and instead you focused on that I didn't tell you how babies were made, which I had assumed was a rhetorical question.
> 
> So it falls upon you, as it always does, as the person who is wasting everyone's time.


Here’s why it matters. When I go for a nice drive, I do so for the purposes of entertainment. This activity carries some risks - I accept them as a given when stepping into the vehicle. I endeavour to drive safely, and getting into an accident isn’t my goal, but the possibility that I will get into one is always there. Should I plow right into a pedestrian and the accident is my fault, I am responsible for it regardless of whether I intended to do that or not. I operate on the assumption that even an amoeba realised that, so all this nonsense about consenting to the fetus being there is poppycock. Someone’s actions put it there, and it is now encumbent on them to deal with it, whatever that may entail. You can keep your red herring to yourself - a woman doesn’t “catch pregnancy” because someone sneezed on her. Even if the sex is recreational, the possibility of becoming pregnant is a known quantity she must necessarily accept when engaging in a risky activity. Her “lack of consent to being pregnant” doesn’t absolve her of responsibility. This is not a good pro choice argument, and never was.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

yes


smf said:


> Why are you watching them die then?


and they say i'm the troll.

of course i'm not watching them die. i meant that I don't want them to die at all.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 24, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> What's your source for that? Roe's threshold is more conservative than that.



There's recent buzz on social media and in liberal news media that points towards acceptance of having abortions at any time during the pregnancy. It's mainly stemming from the Colorado Governor's recent law he passed. I read a lot of posts from liberals on twitter, facebook and reddit relating to news and current events and most of the liberals think this is a great idea. Don't believe me? Go browse for a few hours or simply keep your head in the sand. Either way it doesn't bother me.

As for the bill Colorado Democratic Governor Jared Polis just signed you'll notice when reading about the bill that it codifies the existing laws in which there is no gestational time limit. That's where most of the discussion is happening - the lack of a gestational time limit, which in layman's terms allows abortions at any time during the pregnancy.

*Colorado Governor Signs Bill Legalizing Abortion Up Until Birth*

- https://dailycaller.com/2022/04/04/colorado-governor-signs-bill-legalizing-abortion-birth/

*Colorado governor signs bill codifying the right to abortion in state law*

- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-abortion-law-2022-governor-jared-polis-signs-bill/

*Colorado governor signs bill to protect access to abortion*

- https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/04/...ts-bill-governor-jared-polis-signs/index.html

EDIT:

There's also this (unrelated to the Colorado bill);

*Backlash builds after Dems vote to legalize abortion up to birth*

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...e-to-legalize-abortion-up-to-birth/ar-AAXo7hr


----------



## SG854 (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The biological function of sex is reproduction.  Having sex is consent to the "risks" involved.
> 
> 
> 
> Your question didn't factor in how the parents are creating the conditions for their children's ailments.  It is intentionally blurring causality.  If you want to ask me if one thinks a parent should be required to feed and shelter their children, well I doubt anyone would contest that.


With modern technology people can enjoy sex without many risks involved. Why do you want risks involved?


----------



## Nothereed (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> dehumanizing hurts everyone.


Not really dehumanizing if the main thing is any brain function at all, thus no actual harm. They didn't feel that pain, not aware of being alive or their own heart or needs.
 At that point it's still a shell. the shell develops first before "the soul" if you want me to put it in one of your guys spiritual beliefs.


----------



## Nothereed (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> The problem I have is when people get abortions to get out of the consequences of having sex. That's when it irks me.


...
BRUUUUH
Do you think people can get abortions because they don't have sex? An abortion without fucking?
Like... Last time I checked in order to get an abortion you need to have a fetus developing, which requires getting it on. That's a really ridiculous statement. Incel logic much?


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> of course i'm not watching them die. i meant that I don't want them to die at all.


I didn't want to presume what kind of videos you look at on the internet.

Maybe if you used the right words for things then it would save any confusion.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You either agree with my statement and dislike the language, or disagree with my statement because you dislike the language.  Which is it?  "You're a cuck" is not an argument.  Pretending that you are privy to my sexual relationships just makes you a pervert.


You've made plenty of statements, all troubling but only a couple quite worrying.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

SG854 said:


> With modern technology people can enjoy sex *without many risks* involved. Why do you *want risks involved*?



Why are you asking if people wanted any risks, when your first statement asserts there are some risks.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> There's recent buzz on social media and in liberal news media that points towards acceptance of having abortions at any time during the pregnancy.


An abortion of a dead fetus, instead of forcing them to go to term. In cases of saving the mothers life, they would usually try to save the fetus if possible by inducing the birth or caesarean section.

Similar to roe v wade cut off in usual circumstances, but then the buzz on social media probably overlooks that (as have you).


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> An abortion of a dead fetus. Instead of forcing them to go to term.
> 
> The same roe v wade cut off in usual circumstances, but then the buzz on social media probably overlooks that (as have you).



What's your source for this information? Where in the Colorado law does it state that that the no gestational time limit only applies to a dead fetus (your words, not mine)?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

SG854 said:


> With modern technology people can enjoy sex without many risks involved. Why do you want risks involved?


It’s not so much about pursuing risks as it it about risk being priced into the equation. Ideally recreational sex should never lead to pregnancy - that would resolve the abortion debacle almost entirely. Unfortunately it does, so we have to come up with a mutually satisfactory middle ground. I’ve read an interesting article yesterday, it featured a survey about how U.S. citizens feel like Roe v. Wade. Naturally the majority wants abortion to remain legal - that much was expected. What was interesting was that the same majority also wanted to see restrictions on abortion, some more sensible than others. You’d *expect* to see support for unrestrained access since society is increasingly liberal, but that’s not what the results show. An interesting read, one that shows that people generally support the right to choose, but with some caveats.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/sh...ant-some-restrictions-on-abortions-poll-shows

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/7301...bortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions

The NPR article shows detailed results from a 2019 survey, the PBS one is less detailed, but much more recent. The sentiment is the same.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Here’s why it matters. When I go for a nice drive, I do so for the purposes of entertainment. This activity carries some risks - I accept them as a given when stepping into the vehicle. I endeavour to drive safely, and getting into an accident isn’t my goal, but the possibility that I will get into one is always there. Should I plow right into a pedestrian


When people have sex, they do so for the purposes of entertainment. This activity carries some risks - which they acccept. They endevaour to have safe sex and getting pregnant is not their goal. But the possibility is always there.

You seem to have purposefully misunderstood my point. I was referring to you as a pedestrian crossing the road. No ambulance for you when you got knocked over, because you knew the risks of crossing the road. You're just a drain on society at that point, for something you chose.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> An interesting read, one that shows that people generally support the right to choose, but with some caveats.


Yes, only the pro lifers talk about scare stories of completely unrestricted abortions. Because inducing that fear is how they manipulate people into a knee jerk reaction of stopping all abortions.

I'm liberal and maybe the current time scales could be moved to reduce the window a little. The vase majority of abortions take place in less than half the deadline. But I think women and doctors are better suited to deciding what should change. Maybe nothing should.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You've made plenty of statements, all troubling but only a couple quite worrying.



I guess it's fair to assume I'll be waiting a while if I am expecting substance.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> What's your source for this information? Where in the Colorado law does it state that that the no gestational time limit only applies to a dead fetus (your words, not mine)?


I think I posted it the last time you ran with this.

Is it this one? https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb20-1098

Full text here 

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020A/bills/2020a_1098_01.pdf


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I posted it the last time you ran with this.



So, you posted a reply to something that I hadn't posted yet? What are you on?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Yes, only the pro lifers talk about scare stories of completely unrestricted abortions. Because inducing that fear is how they manipulate people into a knee jerk reaction of stopping all abortions.
> 
> I'm liberal and maybe the current time scales could be moved to reduce the window a little. The vase majority of abortions take place in less than half the deadline. But I think women and doctors are better suited to deciding what should change. Maybe nothing should.


You’ve said something reasonable and interesting for a change. I like this new you. Why do you think the current window could be reduced? Can you substantiate that opinion?


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> An abortion of a dead fetus, instead of forcing them to go to term. In cases of saving the mothers life, they would usually try to save the fetus if possible by inducing the birth or caesarean section.
> 
> Similar to roe v wade cut off in usual circumstances, but then the buzz on social media probably overlooks that (as have you).



I see you edited your post, but you're wrong. The sentiment is about having an abortion at any time regardless if the baby is alive or dead. The Colorado law that I posted about allow abortions up until birth regardless if the baby is dead or alive. Then there's also the law Congress just tried to pass that allows abortion up until birth, regardless if the baby is alive or dead. All of the discussion surrounding these events aren't related to the baby being dead. So your claims are invalid. The liberals I've been discussing literally want to be able to abort babies for any reason dead or alive at any point during the pregnancy.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You’ve said something reasonable and interesting for a change. I like this new you. Why do you think the current window could be reduced? Can you substantiate that opinion?


I got bored with your incessant trolling, basically if you don't see me being reasonable then it's because you aren't being reasonable. I mirror people, because people only respect how they act. Like Putin won't respect diplomacy when he is being aggressive, he will only stop if you are aggressive back.

I don't personally have an opinion on if the current window could be reduced, I'm saying that there is room for discussion on the issue because I am liberal, but I don't think any of us should be involved in that discussion.

But any "ALL ABORTION IS MURDER" posts, I'll go toe to toe with.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> As for the bill Colorado Democratic Governor Jared Polis just signed you'll notice when reading about the bill that it codifies the existing laws in which there is no gestational time limit.


The existing law appears to https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020A/bills/2020a_1098_01.pdf

_The bill prohibits any person from intentionally or recklessly performing or attempting to perform an abortion on a person if the gestational age of the fetus is 22 weeks or older except in limited circumstances._

Are you saying this isn't an existing law?
Or that it doesn't say what I quoted?
Or that what I quoted doesn't mean the same as what you said?


----------



## chrisrlink (May 24, 2022)

this is just f-ed up cause some states equate still birth (even out of your control) as 1st dregree murder https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/28/opinion/stillborn-murder-charge.html


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I think I posted it the last time you ran with this.
> 
> Is it this one? https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb20-1098
> 
> ...



Thanks for the link, but the law you linked to was introduced and then "Postponed Indefinitely". It's not law and I don't think the hundreds of news outlets that covered this story got the fact that there's no gestational time limit wrong.

*"The motion failed on a vote of 3-6."*

Source for postponement: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb20-1098 (Click on "bill history")


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I got bored with your incessant trolling, basically if you don't see me being reasonable then it's because you aren't being reasonable. I mirror people, because people only respect how they act. Like Putin won't respect diplomacy when he is being aggressive, he will only stop if you are aggressive back.
> 
> I don't personally have an opinion on if the current window could be reduced, I'm saying that there is room for discussion on the issue because I am liberal, but I don't think any of us should be involved in that discussion.
> 
> But any "ALL ABORTION IS MURDER" posts, I'll go toe to toe with.


Nevermind, you’re skating right into babble again. I didn’t ask you about Putin, or what’s your political alignment - I asked you why you think the window could be reduced, regardless of whether you personally think it should be reduced or not.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I asked you why you think the window could be reduced, regardless of whether you personally think it should be reduced or not.


Which I clearly answered and so it's time you took your meds, missy. If you want me to be reasonable, don't be a jerk.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Thanks for the link, but the law you linked to was introduced and then "Postponed Indefinitely".


Fair enough, well I still don't believe that the bill gives the rights you say it does and neither does

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...orado-law-does-not-allow-abortions-until-mom/

If it turns out that he did, then it will get overturned for sure as the status quo is based on roe vs wade


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Which I clearly answered and so it's time you took your meds, missy. If you want me to be reasonable, don't be a jerk.


You said that you don’t have a personal opinion and that there’s room for a discussion. That’s not an argument for or against reducing the window in question. You didn’t answer the question, you said a bunch of unrelated guff and then got flustered when I said that’s not an answer.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

My point is that I'm pro choice for a number of male-centric reasons. I'm not gonna pretend I have a bleeding heart for women, or that I want to win the Mother Therese prize. Because despite the pretentious nonsense the right-wingers and libertarians of this thread are spouting (you know, the people clucthing FREEDUMB to their chest but then all too happy to curtail the freedom of OTHERS to make decisions of their own goddamn body - same people who were crying out bloody murder for masks and vaccines, yet somehow think that 9-months pregancies and a lifetime of support are A-OK to accept without appeal), perfectly valid reasons exist.

First of all, nutcases *do *exist. In my line of work I've seen evidence of more than a couple guys, or girls, DELIBERATELY sabotaging condoms by way of puncturing them, in order to trap their partner with a pregnancy, AKA "stealthing", which is in fact a crime but that's beside the point. Now, where I come from, the right to refuse paternity (or maternity) does exist BUT the other parent can (and usually does) demand a judge to legally recognise the other parent, with the obvious consequences of pecuniary obligations (which can also be applied RETROACTIVELY). So, if the woman does it, it's usually tough luck, as you can't force a woman to abort (just like you shouldn't force her to carry out a pregnancy) and stealthing is exceedingly difficult to prove without a confession, but if it's the man doing the entrapping, a woman should have the possibility of getting out that pregnancy, and trap, without having to justify herself to a bunch of bigots.

Secondly, there are medical reasons. I am allergic to latex, which means that all condoms, even latex-free ones which are always a 50-50 gamble at best, can be uncomfortable, or worse. Now, in my teen years, I blitzed through the pain, but in my adulthood, I'm nowhere as inclined to feel that - but I'm also not inclined to give up sex. Does that mean I should be having a kid every time I have sex? Thankfully, other techniques exist (reliable ones, not crazy like a friend of mine does who simply pulls out, even if it has worked for him until now) but even so, the absolute mahority of them require girl compliance. I'm sure there's plenty of guys (and girls) who share my same predicament.

Thirdly, even if this should be pretty obvious, while accidental parents can be great and voluntary parents can be absolutely shitty, there is the undeniable fact that WANTING a child should be one of the first, if not THE first, factor(s) to consider when deciding whether a pregnancy needs to go forward or not. And this is true for fathers and mothers. If you believe in Christianity, for example, you'll recall that God created life and the universe as an act of WILL, not because He accidentally jizzed the cosmic void. Therefore the whole idea of banning abortion is anti-christian, in addition to illogical, because it's really difficult to imagine parents who are coaxed into being parents embracing their role with enthusiasm and no regrets. Let alone bitterness and resentment towards the kid.



tabzer said:


> I guess it's fair to assume I'll be waiting a while if I am expecting substance.


it's really difficult to provide substantial answers to your incel-inspired nonsense, but I hope the above paragraphs provided some perspective that goes beyond your comically-sized nose, or arse, whichever is used in your native language to imply perspective and lack thereof.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> Thanks for the link, but the law you linked to was introduced and then "Postponed Indefinitely". It's not law and I don't think the hundreds of news outlets that covered this story got the fact that there's no gestational time limit wrong.


It won't take much for a RepubliKKKunt-dominated legislature to enact it. The fact that such a law exists is an aberration. Even worse that it's the party of "less government" to do so. You know, same party talking about freedoms who is currently deciding what kids can and cannot read. Right-wingers are hypocrites and a blight on society.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> ...
> BRUUUUH
> Do you think people can get abortions because they don't have sex? An abortion without fucking?
> Like... Last time I checked in order to get an abortion you need to have a fetus developing, which requires getting it on. That's a really ridiculous statement. Incel logic much?


of course i don't think they can get abortions without sex, i'm not a incel retard who spends all his time browsing reddit.

i meant i don't want it used as a form of birth control.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> i meant i don't want it used as a form of birth control.


Then what would you want used it as?


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> My point is that I'm pro choice for a number of male-centric reasons. I'm not gonna pretend I have a bleeding heart for women, or that I want to win the Mother Therese prize. Because despite the pretentious nonsense the right-wingers and libertarians of this thread are spouting (you know, the people clucthing FREEDUMB to their chest but then all too happy to curtail the freedom of OTHERS to make decisions of their own goddamn body - same people who were crying out bloody murder for masks and vaccines, yet somehow think that 9-months pregancies and a lifetime of support are A-OK to accept without appeal), perfectly valid reasons exist.
> 
> First of all, nutcases *do *exist. In my line of work I've seen more than a couple guys, or girls, DELIBERATELY sabotaging condoms by way of puncturing them, in order to trap their partner with a pregnancy, AKA "stealthing", which is in fact a crime but that's beside the point. Now, where I come from, the right to refuse paternity (or maternity) does exist BUT the other parent can (and usually does) demand a judge to legally recognise the other parent, with the obvious consequences of pecuniary obligations (which can also be applied RETROACTIVELY). So, if the woman does it, it's usually tough luck, as you can't force a woman to abort (just like you shouldn't force her to carry out a pregnancy) and stealthing is exceedingly difficult to prove without a confession, but if it's the man doing the entrapping, a woman should have the possibility of getting out that pregnancy, and trap, without having to justify herself to a bunch of bigots.
> 
> ...



Nice soap box.  What's with you being on a gamer board calling people cucks and incel?  Are you trying to be ironic?  Take a nap.  Nothing of what you said actually addresses any point that I've made.  It's quite disappointing.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Fair enough, well I still don't believe that the bill gives the rights you say it does and neither does
> 
> https://www.politifact.com/factchec...orado-law-does-not-allow-abortions-until-mom/
> 
> If it turns out that he did, then it will get overturned for sure as the status quo is based on roe vs wade



Yes, the bill doesn't explicitly legalize abortions through 9 months as that's not what the bill is for. What the new law does is codify the existing laws. I already stated this in my post about the law. So yes, the fact check is correct, but the current law that was codified allows abortions up until birth, regardless if the baby is dead already or not for any reason the mother wants. That's why the news media is stating that women can have abortions up until birth in Colorado. It's because they can (according to the existing law that was codified by the Governor's recent bill).


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You said that you don’t have a personal opinion and that there’s room for a discussion. That’s not an argument for or against reducing the window in question. You didn’t answer the question, you said a bunch of unrelated guff and then got flustered when I said that’s not an answer.


I made my point very clearly the first time

_I'm liberal and maybe the current time scales could be moved to reduce the window a little. The vase majority of abortions take place in less than half the deadline. But I think women and doctors are better suited to deciding what should change. Maybe nothing should._

But you clearly misunderstood what I wrote

*Why do you think the current window could be reduced? Can you substantiate that opinion?*

I can't answer your question, because you are asking me to justify a position that I never claimed to have.

So either you don't understand english, or you've gone back to trolling again. I am leaning on trolling.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> of course i don't think they can get abortions without sex, i'm not a incel retard who spends all his time browsing reddit.
> 
> i meant i don't want it used as a form of birth control.



Most abortions are done out of convenience, so they are being used simply because the mother doesn't want the child (ie- as a form of birth control). Abortions for rape, incest or medical reasons are a small minority of why women get them.


----------



## Nothereed (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> of course i don't think they can get abortions without sex, i'm not a incel retard who spends all his time browsing reddit.
> 
> i meant i don't want it used as a form of birth control.


You just said


KennyAtom said:


> The problem I have is when people get abortions to get out of the consequences of having sex. That's when it irks me.


so let me ask.
Is getting raped, or having a condom breaking, or birth control failing, and getting an abortion, classified as "getting out of the consequences of having sex"

Would you support abortion in this conditions? and if so. How would you verify that they happened?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Nice soap box.  What's with you being on a gamer board calling people cucks and incel?  Are you trying to be ironic?  Take a nap.  Nothing of what you said actually addresses any point that I've made.  It's quite disappointing.


No, I'm calling you by name and surname.

It actually does, but you're illiterate.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> So yes, the fact check is correct, but the current law that was codified allows abortions up until birth, regardless if the baby is dead already or not for any reason the mother wants. That's why the news media is stating that women can have abortions up until birth in Colorado. It's because they can (according to the existing law that was codified by the Governor's recent bill).


If the existing law allows abortions until birth, then the governors recent bill hasn't changed anything.
Was anyone having abortions that late?


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Most abortions are done out of convenience, so they are being used simply because the mother doesn't want the child (ie- as a form of birth control). Abortions for rape, incest or medical reasons are a small minority of why women get them.


For rape and incest, it's still because the mother doesn't want the child as a form of birth control.
You're just saying that there are good reasons why the mother doesn't want the child and bad reasons.

Which should be no surprise as the USA is the last western country with the death penalty.

So the right to life is not quite as cut and dried. It seems to be more about fire and brimstone.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I made my point very clearly the first time
> 
> _I'm liberal and maybe the current time scales could be moved to reduce the window a little. The vase majority of abortions take place in less than half the deadline. But I think women and doctors are better suited to deciding what should change. Maybe nothing should._
> 
> ...


I think I’m going to have an aneurysm if you make one more backflip and twirl over the actual query. I’ll ask again, slowly. You said that most liberals are not in support of allowing abortion to take place regardless of the circumstances and that you can see the possibility of the current window being reduced. You’ve subsequently made it clear that you don’t share this sentiment. What I am asking you, @smf, in this year of our lord 2022, is what you think the justification for such a reduction might be, from the perspective of a liberal. What would be the justification your fellow liberals would use in this instance, in your opinion? I can’t make the question any clearer. You’re the one saying that this possibility exists - I’m asking you why it exists. Is there a specific reason you as a liberal can cite? I’m not asking you whether you agree with it or not, I’m asking you for a reason why you said what you’ve said.


----------



## Nothereed (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Abortions for rape, incest or medical reasons are a small minority of why women get them.


fails to mention condoms breaking or birth control failing.
I'll ask you the same condition as the last person I just responded to


Nothereed said:


> so let me ask.
> Is getting raped, or having a condom breaking, or birth control failing, and getting an abortion, classified as "getting out of the consequences of having sex"
> 
> *Would you support abortion in this conditions? and if so. How would you verify that they happened?*


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I think I’m going to have an aneurysm if you make one more backflip and twirl over the actual query. I’ll ask again, slowly. You said that most liberals are not in support of allowing abortion to take place regardless of the circumstances and that you can see the possibility of the current window being reduced. You’ve subsequently made it clear that you don’t share this sentiment. What I am asking you, @smf, in this year of our lord 2022, is what you think the justification for such a reduction might be, from the perspective of a liberal. What would be the justification your fellow liberals would use in this instance, in your opinion? I can’t make the question any clearer.


The point I've repeatedly tried to make, which is falling on deaf ears.

Is that as a man without any kind of specialist medical knowledge (as we all are), I personally can't justify a reduction. That is what being liberal means, realizing that there are strong arguments on both sides and that it's difficult to choose between them.

All I know, is that your views are too extreme and I'll argue against them. But as for moving up or down a week or two, it's a much more complex issue. I am not going to go out there and distill everyone elses arguments for you. If someone makes a compelling argument and it seems about right, then I'll let you know.

Maybe if you can begin to understand that, then you'll make some progress.

If you wanted to make an argument for moving up or down a couple of weeks, backed by some kind of scientific evidence then I'll consider it.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> The point I've repeatedly tried to make, which is falling on deaf ears.
> 
> Is that as a man without any kind of specialist medical knowledge (as we all are), I personally can't justify a reduction. That is what being liberal means, realizing that there are strong arguments on both sides and that it's difficult to choose between them.
> 
> ...


You don’t know my views, I haven’t stated them as of yet.


----------



## MicroNut99 (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Most abortions are done out of convenience, so they are being used simply because the mother doesn't want the child (ie- as a form of birth control). Abortions for rape, incest or medical reasons are a small minority of why women get them.


"Most abortions are done out of convenience"
This statement is born out of ignorance, chauvinistic at best and a lie at worst.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> If you wanted to make an argument for moving up or down a couple of weeks, backed by some kind of scientific evidence then I'll consider it.


Go for it, champ. I only asked you a couple times.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You don’t know my views, I haven’t stated them as of yet.


So all this time you've been asked loaded questions that give an indication of your views, has all been a trolling maneuver.

I see, so when are we going to have the big reveal. I'll go grab popcorn.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> No, I'm falling you by name and surname.



What?  Too illiterate, can't understand.



Dark_Ansem said:


> It actually does, but you're illiterate.



Your post does nothing to address the incompatibility (or compatibility) in the analogy between enforced pregnancy and forced organ transplant.  If you think being forced to term is comparable to forcing someone to give up a kidney, that's not pro-life or pro-choice; it's just stupid.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Go for it, champ. I only asked you a couple times.


You need to seek medical help. What you quoted was me saying I'd consider your argument. How can I go for it? You haven't posted an argument.

I repeat: _If you wanted to make an argument for moving up or down a couple of weeks, backed by some kind of scientific evidence then I'll consider it._

I think your aneurysm finally burst.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> What? Too illiterate, can't understand.


Then no one can help you, sorry.


tabzer said:


> Your post does nothing to address the incompatibility (or compatibility) in the analogy between enforced pregnancy and forced organ transplant. If you think being forced to term is comparable to forcing someone to give up a kidney, that's not pro-life or pro-choice; it's just stupid.


Which is neither what I was talking about nor what you said that bothered me especially, as you'd know if you weren't a disingenous liar.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you think being forced to term is comparable to forcing someone to give up a kidney, that's not pro-life or pro-choice; it's just stupid.


Ok, so the kidney isn't going to grow back. Would you prefer if the analogy was forced bone marrow donation?

Both are painful, both are a risk to life, but generally survivable.

Bone marrow grows back within four to six weeks, so you should have no argument?


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Then no one can help you, sorry.
> 
> Which is neither what I was talking about nor what you said that bothered me especially, as you'd know if you weren't a disingenous liar.



Yeah, still not getting substance.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 24, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> "Most abortions are done out of convenience"
> This statement is born out of ignorance, chauvinistic at best and a lie at worst.



I'm just quoting the statistics. I was surprised to learn that most abortions are done out of convenience too.

https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/
https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals...ons-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives



Nothereed said:


> fails to mention condoms breaking or birth control failing.
> I'll ask you the same condition as the last person I just responded to



I don't think abortions should happen for any reason, including the condom breaking or the women being raped.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 24, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> "Most abortions are done out of convenience"
> This statement is born out of ignorance, chauvinistic at best and a lie at worst.



Careful. He's got one Christian backed article that highlights only six states, each with their own rich history of being anti abortion, to back up his claim that most women get an abortion because it's convenient. 

Any pro lifer that is content with stripping the rights of the mother to give rights to something not born yet cares more about control than saving lives. You can't advocate for forced birth and then completely disregard every other nuance of the baby's life and pretend to be pro life. It's a weak platform stemmed deep in religious and misogynistic ideals, backed by corporate greed feed propaganda.

"CONCLUSIONS

The decision to have an abortion is typically motivated by multiple, diverse and interrelated reasons. The themes of responsibility to others and resource limitations, such as financial constraints and lack of partner support, recurred throughout the study.

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005, 37(3):110–118"

Pulled from the Guttmacher article referenced above. 


 "Misconceptions About Reasons for Abortion

Some people think abortion is used simply as birth control. A common perception is that it's a "convenience" and an "easy way out."

That's not the case. In truth, it's very often because of family obligations and concerns about future children. Those answers are seen regardless of:

    Age
    Race
    Income
    Educational level
    Parental status

They base their decision mainly on their ability to stay financially stable and care for their current children.

Abortion is a complicated and complex issue. Most people who face this decision don't make it lightly.

Those who've had an abortion say it's not an easy way out. It's a painful and difficult decision. And they made the choice while considering what's right for the baby.

Regardless of the reasons, it's a decision that stays with you forever.
Study: Self-Managed Abortions Rise Alongside Abortion Restrictions"

Pulled from the Verywellhealth article above




smf said:


> I'd say that the majority of women get an abortion due to not being able to afford raising the child or not being psychologically strong enough to do it. Nothing about convenience.
> 
> Using the word "convenience" betrays his intentions.



I agree wholeheartedly.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Careful. He's got one Christian backed article that highlights only six states, each with their own rich history of being anti abortion, to back up his claim that most women get an abortion because it's convenient.


I'd say that the majority of women get an abortion due to not being able to afford raising the child or not being psychologically strong enough to do it. Nothing about convenience.

Using the word "convenience" betrays his intentions.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> including the condom breaking or the women being raped.


You sound like you enjoy the thought of that. Do you have any empathy at all for them?

Do you understand the trauma of what they are going to go through?


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> You sound like you enjoy the thought of that



How do you find ways of being a nastier shit than the people you "mirror"?


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> How do you find ways of being a nastier shit than the people you "mirror"?


I'm not. I haven't even sunk close to his or your level.

If you think it's nastier shit, then you haven't considered your own view point.

I can explain it in every nasty detail if it will help you. I guess as a troll who doesn't actually believe the things you say, then being presented with the truth of them is probably quite nasty. But if you're prepared to say them, then hey let's dance.

I'd rather you back up and be reasonable, but I think we're long past that.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I'm not. I haven't even sunk close to his or your level.
> 
> If you think it's nastier shit, then you haven't considered your own view point.
> 
> ...



Nobody introduced the idea of enjoying rape.  That's all you.


----------



## MicroNut99 (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm just quoting the statistics. I was surprised to learn that most abortions are done out of convenience too.
> 
> https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/
> https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589
> ...


hli is a pro-life source that you've pulled one number from.
The other two do not back up your position. Noble of you to add them despite your position.
I've made mine clear. 
Pro-Choice. 
Right or Wrong its the women, her doctors and immediate family choice. Any other blanket law blatantly ignores that facts of this specific situation. How could that ever be ok? 
Simply stating pro-life no matter what and you'll never know. 
I could never put myself in that specific position of responsibility. Its not my choice to make.


----------



## Nothereed (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I don't think abortions should happen for any reason, including the condom breaking or the women being raped.


.........


----------



## SexiestManAlive (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Nobody introduced the idea of enjoying rape.  That's all you.


he said, and i quote using the power of  context "you sound like you enjoy the thought of that" as in he sounds like he enjoys the thought of *women being unable to get an abortion because of rape or the condom breaking, *which if he's okay with rape victims being forced to have a baby despite obviously possibly adding more trauma, or someone having to have a child they may be unable to care for, despite not planning and taking the precautions to prevent it, your garbage.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Nobody introduced the idea of enjoying rape.  That's all you.


I call it how I see it. If you can't show any empathy for someone who has been raped, then it sounds like you might get off on thought they would have to go through with pregnancy. It's not normal to be so cold towards someone in those situations.

I'm surprised he didn't talk about the fathers rights after a rape.
Or how the condom breaking served them right.

That is the kind of things these cold people come up with.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> You need to seek medical help. What you quoted was me saying I'd consider your argument. How can I go for it? You haven't posted an argument.
> 
> I repeat: _If you wanted to make an argument for moving up or down a couple of weeks, backed by some kind of scientific evidence then I'll consider it._
> 
> I think your aneurysm finally burst.


I’ve been making various kinds of arguments throughout this thread, particularly ones regarding brain development and sentience. You can pick and choose what you like, as long as it actually gets us to a point where you can answer a simple question. You seem to have a lot of trouble with it, and I’m trying to figure out why. So far you’ve told me that there are “strong arguments on both sides of the debate”, and that as a liberal you “consider all of them”, but you refuse to disclose what those arguments actually are for some reason. Two can play that game, but I don’t know where that gets us.


smf said:


> So all this time you've been asked loaded questions that give an indication of your views, has all been a trolling maneuver.
> 
> I see, so when are we going to have the big reveal. I'll go grab popcorn.


Am I obligated to disclose my own beliefs just to participate in a discussion? This news to me. I pick and choose bad arguments on both sides and disseminate them, have been for the last couple of pages. It’s amusing. You’re not disclosing any when prompted, why should I? I’m beginning to think that you’re just waffling, but you’re free to prove me wrong. We’re all waiting to hear something, anything, that isn’t white noise and carries actual meaning.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 24, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> hli is a pro-life source that you've pulled one number from.
> The other two do not back up your position. Noble of you to add them despite your position.
> I've made mine clear.
> Pro-Choice.
> ...



All 3 sources list reasons of convenience for abortions ranging from the eighty to ninety percentile. That's pretty high. I'm not sure why you couldn't extract the data from all 3 links, something must be wrong with your ability to read.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> You just said
> 
> so let me ask.
> Is getting raped, or having a condom breaking, or birth control failing, and getting an abortion, classified as "getting out of the consequences of having sex"
> ...


either you're a complete dumbass or just weren't here for the last month, I'll be kind and presume the latter, but i've said over and over, I support it in cases of rape or death.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> You sound like you enjoy the thought of that. Do you have any empathy at all for them?
> 
> Do you understand the trauma of what they are going to go through?



No I don't. I couldn't fathom being raped or how that would make me feel. However, it's not the childs fault the father raped the mother. It's a shitty situation, but like it or not it's my stance.


----------



## Nothereed (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> but i've said over and over, I support it in cases of rape or death.


so in the case of condoms breaking or birth control failing is not something you'd support abortion over?


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’ve been making various kinds of arguments throughout this thread, particularly ones regarding brain development and sentience. You can pick and choose what you like,





Foxi4 said:


> You don’t know my views, I haven’t stated them as of yet.


Are you two people? 

I'm not going to fall into a trap of debating something with you and then you constantly shift, because it has gotten boring after all these threads. But if there are multiple people posting from your account, then that would explain alot.


----------



## Nothereed (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> However, it's not the childs fault the father raped the mother. It's a shitty situation, but like it or not it's my stance.


Who's fault is it then?


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Who's fault is it then?



Whomever perpetrated the rape.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> However, it's not the childs fault the father raped the mother.


Remember, at this point, it's not a child.

Imagine we are only hours in when she's at the abortion clinic, it's little more than some cells.

You are going to force the victim to go through with pregnancy?


----------



## Nothereed (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Whomever perpetrated the rape.


Good, glad we have that cleared up then. For a moment I thought you might make a ludicrous statement saying that it's the persons fault for being raped, and that they should of acted better.
Back to your previous statement.


JonhathonBaxster said:


> No I don't. I couldn't fathom being raped or how that would make me feel. However, it's not the childs fault the father raped the mother. It's a shitty situation, but like it or not it's my stance.


This is fucking garbage and disgusting still, there is no recourse for the mother, and she is forced to carry a child that's not hers without an abortion. with an abortion, she doesn't have to. Let me ask you again, this time even more directly.
Are you willing to have a women carry to term a child that was forced on her via rape? Is that what you want? To not let her choose to abort the fetus (before it becomes child/ grown enough/brain activity)


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Are you two people? I'm not going to fall into a trap of debating something with you and then you constantly shift, because it has gotten boring after all these threads.


Ah, I see the problem. You don’t quite grasp the idea of describing an argument for or against something without actually stating your personal opinion on the subject. You’re unable to divorce yourself from the issue and discuss arguments based on their merit. That explains a lot, since that’s what I asked you to do earlier - state an argument a liberal might use in favour of reducing the acceptable window for abortion. You don’t believe that, so you can’t even imagine an argument in favour of that. Makes sense, you can carry on.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Ah, I see the problem. You don’t quite grasp the idea of describing an argument for or against something without actually stating your personal opinion on the subject.



I'm not interested in hypothetically debating an issue with someone so disingenuous, no.

Because from past experience, you'll just use it to launch an attack on me.

If you want to debate, you have to give me your opinion. I tried explaining that multiple times, so I'm glad you finally got it.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> No I don't. I couldn't fathom being raped or how that would make me feel.


Don't you think that before you make a decision for a rape victim, that they deserve that you tried to think that?

All kinds of prejudice, whether it's racism, sexism, etc. Is fundamentally a lack of empathy for that person.

So try to have some empathy, otherwise it appears as if you are prejudiced.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> of course i don't think they can get abortions without sex, i'm not a incel retard who spends all his time browsing reddit.
> 
> i meant i don't want it used as a form of birth control.


Alright chiming in here again despite it being a waste of time to change any perspective on the people here in on this subject but the idea of Abortion being used as a form of "birth control" is about as extreme as amputating an arm because you broke a finger. Most women who go through this choice are not doing so happily and without any kind of personal struggle on their own means. Its done as literally a form of last resort and if there is no feasible way to carry and bring forth into the world without it causing a great deal of issues whether it be sustainability, livability, general health, etc.

No woman wants to go through an abortion as if its no big deal to them, of course its a big goddamn deal to them. Even going through the process of it can be traumatizing for women. Regardless if its chemical or physical its still a difficult process to deal with and one that most women would rather not if it can be helped. Its literally the last resort of use case.

Seriously, its not like women are aborting as if they are treating it as you would treat taking a shit every day. Contraceptives exist for a reason and they are meant to prevent the need to even consider having an abortion. Unfortunately a lot of those pro-life advocates are also by design of their belief/religion are also against these practices of safe sex/contraceptives as their belief the only time a man should ever shoot his white stuff out at all is in a woman and if that woman is one that he married to and intends to have a family with right there and then. Its a belief that didn't really stay true 50 years ago, its certainly not going to stay true now.

However my personal insight on that is anyone who is that butthurt enough to care about how so many people are having sex without the intent to make kids are probably just internally sad that they can't get any themselves because of being locked in by their beliefs or because they are social poison.

Simply said those who are getting an abortion are not doing it out of just willy-nilly nature. They have a reason, and its going to be something that regardless of the outcome they will live with for awhile knowing so. Its not something that a person can shake off and act as if it was not a big deal. Anyone who thinks that clearly never had one themselves or never knew anyone who had to go through one. Its not a decision that is ever made lightly.


----------



## appleburger (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm just quoting the statistics. I was surprised to learn that most abortions are done out of convenience too.
> 
> https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/
> https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589
> ...


Posting "sources" like this can get you into a lot of trouble.

First, these are interpretations of more sources - that makes this information a game of telephone right off the bat.  You want to get as close to the actual _source_ as possible.

Second, the guttmacher survey article you posted, explicitly attacks the very language you used when trying to use them as your source:



> Most women in every age, parity, relationship, racial, income and education category cited concern for or responsibility to other individuals as a factor in their decision to have an abortion. In contrast to the perception (voiced by politicians and laypeople across the ideological spectrum) that women who choose abortion for reasons other than rape, incest and life endangerment do so for "convenience,"13


Now, that doesn't mean you can't source the guttmacher surveys and draw your own conclusions.  You may disagree with Guttmacher's assessment here. But when your "source" is drawing a different conclusion than you from the same data, it seriously weakens the entire point of you sourcing someone.

I'd strongly recommend sourcing from reputable sources, and not skimming off the fat with opinion pieces in Google - it's just adding unnecessary information and poisoning the argument, regardless of the topic.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I'm not interested in hypothetically debating an issue with someone so disingenuous, no.
> 
> Because from past experience, you'll just use it to launch an attack on me.


It’s no skin off my back. I just find it funny that you’re incapable of putting yourself in somebody else’s shoes, despite repeatedly requesting that others do just that. I was interested in what a liberal perspective on shrinking, as opposed to expanding this window might be (in relation to the poll, which seems to indicate that this is the current trend). My hunch is that you know very well why this window could/should be reduced, but you’re unwilling to answer that question because it goes against what you’ve been saying thus far. If it wasn’t damaging to your overall strategy, you’d have no trouble stating what those arguments might be. Not that any of this matters anyway, considering you’re skim-reading anyway. If you weren’t, you’d know what arguments were already discussed in the thread, and would be able to address them.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> However my personal insight on that is anyone who is that butthurt enough to care about how so many people are having sex without the intent to make kids are probably just internally sad that they can't get any themselves because of being locked in by their beliefs or because they are social poison.


It certainly looks that way.

But there are also people that are not empathetic and just parroting the beliefs they have been brainwashed with.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> My hunch is that you know very well why this window could/should be reduced,



And your true colors are revealed, you see I was right not to trust you.
And also what your views are despite you saying you haven't revealed them.

I'm so clever. If only knowing what a disingenuous troll you are had any kind of financial benefit.

But I was finally vindicated after wearing you down.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> so in the case of condoms breaking or birth control failing is not something you'd support abortion over?


pretty much.

no birth control is 100% effective, you accept these terms when you start having sex.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> no birth control is 100% effective, you accept these terms when you start having sex.


When do you think you'll be able to accept those terms?


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> My hunch is that you know very well why this window could/should be reduced, but you’re unwilling to answer that question because it goes against what you’ve been saying thus far. If it wasn’t damaging to your overall strategy, you’d have no trouble stating what those arguments might be. Not that any of this matters anyway, considering you’re skim-reading anyway. If you weren’t, you’d know what arguments were already discussed in the thread, and would be able to address them.


I believe women should have some kind of appropriate choice.

As I've said, I'd consider any arguments that were balanced. I didn't have a hand in setting the current limits, I have no emotional attachment to them & a specific number certainly doesn't form a basis of whatever "strategy" you think I have.

It's impossible to read every post on this thread and have a normal life, plus there is only so much of you, tabzer and jonathan that a reasonable person can take. So yeah, I'm skim reading, what is worrying me is that you are not.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> And your true colors are revealed, you see I was right not to trust you.
> And also what your views are despite you saying you haven't revealed them.
> 
> I'm so clever. If only knowing what a disingenuous troll you are had any kind of financial benefit.
> ...


Wearing me down? I explicitly told you what I’m doing, were you not paying attention? This isn’t a surprise, nor is it disingenuous - I don’t have an ulterior motive, I’m here to dissect bad arguments because I find it amusing. I told you as much myself, and it’s information I volunteered since it’s not exactly a secret. Never thought I’d see this IRL, but I can’t say I’m surprised by your undeserved victory lap.




EDIT: On second thought, “dissect” is probably a better term to describe what I’m doing.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

SexiestManAlive said:


> he said, and i quote using the power of  context "you sound like you enjoy the thought of that" as in he sounds like he enjoys the thought of *women being unable to get an abortion because of rape or the condom breaking, *which if he's okay with rape victims being forced to have a baby despite obviously possibly adding more trauma, or someone having to have a child they may be unable to care for, despite not planning and taking the precautions to prevent it, your garbage.



Having a fundamental belief and then clarifying, when asked, about exceptions is not the same as expressing joy that those things happen.  If abortion is murder, the cause of the pregnancy wouldn't change that.  It shouldn't need pointing out that rape or forced pregnancy are not joyous situations.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m here to disseminate bad arguments because I find it amusing.


You find it amusing to spread bad arguments?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> When do you think you'll be able to accept those terms?


Never, considering I'm planning on avoiding sex until I'm ready to get married and start a family.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I believe women should have some kind of appropriate choice.


That’s very non-descript, to the point that it means almost nothing. It also doesn’t answer my query - I wasn’t asking about your personal opinion.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Having a fundamental belief and then clarifying, when asked, about exceptions is not the same as expressing joy that those things happen.  If abortion is murder, the cause of the pregnancy wouldn't change that.  It shouldn't need pointing out that rape or forced pregnancy are not joyous situations.


Having a fundamental believe that ignores the pain and suffering of another group of people, that your decision impacts without any consideration for them, shows a lack of distinct lack of empathy for them.

A lack of empathy for someone is a clear indicator that you will take pleasure in their suffering.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> You find it amusing to spread bad arguments?


Perhaps “dismantle and examine” would be a better choice of wording, that’s what I mean. I’m not propagating bad arguments, I’m picking and choosing the ones that crop up here and discuss them in order to get to the flaws.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s very non-descript, to the point that it means almost nothing. It also doesn’t answer my query - I wasn’t asking about your personal opinion.


Maybe to someone with black/white thinking.

How about, I think the pro lifers should fuck off and let the grown ups have some quiet to have some reasoned debate.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Perhaps “dismantle and examine” would be a better choice of wording, that’s what I mean. I’m not propagating bad arguments, I’m picking and choosing the ones that crop up here and discuss them in order to get to the flaws.


You said disseminate
verb
spread (something, especially information) widely.

You are arguing in such bad faith that I refuse to have any discussion with you.

If you can't make a point that you actually believe in and just want to troll people with your put downs, then fuck off.

Is it clear enough how little respect you deserve?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Maybe to someone with black/white thinking.
> 
> How about, I think the pro lifers should fuck off and let the grown ups have some quiet to have some reasoned debate.


It’s not really a debate if you’re planning to exclude one side of it entirely. I think a more appropriate term would be a “wank sesh”, but who am I to judge?


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s not really a debate if you’re planning to exclude one side of it entirely. I think a more appropriate term would be a “wank sesh”, but who am I to judge?


pro lifers aren't a side to a discussion, they are cancer in any discussion which doesn't serve their own agenda.

pro choicers are capable enough of coming to a reasoned debate without their childish antics. But pro lifers will always derail any debate.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> pretty much.
> 
> no birth control is 100% effective, you accept these terms when you start having sex.



Would you support younger women getting their tubes tied then? A majority of doctors will not allow a woman to go through that process until she is of a certain age, has had children, and often in cases of the woman being married, the husband's consent. 

You would think that if people were allowed to do what they think is best for their own bodies and well being, there'd be a lot less abortions to worry about. In fact, according to the sources your platform buddy presented, most abortions recorded through these "surveys" were because of an accident and the mother was not prepared, financially more often than not, to take care of said child. 

Maybe if instead of worrying about women's reproductive rights and the actions of, we should worry about fostering an environment where abortions could be avoided, rather than continuing the punishment.



KennyAtom said:


> Never, considering I'm planning on avoiding sex until I'm ready to get married and start a family.



You're currently abstaining from sex, but still your opinion on the female body is valid? Where did this idea of bodily entitlement come from? 

Oh, wait...


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Maybe to someone with black/white thinking.
> 
> How about, I think the pro lifers should fuck off and let the grown ups have some quiet to have some reasoned debate.


you aren't really making your side look any better with that kind of thinking. Hell, I have a funny Babylon Bee article that corresponds to this.

'Pro-lifers Don't Care About Babies After They're Born', Says Person Who Just Destroyed Free Pregnancy Resource Center - Babylon Bee

It's funny, but also true.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> You said disseminate
> verb
> spread (something, especially information) widely.
> 
> ...


I’ve already clarified what I meant. You are disseminating an idea while you’re in the process of examining it. You come across an idea in one post, you discuss it, and now that idea is present in 10-20 posts. Whether that leads to the propagation of that idea or not is another matter. That’s how dissemination of information works. As for your opinion, or respect, both are immaterial - I don’t plan on associating with you or people like you. We’re discussing an issue, that doesn’t mean we’re buddies.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> You would think that if people were allowed to do what they think is best for their own bodies and well being, there'd be a lot less abortions to worry about. In fact, according to the sources your platform buddy presented, most abortions recorded through these "surveys" were because of an accident and the mother was not prepared, financially more often than not, to take care of said child.


There would be less abortions if taxation was raised to financially help the mothers.

I'm not getting into debating whether someone of the opposite sex should be having their tubes tied.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> pro lifers aren't a side to a discussion, they are cancer in any discussion which doesn't serve their own agenda.
> 
> pro choicers are capable enough of coming to a reasoned debate without their childish antics. But pro lifers will always derail any debate.


You’re speaking in favour of excluding an entire group of people from the process of discussing national policy, which is their right, if we believe in freedom of speech. That policy exclusively concerns what you also consider to be a right. The irony is somewhat palpable, although not surprising.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You are disseminating an idea while you’re in the process of examining it.


You can't examine an idea without spreading it? That seems quite limiting.

What you're suggesting sounds like building a strawman.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> You can't examine an idea without spreading it? That seems quite limiting.
> 
> What you're suggesting sounds like building a strawman.


I think my clarification is satisfactory. Your objection to phrasing seems like an attempt at dodging the question. To be fair, I’ve lost interest in the answer - I don’t even think you have one. I’m beginning to think that your only aim is to be disruptive, I’m yet to get one straight answer out of you.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You’re speaking in favour of excluding an entire group of people from the process of discussing national policy, which is their right, if we believe in freedom of speech. That policy exclusively concerns what you also consider to be a right. The irony is somewhat palpable, although not surprising.


I do believe in freedom of speech, I am not going to have any of you idiots arrested for your views.

It seems you have a lack of understanding of what freedom of speech is. Which is unsurprising and also why it would be better, if you kept your mouth shut.  Better to stay quiet and have people think you are stupid, than open your mouth and prove it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> you aren't really making your side look any better with that kind of thinking. Hell, I have a funny Babylon Bee article that corresponds to this.
> 
> 'Pro-lifers Don't Care About Babies After They're Born', Says Person Who Just Destroyed Free Pregnancy Resource Center - Babylon Bee
> 
> It's funny, but also true.



Hardly anything from BabylonBee is credible. Almost as bad as that HLI article your bro tried passing off as legitimate. 



smf said:


> There would be less abortions if taxation was raised to financially help the mothers.
> 
> I'm not getting into debating whether someone of the opposite sex should be having their tubes tied.





smf said:


> I do believe in freedom of speech, I am not going to have any of you idiots arrested for your views.
> 
> It seems you have a lack of understanding of what freedom of speech is. Which is unsurprising and also why it would be better, if you kept your mouth shut.  Better to stay quiet and have people think you are stupid, than open your mouth and prove it.



Goes along with my personal idea of "Everyone should have a choice, not everyone should have a platform to speak on"

I agree to a point. I'm not big on taxes, another convo for another thread, but if taxes were actually put back into the system in a fundamental way, like job training, better daycare, financial assistance, etc, you wouldn't have as many abortions "out of convenience" or to "avoid responsibility".


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Having a fundamental believe that ignores the pain and suffering of another group of people, that your decision impacts without any consideration for them, shows a lack of distinct lack of empathy for them.
> 
> A lack of empathy for someone is a clear indicator that you will take pleasure in their suffering.



People struggle between their moral values and the reality of people's conditions all of the time.  You project way too much.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> There would be less abortions if taxation was raised to financially help the mothers.


A little off topic, but taxes are already too high. We shouldn't raise it more so the government can fumble and spend the entire tax money in 0.3 hours. (A little exaggerated, but they spend trillions in hours. Too damn fast, and they already steal money from us, why should they get to steal more?)


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Hardly anything from BabylonBee is credible. Almost as bad as that HLI article your bro tried passing off as legitimate.


It's a satire site, genius.

Also what the fuck is HLI


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I think my clarification is satisfactory.



No, it makes no sense. I think you either meant to say decimate or you just don't know what disseminate meant.
But either way, you're trying to front it out.

Which is a real sign of weakness.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m yet to get one straight answer out of you.


You ask the kind of questions that a school bully asks to get ammunition on their victims.

I'm yet to get one straight question from you.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> A little off topic, but taxes are already too high.


Well then, you have a choice.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> It's a satire site, genius.
> 
> Also what the fuck is HLI



Oh boy, how could have I ever missed that? 

"It's funny but true"
"It's not credible"
"It's satire!"

Ok fine, it's satire. Still doesn't make it true, genius. 

It's one of the sites HeWhoPlacedMeUponHisIgnoreList tried pushing to prove his agenda. Apparently people don't understand that you can't quantify a small, specifically sought out portion of Americans and compare it to the ~4 billion women global wide without gross inaccuracy.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Well then, you have a choice.


I agree, a choice to not have abortion nor high taxes.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> People struggle between their moral values and the reality of people's conditions all of the time.  You project way too much.


You & jonathan have failed in every single post to show any consideration.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I agree, a choice to not have abortion nor high taxes.


You can have abortion, or high taxes.

Whatever happens, cutting abortion will increase taxes. It's the unintended consequences that get you.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> A little off topic, but taxes are already too high


Maybe for common people. Millionaires and Billionaires should be taxed way more.


smf said:


> You & jonathan have failed in every single post to show any consideration.


Shhhh he's gonna accuse you of not providing "substance". As if incel like ramblings could or should be substantiated.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> "It's funny but true"


Because it's meant to be funny, but it has elements of truth, genius.


SyphenFreht said:


> "It's not credible"
> "It's satire!"


Of course satire isn't credible, if it was, then it would be called news.


SyphenFreht said:


> Ok fine, it's satire. Still doesn't make it true, genius.


It has elements of truth, genius. The story itself is not true, but the elements within it are funny but have elements of truth.


SyphenFreht said:


> It's one of the sites HeWhoPlacedMeUponHisIgnoreList tried pushing to prove his agenda. Apparently people don't understand that you can't quantify a small, specifically sought out portion of Americans and compare it to the ~4 billion women global wide without gross inaccuracy.


You do realize this isn't a stats site, it's a satire site, right? Or did you just ignore the entire article and try to make it look like it was more stats?


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

There seems to be type of person here who "likes" anything pro-abortion but cares little about nuance.  This type also appears to be the deadbeat dad type.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I do believe in freedom of speech, I am not going to have any of you idiots arrested for your views.
> 
> It seems you have a lack of understanding of what freedom of speech is. Which is unsurprising and also why it would be better, if you kept your mouth shut.  Better to stay quiet and have people think you are stupid, than open your mouth and prove it.


More dodging. I’m not getting anything of value out of you, just more babble as you get increasingly flustered. Your attempts at insulting me won’t work - I asked you a simple question that you are unable to answer, and I’ve stated why you won’t answer it. In my estimation, you don’t want to put yourself in the shoes of someone with an opposing point of view (a prerequisite to having a mutual understanding) because either you’re completely unable to picture yourself as someone like that (indication of lack of imagination) *or* you think it would weaken your own argument (result of sly nature). That’s what I think, at least, and I know people fairly well. I can imagine why Pro Choice people argue the way they argue, and I understand their arguments, both good and bad. I understand where Pro Life people are coming from, I know why they think the way they think, and that helps me understand them. Without that, one can’t have dialogue. Your lack of interest in pursuing understanding tells me that establishing dialogue is not something you’re interested in. I know this because you’ve just said that people who are more than one standard deviation away from your own point of view are “unreasonable” and should be excluded from the debate entirely. That’s small-minded. Not much has changed since last time we’ve discussed a topic of national importance - you still think you’re smarter than you really are.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> You can have abortion, or high taxes.
> 
> Whatever happens, cutting abortion will increase taxes. It's the unintended consequences that get you.


i swear if taxes get raised more I'm going to commit literal tax evasion.

But in all seriousness though, taxes are already too high, but of course the bureaucrats in washington won't listen. I guess i now know how it feels to be a roe v wade supporter.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> person here who "likes" anything pro-abortion but cares little about nuance. This type also appears to be the deadbeat dad type.


Since when have your posts included nuance?


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Your attempts at insulting me won’t work


I get quite a few likes from other people, it seems to be working fine.
I'm not sure what you get out of insulting me however.

Your problem is you write huge walls of texts, that are just rants at me. You already admitted that you are trying to trap me.
If you could stop that then we might get somewhere.

I can understand view points from other people, but I'm not going to discuss them with you when you already have those views. If you want to discuss them, then you put them forward, otherwise we'll end up arguing about something neither of us believe in.

There is a difference between pro lifers, and those against abortion. Pro lifers are basically insane & puritanical. I have no time for them. Discussion with them is pointless as they aren't going to change their mind and you won't learn anything from them.

You seem to duck and dive on what you believe, or burying it in a wall of text that nobody is going to read. Have you not heard of paragraphs?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I get quite a few likes from other people, it seems to be working fine.
> I'm not sure what you get out of insulting me however.
> 
> Your problem is you write huge walls of texts, that are just rants at me. You already admitted that you are trying to trap me.
> If you could stop that then we might get somewhere.


I’m not insulting you. I’m just telling you that I’ve got your number.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m not insulting you. I’m just telling you that I’ve got your number.


You say you have. I don't mind that you're wrong.

Do you have tourettes? I can't work out whether you are typing things accidentally, or whether you truly believe you haven't tried all this time to insult me with your comments.

Do you want to give your view points on this subject yet without a wall of text grumbling about how I won't give into your transparent demands?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> You say you have. I don't mind that you're wrong.


I’m not sure how else I’m supposed to interpret your inability to say anything concrete. You’re either unwilling or unable, which is fair - you’re not being interrogated, you’re under no obligation to answer questions. I won’t comment on your inability to read a page of text either - seems like an excuse to me.


> Do you have tourettes? I can't work out whether you are typing things accidentally, or whether you truly believe you haven't tried all this time to insult me with your comments.
> 
> Do you want to give your view points on this subject yet without a wall of text grumbling about how I won't give into your transparent demands?


I already told you that slipping edits in after the fact isn’t going to catch me off-guard. You’ve been told this not just by me, but by other people in this thread as well. I’m saying it how it is - if you find that insulting, I can’t really help you. If you’re unwilling to answer a fairly simple question, I can only speculate as to why. An educated guess will have to suffice.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m not sure how else I’m supposed to interpret your inability to say anything concrete. You’re either unwilling or unable, which is fair - you’re not being interrogated, you’re under no obligation to answer questions. I won’t comment on your inability to read a page of text either - seems like an excuse to me.


I've already said what I have to say on the matter until you give your views.
The fact that you either don't understand, or they don't meet your requirement to be able to bully me is not my problem.

You don't seem interested in giving out any of your own views, only "disseminating" bad ideas. That sounds like a waste of time.

I'm not talking about pages of text, I'm talking about impenetrable walls of text.

Like this one: If I defocus my eyes, I think I can see a dolphin.

Maybe post it on https://www.magiceye.com/


Foxi4 said:


> More dodging. I’m not getting anything of value out of you, just more babble as you get increasingly flustered. Your attempts at insulting me won’t work - I asked you a simple question that you are unable to answer, and I’ve stated why you won’t answer it. In my estimation, you don’t want to put yourself in the shoes of someone with an opposing point of view (a prerequisite to having a mutual understanding) because either you’re completely unable to picture yourself as someone like that (indication of lack of imagination) *or* you think it would weaken your own argument (result of sly nature). That’s what I think, at least, and I know people fairly well. I can imagine why Pro Choice people argue the way they argue, and I understand their arguments, both good and bad. I understand where Pro Life people are coming from, I know why they think the way they think, and that helps me understand them. Without that, one can’t have dialogue. Your lack of interest in pursuing understanding tells me that establishing dialogue is not something you’re interested in. I know this because you’ve just said that people who are more than one standard deviation away from your own point of view are “unreasonable” and should be excluded from the debate entirely. That’s small-minded. Not much has changed since last time we’ve discussed a topic of national importance - you still think you’re smarter than you really are.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I already told you that slipping edits in after the fact isn’t going to catch me off-guard.


I'm not trying to catch you off guard. If I change my mind after posting then I'm allowed to revisit the post, there is an edit button after all

If you calmed yourself down and didn't respond immediately then that would be great. It might actually help you not make a pratt of your self.

Thanks.



Foxi4 said:


> An educated guess will have to suffice.


Chance would be a fine thing, I don't know how many times I've said it. I'm ok with the status quo, but I'm not emotionally attached to it either way. You on the other hand have point blank refused to give any indication at all.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I've already said what I have to say on the matter until you give your views.
> The fact that you either don't understand, or they don't meet your requirement to be able to bully me is not my problem.
> 
> I'm not talking about pages of text, I'm talking about impenetrable walls of text.
> ...


That’s unfortunate. I hope your reading improves with practice.

In any case, my objective isn’t to bully you - I’m not particularly bothered by you, you’re not significant to my day to day life. We are, however, having a discussion. You said, in good faith, that liberals are open-minded and you can imagine them debating what the acceptable window should be. Since I am not a liberal, I am inquiring what arguments might pop up in that debate - in general, not necessarily ones you believe in yourself. I am trying to understand you (at my own peril, it seems - fragile is the human mind, I can only try for so long), but you’re making it very difficult. I would like to examine those arguments.

Is that concise enough?


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s unfortunate. I hope your reading improves with practice.
> 
> In any case, my objective isn’t to bully you - I’m not particularly bothered by you, you’re not significant to my day to day life. We are, however, having a discussion. You said, in good faith, that liberals are open-minded and you can imagine them debating what the acceptable window should be. Since I am not a liberal, I am inquiring what arguments might pop up in that debate - in general, not necessarily ones you believe in yourself. I am trying to understand you (at my own peril, it seems - fragile is the human mind, I can only try for so long), but you’re making it very difficult. I would like to examine those arguments.
> 
> Is that concise enough?


I don't care if you want to examine my interpretation of arguments that I am not making, especially those that require a level of medical knowledge that neither you or I have. You obviously have arguments that you believe in, which you have no intention of making, because you are scared to.

You seem pretty bothered by me. I can't think why you would repeatedly try to insult me into doing something which I've said I'm not going to do. 

The ball is in your court, either you give a reasonable argument on a point and allow it to be discussed without you trolling or you don't.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I am trying to understand you (at my own peril, it seems - fragile is the human mind, I can only try for so long), but you’re making it very difficult.


And yet you want me to forget that a while back you admitted that you were just trying to get me to make those kinds of arguments because you knew that it would undermine my argument.

As you've already made up your mind that it will, then you'll claim that it did have anyway. I'd be an idiot to actually give you what you want right now.


----------



## appleburger (May 24, 2022)

Alright @KennyAtom, I'm back with my line of questioning I had for you - I almost forgot to revisit this point:



appleburger said:


> That makes sense. Does this also apply to the rape victims?


*I'd say yes, since rape is a traumatic thing to go through, and you shouldn't be forced to hold a reminder of it at all, especially in cases of 12 - 17 year olds who shouldn't be a mother yet.*

So, this is interesting, and in one aspect makes you more pro choice than me, which I didn't see coming (I would only support a late term abortion in the event that the mother could be killed for giving birth).  Not trying to throw you shade, just continuing the line of logic we've established to pick your brain and help me understand.

If you feel a late term abortion due to rape should be legal, then when should it become illegal to have that child killed, and why?

To summarize, we've established together for sake of argument, that according to your views and my definition of the word 'baby':

1.  A baby doesn't exist until there is a heartbeat for the fetus.
2. Aborting a baby is not morally permissible, can be considered a killing, and therefore should be illegal, with exceptions (rape victim; mother could die).
3. These exceptions, while still in conflict with your moral views, should be legal, despite them being killings, because it is preferable to the alternative outcome of the mother dying or being reminded of her rape.

By this logic, it would seem you would find legal grounds to kill the baby, moral incompatibility aside, so that would apply to *postpartum* without adding more specifics or drawing a new line.  If that's not the case, then what about birth changes the morality/legality of it for number 3?


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

appleburger said:


> If you feel a late term abortion due to rape should be legal, then when should it become illegal to have that child killed, and why?
> 
> To summarize, we've established together for sake of argument, that according to your views and my definition of the word 'baby':
> 
> ...


Yeah, I'm pro choice, but I don't get his reasoning behind this. It's like rape changes reality.

I'm not particularly sure what you mean by late term abortion though. If someone turned up at 8.5 months, then I'm not sure how I'd deal with that. Whatever happens, they are going to be delivering & it's viable.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> And yet you want me to forget that a while back you admitted that you were just trying to get me to make those kinds of arguments because you knew that it would undermine my argument.
> 
> As you've already made up your mind that it will, then you'll claim that it did have anyway. I'd be an idiot to actually give you what you want right now.


Oh lord, this is giving me a headache. From the top, I’ll even give you nicely-spaced chunks of text. Here we go!

I told you precisely what I’m doing - I browse this thread for my own amusement. I pick and choose ideas from both sides and discuss the ones *I* find silly. I like to know why people think the way they think, and what makes them tick.

I also told you why I *think* you won’t share your “forbidden knowledge” with me. Either you can’t imagine being someone who’s against the current status quo *or* you believe it would undermine your own argument, so you’re unwilling to share for fear that it would be used against you.

There is a third option, one that’s become a growing concern in your camp. Perhaps you don’t want to say anything concrete so as to not seem insufficiently woke to your compatriots. It’s easy to say the wrong thing when everything is fluid. I don’t think that’s it though.

That’s what *I think*, it’s up to you to confirm or deny, prove me right or prove me wrong. I have no plans for you besides extracting interesting information that moves the conversation forward. If you don’t want to play along then that’s fine, I don’t really care.


----------



## appleburger (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Yeah, I'm pro choice, but I don't get his reasoning behind this. It's like rape changes reality.
> 
> I'm not particularly sure what you mean by late term abortion though. If someone turned up at 8.5 months, then I'm not sure how I'd deal with that. Whatever happens, they are going to be delivering & it's viable.


Right, and the term is vague - in this case I'm trying to steelman his argument and go strictly with the logic, so here it would be after where he draws the line, after a heartbeat is detected.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Because it's meant to be funny, but it has elements of truth, genius.
> 
> Of course satire isn't credible, if it was, then it would be called news.
> 
> ...



So what you're telling me is, that you have so little credible sources to back up any claim you've made thus far, so you're using a satire site that takes very little truth and blows it out of proportion, because you think it's an effective way to prove said point? 

Well I think all women should be the only ones to regulate their bodies, and if you don't agree with me, I have several stand up comedians that prove my point with tongue in cheek comments based off a thin slice of truth. 

Why don't you go back to your standpoint of "I believe abortion is murder" and just stay there? Posting irrelevant articles because they mean something to you doesn't help your argument.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> *or* you believe it would undermine your own argument, so you’re unwilling to share for fear that it would be used against you.


Or he thinks, as you often give the impression of, that you engage entirely in bad faith and relying on flimsy opinions masquerading as facts for the only purpose of having a "gotcha" moment.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Or.. or..



smf said:


> I'm liberal and maybe the current time scales could be moved to reduce the window a little.



"I'm a liberal and *just a little* pro-life."

/banned


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So what you're telling me is, that you have so little credible sources to back up any claim you've made thus far, so you're using a satire site that takes very little truth and blows it out of proportion, because you think it's an effective way to prove said point?
> 
> Well I think all women should be the only ones to regulate their bodies, and if you don't agree with me, I have several stand up comedians that prove my point with tongue in cheek comments based off a thin slice of truth.
> 
> Why don't you go back to your standpoint of "I believe abortion is murder" and just stay there? Posting irrelevant articles because they mean something to you doesn't help your argument.


jesus christ, these articles are pissing you off so hard it's so unreal.

I never meant them to prove my point, I meant them to laugh at stupid liberals. Apparently, you're on the left side, if you're so angry that you think I'm attempting to use these as proof rather than making fun of abortionists.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The biological function of sex is reproduction.  Having sex is consent to the "risks" involved.


That's a biological function, not the biological function. If we are going by how it's used >99% of the time, then the main biological function is pleasure and social bonding, not reproduction.

Plenty of people who have had sex have never had sex with the purpose of it being reproductive.



tabzer said:


> Having sex is consent to the "risks" involved.


It's consent to the pregnancy risks (assuming the sex was consensual in the first place), but it isn't consent to get pregnant. There's a difference. When I get in a car, I acknowledge the safety risks, but that isn't consent to get hit by another car.



tabzer said:


> Your question didn't factor in how the parents are creating the conditions for their children's ailments.


They created the kid who needs an organ transplant with a life contingent upon the resources of another body, just like they created a fetus that is contingent upon using the resources of another body. They're comparable, and you don't appear to have thought this through. Hell, we could make the ailment genetic (not that we need to for the analogy to work).



Foxi4 said:


> No, it doesn’t. The risk associated with pregnancy is potential - it’s a possibility, not a definite outcome. The outcome of stealing a kidney is definite and inevitable - you set out to take an organ away, and you do just that. The kidney donation scenario directly violates bodily integrity by *opening someone’s body up and removing an organ*. It doesn’t matter if you’re planning to give it back or not - you shouldn’t have taken it in the first place, the damage is done. By comparison, not assisting someone in the pursuit of abortion violates nothing - pregnancy isn’t an illness, but rather a natural state of being for a woman’s body to be in. Nobody is obligated to intervene in it upon request. The only thing that’s absurd in this exchange so far is that you’ve somehow managed to equate action with inaction, potential harm with definite harm, sickness with health etc. and see absolutely nothing wrong with any of it. I’m not even advocating for any of this and I can see how nonsensical your position is - your analogy is bad. It was bad when you presented it in the past, and it’s bad this time around.


Be sure to let me know when you can, in good faith, acknowledge that a pregnancy has a nearly 100% chance of altering one's body permanently, carries very real health risks, and carries very real mortality risks.

I could vaguely describe a situation about blocking access to abortion and a situation involving compulsory organ donation, and you wouldn't know which was which. Your rebuttals are as bad as they were before.



Foxi4 said:


> By comparison, not assisting someone in the pursuit of abortion violates nothing... Nobody is obligated to intervene in it upon request.


And let me know when you aren't going to disingenuously suggest we're talking about assisting someone in the pursuit of an abortion vs. merely having legal access to abortion.



Foxi4 said:


> pregnancy isn’t an illness, but rather a natural state of being for a woman’s body to be in.


An appeal to nature fallacy. Cute.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> An appeal to nature fallacy. Cute.


You can mount an argument that a sick person is in deservement of medical treatment. I’m not sure the same applies to a healthy person. You need a different argument to justify the necessity of an otherwise elective procedure.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

appleburger said:


> 3. These exceptions, while still in conflict with your moral views, should be legal, despite them being killings, because it is preferable to the alternative outcome of the mother dying or being reminded of her rape.
> 
> By this logic, it would seem you would find legal grounds to kill the baby, moral incompatibility aside, so that would apply to *postpartum* without adding more specifics or drawing a new line.  If that's not the case, then what about birth changes the morality/legality of it for number 3?


At the point of 6 - 8 months, I'd ban abortion completely, since if you've carried it this far, you don't get an out now.

If it'd kill the mother that's a different story, but at this point, if you were a rape victim, I'd say you should have aborted it earlier.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You can mount an argument that a sick person is in deservement of medical treatment. I’m not sure the same applies to a healthy person. You need a different argument to justify the necessity of an otherwise elective procedure.


Pregnancy can result in permanent changes to the body, discomfort, serious health risks, and even death.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> jesus christ, these articles are pissing you off so hard it's so unreal.
> 
> I never meant them to prove my point, I meant them to laugh at stupid liberals. Apparently, you're on the left side, if you're so angry that you think I'm attempting to use these as proof rather than making fun of abortionists.



Pissing me off? Not really. I just don't understand how people can choose to be so uneducated and self absorbed. 

You laugh at stupid liberals, but then sit there with your "fetuses=babies" ideology. 

It's cute to see you think you're getting under my skin. I encourage you to try just a little harder.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> never meant them to prove my point, I meant them to laugh at stupid liberals


Which is funny because the articles make fun of anti-abortionists and hypocritical Republicans.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Pregnancy can result in permanent changes to the body, discomfort, serious health risks, and even death.


Those are arguments for medical care, they’re not necessarily arguments for abortion specifically.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> At the point of 6 - 8 months, I'd ban abortion completely, since if you've carried it this far, you don't get an out now.



Late term abortions are rarely performed outside of immediate necessity. A majority of abortions happen within the first trimester, almost a month or two after conception. 
You know. When it's just cells. According to widely accepted science.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Which is funny because the articles make fun of anti-abortionists and hypocritical Republicans.



Hey now. He tried really hard to find and share that article. You can't expect him to read it too.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Pissing me off? Not really. I just don't understand how people can choose to be so uneducated and self absorbed.


Explain how exactly I'm uneducated and self absorbed. Just because I don't like babies murdered doesn't mean that I am those things.


SyphenFreht said:


> You laugh at stupid liberals, but then sit there with your "fetuses=babies" ideology.


You have to admit though, those liberals sure are stupid. Also, I might be a little wrong, fetuses don't equal babies until a heartbeat is detected. Probably should have clarified that.


SyphenFreht said:


> It's cute to see you think you're getting under my skin. I encourage you to try just a little harder.


Nah, I don't try to purposefully get under people's skin, I'm better than that. It's cute you think that I'm trying to do that on purpose though.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Those are arguments for medical care, they’re not necessarily arguments for abortion specifically.


They can be. I guess that choice would have to be up to the woman and her doctor.


----------



## AlexMCS (May 24, 2022)

If there's one thing I've learned on this here site, is that I should stick to talking about games, memes and tech in here, since the bad faith, ingenuity, or unwillingness to concede of some people's arguments on some subjects, on all sides, are way too zany.

For this one in particular I've seen:
Equating pregnancy to disease, non-sentience to worthlessness, embyros to cancer/not-humans.... roflmao.

Either way, it's kinda amusing to follow through reading it, so keep it up.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Or he thinks, as you often give the impression of, that you engage entirely in bad faith and relying on flimsy opinions masquerading as facts for the only purpose of having a "gotcha" moment.


The exact reason why his ability to answer simple questions is impaired doesn’t change the calculus here. It’s a shame, because I’m genuinely interested in the results of that poll, particularly because it seems that they’re repeatable, even in the wake of a possible Roe v. Wade repeal. It’s probably the best time to have these kinds of discussions since the original ruling.


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Explain how exactly I'm uneducated and self absorbed. Just because I don't like babies murdered doesn't mean that I am those things.
> 
> You have to admit though, those liberals sure are stupid. Also, I might be a little wrong, fetuses don't equal babies until a heartbeat is detected. Probably should have clarified that.
> 
> Nah, I don't try to purposefully get under people's skin, I'm better than that. It's cute you think that I'm trying to do that on purpose though.



You keep saying babies are being murdered, despite knowing actual science exists that states otherwise. That's uneducated. 

You feel abortions, which generally exist in a "female" body (personal feelings toward gender labels put aside), should be subject to the rules and regulations of literally anyone else except the woman involved, yet you have no respect for the woman or the trauma the forced birth would entail for any party, child or otherwise. That's being self absorbed. 

Some liberals are stupid. As are some Republicans. And some Democrats. And just people in general. I'm glad we can agree on that. 

I do appreciate you clarifying your stance a little better. That helps. 

Hey, you're the one who originally thought I was getting angry. If you weren't trying to do that on purpose, why bring it up at all? Doesn't matter if I or anyone else gets angry, it's an internet forum. What am I gonna do, angrily give women abortions in a back alley?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> You keep saying babies are being murdered, despite knowing actual science exists that states otherwise. That's uneducated.


Science changes sometimes. I might be wrong now, but I might be right later.


SyphenFreht said:


> You feel abortions, which generally exist in a "female" body (personal feelings toward gender labels put aside), should be subject to the rules and regulations of literally anyone else except the woman involved, yet you have no respect for the woman or the trauma the forced birth would entail for any party, child or otherwise. That's being self absorbed.


I'm going to be completely honest, I have respect for anyone who can squeeze an entire human out their vagina or allow their stomach to be ripped open to get their baby out. I just don't exactly like it when abortion is used as sex control.


SyphenFreht said:


> Some liberals are stupid. As are some Republicans. And some Democrats. And just people in general. I'm glad we can agree on that.


Every political party is stupid, with stupid people. I can agree with that.


SyphenFreht said:


> Hey, you're the one who originally thought I was getting angry. If you weren't trying to do that on purpose, why bring it up at all? Doesn't matter if I or anyone else gets angry, it's an internet forum. What am I gonna do, angrily give women abortions in a back alley?


I agree that it doesn't matter, it just felt weird how you thought I was genuinely trying to make someone angry. I was probably going too far, and I'm sorry for doing that. My stance won't change too much, but I do respect you.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I just don't exactly like it when abortion is used as sex control.


I have lots of things I "don't exactly like." Is that a reasonable justification for taking away people's rights, particularly their right to bodily autonomy?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Or.. or..
> 
> "I'm a liberal and *just a little* pro-life."
> 
> /banned


I would love for him to elaborate on that part of the post, it’s genuinely surprising and interesting, but we can’t always have all the nice things we want. Maybe he didn’t want to say it and it slipped out, but that’s my read also. It’s hard to be 100% on-board with either side of the abortion debate, both of them get into ethical extremes. Most people sit somewhere in the nuanced middle, but by God, it’s hard to get them to admit where.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I have lots of things I "don't exactly like." Is that a reasonable justification for taking away people's rights, particularly their right to bodily autonomy?


depends.

if it's for killing babies in the womb over 6 weeks? yes. If it's someone beating you in mortal kombat or some shit? no.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> depends.
> 
> if it's for killing babies in the womb over 6 weeks? yes. If it's someone beating you in mortal kombat or some shit? no.


Who is to say babies are being killed?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Who is to say babies are being killed?


the heartbeat.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> jesus christ, these articles are pissing you off so hard it's so unreal.
> 
> I never meant them to prove my point, I meant them to laugh at stupid liberals. Apparently, you're on the left side, if you're so angry that you think I'm attempting to use these as proof rather than making fun of abortionists.


And yet all that is happening is you've created a laughing stock of yourself.

Do you really lack that amount of self awareness?



KennyAtom said:


> the heartbeat.



Except that is, as you've been repeatedly told, not scientifically accurate.

So your argument is at best circular.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> the heartbeat.


I asked a question about who gets to make the determination that babies are being killed, and you didn't answer me. The argument that it's a heartbeat that makes them babies is a separate issue. Would you like to try again?

On that topic, a mindless automaton can have a heartbeat. Other animals can have heartbeats. A zygote doesn't have a heartbeat. Could you clarify? Your positions seem wildly inconsistent.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> God, it’s hard to get them to admit where.


It's difficult for you to force people to give you want you want, because of you.

A bad faith troll crying because I wouldn't let myself be trolled, priceless.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> And yet all that is happening is you've created a laughing stock of yourself.
> 
> Do you really lack that amount of self awareness?


to be honest, not really. I lack a total amount of self-awareness half the time on the internet, considering I don't even have to watch myself unless it's rules, as I'm completely anonymous.

I'm not kidding, I'm serious.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The exact reason why his ability to answer simple questions is impaired doesn’t change the calculus here. It’s a shame, because I’m genuinely interested in the results of that poll, particularly because it seems that they’re repeatable, even in the wake of a possible Roe v. Wade repeal. It’s probably the best time to have these kinds of discussions since the original ruling.


It's the best time to have qualified discussions. Not to let misinformation professionals poison the debate.



AlexMCS said:


> For this one in particular I've seen:
> Equating pregnancy to disease, non-sentience to worthlessness, embyros to cancer/not-humans


Maybe you need to re-read as it seems you understood nothing?




KennyAtom said:


> Science changes sometimes. I might be wrong now, but I might be right later.


Yeah sorry, this is a pointless point to make. Decisions need to be made now and long-term thinking shouldn't rely on vacuous possibilities.




smf said:


> Except that is, as you've been repeatedly told, not scientifically accurate.
> 
> So your argument is at best circular.


He doesn't care because the false rhetoric of "killing babies" is a powerful manipulation tool which works well on imbeciles.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> to be honest, not really. I lack a total amount of self-awareness half the time on the internet, considering I don't even have to watch myself unless it's rules, as I'm completely anonymous.
> 
> I'm not kidding, I'm serious.


That's self control, not self awareness.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> He doesn't care because the false rhetoric of "killing babies" is a powerful manipulation tool which works well on imbeciles.


I thought that, now I'm thinking he is just an imbecile that has been manipulated.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> That's self control, not self awareness.


no that's self awareness.

I probably lack both, but more of self awareness considering I don't even know what's going on in this thread half the time, just that i know that my position is most likely more correct.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I thought that, now I'm thinking he is just an imbecile that has been manipulated.


i agree, i am very stupid just because I think babies deserve a chance at life.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> no that's self awareness.
> 
> I probably lack both, but more of self awareness considering I don't even know what's going on in this thread half the time, just that i know that my position is most likely more correct.


Again, not knowing what is going on in the thread is not self awareness.

Your position is not likely more correct, that is just you assuming that you're right because you think you're right.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Again, not knowing what is going on is not self awareness.


i thought self awareness was exactly that.

you admit that you don't know what's going on, you just spout stuff you were taught at a very early age.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> i thought self awareness was exactly that.
> 
> you admit that you don't know what's going on, you just spout stuff you were taught at a very early age.


"Self-awareness is the ability to focus on yourself and how your actions, thoughts, or emotions do or don't align with your internal standards. If you're highly self-aware, you can objectively evaluate yourself, manage your emotions, align your behavior with your values, and understand correctly how others perceive you."


----------



## SyphenFreht (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Science changes sometimes. I might be wrong now, but I might be right later.
> 
> I'm going to be completely honest, I have respect for anyone who can squeeze an entire human out their vagina or allow their stomach to be ripped open to get their baby out. I just don't exactly like it when abortion is used as sex control.
> 
> ...



And if the science changes, I will support it. 

I don't necessarily disagree with you there, however I feel that particular point, birth control, is hugely fabricated by uneducatable pro lifers, and that's not fair to the women who get one for a "valid reason".

Don't worry about it. I apologize for my offense. It's a forum. We're all going to come across a little off.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> "Self-awareness is the ability to focus on yourself and how your actions, thoughts, or emotions do or don't align with your internal standards. If you're highly self-aware, you can objectively evaluate yourself, manage your emotions, align your behavior with your values, and understand correctly how others perceive you."


can you put that in less smart terms? I can't understand half this stuff considering how, well, smart these words are


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> i agree, i am very stupid just because I think babies deserve a chance at life.


I 100% agree babies do, but we're not talking about babies here. Please keep up


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I 100% agree babies do, but we're not talking about babies here. Please keep up


i thought we were, considering this is a forum about ABORTION.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> can you put that in less smart terms? I can't understand half this stuff considering how, well, smart these words are


By thinking you are smart and getting one over on all the "lefties", you lack self awareness because you can't understand how you actually look.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> i agree, i am very stupid just because I think babies deserve a chance at life.


There's more to a chance at life than just existing. There's being supported, having access to education, healthcare, and the right to life safely. And America cannot offer these things right now unless you belong to a higher class. If this were REALLY about babies, and not about controlling women, you people would worry about their life, not their birth.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> i thought we were, considering this is a forum about ABORTION.


It's impossible to abort a baby as they don't become babies until birth.
You abort fetus. Remember, we've covered this before.

Also, this is a thread about roe v wade, last time I looked gbatemp didn't have a forum about abortion.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> i thought we were, considering this is a forum about ABORTION.


Embryos aren't babies. Neither are foetuses.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> By thinking you are smart and getting one over on all the "lefties", you lack self awareness because you can't understand how you actually look.


honestly who cares what i look like online, I'll go on, knowing no one knows who i really am in real life, the worst thing that can happen is i'm "cancelled".


smf said:


> It's impossible to abort a baby as they don't become babies until birth.
> You abort fetus. Remember, we've covered this before.


Sorry, I honestly don't remember half the stuff that happens in this forum, considering it's been going on for months, or what feels like months. I'm most likely wrong about this, but goddamnit, I was taught this way, and teachings are hard to break.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> By thinking you are smart and getting one over on all the "lefties", you lack self awareness because you can't understand how you actually look.


i know i look stupid, I'm not retarded.

I just make fun of liberals for being stupid, because as the saying goes, it takes a stupid person to know someone stupid.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> honestly who cares what i look like online, I'll go on, knowing no one knows who i really am in real life, the worst thing that can happen is i'm "cancelled".


Thing is, by behaving like this on line then it affects how you act in real life. You're just hurting yourself.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Thing is, by behaving like this on line then it affects how you act in real life. You're just hurting yourself.


...not exactly, considering I never go into politics in real life, and if I do, I steer it away quickly.

Political opinions should be reserved to the internet other than saying "Yeah, I voted for him".


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> i know i look stupid, I'm not retarded.


Well I agree with 50% of that sentence at least, we've found a compromise.


----------



## AleronIves (May 24, 2022)

Yikes. I thought this thread was winding down, and instead I wake up to 10 new pages of incoherent bickering. People apparently need to learn what "bad faith" means.

"I disagree with and/or don't understand your argument! I call bad faith!"

Uh... no.



KennyAtom said:


> At the point of 6 - 8 months, I'd ban abortion completely, since if you've carried it this far, you don't get an out now.
> 
> If it'd kill the mother that's a different story, but at this point, if you were a rape victim, I'd say you should have aborted it earlier.


This seems reasonable. Six months should be more than enough time to decide whether you want to keep the rape baby, so allowing abortions in the third trimester shouldn't be necessary for anything other than pregnancy complications that threaten the life of the mother.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> ...not exactly, considering I never go into politics in real life, and if I do, I steer it away quickly.
> 
> Political opinions should be reserved to the internet other than saying "Yeah, I voted for him".


Seriously you can't think the way you do and it not completely fuck up your future.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I just make fun of liberals for being stupid, because as the saying goes, it takes a stupid person to know someone stupid.


It's not a saying, it's Forrest Gump. Also, liberals are stupid? Who are your ideas of intellectuals, Marjorie Treason-Green or Lauren Dumbert?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's not a saying, it's Forrest Gump. Also, liberals are stupid? Who are your ideas of intellectuals, Marjorie Treason-Green or Lauren Dumbert?


nah, I just call every liberal stupid. Trust me, I think everyone in politics is stupid, even Joe Biden. and that guy is like a hero to (checks approval ratings) 41% of americans. Hell, I think donald trump is stupid, and donald trump is a hero to 95% of my party (which I do not associate with, considering trump was bad, but not as bad as biden.)


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Don't you think that before you make a decision for a rape victim, that they deserve that you tried to think that?
> 
> All kinds of prejudice, whether it's racism, sexism, etc. Is fundamentally a lack of empathy for that person.
> 
> So try to have some empathy, otherwise it appears as if you are prejudiced.



I am showing empathy, for the child and mother. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean I'm not showing it. You want me to do it your way and think like you so you are trying to shame me into submission ... and they call me a control freak.



appleburger said:


> Posting "sources" like this can get you into a lot of trouble.
> 
> First, these are interpretations of more sources - that makes this information a game of telephone right off the bat.  You want to get as close to the actual _source_ as possible.
> 
> ...



Here's the paragraph you quoted.



> Yet some broad concepts emerged from the study. A cross-cutting theme was women's responsibility to children and other dependents, as well as considerations about children they may have in the future. Most women in every age, parity, relationship, racial, income and education category cited concern for or responsibility to other individuals as a factor in their decision to have an abortion. In contrast to the perception (voiced by politicians and laypeople across the ideological spectrum) that women who choose abortion for reasons other than rape, incest and life endangerment do so for "convenience,"13 our data suggest that after carefully assessing their individual situations, *women base their decisions largely on their ability to maintain economic stability and to care for the children they already have*.



You didn't include the full text of what you quoted, which makes your quote and comment dishonest and misleading. I put in bold the main reasons. You're also taking it out of context. You need to read the entire study any pay attention to the percentages of the reasons given. You tried to invalidate the entire study because of a simple opinion. However, I consider the "*women base their decisions largely on their ability to maintain economic stability and to care for the children they already have*" as a convenience, which I've already stated in my previous posts what qualifies as a convenience. They aren't having abortions because their life is in danger from complications or that they were raped. They are having abortions because of the fact that they simply don't want the child for economic factors. That's at least some of the the results from that specific study.

Let's say that even if the 3rd link I gave didn't give you overall percentages of why women are having abortions the previous two did and all 3 of their figures are similar. That's not a coincidence. You're just trying to attack the source because you think for some reason that I'm using it to prove a point. The original topic was brought up when smf asked about what convenience when another user mentioned they rather not see an abortion done for convenience. I answered smf by posting 2 links that gave reasons why women have abortions. I personally could care less if the percentages were lower or higher. I was just trying to answer his question. So are you saying that all 3 sources results are incorrect? If so then why do these following sources give around the same results as the 3 did? The top reasons for abortions all fall under the convenience umbrella.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3243347/

https://unplannedpregnancy.com/abortion/making-your-abortion-decision/why-do-women-get-abortions/

https://www.abortionclinics.com/why-do-women-have-abortions/

https://illinoisrighttolife.org/why-do-women-have-abortions/

https://www.sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog/why-do-women-really-have-abortions

Here knock yourself out. The results literally list hundreds of sites giving the same reasons, some with percentages some not. If the reasons were different I'd state that they are different, but they are not. Most women have abortions out convenience factors. If this wasn't the case I'd say most get them for rape, incest, medical issues or whatnot, but they don't.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=why+do+women+have+abortions&ia=web

EDIT:

I consider economic factors to be factors of convenience. Can't afford your kid so you get an abortion? Convenience/economic factor. Didn't plan on getting pregnant? Convenience/economic factor. Bad Timing? Financial Concerns? Relationship Problems? Caring for Other Children? Convenience/economic factors!

---
Why Do Women Have Abortions?​90% of women give multiple reasons for why they are seeking an abortion. The following are the most popular reasons women give according to the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provided in the country:

74% of women say a child would dramatically change their life in this way:

38% say a child would interfere with their education

38% say a child would interfere with their job

32% say they have other dependents

73% of women say they can’t afford a baby right now because:

42% say because they are unmarried

34% say because they are a student or are planning to study

28% say they can’t afford a baby and child care

23% say they can’t afford the basic needs of life

22% say because they are unemployed

48% of women who say they don’t want to be a single mom or are having relationship problems in this way:

19% say they are unsure about their relationship

11% say relationship may break up or end soon

38% of women say they have decided they’ve completed their childbearing years

32% say they are not ready for another child

25% say they do not want people to know they had sex or got pregnant

14% husband wanted her to have an abortion

6% say parents wanted her to have an abortion

12% say possible problems with their health

1% of women said they were aborting because they were raped

Less than .05% of women gave the reason because of incest

Source: https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

---

Most are done for convenience (that includes economic factors)! I'm not making this shit up out of thin air.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's not a saying, it's Forrest Gump.


So it's a saying, just a saying from a movie.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> This seems reasonable. Six months should be more than enough time to decide whether you want to keep the rape baby, so allowing abortions in the third trimester shouldn't be necessary for anything other than pregnancy complications that threaten the life of the mother.


This is the current discipline in Great Britain.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> This seems reasonable. Six months should be more than enough time to decide whether you want to keep the rape baby, so allowing abortions in the third trimester shouldn't be necessary for anything other than pregnancy complications that threaten the life of the mother.


Six months is actually longer than roe v wade gives you a right to, which is kinda insane from a pro lifer.

It's a flawed plan to allow abortions up to six months in the case of rape and 0 months for everyone else.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I am showing empathy, for the child and mother. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean I'm not showing it.


Can you point to any post you made that demonstrates empathy?


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> nah, I just call every liberal stupid. Trust me, I think everyone in politics is stupid, even Joe Biden. and that guy is like a hero to (checks approval ratings) 41% of americans. Hell, I think donald trump is stupid, and donald trump is a hero to 95% of my party (which I do not associate with, considering trump was bad, but not as bad as biden.)


And that is why you fail.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> So it's a saying, just a saying from a movie.


A "saying" is an idiomatic expression in language, not a quote.



KennyAtom said:


> nah, I just call every liberal


I'm sure they have even prettier names for you.



KennyAtom said:


> considering trump was bad, but not as bad as biden


Lol and you have the audacity to call others stupid 




JonhathonBaxster said:


> They aren't having abortions because their life is in danger from complications or that they were raped. They are basing on abortions on the fact that they simply don't want the child for economic factors. That's at least some of the the results from that specific study.


Or in other words, they're concerned that they wouldn't be able to guarantee a certain standard of life for their kid. Which is what any reasonable person would do. The fact that you dismiss it as "convenience reasoning" as it if were some sort of negative thing is concerning, and shows that like all anti-abortionists, you're in fact a heartless hypocrite who cares for neither mother nor kid.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> And that is why you fail.


fail what? being a reasonable human?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Lol and you have the audacity to call others stupid


Wait, so you think Trump was good?

I agree, he was good for jobs, and low gas prices, and no rapid inflation, but I also disagree for everything else.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Can you point to any post you made that demonstrates empathy?



Sure, most of the posts I've posted that say abortions should not happen. I am empathic *towards the child* and just because you're trying to control me by shaming me into taking up your views doesn't mean I'm not being empathic. By the way, trying to manipulate me by trying to make me feel shame isn't going to work.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> That's a biological function, not the biological function. If we are going by how it's used >99% of the time, then the main biological function is pleasure and social bonding, not reproduction.
> 
> Plenty of people who have had sex have never had sex with the purpose of it being reproductive.



Okay.  I can agree with this reasoning.  My angle was that despite how people utilize it, it exists because of reproduction.



Lacius said:


> It's consent to the pregnancy risks (assuming the sex was consensual in the first place), but it isn't consent to get pregnant. There's a difference. When I get in a car, I acknowledge the safety risks, but that isn't consent to get hit by another car.



Pregnancy is a reasonable outcome.  If you buy a lotto ticket, consenting to win or lose starts being beside the point.



Lacius said:


> They created the kid who needs an organ transplant with a life contingent upon the resources of another body, just like they created a fetus that is contingent upon using the resources of another body. They're comparable, and you don't appear to have thought this through. Hell, we could make the ailment genetic (not that we need to for the analogy to work).



The analogy functions to blur causality (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. degrees of liability).  

The analogy also forces a claim that the mother and developing child are separates bodies; ie the abortion already happened, and the concept of un-abortion isn't fathomable.

If we consider Siamese twins sharing vital organs, there would have to be consensus.  

In the situation of the mother and developing child, the mother is the interpreter and purveyor of their interests (or the state, depending on what side of the debate you fall on).


----------



## AleronIves (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Six months is actually longer than roe v wade gives you a right to, which is kinda insane from a pro lifer.
> 
> It's a flawed plan to allow abortions up to six months in the case of rape and 0 months for everyone else.


I said that that particular statement was reasonable. I didn't say I agreed with all of his positions on abortion. It's important to find common ground where you can, especially on such a contentious issue.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

I'd like to apologize for being such a douchebag, I didn't understand what I was doing at the time, and I now realize that it was wrong.

Of course, I'll budge a little, not too much, but only a little. Abortion can be allowed until 12 weeks for other women, and 6 months for rape victims.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Wait, so you think Trump was good?
> 
> I agree, he was good for jobs, and low gas prices, and no rapid inflation, but I also disagree for everything else.


No, he was a disaster and a terrorist leader and an anti-scientific moron responsible for the death of thousands of americans. He was an imbecile who released the head of the Taliban from prison. A traitor who abandoned the Kurds at the mercy of Erdogan. A moron who single-handedly resurrected the Islamic state by betraying the Kurds, who were THIS close to eradicating them. A butcher who made more bombardments in 4 years than Obama did in 8. An idiot who couldn't even command the loyalty of his appointees.

The fact you think he was better than Biden shows you're nuts. The fact somehow you think he has some credit for "jobs" (he didn't, thanks to the trade wars), "low gas prices" ( a responsibility of Putin, like any imbecile knows, so why you blame him I'll never know, why can't you be as smart as a Swede), "rapid inflation" (again, a consequence of Putin's action, the same Putin Trump admires and called "very smart" when he invaded Ukraine).


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Pregnancy is a reasonable outcome.


Something being a reasonable possibility is not consent for that thing.



tabzer said:


> The analogy functions to blur causality (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. degrees of liability).


No it doesn't.



tabzer said:


> The analogy also forces a claim that the mother and developing child are separates bodies


They are separate bodies.



tabzer said:


> In the situation of the mother and developing child, the mother is the interpreter and purveyor of their interests (or the state, depending on what side of the debate you fall on).


The woman has a right over her own body, similar to how you have a right over yours and your organs.



KennyAtom said:


> Abortion can be allowed until 12 weeks for other women, and 6 months for rape victims.


Golly, thanks master.

What a fucking joke.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> No, he was a disaster and a terrorist leader and an anti-scientific moron responsible for the death of thousands of americans. He was an imbecile who released the head of the Taliban from prison. A traitor who abandoned the Kurds at the mercy of Erdogan. A moron who single-handedly resurrected the Islamic state by betraying the Kurds, who were THIS close to eradicating them. A butcher who made more bombardments in 4 years than Obama did in 8. An idiot who couldn't even command the loyalty of his appointees.
> 
> The fact you think he was better than Biden shows you're nuts. The fact somehow you think he has some credit for "jobs" (he didn't, thanks to the trade wars), "low gas prices" ( a responsibility of Putin, like any imbecile knows, so why you blame him I'll never know, why can't you be as smart as a Swede), "rapid inflation" (again, a consequence of Putin's action, the same Putin Trump admires and called "very smart" when he invaded Ukraine).


look, at least he didn't leave 8 billion dollars of equipment for the taliban to take, let our allies be murdered because he thought giving a list to the Taliban, the people we were FIGHTING against, was a good idea, saying he was going to get us out of covid then keeping us locked up (except for my state, we stopped wearing masks in 2021) until literally this year, and much more.

I hate trump, but even I can admit he was at least alright.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Golly, thanks master.
> 
> What a fucking joke.


Hey, at least i compromised, unlike your side, who just wants to murder babies and nothing else.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Pregnancy is a reasonable outcome. If you buy a lotto ticket,


Even winning tickets can be left unclaimed. By your own analogy, pregnancies should be freely refused.


JonhathonBaxster said:


> Sure, most of the posts I've posted that say abortions should not happen. I am empathic *towards the child*


No, you're really not.


KennyAtom said:


> look, at least he didn't leave 8 billion dollars of equipment for the taliban to take, let our allies be murdered because he thought giving a list to the Taliban, the people we were FIGHTING against, was a good idea, saying he was going to get us out of covid then keeping us locked up (except for my state, we stopped wearing masks in 2021) until literally this year, and much more.
> 
> I hate trump, but even I can admit he was at least alright.


His evacuation plan was largely unchanged.
He literally allowed the taliban to v2 organised by releasing their leader from Prison, are you being stupid on purpose?
How exactly is it a fault of Biden if america isn't out of covid when you Republicans refused to vaccinate out of pure stupidity?

You can admit whatever you want, that doesn't make you correct by any means. Of course, you might have likes trump because you believe in Replacement theory or some other stupid nonsense.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I said that that particular statement was reasonable. I didn't say I agreed with all of his positions on abortion. It's important to find common ground where you can, especially on such a contentious issue.


I'm not commenting on whether I'm agreeing or disagreeing with his posititions.

I was pointing out how incompatible his various views are and the problems they will cause.

Roe v wade only gives you 5 months, while the uk gives you 5.5 months, france gives you 3.2 months (with later abortions possible on medical grounds with the agreement of two doctors). Yet the person who has been going on about abortion being killing babies, has settled on extending to 6 months in the case of rape.

And you haven't found common ground, he's fucking with you.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You can admit whatever you want, that doesn't make you correct by any means. Of course, you might have likes trump because you believe in Replacement theory or some other stupid nonsense.


Now what in the sam fuck is a replacement theory


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Hey, at least i compromised, unlike your side, who just wants to murder babies and nothing else.


Foetuses and embryos aren't babies, do you have a pathological need to lie?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Now what in the sam fuck is a replacement theory


I refuse to believe you don't know what I'm talking about. Not even you can be this dumb or uninformed.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I am empathic *towards the child*


Nice try, but I had asked you about empathy towards women.

Originally in the case of rape, but right now I'd settle on any empathy towards women.

Where have you shown that?


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Hey, at least i compromised


Thanks, master, for only taking away some rights instead of all of them. What a benevolent one you are.



KennyAtom said:


> who just wants to murder babies and nothing else.


You never answered my question about who gets to make that determination. I am still waiting.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Now what in the sam fuck is a replacement theory


I used this thing you might not have heard of, called google.

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/0...eory-moved-from-the-fringes-to-the-mainstream


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Where have you shown that?


Hey, he's shown empathy towards CHILDREN, just like Mrs Lovejoy - and I mean only limited to when they're leaving the vagina. After that, they're on their own.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I refuse to believe you don't know what I'm talking about. Not even you can be this dumb or uninformed.


Well go ahead  and refuse to believe, but the fact of the matter is l literally don't know what it is.

Did you expect me to be so idiotic that I know every conspiracy theory l, or worse yet, believe it?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Did you expect me to be so idiotic that I know every conspiracy theory l, or worse yet, believe it?


Yes, when a guy went on a murder spree and said explicitly it was because of that not even a week ago.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> Nice try, but I had asked you about empathy towards women.
> 
> Originally in the case of rape, but right now I'd settle on any empathy towards women.
> 
> Where have you shown that?



Let's take for example the rape. Even though it would be horrible to get raped it would be a blessing to have a child and see it grow into an adult. Having children can be a wonderful thing if you make it be that way. So stating the mother needs to keep a child produced by rape is being empathic towards the mother. Unlike you I'm trying to make the best of a situation without needless murder.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Let's take for example the rape. Even though it would be horrible to get raped it would be a blessing to have a child and see it grow into an adult. Having children can be a wonderful thing if you make it be that way. So stating the mother needs to keep a child produced by rape is being empathic towards the mother. Unlike you I'm trying to make the best of a situation without needless murder.


You're one of the most disgusting people that haunt these forums.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Let's take for example the rape. Even though it would be horrible to get raped it would be a blessing to have a child and see it grow into an adult.


Do you know any actual women? Have you asked them about how they would feel?


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Even though it would be horrible to get raped it would be a blessing to have a child and see it grow into an adult.





JonhathonBaxster said:


> So stating the mother needs to keep a child produced by rape is being empathic towards the mother.


Not everyone wants kids. Not everyone has the physical resources to have kids. Not everyone has the mental health to have kids. Not everyone wants or can handle raising their rapist's kid. Anti-choice conservatives have an empathy problem.

You are a disgusting fool who thinks everyone is the same as you. You don't know what empathy is.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You are a disgusting fool who thinks everyone is the same as you. You don't know what empathy is.


He confuses empathy, with trying to force people to be happy doing what he wants.

"If only they would do what I want and be happy, then everything would be fine"


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Not everyone wants kids. Not everyone has the physical resources to have kids. Not everyone has the mental health to have kids. Not everyone wants or can handle raising their rapist's kid. Anti-choice conservatives have an empathy problem.
> 
> You are a disgusting fool who thinks everyone is the same as you. You don't know what empathy is.



The mother needs positive encouragement, not negative reinforcement. You are part of the problem. You're also now on ignore. I dislike talking to baby killers. People like you make me sick to my stomach. I'll also add smf.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yes, when a guy went on a murder spree and said explicitly it was because of that not even a week ago.


I don't watch the news.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Foetuses and embryos aren't babies, do you have a pathological need to lie?


i'm not lying, I swear i heard they're babies before. Maybe I got bad information. Doesn't mean I'm a liar.


smf said:


> I used this thing you might not have heard of, called google.
> 
> https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/0...eory-moved-from-the-fringes-to-the-mainstream


I use google, but I use it for actual good stuff, such as video games, music, and how to do that goddamn triple decap johnny cage brutality (i pulled it off once, but never again.) I don't use it to read news or find stupid excuses for a conspiracy theory.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> The mother needs positive encouragement, not negative reinforcement.


Then maybe you shouldn't vote to take away her right to bodily autonomy, and maybe you shouldn't shame her for not feeling the way you think she should feel.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> I dislike talking to baby killers. People like you make me sick to my stomach.


I've never killed a baby.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> The mother needs positive encouragement, not negative reinforcement. You are part of the problem. You're also now on ignore. I dislike talking to baby killers. People like you make me sick to my stomach. I'll also add smf.


I've never killed a baby, you on the other hand appear to have rape fantasy's

I am entirely willing to give positive encouragement, whatever it is you're doing is not positive encouragement. It's re-traumatizing.

That feeling sick to your stomach is because of you.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> The mother needs positive encouragement, not negative reinforcement. You are part of the problem. You're also now on ignore. I dislike talking to baby killers. People like you make me sick to my stomach. I'll also add smf.


I'm sure they dislike talking to rape apologists. Heck you sound deranged enough to likely be a rapist incel.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

look, I should probably take a break, this shit is causing me so much stress it's unreal, and with the way things are going, maybe it'll be for the best if i take a 3 day break from this thread.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I don't watch the news


That explains so much and yet so little. The audacity you have to call others stupid


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> That explains so much and yet so little. The audacity you have to call others stupid


wait, so I'm stupid for not watching propaganda from the likes of NBC,Fox News, CNN?


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> wait, so I'm stupid for not watching propaganda from the likes of NBC,Fox News, CNN?


Out of curiosity, how do you keep informed?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Out of curiosity, how do you keep informed?


fox news sometimes, I know I get some information from politics discords


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I don't use it to read news or find stupid excuses for a conspiracy theory.


When you're in the middle of a discussion and you don't know something and you want to continue participating in the discussion, it can be handy to actually google stuff.

Just styling it out with more trolling is never going to work.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> *fox news *sometimes, I know I get some information from politics discords





KennyAtom said:


> wait, so I'm stupid for not watching propaganda from the likes of NBC*,Fox News*, CNN?


Wait, what?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> wait, so I'm stupid for not watching propaganda from the likes of NBC,Fox News, CNN?


Only one of these radicalised people to be terrorists. That's Fox, BTW.
And you don't watch the news? Fine. But you can read, can you? The BBC, for example, is great at reporting US news (dreadful at reporting UK news but that doesn't really concern you).

You surely get your news somewhere. Facebook, twitter and truth social?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Wait, what?


like tucker carlson and stuff, I watch the actual fox news news, just not those conspiricy theroists.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> fox news sometimes, I know I get some information from politics discords


that explains a lot. That is basically self harming.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Wait, what?


He's losing track of his own lies, should probably just ban him from the thread, all his stupid trolling stopped being entertaining 5 pages ago.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

how the fuck am i trolling.

I literally just clarified, the actual news, not people like tucker carlson.

I am not trying to troll, I'm sorry if it comes across like that, but I promise i'm not.


----------



## SexiestManAlive (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Not everyone wants kids. Not everyone has the physical resources to have kids. Not everyone has the mental health to have kids. Not everyone wants or can handle raising their rapist's kid. Anti-choice conservatives have an empathy problem.
> 
> You are a disgusting fool who thinks everyone is the same as you. You don't know what empathy is.


1,000,000% this


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

ok, how do i turn off notifications for this shit, I need a small break before I straight up get a fucking stroke.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I literally just clarified, the actual news, not people like tucker carlson


So you're saying you tend not to watch opinion / editorial pieces?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> So you're saying you tend not to watch opinion / editorial pieces?


yes, actual news reporting, not opinion or editorials.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> truth social?


I'm really pissed that I've been cancelled by truthsocial already.

Access denied​You do not have access to truthsocial.com.

The site owner may have set restrictions that prevent you from accessing the site. Contact the site owner for access or try loading the page again.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> ok, how do i turn off notifications for this shit, I need a small break before I straight up get a fucking stroke.


Remove the thread from your bookmarks


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I'm really pissed that I've been cancelled by truthsocial already.
> 
> Access denied​You do not have access to truthsocial.com.
> 
> The site owner may have set restrictions that prevent you from accessing the site. Contact the site owner for access or try loading the page again.


Big snowflakes can't handle dissenting opinions. But hey, they're the champions of freedom of speech LMAO


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Remove the thread from your bookmarks


it's not in my bookmarks, it's in my notifications. thank you for trying to help though.


Dark_Ansem said:


> You surely get your news somewhere. Facebook, twitter and truth social?


No, no, and no.

I do not use facebook, I use twitter to call out lies, and truth social is a failed social media site that's just a begging platform for trump. I know you think I'm retarded, but I'm not that retarded.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> I know you think I'm retarded, but I'm not that retarded.


I actually think you're playing dumb, but you slipped one too many times lol


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> yes, actual news reporting, not opinion or editorials.


Fox News is well known for having a major right-wing bias, as well as engaging in propagandistic practices like photo manipulation, video manipulation, misreporting, etc.

I don't want to say "everything on Fox News is bad" or "everybody on Fox News is bad," but as a channel, it's pretty deplorable.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Big snowflakes can't handle dissenting opinions. But hey, they're the champions of freedom of speech LMAO


You get that error because it's US only, but I'm still being silenced and my freedom of speech is being violated by the right.
I got excited because they now have a web page as well as IOS app, still no android app & it's limited geographically.

Maybe I should get a VPN so that I can get on.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Fox News is well known for having a major right-wing bias, as well as engaging in propagandistic practices like photo manipulation, video manipulation, misreporting, etc.
> 
> I don't want to say "everything on Fox News is bad" or "everybody on Fox News is bad," but as a channel, it's pretty deplorable.


And not just in the editorials, they know what their customers want and are prepared to spoon feed it to them for money.

Even though it is turning them into idiots. They can be deprogrammed however.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/apr/11/fox-news-viewers-watch-cnn-study

If you watch everything, then shit like fox news will stand out as being bullshit. But if you only watch fox news, it will feel warm and comfortable.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> It's difficult for you to force people to give you want you want, because of you.
> 
> A bad faith troll crying because I wouldn't let myself be trolled, priceless.


Trolled? That’s rich. You spilled spaghetti all over the thread as if I was raking you across coals, and all I asked was a simple question an average 5th grader should be able to answer. If this is your idea of triumph, it certainly explains why the abortion debate is so unproductive. No harm done, I’m sure you’ll eventually spill the beans anyway - I can ask questions then.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 24, 2022)

isn't CNN also bad? It has a massive left wing bias, and I still remember that time they misrepresented riots as most peaceful.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> it certainly explains why the abortion debate is so unproductive.


Well, it's definitely not reproductive.


----------



## Lacius (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> isn't CNN also bad? It has a massive left wing bias, and I still remember that time they misrepresented riots as most peaceful.



I'm uninterested in whataboutism, since it has no bearing on Fox News.
CNN isn't perfect.
Fox News is far worse than CNN.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Trolled? That’s rich. You spilled spaghetti all over the thread as if I was raking you across coals, and all I asked was a simple question an average 5th grader should be able to answer. If this is your idea of triumph, it certainly explains why the abortion debate is so unproductive. No harm done, I’m sure you’ll eventually spill the beans anyway - I can ask questions then.


You're back to get kicked again? Sorry, I'm done with you.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Well, it's definitely not reproductive.


Nice one. 


smf said:


> You're back to get kicked again? Sorry, I'm done with you.


Not being able to answer basic questions and being unable to substantiate why beyond the usual “pls no buly” is not a victory. If you’re so afraid that your side’s arguments might be publicly scrutinised then perhaps they’re just bad arguments. We’ll never know, because you refused to present any.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Well, it's definitely not reproductive.


Sure it is, these idiots keep reproducing the same crap all the time thinking they are clever.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Nice one.
> Not being able to answer basic questions and being unable to substantiate why beyond the usual “pls no buly” is not a victory. If you’re so afraid of your side’s arguments being publicly scrutinised then perhaps they’re just bad arguments. We’ll never know, because you refused to present any.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


>



It’s funny you bring up Back to the Future, considering Marty’s recklessness almost caused him to abort himself in the original. Great flick.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> almost caused him to abort himself in the original. Great flick.


I don't think I saw the same film as you did.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> I don't think I saw the same film as you did.


Marty McFly threatened his own existence by interfering in the meeting between his parents. The whole movie is about him and his siblings gradually vanishing from reality until he sets things straight. In a way, his recklessness almost “aborted” him from time.


----------



## appleburger (May 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You didn't include the full text of what you quoted, which makes your quote and comment dishonest and misleading. I put in bold the main reasons. You're also taking it out of context.


@JonhathonBaxster you've got it wrong, the whole post.  I was criticizing your sourcing for your own sake.  Your links I made the post in response to were all blog post opinion pieces - the actual sources were below the footnotes on those articles.




> You tried to invalidate the entire study because of a simple opinion.


No, I was criticizing your sourcing, not the actual source.  I've already sourced the Guttmacher surveys in this thread myself, along with other users.




> However, I consider the "*women base their decisions largely on their ability to maintain economic stability and to care for the children they already have*" as a convenience, which I've already stated in my previous posts what qualifies as a convenience.


I know.  That's why I specifically addressed it (from my previous response):



> Now, that doesn't mean you can't source the guttmacher surveys and draw your own conclusions. You may disagree with Guttmacher's assessment here. But when your "source" is drawing a different conclusion than you from the same data, it seriously weakens the entire point of you sourcing someone.





> ...the entire point of you sourcing someone.



^^I'm reiterating to make myself clear, not to bash you.

Point being, if you want to use a source to back up an argument, googling and throwing in the first links you see is likely going to poison the well of information.  You've got to check the sources from the blogs if you want an actually reliable source.  If you're sourcing something that was _said_ or an opinion from the blog post, that's fine.  The links you posted didn't help your post - they held it back.  

If you actually wanted to discuss why you would draw different conclusions from Guttmacher Institute's findings, then that third link would be completely relevant for you to post here and we can see what you mean.

If you want us to look at numbers, it'd best serve you to post the source of those numbers.  Again, I've sourced the Guttmacher surveys myself.

I'm not commenting on your take at all right now, just your sourcing.

Like I said previously, easy to lump opinions together in a thread this big.  You were mistaken in your interpretation of my post, though.


----------



## tabzer (May 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Something being a reasonable possibility is not consent for that thing.



Consent becomes complicit when you play games that reward different prizes.   



Lacius said:


> No it doesn't.



Yes it does.  



Lacius said:


> They are separate bodies.



After you sever the connection and separate them. 



Lacius said:


> The woman has a right over her own body, similar to how you have a right over yours and your organs.



Is that your ideology or is this what your laws say?



Dark_Ansem said:


> Even winning tickets can be left unclaimed. By your own analogy, pregnancies should be freely refused.



You still won though.  The analogy was to demonstrate consent.  If you want to argue why it is rational to discard a winning lottery ticket, go ahead.


----------



## smf (May 24, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> his recklessness almost “aborted” him from time.


strange choice of words and unsurprisingly not mentioned on imdb or wikipedia.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2022)

smf said:


> strange choice of words and unsurprisingly not mentioned on imdb or wikipedia.


I don’t need it mentioned anywhere to know that’s what happened - I watched the movie.


----------



## appleburger (May 24, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> isn't CNN also bad? It has a massive left wing bias, and I still remember that time they misrepresented riots as most peaceful.


For the media outlets, I like to sort them with the Ground News app. 

There are sites and other apps that do something similar, but the idea is just to organize the media's takes so you can get view on the big picture.

It's my go-to quick look at news when I'm on the can.


----------



## SG854 (May 25, 2022)

smf said:


> strange choice of words and unsurprisingly not mentioned on imdb or wikipedia.


Marty McFly almost got his pregnant mom's baby (himself) aborted. He went back in time during her pregnancy. Didn't you see the movie?


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you want to argue why it is rational to discard a winning lottery ticket, go ahead.


Why does it have to meet your definition of rational to be a valid choice?


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Marty McFly almost got his pregnant mom's baby (himself) aborted. He went back in time during her pregnancy. Didn't you see the movie?


Which movie exactly are you talking about? Are you sure you've seen it?


----------



## tabzer (May 25, 2022)

smf said:


> Why does it have to meet your definition of rational to be a valid choice?


It'd be nice to live in a world where abortion wasn't an issue because everyone treasured their bundles of joy.


----------



## tabzer (May 25, 2022)

smf said:


> Which movie exactly are you talking about? Are you sure you've seen it?



He's talking about the plot to a movie called, "Back to the Future".  It's pretty good.  It's about a boy who almost aborts himself by traveling in time.  You should check it out.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Marty McFly almost got his pregnant mom's baby (himself) aborted. He went back in time during her pregnancy. Didn't you see the movie?


I don’t think she was already pregnant, but she was certainly about to be. The whole premise of the movie is Marty ensuring his own conception and subsequent existence.


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It'd be nice to live in a world where abortion wasn't an issue because everyone treasured their bundles of joy.


Wouldn't it be more productive to work towards that, rather than try to ban it?


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t think she was already pregnant, but she was certainly about to be.


No, she wasn't. He was 17 in 1985, so he was born in 1968. He traveled in the delorian to 1955.

He is the youngest of the three children.

David Tiberius "Dave" McFly was born 1963, Linda McFly was born 1966

Unless by "about to be" you mean 8 years later.


----------



## tabzer (May 25, 2022)

smf said:


> Wouldn't it be more productive to work towards that, rather than try to ban it?


Yes.  I've said something to that effect.


----------



## tabzer (May 25, 2022)

smf said:


> No, she wasn't. He was 17 in 1985, so he was born in 1968. He traveled in the delorian to 1955.
> 
> He is the youngest of the three children.



But in the movie he was already born.  So she was already pregnant and had birth but then almost didn't.

I think I am beginning to understand how @smf thinks.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

smf said:


> No, she wasn't. He was 17 in 1985, so he was born in 1968. He traveled in the delorian to 1955.
> 
> He is the youngest of the three children.


I thought he was, you’re right. The disappearing business was more a matter of preventing his parents from falling in love, which in turn would’ve prevented his birth later down the line. He nearly aborted himself from the timeline by interfering in their initial meeting.


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> But in the movie he was already born.  So she was already pregnant and had birth but then almost didn't.
> 
> I think I am beginning to understand how @smf thinks.


She had been pregnant. But we don't generally talk about children being aborted if they die after they are born.


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> He nearly aborted himself from the timeline by interfering in their initial meeting.


Again, a rather obtuse choice of words and entirely missing from any marketing or synopsis of the film.

They went with erased.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

smf said:


> Again, a rather obtuse choice of words and entirely missing from any marketing or synopsis of the film.
> 
> They went with erased.


A little levity wouldn’t kill us, though it might abort a rather funny bit. The erasure debate is next on the docket, right after the abortion debate.


----------



## tabzer (May 25, 2022)

smf said:


> She had been pregnant. But we don't generally talk about children being aborted if they die after they are born.



I don't think that's the plot of "Back to the Future."  Have you seen it?


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Consent becomes complicit when you play games that reward different prizes.


You should learn how consent works.



tabzer said:


> Is that your ideology or is this what your laws say?


Right now, it's both, and unless you want to set the precedent of allowing the state to violate bodily autonomy rights in order to save a lives, you should agree with me.


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I don't think that's the plot of "Back to the Future."  Have you seen it?


It's not, I was responding to your point about how she'd been pregnant before 1985 & then in 1955 he almost stopped his parents getting married & that would have prevented him from being conceived in the first place.

He would have disappeared, but he had already been born in his time stream.

In either case that would not be classed as abortion.


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You should learn how consent works.


No means no.


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Consent becomes complicit when you play games that reward different prizes.


Do you mean implicit?

complicit: _involved with others in an activity that is unlawful or morally wrong._

You really want explicit consent, if you want to avoid ending up in court on a rape charge.


----------



## tabzer (May 25, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You should learn how consent works.



Pregnancy happens  through the active practice of making it happen.  Consent is implied in willful practice.  



Lacius said:


> Right now, it's both, and unless you want to set the precedent of allowing the state to violate bodily autonomy rights in order to save a lives, you should agree with me.



I was under the impression that there are limitations to which there are disagreements about.



smf said:


> Do you mean implicit?



Yes.  I thought I wrote that. 



smf said:


> You really want explicit consent, if you want to avoid ending up in court on rape charge.



We aren't talking about the act of sex itself.  The activity itself lends to the outcome of another.


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Pregnancy happens  through the active (willful) practice of making it happen.  Consent is implied.


Rapists often think their victims have consented too.

Isn't it more important what the two people having sex actually thought?


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Pregnancy happens  through the active practice of making it happen.


As we already discussed (and I thought you agreed), pregnancy usually isn't the goal of sex.


----------



## tabzer (May 25, 2022)

Lacius said:


> As we already discussed (and I thought you agreed), pregnancy usually isn't the goal of sex.



The goal of playing games isn't losing, but you play by the rules even though you don't explicitly state it.  In the case of pregnancy, it is because you gave bodily fluids the agency to decide for you.  Getting pregnant isn't a violation if there was consensus in the manner of sex.



smf said:


> Rapists often think their victims have consented too.


We aren't talking about rape.  We are talking about consensual sex being or not being a consent to (the possibility of) pregnancy.


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The goal of playing games isn't losing, but you play by the rules even though you don't explicitly state it.  In the case of pregnancy, it is because you gave bodily fluids the agency to decide for you.  Getting pregnant isn't a violation if there was consensus in the manner of sex.


The goal of driving my car isn't to get in a car accident. I acknowledge the risks, and I consent to those risks, but that doesn't mean I consent to getting in a car accident. You're just going in circles now.

The only way to consent to being pregnant is to consent to being pregnant.


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> We aren't talking about rape.  We are talking about consensual sex being or not being a consent to pregnancy.


How is consent different in either case?

A common rape excuse would be "look at her, she was dressed provocatively and she was drunk". i.e. consent was implied.
She chose to dress provocatively, she chose to be drunk. Surely she should have considered the logical conclusion to that? right?

Followed to that conclusion, his dick was inside her but she didn't necessarily consent to him ejaculating inside her. Maybe the condom fell off. Maybe he didn't pull out in time.


----------



## tabzer (May 25, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The goal of driving my car isn't to get in a car accident. I acknowledge the risks, and I consent to those risks, but that doesn't mean I consent to getting in a car accident. You're just going in circles now.
> 
> The only way to consent to being pregnant is to consent to being pregnant.



Please explain how does one "consent to being pregnant"?  If, while driving, you are taking risks and making mistakes, you are inviting the inevitable.  

Then there are people who try to get pregnant and fail.  How does consent work here?



smf said:


> Followed to that conclusion, his dick was inside her but she didn't necessarily consent to him ejaculating inside her. Maybe the condom fell off. Maybe he didn't pull out in time.



That appears to be nonconsensual, you can argue.


----------



## AleronIves (May 25, 2022)

I guess the serious discussion is over, having been replaced with a deluge of back and forth "no u" responses, so thanks to everyone who contributed to the exploration of the issue earlier. It was both informative and enjoyable.


----------



## SexiestManAlive (May 25, 2022)

i love how the discussion devolved into talking about what happened in back to the future


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Please explain how does one "consent to being pregnant"?


By choosing to get pregnant, or choosing to stay pregnant after becoming pregnant unexpectedly.



tabzer said:


> If, while driving, you are taking risks and making mistakes, you are inviting the inevitable.


Not wearing my seatbelt is not consent to get thrown out of my car, even if my decision to not wear my seatbelt was stupid. Not getting vaccinated against COVID-19 isn't consent to die of COVID-19, even if the decision to not get vaccinated is stupid and increases one's chances of dying of COVID-19.



tabzer said:


> Then there are people who try to get pregnant and fail.  How does consent work here?


Consenting to something doesn't mean you get it. I am consenting right now to anybody in this thread giving me a million dollars. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Like I said earlier, respectfully, I think you need to learn what consent is.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 25, 2022)

appleburger said:


> @JonhathonBaxster you've got it wrong, the whole post.  I was criticizing your sourcing for your own sake.  Your links I made the post in response to were all blog post opinion pieces - the actual sources were below the footnotes on those articles.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sorry for accusing you of attacking me. If you look at the original sources I listed along with the Guttmacher and other search results you'll notice that most of the reasons for abortions are the same regardless of the source. I even quoted a Guttmacher studies results in my last reply to you and all of the reasons are about the same as the other pages I linked to. It basically comes down to most abortions are done because the mother simply doesn't want the baby for reasons that are trivial or needs her to put in effort. Actual abortions that are done to save the mothers life or are done because of rape/incest are a small percentage of why women have abortions. Not that any of this matters to me and how I feel about abortions; I was just trying to answer smf's question.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The goal of driving my car isn't to get in a car accident. I acknowledge the risks, and *I consent to those risks*, but *that doesn't mean I consent to getting in a car accident*.


Wait a minute. What you’re describing is called a waiver. If you acknowledge the risks involved in a specific activity and sign a waiver, that contract nullifies rights you would’ve otherwise had - you’ve waived them in favour of participating in the risky activity in question. No amount of mental gymnastics is going to “un-accident” you in the event of a collision - you’ve had an accident, your consent is irrelevant. Now, you may seek legal remedy if the accident wasn’t your fault, or you may face some penalties if it was in fact your fault, but at no point is your “consent” relevant - the accident happened, and there is no way to undo it. The best you can hope for is to accurately determine the guilty party and seek restitution for damages, but that happens after the fact. You can’t exit your vehicle after a collision, look at the other guy and say “wow, I’m sorry about that tail light. I didn’t consent to this though, so… ciao?” - that’s not how it works. Once you acknowledge risk, you de facto “consent” to any and all consequences of your decisions. You don’t get to “bail”.


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Wait a minute. What you’re describing is called a waiver. If you acknowledge the risks involved in a specific activity and sign a waiver, that contract nullifies rights you would’ve otherwise had - you’ve waived them in favour of participating in the risky activity in question.


This is one of the silliest things you've ever posted. There's a difference between acknowledging a risk and signing a waiver. When I get in my car, I don't sign a waiver beforehand saying that I can't sue another motorist if they hit me. What are you smoking?



Foxi4 said:


> you’ve had an accident, your consent is irrelevant. Now, you may seek legal remedy if the accident wasn’t your fault, or you may face some penalties if it was in fact your fault, but at no point is your “consent” relevant - the accident just happened.


My consent is completely relevant. I'm able to seek legal remedy because someone hit my car without my consent. I have legal recourse because the collision was against my consent, lol. If I said someone could, for example, trash my car with a sledgehammer, and they had my consent, then that person is legally able to do so.

Foxi4, respectfully, I wish you'd put more thought into the posts in this thread that you've put into your posts in other threads. They've been pretty bad lately.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Lacius said:


> This is one of the silliest things you've ever posted. There's a difference between acknowledging a risk and signing a waiver. When I get in my car, I don't sign a waiver beforehand saying that I can't sue another motorist if they hit me. What are you smoking?
> 
> My consent is completely relevant. I'm able to seek legal remedy because someone hit my car without my consent. I have legal recourse because the collision was against my consent, lol. If I said someone could, for example, trash my car with a sledgehammer, and they had my consent, then that person is legally able to do so.
> 
> Foxi4, respectfully, I wish you'd put more thought into the posts in this thread that you've put into your posts in other threads.


Sometimes I wonder if you read what you’re responding to or just respond with the first thing that comes to your head. I’ll walk you through this, slowly.

Read what you’ve just said - you “consent to the risk”, but you “don’t consent to the accident”, meaning _exactly what the risk entails?_ That’s asinine. Imagine that exchange in court.

“Sir, were you aware that performing this risky maneuver could cause an accident on the road?”
“Yes, judge.”
“Well then, it seems pretty clean cut - you were aware of the risk, but did it anyway, which makes you liable.”
“Ah, see, that’s not quite right - I didn’t consent to the collision.”
“Well Lacius, I didn’t expect that - you got me beat. You’re free to go, you rascal.”

Stupid. Obviously that’s not how it would’ve gone down, and you know that. Either you’ve accepted risk or you didn’t - accepting risk entails accepting consequences. When you turned the key in the ignition, you accepted the possibility that you *might* get into an accident, which entails both legal and health-related ramifications. *Obviously* there isn’t a physical, paper waiver you sign before entering a vehicle, we’re talking about the concept of accepting risk.

Nobody’s asking for your consent - the possibility of getting into an accident is a known quantity that you accept as a motorist. Nobody intends to get into accidents, it just happens. I never said that you can’t sue the other motorist, what I said was that the accident cannot be undone - it’s physically impossible. You can’t “abort the accident” - the legal rigamarole associated with it must play out. You absolutely can abort a pregnancy and avoid the remainder of the process.

Speaking of suing, in the event of a collision with another motorist, you have a quarrel with that other motorist, not the state. In the event of a collision of a penis with a vagina, the mother has a quarrel with the father, not the state, if we’re to remain logically consistent. Since the accident can’t be “aborted”, the remedy comes in the form of finding the guilty party after the fact and, ideally, receiving some sort of monetary restitution for damages. That sure sounds like child support.

EDIT: Blasted autocorrect, should be okay now. Thanks, Apple.


----------



## tabzer (May 25, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Not wearing my seatbelt is not consent to get thrown out of my car, even if my decision to not wear my seatbelt was stupid.



Creating the conditions for something to happen is form of consent, even if it is not explicit.  The more steps you take to ensure a particular outcome, the greater the case for consent.  If you plow into a wall, without a seatbelt on, there's nothing you can really do to disagree with the fact that you being thrown out of your car.  You've done everything you could to give permission for something to happen and vocalizing your disagreement with reality doesn't change that. 

Pregnancy is not a conscious act, though conscious decision making often preclude it.  "Actions speak louder than words"  The more actions you take that enable a pregnancy to occur, the clearer the consent.


----------



## silien3 (May 25, 2022)

here's what to do so that everyone has what they want

*1) law when 2 people are consenting and the baby has little or no risk of having any problem of health*
it may be the woman who gets pregnant but her 2 people who make the children not one so let women abort without the consent of the spouse is a categorical no her 2 parent who gives their genome not one the man has as many rights that the woman to decide whether there is an abortion or not if the mother is incapable of her does not mean that the father is incapable of moreover if there is a consenting spouse the mother and the father had the case to protect themselves or use the pill
so here there is an intention to have children whoever tries to abort will go to prison for attempted murder or murder if one of the 2 does not consent because it is they who wanted to play with fire with a person consenting therefore obligation to have the agreement of the 2 parents the 2 could make sure that the woman does not become pregnant during and after the act and if it is not enough they can sign things and say consent to the abortion therefore there is intention to a crime if don't respect anything

if the 2 parents want to abort her until more or less 2 months maximum to be sure that there is not yet life therefore her 7/8 weeks (if you are against I specify that there are cells at this stage so masturbating rules ect and eating meat and vegetables, using antibacterials ect would be a crime deserving hell and torture in this hypocritical and perverse logic) beyond automatic adoption or raising by parent

*2)* *law when at least 1 person is not consenting for women*
people drugged and raped and therefore not consenting can abort up to 2 and a half months maximum so that there is no life yet so its 9/10 weeks (if you are against I specify that there are cells at this stage so masturbating rules ect and eating meat and vegetables, using antibacterials ect would be a crime deserving hell and torture in this hypocritical and perverse logic) beyond automatic adoption or raising by parent

*3)* *law when at least 1 person is not consenting for man*
people drugged and raped and therefore not consenting can request the abortion of the rapist up to 1 month and a half maximum so that there is no life yet so it is 5/6 weeks (if you are against I specifies that there are cells at this stage therefore rules of masturbation ect and eating meat and vegetables, using antibacterials ect would be a crime deserving hell and torture in this hypocritical and perverse logic) beyond automatic adoption or raised by parent

*4)* *law if the baby has a risk of health problems*
if the Health problem is minimal, it is the same as for point 1
for major problems, it must be on a case-by-case basis, for example a baby who will suffer all his life and die very young without a chance to live fully at least letting him go is the most humane solution that exists
when to those who have a minimal chance of living fully I presume to let the 2 parents decide


here it is law would allow everyone to live with decency and not to be deprived of their rights obviously I am not perfect we know maybe improve what I provide but in general its that it is necessary to do

sorry for my english i use google translate


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Creating the conditions for something to happen is form of consent, even if it is not explicit.  The more steps you take to ensure a particular outcome, the greater the case for consent.  If you plow into a wall, without a seatbelt on, there's nothing you can really do to disagree with the fact that you being thrown out of your car.  You've done everything you could to give permission for something to happen and vocalizing your disagreement with reality doesn't change that.
> 
> Pregnancy is not a conscious act, though conscious decision making often preclude it.  "Actions speak louder than words"  The more actions you take that enable a pregnancy to occur, the clearer the consent.


”Hey, can you hear the alarm? This is not a drill, the building’s on fire! We have to evacuate!”
“That sure sounds like work. I think I’ll stay for now, this spot seems safe.”
“No, you’ll burn! Please, listen to me, we have to leave!”
“That’s ridiculous. So what if fire safety regulations dictate that I should listen to you and immediately head to the assembly point outside? While I acknowledge the risks associated with fire and accept the fire safety code, I did not consent to being fried to a crisp. I should be alright.”
“Gee whiz, ya got me. Good luck to ya.”
“Luck? I don’t need luck with logic on my side!”

Fade to black, cue Seinfeld drop and a camera pan to the eulogy, some time after the body’s recovered from the smouldering ruins.


----------



## tabzer (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> ”Hey, can you hear the alarm? This is not a drill, the building’s on fire! We have to evacuate!”
> “That sure sounds like work. I think I’ll stay for now, this spot seems safe.”
> “No, you’ll burn! Please, listen to me, we have to leave!”
> “That’s ridiculous. So what if fire safety regulations dictate that I should listen to you and immediately head to the assembly point outside? While I acknowledge the risks associated with fire and accept the fire safety code, I did not consent to being fried to a crisp. I should be alright.”
> ...



I imagined funny scenarios ending with Lacius shouting, "I do not consent!"  Does sound like something George or maybe even Jerry would do.


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Read what you’ve just said - you “consent to the risk”, but you “don’t consent to the accident”, meaning _exactly what the risk entails?_ That’s asinine. Imagine that exchange in court.


Acknowledging the risk isn't the same as consenting to the accident.



Foxi4 said:


> “Sir, were you aware that performing this risky maneuver could cause an accident on the road?”
> “Yes, judge.”
> “Well then, it seems pretty clean cut - you were aware of the risk, but did it anyway, which makes you liable.”
> “Ah, see, that’s not quite right - I didn’t consent to the collision.”
> “Well Lacius, I didn’t expect that - you got me beat. You’re free to go, you rascal.”


Nobody is arguing that everybody gets what they consent to and nobody gets what they don't consent to. This is why you're disingenuous.



Foxi4 said:


> Stupid.


Yeah, but I'd argue the one who brought it up as a silly strawman is the one behaving stupidly.



Foxi4 said:


> Obviously that’s not how it would’ve gone down, and you know that. Either you’ve accepted risk or you didn’t - accepting risk entails accepting consequences. When you turned the key in the ignition, you accepted the possibility that you *might* get into an accident, which entails both legal and health-related ramifications.


Accepting risk isn't the same as consenting to what happens. For the umpteenth time, I accept the risks each time I get into the car, but that doesn't mean I consent to any accidents, whether or not they're my fault. It really sincerely sounds like you need to Google what the word means.



Foxi4 said:


> *Obviously* there isn’t a physical, paper waiver you sign before entering a vehicle, we’re talking about the concept of accepting risk.


Then maybe you shouldn't have stupidly and irrelevantly brought up signing physical waivers? Just a thought.



Foxi4 said:


> I never said that you can’t sue the other motorist


You didn't, but that wasn't my criticism of your post. Please reread my post. Suggesting my problem with your post was you said you couldn't sue other motorists is disingenuous. Based on your recent statements though, it might just be you being stupid some more.



Foxi4 said:


> what I said was that the accident cannot be undone - it’s physically impossible.


Cool. Getting pregnant in the first place can't be undone either. That would require backwards time travel, and I've already had to ignore conversations about backwards time travel enough in this thread.

What can be done in the case of a car accident? Legal battles. Restitution. Repairs. Making someone whole. Just like how things can be done after a car accident, things can be done after a pregnancy. A person has a legal right to bodily autonomy, similar to how a person has a legal right to not get hit by a speeding motorist.

Getting on the highway is not consent to getting hit by a speeding motorist, regardless of the risks and regardless of whether or not you acknowledged those risks. Having sex is not consent to pregnancy, regardless of the risks and regardless of whether or not the woman acknowledged those risks. Learn what consent is, and stop being so goddamn stupid.



Foxi4 said:


> the legal rigamarole associated with it must play out. You absolutely can abort a pregnancy and avoid the remainder of the process.


Your analogy is so flawed. I'll be as condescending as you and "walk you through this slowly."

Driver = pregnant woman
Car accident = Getting pregnant
Risks of being on the highway = risks of having sex
No consent to get hit by speeding motorist = no consent to get pregnant
Legal rigamarole = process of getting an abortion
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but this is so simple, I'm actually bored. My avatar has never been so apt.



Foxi4 said:


> Speaking of suing, in the event of a collision with another motorist, you have a quarrel with that other motorist, not the state. In the event of a collision of a penis with a vagina, the mother has a quarrel with the father, not the state, if we’re to remain logically consistent. Since the accident can’t be “aborted”, the remedy comes in the form of finding the guilty party after the fact and, ideally, receiving some sort of monetary restitution for damages. That sure sounds like child support.


You're muddying the analogy, since I don't think we were talking about the state or even a quarrel in the pregnancy part of the analogy. You seem to have run into the analogy and tripped over yourself a few times. I suggest you reread the part where I slowed it down for you.

If you feel like I was extra abrasive or name-calling in this post, it's because a.) I know you can handle it, and b.) Your responses here have been that next-level stupid.



tabzer said:


> Creating the conditions for something to happen is form of consent


That's not what consent is. Wearing skimpy clothing increases one's odds of getting raped, and one might argue that "created the conditions for something to happen," but that isn't consent to being raped. That's victim-blaming. Oof.



tabzer said:


> If you plow into a wall, without a seatbelt on, there's nothing you can really do to disagree with the fact that you being thrown out of your car.


I am having trouble imaging a situation in which someone did what you described without self-harm being the explicit purpose of one's actions. The only thing I can think of is maybe the driver was forced to plow into a wall, in which case it wouldn't be consensual.

Regardless, if the driver didn't want to get hurt or die, then the driver didn't consent to being hurt or dying. Acknowledging the risks is irrelevant to that. That may be irrelevant to whether or not they get hurt or die, but it still doesn't make it consensual.



tabzer said:


> Pregnancy is not a conscious act, though conscious decision making often preclude it.


Getting into a car accident by being hit by another motorist isn't a conscious act, though conscious decision making (like being on the highway at 1am on New Years) often precludes it. That doesn't mean the accident was consensual.

Learn what consent is.



tabzer said:


> "Actions speak louder than words"


A person could drive 30 mph over the speed limit, without a license, without a seatbelt, and although this behavior is stupid and reckless, it isn't necessarily consent to die.



tabzer said:


> The more actions you take that enable a pregnancy to occur, the clearer the consent.


If the woman didn't want to get pregnant, and she doesn't want to stay pregnant, it's never consent to be pregnant.

A couple of idiots in this thread don't seem to understand that consent is permission for something to happen. Without that permission, regardless of anything else, there isn't consent. Consent can also be revoked at any time.


----------



## Lacius (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> ”Hey, can you hear the alarm? This is not a drill, the building’s on fire! We have to evacuate!”
> “That sure sounds like work. I think I’ll stay for now, this spot seems safe.”
> “No, you’ll burn! Please, listen to me, we have to leave!”
> “That’s ridiculous. So what if fire safety regulations dictate that I should listen to you and immediately head to the assembly point outside? While I acknowledge the risks associated with fire and accept the fire safety code, I did not consent to being fried to a crisp. I should be alright.”
> ...


You're a disingenuous idiot with a hardon for strawmen if you think I'm arguing consent is at all relevant to physical acts. A woman not consenting to getting pregnant can still get pregnant. A person who doesn't consent to being hit by a car can be hit by a car. I've said numerous times already that nobody is arguing that everyone gets everything they consent and never get what they don't consent to. You mentioned earlier that you don't think I read your posts, but I clear do, and you clearly don't read mine.

That was never the point, and I guess I shouldn't be surprised you're behaving this shamelessly stupid. It isn't even a matter of whether or not we agree; you don't even understand the point or what I am or am not arguing.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Acknowledging the risk isn't the same as consenting to the accident.


Nobody consents to accidents - accidents simply happen, it’s a fact of life. We have law to determine what to do when they occur. There’s no such thing as “consent to an accident” - you don’t consent to it on the road, you don’t consent to it when you trip on the stairs, you don’t consent to it when you burn your finger on a hot baking tray. You weren’t cautious enough, or you were simply unlucky, and something bad happened - consent never enters the picture.


> Nobody is arguing that everybody gets what they consent to and nobody gets what they don't consent to. This is why you're disingenuous.


The core of your argument is that abortion is justified if the woman doesn’t consent to being pregnant. You’re arguing that because she got something she didn’t consent to, that problem must be rectified. That’s your entire point, unless I missed something.


> Yeah, but I'd argue the one who brought it up as a silly strawman is the one behaving stupidly.


The notion that you can accept risk but reject consequence is silly, the person promoting that notion is acting stupidly.


> Accepting risk isn't the same as consenting to what happens. For the umpteenth time, I accept the risks each time I get into the car, but that doesn't mean I consent to any accidents, whether or not they're my fault. It really sincerely sounds like you need to Google what the word means.


I think you’re having trouble understanding that nobody cares if you consent or not - you’ve accepted the risk. Should you find yourself in an accident, you may be found liable for it, regardless of whether you consent or not.


> Then maybe you shouldn't have stupidly and irrelevantly brought up signing physical waivers? Just a thought.


I was explaining the concept of a waiver as an agreement that, as the name implies, waived specific rights or claims when agreed upon. Once that was out of the way, I explained how that applies to what you said.


> You didn't, but that wasn't my criticism of your post. Please reread my post. Suggesting my problem with your post was you said you couldn't sue other motorists is disingenuous. Based on your recent statements though, it might just be you being stupid some more.


”My consent is completely relevant. I'm able to seek legal remedy because someone hit my car without my consent. I have legal recourse because the collision was against my consent, lol” - your words, not mine. Not that they matter, since they don’t relate to what’s being argued - I never said that you can’t seek legal remedy, I said that your consent doesn’t matter. You’re a party to the accident whether you consent to it or not, it’s not up to you.


> Cool. Getting pregnant in the first place can't be undone either. That would require backwards time travel, and I've already had to ignore conversations about backwards time travel enough in this thread.
> 
> What can be done in the case of a car accident? Legal battles. Restitution. Repairs. Making someone whole. Just like how things can be done after a car accident, things can be done after a pregnancy. A person has a legal right to bodily autonomy, similar to how a person has a legal right to not get hit by a speeding motorist.


The point is consistently flying over your dome. You as a motorist shouldn’t be subject to a collision, and a woman shouldn’t be subject to an unwanted pregnancy, that much is correct. With that being said, both of those are very real possibilities, and law exists to govern what happens in such instances. Driving recklessly can lead to an accident, and that accident can be linked to legal liability for any and all damages caused. How does that extend to abortion? Can one have sex recklessly, and does that entail a degree of liability for the resulting damages? If we want to be consistent with this analogy then the answer must necessarily be yes.


> Getting on the highway is not consent to getting hit by a speeding motorist, regardless of the risks and regardless of whether or not you acknowledged those risks. Having sex is not consent to pregnancy, regardless of the risks and regardless of whether or not the woman acknowledged those risks. Learn what consent is, and stop being so goddamn stupid.


Nobody’s particularly concerned about consent if you’ve accepted pregnancy as one of the possible outcomes of risky sexual activity. The state is not obligated to help you. Whether it should help you is a matter of public debate that’s happening right now.


> Your analogy is so flawed. I'll be as condescending as you and "walk you through this slowly."
> 
> Driver = pregnant woman
> Car accident = Getting pregnant
> ...


I’ll do you one better. Check it out, my list is shorter!

Motorist = Some dude
Car accident = getting pregnant
Running across the highway with your arms flailing = Risky sexual behaviour
No consent to being hit by a motorist = no consent to pregnancy

If you run across the highway with your arms flailing and end up in an accident due to your risky behaviour, not only do I not care about whether you consented to it or not, I also find you liable for the accident. You knew what you were doing, you knew that the odds of getting hit by a car are high when you’re acting like an idiot on the highway, and with that knowledge in mind you did it anyway. It’s your fault, buster.


> I don't mean to be disrespectful, but this is so simple, I'm actually bored. My avatar has never been so apt.


One of those days I’ll have to find my shoop of it, the one with the single teardrop rolling down the cheek, a’la Iron Eyes Cody. Ahh, those were the days - when we argued about the Wii U being crap, not all this nonsense.


> You're muddying the analogy, since I don't think we were talking about the state or even a quarrel in the pregnancy part of the analogy. You seem to have run into the analogy and tripped over yourself a few times. I suggest you reread the part where I slowed it down for you.


You mentioned that as a victim of the accident you deserve restitution. I’m helping you figure out who’s liable in this scenario.


> If you feel like I was extra abrasive or name-calling in this post, it's because a.) I know you can handle it, and b.) Your responses here have been that next-level stupid.


Nah, I like it spicy.



Lacius said:


> You're a disingenuous idiot with a hardon for strawmen if you think I'm arguing consent is at all relevant to physical acts. A woman not consenting to getting pregnant can still get pregnant. A person who doesn't consent to being hit by a car can be hit by a car. I've said numerous times already that nobody is arguing that everyone gets everything they consent and never get what they don't consent to. You mentioned earlier that you don't think I read your posts, but I clear do, and you clearly don't read mine.
> 
> That was never the point, and I guess I shouldn't be surprised you're behaving this shamelessly stupid. It isn't even a matter of whether or not we agree; you don't even understand the point or what I am or am not arguing.


The scenario above is a logical consequence of your train of thought. If consent mattered at all in the case of an unfortunate accident, it would make sense. It doesn’t, and you have trouble coming to terms with that, so you’re getting flustered. I understand your point, and I’m actively making fun of it because it’s a bad argument. Consent is only relevant as far as deliberate action is concerned - you can’t expect consent in matters that are not deliberate because people generally can’t look into the future.

Consent doesn’t work backwards, either - you can’t give consent at the time and retract it later (unless you’re concocting one of those ridiculous modern college scenarios where the guy doesn’t pick up his phone the next day, so consensual sex turn into rape all of a sudden). Once consent is given, it is given. It can’t be retracted after the fact, or after the act, whichever you find amusing, unless it was given under a false pretense.

A woman who is a victim of rape does not consent, obviously. The rapist is using force to overcome her. She doesn’t “expect” to get raped, and her agency, her ability to consent or not, is removed. When a woman has consensual sex, she should *expect* that the possibility of becoming pregnant is very real, and take necessary precautions to prevent that from happening. Failing to do so logically carries some degree of liability since pregnancy isn’t a surprise, it’s an expected consequence of intercourse. She had full agency throughout the process, only the pregnancy itself is up to chance - chance she was aware of. We’ve been over this already.


----------



## tabzer (May 25, 2022)

Lacius said:


> That's not what consent is. Wearing skimpy clothing increases one's odds of getting raped, and one might argue that "created the conditions for something to happen," but that isn't consent to being raped. That's victim-blaming. Oof.



Are you arguing that getting raped is an expected or reasonable outcome?  If not, then the "creating the conditions for something to happen" is a moot endeavor.  How would one verbally consent to being raped, or consent at all?  

"Learn what consent is"?



Lacius said:


> I am having trouble imaging a situation in which someone did what you described without self-harm being the explicit purpose of one's actions.



If you consent to the risk of automobile injury it means accepting the possibility of an automobile injury.  How you do it, if you do it, be it willful or accidental, is not without consent.  If you play chicken with another driver without a seatbelt.  Well, the permission for what could happen becomes less ambiguous.



Lacius said:


> Consent can also be revoked at any time.



Sure, but it doesn't change the facts of something that already have happened by your consent.  It doesn't magically pass through time and undo actions.  Pregnancy doesn't reverse.  Lovemaking doesn't retroactively become rape.


----------



## silien3 (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Lovemaking doesn't retroactively become rape.


of course if we imagine we have 2 people they want to do it both agree to do the preliminary ect then before going further one of the 2 changes his mind and says stop it becomes a rape if the other does not stop


----------



## tabzer (May 25, 2022)

silien3 said:


> of course if we imagine we have 2 people they want to do it both agree to do the preliminary ect then before going further one of the 2 changes his mind and says stop it becomes a rape if the other does not stop


Of course.


----------



## silien3 (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Of course.


there is also manipulation, brainwashing and other things that are rape with false consent see sects as main example

and in the future there will surely be something close to brainwashing but with memory manipulation or something like that if we leave technology in the hands of scientists / the current government who no longer have any qualms about taking themselves for god


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I thought he was, you’re right. The disappearing business was more a matter of preventing his parents from falling in love, which in turn would’ve prevented his birth later down the line. He nearly aborted himself from the timeline by interfering in their initial meeting.


He didn't abort himself ffs. He almost caused his non-existence, which is completely different.


----------



## tabzer (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> He didn't abort himself ffs. He almost caused his non-existence, which is completely different.


Yes, aborting oneself from time would have that effect.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Yes, aborting oneself from time would have that effect.


His mother wasn't pregnant with him in the movie, dumbass. So he couldn't have aborted himself because he only existed as an extra-temporal anomaly. 

And you can't abort yourself from time, as that would imply that a moment exists when the incipit of your existence comes. Had Marty failed he would have never existed at all in the time stream.

Also, time isn't a chick, you pervert.


----------



## tabzer (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> His mother wasn't pregnant with him in the movie, dumbass. So he couldn't have aborted himself because he only existed as an extra-temporal anomaly.



But time was pregnant with him.  He almost removed himself from the safety of its womb


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> But time was pregnant with him.  He almost removed himself from the safety of its womb


No it wasn't, numbskull.


----------



## tabzer (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And you can't abort yourself from time, as that would imply that a moment exists when the incipit of your existence comes. Had Marty failed he would have never existed at all in the time stream.
> 
> Also, time isn't a chick, you pervert.



The two forces in Marty's manifestation were causality and time.  Causality would be like the father and time would be like the mother.  The series of events of causality working through time would be like his gestation.  Removing his causality is the method one needs to do in order to abort themselves from time, which is what Marty almost did.  Have you seen the movie?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The two forces in Marty's manifestation were causality and time.  Causality would be like the father and time would be like the mother.  The series of events of causality working through time would be like his gestation.  Removing his causality is the method one needs to do in order to abort themselves from time, which is what Marty almost did.  Have you seen the movie?


I have, i just don't have see it in a disgustingly perverted sexual metaphor just for the purpose of pathetically trying to justify my ideals. The fact that somehow you do is yet further evidence of your perversion. 

Not to mention, you're wrong because time travel doesn't work like that in the series since there's only one timestream and they all act inside it. Unless you're suggesting that time can make itself pregnant, which it can't.

You're gross.


----------



## tabzer (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I have, i just don't have see it in a disgustingly perverted sexual metaphor just for the purpose of pathetically trying to justify my ideals. The fact that somehow you do is yet further evidence of your perversion.
> 
> Not to mention, you're wrong because time travel doesn't work like that in the series since there's only one timestream and they all act inside it. Unless you're suggesting that time can make itself pregnant, which it can't.
> 
> You're gross.



Sex can be very beautiful.  When you are ready, you can try it with a consenting partner that you trust.  

The union between time and causality made time pregnant.  Time didn't make itself pregnant.  It's in the movie.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> He didn't abort himself ffs. He almost caused his non-existence, which is completely different.


So what you’re saying is that he was going to be born soon, but then he did something that almost stopped his mother’s (future) pregnancy, thus preventing his birth? Personally I would abort this line of questioning.  I like how pedantic we’re being about whether or not Marty’s mother was pregnant at the exact time of his trip when it’s a movie about… travelling back in time, making that point moot. The question isn’t whether she _was_ pregnant, but whether she was _going to be_ pregnant. Marty knew that his mother was going to conceive in advance, and his actions had the potential to undo her pregnancy from history. The fact that they’re all operating within a single timestream makes the term *more* appropriate, not less, because you can’t say that Marty’s mother wasn’t pregnant, or wasn’t going to give birth to Marty, or that his actions didn’t nearly undo said pregnancy, or that it was some kind of parallel mother - all of those things were already in the timestream, except in the future. Marty’s actions almost undid them, threatening his own existence, therefore he almost “aborted himself”, as in he nearly terminated his mother’s pregnancies within the timestream before she gave birth to him and his siblings.

Y’know, this started as a (pretty obvious) joke, but you guys seem to care so much that rolling with it is even funnier than initially expected. I’m totally on-board with this now, actually.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Sex can be very beautiful.  When you are ready, you can try it with a consenting partner that you trust.
> 
> The union between time and causality made time pregnant.  Time didn't make itself pregnant.  It's in the movie.


Incel confirmed. Your obsession with the sex OF OTHERS and the idea of somehow punishing others for enjoying it is all bu7t obvious.


Foxi4 said:


> So what you’re saying is that he was going to be born soon, but then he did something that almost stopped his mother’s (future) pregnancy, thus preventing his birth? Personally I would abort this line of questioning. I like how pedantic we’re being about whether or not Marty’s mother was pregnant at the exact time of his trip when it’s a movie about… travelling back in time, making that point moot. The question isn’t whether she _was_ pregnant, but whether she was _going to be_ pregnant. Marty knew that his mother was going to conceive in advance, and his actions had the potential to undo her pregnancy from history. The fact that they’re all operating within a single timestream makes the term *more* appropriate, not less, because you can’t say that Marty’s mother wasn’t pregnant, or wasn’t going to give birth to Marty, or that his actions didn’t nearly undo said pregnancy, or that it was some kind of parallel mother - all of those things were already in the timestream, except in the future. Marty’s actions almost undid them, threatening his own existence, therefore he almost “aborted himself”, as in he nearly terminated his mother’s pregnancies within the timestream before she gave birth to him and his siblings.


Lots of "nearly" and "almost" here, that don't give any validity to this nonsense.  


Foxi4 said:


> Y’know, this started as a (pretty obvious) joke, but you guys seem to care so much that rolling with it is even funnier than initially expected. I’m totally on-board with this now, actually.


First of all, you people are the ones more invested in this (since the idea was yours anyway). Secondly, this is originally a video-game forum, what did you expect?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

SexiestManAlive said:


> i love how the discussion devolved into talking about what happened in back to the future


The level of discussion in the thread has objectively improved ever since the movie was introduced. At some point we’ll have to go back, sadly. I blame the Libyans.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Lots of "nearly" and "almost" here, that don't give any validity to this nonsense.
> 
> First of all, you people are the ones more invested in this (since the idea was yours anyway). Secondly, this is originally a video-game forum, what did you expect?


Abortion is a term used to describe the termination of a pregnancy in order to prevent the birth of a child. Since Marty possessed the power to travel in time, he wasn’t constrained by what we traditionally interpret as the timeframe of pregnancy. He had significantly more means to remove his birth from time, including preventing his own conception by way of interfering in his parent’s meeting. As such, he almost “aborted himself” - we can’t deny that his mother wasn’t pregnant in the future, and his actions in the past would’ve prevented his birth. This is fun, honestly. That being said, don’t you think we’ve wasted enough time now?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Abortion is a term used to describe the termination of a pregnancy in order to prevent the birth of a child.


Key concept: termination of CURRENT pregnancy. Not of FUTURE pregnancies.


Foxi4 said:


> Since Marty possessed the power to travel in time, he wasn’t constrained by what we traditionally interpret as the timeframe of pregnancy. He had significantly more means to remove his birth from time, including preventing his own conception by way of interfering in his parent’s meeting. As such, he almost “aborted himself” - we can’t deny that his mother wasn’t pregnant in the future, and his actions in the past would’ve prevented his birth.


And we can't deny that his mother was NOT pregnant during his interference, therefore Marty was acting as his own CONTRACEPTIVE, and that's only because I'm entertaining the language of you perverts sexualising the concept of time, which is frankly something I didn't expect to encounter in my life, but then again, that's right-wingers for you, devising obscenities where none should exist. Or perhaps this is a sign that you people think of abortion as a contraceptive?


Foxi4 said:


> This is fun, honestly.


Yay, very.


Foxi4 said:


> That being said, don’t you think we’ve wasted enough time now?


Wasted enough time around 20 pages ago when it became obvious that the usual suspects went full troll, mala fide mode.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Key concept: termination of CURRENT pregnancy. Not of FUTURE pregnancies.


In the context of the movie Marty already exists. He’s operating within the timestream before his own birth. His timeframe for interfering with his mother’s pregnancy is larger, theoretically infinite, because he’s a time traveler. It doesn’t matter that the pregnancy takes place in the future - Marty himself is in the past. He absolutely can “abort himself” in the past - he’s in it.


> And we can't deny that his mother was NOT pregnant during his interference, therefore Marty was acting as his own CONTRACEPTIVE, and that's only because I'm entertaining the language of you perverts sexualising the concept of time, which is frankly something I didn't expect to encounter in my life, but then again, that's right-wingers for you, devising obscenities where none should exist. Or perhaps this is a sign that you people think of abortion as a contraceptive?
> 
> Yay, very.
> 
> Wasted enough time around 20 pages ago when it became obvious that the usual suspects went full troll, mala fide mode.


I don’t know what’s there to argue about, Marty’s mother was definitely pregnant, in the future. We know this because Marty already exists - he’s the protagonist, we observe him. Causality dictates that there is a pregnancy within the timestream, one that Marty can terminate through his actions in the past. That interference would erase him from his mother’s womb, as well as history as a whole. It would “abort” his existence. If time is one continuous stream one can travel back and forth in, as presented in the universe of BTTF, then one can act upon it from any point on that stream. Whether the pregnancy is in the future, the past or the present is immaterial to its termination.

This is different from time as presented in the movie “The Terminator”, in which each key decision of the characters leads to the timelines splitting into two different realities, each with a different outcome. In that movie, Skynet is sending his terminator explicitly to kill Sarah Connor so as to prevent her pregnancy and the subsequent birth of John Connor, the leader of the resistance. These kinds of disturbances lead to time fracturing and history self-correcting to avoid paradox.

Okay, that’s just too much now. I think we should get back to the topic at hand.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Okay, that’s just too much now. I think we should get back to the topic at hand.


Yes please, because your "reasoning" is getting flimsier by the minute


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yes please, because your "reasoning" is getting flimsier by the minute


There’s nothing flimsy about the reasoning, it’s not my fault you’re having trouble with grasping the concept of time travel across one contiguous timestream. Marty was born, and he almost undid his birth. Within the rules of that universe there’s only one “Marty”, and if his birth is prevented he ceases to exist. I humorously called that an abortion, although technically you could call it contraception as well. My objection to that is that Marty already exists as an entity within the timestream, so abortion seems more appropriate as it denotes the removal from existence. That, and the fact that it’s an obvious joke, so it doesn’t even matter. For some reason this humorous quip started an entire debate, which is admittedly very amusing, but I think it’s overstaying its welcome.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> There’s nothing flimsy about the reasoning, it’s not my fault you’re having trouble with grasping the concept of time travel across one contiguous timestream. Marty was born, and he almost undid his birth. I humorously called that an abortion, although technically you could call it contraception as well. My objection to that is that Marty already exists as an entity within the timestream, so abortion seems more appropriate as it denotes the removal from existence. For some reason this humorous quip started an entire debate, which is admittedly very amusing, but I think it’s overstaying its welcome.


There's everything flimsy with your "reasoning", since you're deliberately assuming your false premises and general nonsense are facts. They're not. It's not my fault you have no idea understanding the difference between contraception and abortion, or the basic understanding of the concept of pregnancy.
This "humorous" quip started a debate because you all are desecrating a beloved classic by way of false assumptions and inappropriate sexualisation of concepts which were not meant to be sexualised.
But then again you don't really engage in good faith or reasonably, so that's to be expected.

You might call it the GBAtemp attempt to devise a modern allegory of sorts. You'll have to forgive me for thinking Plato still is way above you.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> There's everything flimsy with your "reasoning", since you're deliberately assuming your false premises and general nonsense are facts. They're not. It's not my fault you have no idea understanding the difference between contraception and abortion, or the basic understanding of the concept of pregnancy.
> This "humorous" quip started a debate because you all are desecrating a beloved classic by way of false assumptions and inappropriate sexualisation of concepts which were not meant to be sexualised.
> But then again you don't really engage in good faith or reasonably, so that's to be expected.
> 
> You might call it the GBAtemp attempt to devise a modern allegory of sorts. You'll have to forgive me for thinking Plato still is way above you.


I still don’t get where you’re pulling that whole _“sexualisation of concepts”_ nonsense from, the film is pretty charged as it is, but that’s fine. I think it’s time to abort this discussion, before we get into more pressing ethical questions. After all, Marty affected more than just his own life during his travels, not always in a positive way. I won’t go on a tangent about how using his position of power to affect people’s fates without their consent was morally questionable, but I will say that the discussion was amusing.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> the film is pretty charged as it is


what ARE you talking about?


----------



## alex61194 (May 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> your enforcing people to not be able to have abortions, your morals are that the parents MUST have a child if pregnant, and removing the option to have a safe abortion. You are enforcing your morals on someone else


it´s his opinion i differ from him but it´s just that an opinion


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> what ARE you talking about?


I’m sorry, but as a fan I can’t let this slide - one last reply from me. You’re joking, right? I think you should rewatch the movie, you must’ve missed a couple of crucial scenes. For Pete’s sake, there’s a point in the story where Marty accidentally makes his mother romantically interested *in him*. That causes his body to start vanishing and he needs to cut the conversation short, squashing the feeling. There’s an obvious underlining theme of mother-son incest here. This is not an accident, either - it’s a deliberate reference to the story of Oedipus. Marty knows that Lorraine is his mother, but she has no idea he’s her son. Bob Gale told CNN that this premise was so objectionable to Disney that they rejected the movie outright as incompatible with their family-friendly brand, which is why they went to Universal instead. The movie went through a number of revisions before it was finally accepted and went into production, and it absolutely still contains many sexually charged scenes - this one’s only one of many. The whole movie is literally about Marty making sure his parents are together by the time all is said and done so that they can have sex and his existence is secured - how is that not sexually charged? 

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/dvdextras/2010/11/back_to_your_mom.html
https://insidethemagic.net/2020/10/disney-rejected-back-to-the-future-tm1/
https://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/20/bttf.anniversary.go/index.html


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m sorry, but as a fan I can’t let this slide - one last reply from me. You’re joking, right? I think you should rewatch the movie, you must’ve missed a couple of crucial scenes. For Pete’s sake, there’s a point in the story where Marty accidentally makes his mother romantically interested *in him*. That causes his body to start vanishing and he needs to cut the conversation short, squashing the feeling. There’s an obvious underlining theme of mother-son incest here. This is not an accident, either - it’s a deliberate reference to the story of Oedipus. Marty knows that Lorraine is his mother, but she has no idea he’s her son. Bob Gale told CNN that this premise was so objectionable to Disney that they rejected the movie outright as incompatible with their family-friendly brand, which is why they went to Universal instead. The movie went through a number of revisions before it was finally accepted and went into production, and it absolutely still contains many sexually charged scenes - this one’s only one of many. The whole movie is literally about Marty making sure his parents are together by the time all is said and done so that they can have sex and his existence is secured - how is that not sexually charged?
> 
> http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/dvdextras/2010/11/back_to_your_mom.html
> https://insidethemagic.net/2020/10/disney-rejected-back-to-the-future-tm1/
> https://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/20/bttf.anniversary.go/index.html


There's a SUBSTANTIAL difference between a classical reference and an obscene sexualisation!


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> There's a SUBSTANTIAL difference between a classical reference and an obscene sexualisation!


Sweet home Alabama is what Alabama does. You asked me how is the film sexually charged, so I gave you an example with proof straight from the creator’s mouth - what more do you want from me? This fragment of the story was considered so obscene that the movie was rejected by Hollywood 40 times and necessitated a number of rewrites, I think the creators of BTTF know if their movie had sexual connotations or not.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> This fragment of the story was considered so obscene that the movie was rejected by Hollywood 40 times and necessitated a number of rewrites,


Yeah well we aren't considering US morals as reliable ones, they're on the way to be the talibans of the west. After all, the first americans were the bigots of the british empire.


----------



## alex61194 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yeah well we aren't considering US morals as reliable ones, they're on the way to be the talibans of the west. After all, the first americans were the bigots of the british empire.


they only changed the flag just check the last 200 years of usa, spanish war (they destroyed one of their own boat to declare a war to spain saying that spain destroyed it cause spain didnt wanted to leave cuba) and dont make talk about mexico
all countrys have their past, the problem with usa is that they did all of that in a "recent" time (spanish war were in 1895, and the most ironical is that they accused russia of wanting to do they same with ukraine before the invasion)
sry if i seem like a hater of usa probably im a little since i saw about their story, so much abuse


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yeah well we aren't considering US morals as reliable ones, they're on the way to be the talibans of the west. After all, the first americans were the bigots of the british empire.


If you’re referring to puritans, they were actively escaping religious and economic persecution. Not that it even matters, puritans have nothing to do with the production of BTTF. The beliefs of distant ancestors have no bearing on the validity of the opinions expressed by their descendants. If they did, your opinion could be forever dismissed on account of certain events in the 20th century. Since that premise is silly, you’re still considered worthy of having a conversation with and you are capable of making valid points… I think. It logically follows, I just have to observe it in order to confirm the theory.

Your personal opinion on what is and is not obscene is immaterial, we’re examining the movie as it was received at the time of its production, and we’re basing that on interviews with its creators. The film was intended to have sexual undertones from the start, we know this for a fact. I really don’t want to continue with this unnecessary diversion any longer than needs be - I was correcting you in regards to sexual themes within the movie which are undoubtedly there. You’re welcome to disagree, but you would be wrong. It’s a free country, you can do as you please - I don’t care. I personally think the words of Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis carry more weight here considering they made the damn film in the first place.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The beliefs of distant ancestors have no bearing on the validity of the opinions expressed by their descendants.


Heh. Centuries of lawmaking would like to disagree with you.


Foxi4 said:


> - I was correcting you in regards to sexual themes within the movie which are undoubtedly there.


Again, you lack acumen. As I said there's a difference between classical, even sexual, references (Oedipus) and the obscenity some pro-birthers here have spouted.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Heh. Centuries of lawmaking would like to disagree with you.


I don’t think you’re a fascist just because your ancestors were fascist. You’re Italian, right? Am I wrong?


Dark_Ansem said:


> Again, you lack acumen. As I said there's a difference between classical, even sexual, references (Oedipus) and the obscenity some pro-birthers here have spouted.


Is that right? Appeal to authority always falls flat - you’re not qualified to measure my level of acumen. For the record, I have a degree in the humanities, I don’t lack “acumen”, not that one is required to analyse the scene in the first place considering this stuff is pretty obvious. Attacking me is not a substitute for an actual argument. The story of Oedipus is inherently sexual in nature, you yourself admit as much. By extension, so are stories that depict versions of the Oedipus complex. Gale and Zemekis know what’s in their film better than you do, if you want to argue with them whether their story has sexual themes or not, you go on ahead and do that. I’m certainly not planning to waste time on it - you’re not going to admit you were wrong anyway, regardless of what *the creators of the film say about it*.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t think you’re a fascist just because your ancestors were fascist. You’re Italian, right? Am I wrong?


None of MY ancestors were fascists, and in fact my grandfather almost got caught in the Ardeatine massacre, so you can take that back. You can find monarchists if you go as far as the 1600. 

What about YOUR ancestors, Mr Polish Libertarian, any Holocaust collaborationists? Death camps guards? I mean, since you're a PISs enthusiastic and a Duda simp, you'd feel right at home.

And yes, you're wrong, because as someone else told you, you think to be clever when in fact all you do is making strawman examples.


Foxi4 said:


> Appeal to authority always falls flat - you’re not qualified to measure my level of acumen


Heh, I beg to differ.


Foxi4 said:


> For the record, I have a degree in the humanities


Only one? Purchased degrees don't count BTW.


Foxi4 said:


> The story of Oedipus is inherently sexual in nature, you yourself admit as much. By extension, so are stories that depict versions of the Oedipus complex.


Again, lack of acumen. The way a story is delivered is significant. The Bible is quite sexual in nature, and yet versions for kids do exist. 


Foxi4 said:


> Gale and Zemekis know what’s in their film better than you do, if you want to argue with them whether their story has sexual themes or not, you go on ahead and do that. I’m certainly not planning to waste time on it - you’re not going to admit you were wrong anyway, regardless of what *the creators of the film say about it*.


More falsehoods and gaslighting, like you always do, falsely attributing to others what you think they're doing rather than what they actually do.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> More falsehoods and gaslighting, like you always do, falsely attributing to others what you think they're doing rather than what they actually do.



More baseless attacks containing liberal buzzwords that you hold no grasp of. Such low energy. Why do all of you sound almost exactly the same?



Foxi4 said:


> Is that right? Appeal to authority always falls flat - you’re not qualified to measure my level of acumen. For the record, I have a degree in the humanities, I don’t lack “acumen”, not that one is required to analyse the scene in the first place considering this stuff is pretty obvious. Attacking me is not a substitute for an actual argument. The story of Oedipus is inherently sexual in nature, you yourself admit as much. By extension, so are stories that depict versions of the Oedipus complex. Gale and Zemekis know what’s in their film better than you do, if you want to argue with them whether their story has sexual themes or not, you go on ahead and do that. I’m certainly not planning to waste time on it - you’re not going to admit you were wrong anyway, regardless of what *the creators of the film say about it*.



I do view Marty going back in time and accidentally interfering with his parents relationship as a form of retroactive abortion. The movie is full of sexual references including Marty's mother being attracted to him while not knowing she was going to be his mother in the future.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> More baseless attacks containing liberal buzzwords that you hold no grasp of. Such low energy. Why do all of you sound almost exactly the same?


Projection eh, disgusting RepubliKKKunt? Low energy? Lmao this from you, one of the many Trumptard clones, and not even a particularly intelligent one?


JonhathonBaxster said:


> I do view Marty going back in time and accidentally interfering with his parents relationship as a form of retroactive abortion


Nobody asked and nobody cares, you embarrassing pro-birther rape apologist.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> The movie is full of sexual references including Marty's mother being attracted to him while not knowing she was going to be his mother in the future.


Reference? It's a literal PLOT POINT. You'd have to be blind to miss it.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> None of MY ancestors were fascists, and in fact my grandfather almost got caught in the Ardeatine massacre, so you can take that back. You can find monarchists if you go as far as the 1600.
> 
> What about YOUR ancestors, Mr Polish Libertarian, any Holocaust collaborationists? Death camps guards? I mean, since you're a PISs enthusiastic and a Duda simp, you'd feel right at home.
> 
> And yes, you're wrong, because as someone else told you, you think to be clever when in fact all you do is making strawman examples.


Why are you getting upsetti? You *just* said that the opinion of Americans is irrelevant based on their puritanical past. I said that’s ridiculous - we’re talking about many generations of separation, not to mention that not all Americans are descendants of the original settlers, in the same way as not all Italians are descendants of fascists. If you must know, my family distinctly remembers hiding jews in attics and basements, but that has no bearing on my opinion regarding BTTF, just like having puritan or fascist ancestors wouldn’t.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Heh, I beg to differ.


Keep begging?


Dark_Ansem said:


> Only one? Purchased degrees don't count BTW.


I didn’t have to pay for my degree - I got in to one of the leading universities in the country based on academic achievement. That’s irrelevant to the discussion, the “level of acumen” doesn’t change how poignant the argument is.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Again, lack of acumen. The way a story is delivered is significant. The Bible is quite sexual in nature, and yet versions for kids do exist.


There are child-friendly versions of a story with sexual themes. Do you have some kind of problem with sexual themes? You’re the one who’s starting to sound puritan.


Dark_Ansem said:


> More falsehoods and gaslighting, like you always do, falsely attributing to others what you think they're doing rather than what they actually do.


This is not a rebuttal. I’m not going to address marbles. The lead writer and the director told you what’s in the movie. If you disagree with them, that’s your problem. It doesn’t get more definitive than that, regardless of what you think.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Projection eh, disgusting RepubliKKKunt? Low energy? Lmao this from you, one of the many Trumptard clones, and not even a particularly intelligent one?


Ok, is there a need for name calling at this point? If you had valid points (which some of them are), you shouldn't have to revert to calling him names and questioning his intelligence.


----------



## NicolkTheGr8 (May 25, 2022)

This decision will have a huge impact on life moving forward best we could do now is wait and see


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Why are you getting upsetti


It must be really convenient for you hiding behind your moderator status to throw veiled racist slurs at others.



Foxi4 said:


> You *just* said that the opinion of Americans is irrelevant based on their puritanical past.


Actually I was talking about their puritanical present, and said it wasn't surprising considering they are the descendants of the bigots of the empire, which were persecuted because they were seditious.


Foxi4 said:


> f you must know, my family distinctly remembers hiding jews in attics and basements


Then I guess you must be the black sheep of the family, being a simp for the modern age fascists.



Foxi4 said:


> didn’t have to pay for my degree - I got in to one of the leading universities in the country based on academic achievement. That’s irrelevant to the discussion, the “level of acumen” doesn’t change how poignant the argument is


Your argument isn't poignant, even if you had attended the Boston MIT. But if you didn't pay, then clearly you owe them money.



Foxi4 said:


> There are child-friendly versions of a story with sexual themes. Do you have some kind of problem with sexual themes? You’re the one who’s starting to sound puritan


I don't, as I am an adult.



Foxi4 said:


> This is not a rebuttal.


It's a declaration of your usual tactics of spouting nonsense and attributing it to others when it's actually only you.



Foxi4 said:


> The lead writer and the director told you what’s in the movie. If you disagree with them, that’s your problem. It doesn’t get more definitive than that, regardless of what you think.


Post the interview then and let's see exactly what they say, as opposed to your personal extract.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Ok, is there a need for name calling at this point? If you had valid points (which some of them are), you shouldn't have to revert to calling him names and questioning his intelligence.


Yes, yes there is considering what he's written in this thread (and others). You'll actually notice that I don't simply throw name-calling. I didn't name call you, for example.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 25, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Ok, is there a need for name calling at this point? If you had valid points (which some of them are), you shouldn't have to revert to calling him names and questioning his intelligence.



It's okay. He's going around using terms such as gaslighting that he holds no understanding of. Gaslighting is a serious thing and its victims suffer for years after having it happen to them. It's not something you can do in a few forum posts. Gaslighting takes months or years to perform. He's just pissy because I'm right and he sounds just like the countless other loser liberals that spout out the same nonsense. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/gaslighting

Oh, I just noticed he's on ignore. I had been viewing and quoting to reply without being logged in. Oops. Back on ignore now. : )


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> It's okay. He's going around using terms such as gaslighting that he holds no understanding of. Gaslighting is a serious thing and its victims suffer for years after having it happen to them. It's not something you can do in a few forum posts. Gaslighting takes months or years to perform. He's just pissy because I'm right and he sounds just like the countless other loser liberals that spout out the same nonsense.
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/gaslighting
> 
> Oh, I just noticed he's on ignore. I had been viewing and quoting to reply without being logged in. Oops. Back on ignore now. : )


Since I'm on ignore, I'm gonna be able to post this without repercussions: this is what gaslighting is:

" where the bully or abuser misleads the target, creating a false narrative and making them question their judgments and reality."

And it's perfectly possible to attempt it via forum posts. Look here: https://scubby.com/what-is-social-media-gaslighting/

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columni...word-right-now-but-use-it-with-caution-173308

Pissy? Lmao you make me vomit, and if you enough functioning brain to fill a teacup you would recognise it.


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Please explain how does one "consent to being pregnant"?  If, while driving, you are taking risks and making mistakes, you are inviting the inevitable.


I was talking about pedestrians. They do not consent to being knocked over, even if they get distracted when crossing the road.

There are various signs that demonstrate a consent to being pregnant, not having an abortion if they get pregnant would be a clear sign. Having an abortion is a clear sign they didn't consent.

What you seem to want to do, is force consent onto someone.


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I do view Marty going back in time and accidentally interfering with his parents relationship as a form of retroactive abortion.



At the point where Marty interfered with the time line, Lorraine would never had became pregnant with Marty. The future Lorraine would already had have given birth.



Unless all murder is retroactive abortion.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

smf said:


> At the point where Marty interfered with the time line, Lorraine never became pregnant with Marty. The future Lorraine had already given birth.
> 
> Unless all murder is retroactive abortion.


Don't bother, apparently it was just a "funny quip" lmao


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It must be really convenient for you hiding behind your moderator status to throw veiled racist slurs at others.


Complete projection. We’ve been over this.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Actually I was talking about their puritanical present, and said it wasn't surprising considering they are the descendants of the bigots of the empire, which were persecuted because they were seditious.


I can only base my responses on what you say, not what you think.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Then I guess you must be the black sheep of the family, being a simp for the modern age fascists.


I don’t support any specific political party in Poland, I don’t even reside in the country. Paranoid, much?


Dark_Ansem said:


> Your argument isn't poignant, even if you had attended the Boston MIT. But if you didn't pay, then clearly you owe them money.


It doesn’t matter who makes an argument and how many degrees they have - either it’s a good argument or it’s not. What I said is consistent with what the creators of the franchise have said about the film, your response is based in stubbornness.


Dark_Ansem said:


> I don't, as I am an adult.


Citation needed.


Dark_Ansem said:


> It's a declaration of your usual tactics of spouting nonsense and attributing it to others when it's actually only you.


More projection in lieu of an a rebuttal.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Post the interview then and let's see exactly what they say, as opposed to your personal extract.


I posted three links, including a direct one to the CNN interview. No wonder you’re confused, you didn’t even look at the source material.


smf said:


> At the point where Marty interfered with the time line, Lorraine would never had became pregnant with Marty. The future Lorraine would already had have given birth. Unless all murder is retroactive abortion.


From the perspective of a time traveler moving along a single contiguous timestream it absolutely is, as his mother’s pregnancy is an inevitability unless interfered with earlier in the stream. It’s a fixed point on the timeline that he’s retroactively tampering with. Marty is a pre-existing entity at risk of ceasing to exist. Marty’s mother is still pregnant within that timestream, just later along the path - that fixed point still exists, which is why Marty still exists. If it stopped existing, so would Marty. The difference between this and typical murder is pretty stark - Marty wouldn’t just die, he would disappear from the timestream altogether. His existence would be aborted, in a manner of speaking. Crude, but descriptive.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Complete projection. We’ve been over this


Not with me, I'm sure I'm not the only one who told you.



Foxi4 said:


> I can only base my responses on what you say, not what you think.


I did say it.



Foxi4 said:


> I don’t support any specific political party in Poland, I don’t even reside in the country. Paranoid, much?


More random words. Why would I be paranoid about that, of all things.



Foxi4 said:


> More projection in lieu of an a rebuttal.


I'm rebutting your nonsense.



Foxi4 said:


> It doesn’t matter who makes an argument and how many degrees they have - either it’s a good argument or it’s not. What I said is consistent with what the creators of the franchise have said about the film, your response is based in stubbornness.


I'm stubborn about you stopping your trolling tactics which poison the debate wherever you post - although here it was way beyond redemption already from page 1.




Foxi4 said:


> I posted three links, including a direct one to the CNN interview. No wonder you’re confused, you didn’t even look at the source material.


Not in any message directed to me or mentioning me?



Foxi4 said:


> From the perspective of a time traveler moving along a single contiguous timestream it absolutely is, as his mother’s pregnancy is an inevitability unless interfered with earlier in the stream. It’s a fixed point on the timeline that he’s retroactively tampering with. Marty is a pre-existing entity at risk of ceasing to exist. Marty’s mother is still pregnant within that timestream, just later along the path - that fixed point still exists, which is why Marty still exists. If it stopped existing, so would Marty.


More nonsensical interpretation with deliberate misdirection. The most moronic point is "mother is pregnant in the future" - - not even displayed in the media. Clearly no idea of what abortion and pregnancy mean.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not with me, I'm sure I'm not the only one who told you. I did say it. More random words. Why would I be paranoid about that, of all things. I'm rebutting your nonsense. I'm stubborn about you stopping your trolling tactics which poison the debate wherever you post - although here it was way beyond redemption already from page 1. Not in any message directed to me or mentioning me? More nonsensical interpretation with deliberate misdirection. The most moronic point is "mother is pregnant in the future" - - not even displayed in the media. Clearly no idea of what abortion and pregnancy mean.


Get back to me when you decide to admit that Back to the Future has sexual themes in it, including ones relating to mother-son incest, since that’s what we were discussing. I’m not interested in any other clown business of yours anymore - you can keep spinning like a spinning top on your own time. The links are right there, grab your glasses and use your scroll wheel.


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Marty’s mother is still pregnant within that timestream, just later along the path - that fixed point still exists, which is why Marty still exists. If it stopped existing, so would Marty.


That isn't how time travel worked in the film.

Marty prevented his Mother from ever having sex with George when he fell out of the tree. That is why his brother, sister and him started disappearing. He fully recovered when they danced as his birth was assured in the new time line.

He didn't disappear immediately because of the paradox, that if he was never born then he couldn't fall out of the tree.

Inevitable pregnancies that don't happen, aren't abortion.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Get back to me when you decide to admit that Back to the Future has sexual themes in it, including ones relating to mother-son incest, since that’s what we were discussing


I didn't say ever that there are no sexual themes, lying numbskull, as you well know. What I contest is the obscenity you and your compadres seem to attribute to it, when in fact in the movie it's displayed with comedic, rather than sexual, tones.

The only clowns here are you and your cabal of pro-birth hypocrites.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

smf said:


> That isn't how time travel worked in the film.
> 
> Marty prevented his Mother from becoming pregnant at the point when he fell out of the tree. That is why his brother, sister and him started disappearing. He fully recovered when they danced as it now happened again.
> 
> ...


I’d call it Schrödinger's abortion (if I’m to pretend that this isn’t a joke premise, which it obviously is). You can easily support a theory like that. Marty’s fate was hanging in balance until the pendulum fully swung one way or the other, which is why the process was so gradual. It’s open to interpretation, but in my opinion Marty didn’t disappear instantly because a possibility of fixing the time disturbance existed in the timestream. There was a path Marty could take to revert the damage he’s done, and as long as that path existed, he existed along with it, in a state of temporal flux.


Dark_Ansem said:


> I didn't say ever that there are no sexual themes, lying numbskull, as you well know. What I contest is the obscenity you and your compadres seem to attribute to it, when in fact in the movie it's displayed with comedic, rather than sexual, tones.
> 
> The only clowns here are you and your cabal of pro-birth hypocrites.


I told you that the film is sexually charged regardless of what you think, you responded with indignation.


Dark_Ansem said:


> what ARE you talking about?


Am I to understand that you agree and we’re wasting time? This is a legitimate out for you - take it while you can.


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’d call it Schrödinger's abortion.


That says more about you, than it does about the movie.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

smf said:


> That says more about you, than it does about the movie.


It perfectly describes the situation of Marty who’s stuck between existence and oblivion. He technically doesn’t fully exist or vanish until the fate of his parents is ultimately decided, just like the Schrödinger’s cat is neither dead nor alive until we observe it.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I told you that the film is sexually charged regardless of what you think, you responded with indignation.


And I told you the way narration is delivered matters, my only indignation is at how you people are making BTTF sound like it was some sort of incest pornography. The fact that American censorship had it changed 40 times is a testament to the hypocritical flimsiness of American puritanism, not a detriment of the movie.


Foxi4 said:


> Am I to understand that you agree and we’re wasting time?


In this specific instance it is also a waste of time as you disingenously equate things that are not the same.


Foxi4 said:


> This is a legitimate out for you - take it while you can.


I don't need any out as I've been very clear, you as always decided to understand whatever you wanted. It's not my fault your lack of intellectual honesty and your clearly oversized ego get in the way of conversations.


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It perfectly describes the situation of Marty who’s stuck between existence and oblivion. He technically doesn’t fully exist or vanish until the fate of his parents is ultimately decided, just like the Schrödinger’s cat is neither dead nor alive until we observe it.



Schrodingers cat has more problems with it's science than BTTF.

Schrodinger was being a jerk. He especially forgot that humans aren't the only thing that observe.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And I told you the way narration is delivered matters, my only indignation is at how you people are making BTTF sound like it was some sort of incest pornography. The fact that American censorship had it changed 40 times is a testament to the hypocritical flimsiness of American puritanism, not a detriment of the movie.


I said that the film is sexually charged and touches upon themes of mother-son incest. The rest you came up with yourself, no idea why - I never said any of that.


> In this specific instance it is also a waste of time as you disingenously equate things that are not the same.
> 
> I don't need any out as I've been very clear, you as always decided to understand whatever you wanted. It's not my fault your lack of intellectual honesty and your clearly oversized ego get in the way of conversations.


So doubling down it is. Like I said, that’s totally fine by me, I don’t care. Your stubbornness and inability to admit that you were wrong is only detrimental to you, not me. I’m sorry that I ruined a “wholesome family flick” for you just because you have some weird reservations regarding lighthearted exploration of human nature, including its sexual aspects, in movies.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I said that the film is sexually charged and touches upon themes of mother-son incest. The rest you came up with yourself, no idea why - I never said any of that


No, you all did portray it as some sort of incest porn when the "theme" of incest is only used for comedic effect.



Foxi4 said:


> So doubling down it is. Like I said, that’s totally fine by me, I don’t care


Of course you'd be fine, you love puerile sterile debates.



Foxi4 said:


> Your stubbornness and inability to admit that you were wrong is only detrimental to you, not me


More projection.



Foxi4 said:


> I’m sorry that I ruined a “wholesome family flick” for you just because you have some weird reservations regarding lighthearted exploration of human nature, including its sexual aspects, in movies


Lots of projection and clear signs of reading comprehension shown, especially for someone displaying such a misplaced sense of superiority seasoned with all that smarmy attitude. Are you feeling all right? You didn't ruin anything, your interpretation of a classic doesn't bother me the slightest, as it's obviously wrong.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

smf said:


> Schrodingers cat has more problems with it's science than BTTF.
> 
> Schrodinger was being a jerk. He especially forgot that humans aren't the only thing that observe.


Quantum physics aren’t a referendum on anyone’s personality, and Schrödinger isn’t an exception. The cat example is just a thought experiment on superposition. If I were to reference it to Marty’s predicament, he is simultaneously in two quantum states - he exists, but he technically shouldn’t as he interrupted his own parent’s meeting which is a prerequisite for his existence. Not only that, he is physically in the past, but he is to be born in the future. He’s in a superposition state not just in space, but also time.


Dark_Ansem said:


> *Stubborn whinging*


I understand that you won’t concede and have no interest in discussing this with you further. You can revisit the previous posts in this thread and reevaluate your position on your own time, don’t waste mine. I didn’t say anything that Zemeckis or Gale didn’t say about the film before me.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I understand that you won’t concede and have no interest in discussing this with you further.


Ah, your easy way out.


Foxi4 said:


> I didn’t say anything that Zemeckis or Gale didn’t say about the film before me.


And you managed to say it wrong anyway, an achievement in itself!


Foxi4 said:


> *Stubborn whinging*


More projection paired with zero self awareness.


----------



## Kurt91 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not in any message directed to me or mentioning me?


I'm probably going to regret butting in on this, but he actually did. Looking back, his post quoted you directly, meaning that you received a notification regarding the post that specifically had the three links INCLUDING the interview that you argue either doesn't really exist or that he's refusing to share. To specify, here are the links AGAIN, copy/pasted directly from his post.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/dvdextras/2010/11/back_to_your_mom.html
https://insidethemagic.net/2020/10/disney-rejected-back-to-the-future-tm1/
https://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/20/bttf.anniversary.go/index.html

If you don't believe me, that the post did quote you directly, feel free to double check. It's post #1695 in this thread.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Ah, your easy way out.
> 
> And you managed to say it wrong anyway, an achievement in itself!
> 
> More projection paired with zero self awareness.





> CNN: How difficult was it to get this script produced?
> Gale: The script was *rejected over 40 times* by every major studio and by some more than once. We'd go back when they changed management. It was always one of two things. It was "Well, this is time travel, and those movies don't make any money." We got that a lot. We also got, "There's a lot of sweetness to this. It's too nice, we want something raunchier like 'Porky's.' Why don't you take it to Disney?"
> Well, we heard that so many times that Bob [Zemeckis, co-writer and director] and I thought one day, "what the hell, let's take it to Disney." This was before Michael Eisner went in and reinvented it. This was the last vestiges of the old Disney family regime. We went in to meet with an executive and he says, *"Are you guys nuts? Are you insane? We can't make a movie like this. You've got the kid and the mother in his car! It's incest -- this is Disney. It's too dirty for us!"*
> CNN: Did you continue to make changes to the script as time went on?
> Gale: We wrote two official drafts, and it was the second that we took around to everybody. One person who was very interested in that draft was Steven Spielberg.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Kurt91 said:


> I'm probably going to regret butting in on this, but he actually did. Looking back, his post quoted you directly, meaning that you received a notification regarding the post that specifically had the three links INCLUDING the interview that you argue either doesn't really exist or that he's refusing to share. To specify, here are the links AGAIN, copy/pasted directly from his post.
> 
> http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/dvdextras/2010/11/back_to_your_mom.html
> https://insidethemagic.net/2020/10/disney-rejected-back-to-the-future-tm1/
> ...


That's very nice and fine, but if you notice, in the articles they said that only with Disney the issue of it being "too daring" was present, otherwise the movie was deemed "too nice" (whatever the hell that means). So the whole idea of somehow characterising the whole trilogy as some sort of incest-fest is disingenous and, frankly, false. It doesn't say anywhere that it was refused by censors 40 times - they said they made changes 40 times because it was too nice or about time travel and no one liked time travel.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

So you were wrong. The only one who made a point about the incest was Disney. The movie was actually considered "too nice" by the vast majority of producers, whatever the hell that means. I don't know why I can't quote directly anymore, so I'll just post copy paste.



> Gale: The script was *rejected over 40 times* by every major studio and by some more than once. We'd go back when they changed management. It was always one of two things. It was "Well, this is time travel, and those movies don't make any money." We got that a lot. We also got, "There's a lot of sweetness to this. It's too nice, we want something raunchier like 'Porky's.' Why don't you take it to Disney?"
> Well, we heard that so many times that Bob [Zemeckis, co-writer and director] and I thought one day, "what the hell, let's take it to Disney." This was before Michael Eisner went in and reinvented it. This was the last vestiges of the old Disney family regime. We went in to meet with an executive and he says, *"Are you guys nuts? Are you insane? We can't make a movie like this. You've got the kid and the mother in his car! It's incest -- this is Disney. It's too dirty for us!"*


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> So you were wrong. The only one who made a point about the incest was Disney. The movie was actually considered "too nice" by the vast majority of producers, whatever the hell that means. I don't know why I can't quote directly anymore, so I'll just post copy paste.


I said that the film had sexual undertones, that it was rejected by 40 studios and that Disney rejected it outright. The rest is some weird mythos that you built yourself in your head. You’d know what the creators have said about the film if you only read the damned interview that *I gave you a link for*. You’ve got problems, I’m not interested in arguing with you, this is the second time you spill marbles all over the place when you get nailed to a wall.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> , that it was rejected by 40 studios and that Disney rejected it outright.


Not because of the sexual undertones, you liar. Only Disney rejected it because of that. Everyone else didn't mind, so more deliberate nonsense on your part. Heck apparently they rejected it because it wasn't sexual enough!


Foxi4 said:


> You’d know what the creators have said about the film if you only read the damned interview that *I gave you a link for*.


Which actually agrees with what I said, rather than what YOU said. that the movie is in fact quite nice and family friendly, not that mess you people tried to make it appear.


Foxi4 said:


> You’ve got problems


More projection from the delusional libertarian without an ounce of honesty.


Foxi4 said:


> I’m not interested in arguing with you, this is the second time you spill marbles all over the place when you get nailed to a wall.


I'm not interested in your suggestive language and your delusions of grandeur, your whole characterisation of the movie as some sort of big incest flick, and sexual metaphor for abortion, was and is, incorrect.
Also, second time? you're delusional. The only thing you nailed to a wall is the secret you don't have enough sense to fill a teacup.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not because of the sexual undertones, you liar. Only Disney rejected it because of that. Everyone else didn't mind, so more deliberate nonsense on your part.
> 
> Which actually agrees with what I said, rather than what YOU said. that the movie is in fact quite nice and family friendly, not that mess you people tried to make it appear.
> 
> ...


We argued about whether or not the film has sexual undertones. It does. I don’t care what else is rumbling in that dome of yours or what weird accusations you’ve imagined along the way. My statement is consistent with what the creators said about the film. Heck, Steven Spielberg himself is on record saying that, I quote, “the Oedipal aspect (of the story) was really gross”. I don’t know what else to tell you - it’s right in the article (that you obviously haven’t read).


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> We argued about whether or not the film has sexual undertones. It does.


That's what YOU were arguing about, ignoring everyone else because when you pretend to be communicating with others what you're actually doing is monologuing.
As I said several times, I don't dispute that the film has sexual UNDERtones (interesting, so now they're UNDERtones, you omitted the UNDER before, in more than a couple message, don't bother rushing to edit). What I DID dispute was the overly gross emphasis you people put on it.


Foxi4 said:


> I don’t care what else is rumbling in that dome of yours or what weird accusations you’ve imagined along the way.


Accusations? Paranoid much?


Foxi4 said:


> My statement is consistent with what the creators said about the film.


Consistent and misleading, since even a naked monkey remembers that the focus of BTTF is time travel, not the "incest" (which actually never happens). But I appreciate you might value the opinion of Disney above all others, if you're a fan that's one of your (few) redeeming qualities.


Foxi4 said:


> Heck, Steven Spielberg himself is in record saying that, I quote, “the Oedipal aspect (of the story) was really gross”.


That's one. Another critic, Ellis, noticed the Oedipal aspect of the movie - but in a positive light, calling it a gentle movie and, more importantly, Zemeckis' movie as opposed to Spielberg (who only became a producer of it, and even so kept his influence to a minimum).


Foxi4 said:


> I don’t know what else to tell you - it’s just in the article (that you obviously haven’t read).


I've actually read beyond the articles, you're not the only BTTF fan around here.
What you could say is that you recognise the movie approaches the Oedipus complex in a rather comedic, and delicate, way. That YOUR overly sexual view of the movie is, in fact, a minority view and that the whole idea of the movie being a metaphor for abortion is YOUR personal interpretation and yours alone.

It is a testament to the quality, and influence, of the movie that somehow it was brought to modern discourse 30 years later.

I accept your concession and apology.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> *Denial*


That’s fine, I don’t need your concession, you seem flustered enough as it is and it’s high time we returned to the subject of the thread. I told you repeatedly that I don’t care whether you accept reality or not.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> *Projection*


That's ok, as I said I appreciate your (im)maturity and the fact that you're flustered enough is hilarious, if a bit sad. You'd try some meditation, you clearly could use it. Then again, to meditate requires a minimum of brainpower and self-awareness you lack, so maybe I'm being a tad optimistic but hey, you can try!

So, back to the topic.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> That's ok, as I said I appreciate your (im)maturity and the fact that you're flustered enough is hilarious, if a bit sad. You'd try some meditation, you clearly could use it. Then again, to meditate requires a minimum of brainpower and self-awareness you lack, so maybe I'm being a tad optimistic but hey, you can try!


Well, you keep babbling about things I’ve never said or ignoring things I’ve said explicitly, so I’m pressing abort on the exchange because it’s not productive. You’re welcome to live in a world of crayons, but I’m not obligated to join you there. I’d much rather get back to talking about abortion and Roe v. Wade than BTTF and your complete lack of a sense of humour, or literary insight.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> *Projection + denial = monologue*


Yes yes whatever you say dear.


Foxi4 said:


> or literary insight.


Pfft, unlike you I've actually read the book which likely inspired BTTF so yeah, more qualified than you to talk about it and its "sexual UNDERtones" (or lack thereof). as I said you need to return the money to that university of yours.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yes yes whatever you say dear.
> 
> Pfft, unlike you I've actually read the book which likely inspired BTTF so yeah, more qualified than you to talk about it and its "sexual UNDERtones" (or lack thereof). as I said you need to return the money to that university of yours.


Gale is wrong. Zemeckis is wrong. Spielberg is wrong. Dark Ansem is right. Can we get back to Roe v. Wade now? I’m not going to take part in your mental breakdown.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Gale is wrong. Zemeckis is wrong. Spielberg is wrong.


I literally never said or implied anything of the sort. Please stop lying and putting in the (metaphorical) mouth of others words they didn't say.


Foxi4 said:


> Can we get back to Roe v. Wade now?


That's what we are here for. Frankly, considering your past behaviour and post history...


Foxi4 said:


> I’m not going to take part in your mental breakdown.


You seem very flustered, almost as if you were nailed to the wall or some other suggestive expression. Are you feeling all right? Do you need some water? Unlike you, I actually have a perfectly valid reason to be irritable and I'm being as civil as I can be with someone constantly in bad faith as you are.


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The cat example is just a thought experiment on superposition.


It's a thought experiment that was trolling quantum physicists.

He isn't suggesting that it would be real, he's saying how ridiculous it is. But he kinda missed the point as the wave would collapse, because the cat was in the box.



Foxi4 said:


> he exists, but he technically shouldn’t as he interrupted his own parent’s meeting which is a prerequisite for his existence. Not only that, he is physically in the past, but he is to be born in the future. He’s in a superposition state not just in space, but also time.


No, he either exists or doesn't. He is only in one position in time and space.

If he never existed at all then he can't be aborted, if he does exist then he wasn't aborted.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

smf said:


> It's a thought experiment that was trolling quantum physicists.
> 
> He isn't suggesting that it would be real, he's saying how ridiculous it is. But he kinda missed the point as the wave would collapse, because the cat was in the box.


Boy howdy, the last thing we need on PolTemp is a discussion about quantum physics - we might actually see some brains frying in real time.  Just out of my own personal curiosity, do you happen to have any articles suggesting that he was, as you say, trolling? I was always under the impression that the thought experiment was an attempt at describing the counterintuitive nature of superposition, in response to Einstein’s example of an exploded/unexploded powder keg and his EPR article. The two exchanged correspondence on the subject. It was a critique of the Copenhagen model. You are right in the sense that he certainly wasn’t saying cats can be simultaneously dead and alive, to him that notion was absurd. He was instead illustrating that our understanding of quantum physics was incomplete, but I don’t know if that qualifies as trolling. Is my understanding correct, or am I missing something?


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> but I don’t know if that qualifies as trolling.


Saying something you don't believe to make someone look stupid is not trolling?

The Copenhagen interpretation that he was trolling, was never published & we don't know what exactly was in it that he disagreed with (because rather than disagreeing with it, he mocked it). So we don't know whether it was valid.

However Heisenberg has stated that an observer doesn't need to be human, which I kind of think escaped Schrodinger as opening the box will do nothing.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

smf said:


> No, he either exists or doesn't. He is only in one position in time and space.
> 
> If he never existed at all then he can't be aborted, if he does exist then he wasn't aborted.


Not sure how to describe the premise in a way that would adequately explain it. The film rejects the notion of Many Worlds, there can be only one outcome, the timestream doesn’t split - it merely mends itself (within reason - Doc does warn Marty about excessive interference). As you say, Marty can only exist in one place in space and time. However, he is in a superposition state specifically because of his interference, and he can either completely vanish or continue to exist depending on what actions he undertakes. In that sense, he is, but simultaneously isn’t - his state is uncertain until he guarantees his own existence.

We’re observers looking at this situation from outside of the universe of the movie. Marty’s timestream will correct itself to avoid paradox, but that won’t affect our memory of Marty because we don’t inhabit his universe. To us, he’ll suddenly vanish because he’ll accidentally prevent his birth. As far as we’re concerned, he’ll be an entity that existed and suddenly ceased to exist. “Getting aborted from time” is as good of a description as any to the viewers, but I can understand how you’d find that objectionable since from the perspective of other inhabitant of Marty’s universe he’d simply never exist at all.

Never thought making a joke would take us to a discussion about quantum physics, but I always like when threads go in unexpected and interesting directions (within reason). I’m happy to agree to disagree on the applicability of the term - it’s not exactly a serious discussion anyway, we’re talking about a film. I am happy to see that so many people like it though, it’s a classic.

EDIT: tl;dr Marty can only exist if his parents get together. He screws up at the very beginning and starts the process of vanishing. He messed up “a little bit”, but not “quite enough” to fully disappear. As such, he doesn’t “exist” or “doesn’t exist”, he “maybe exists” until his fate is sealed. That’s an in-between state contingent on whether he reverts his screw-up or not.


smf said:


> Saying something you don't believe to make someone look stupid is not trolling?


I don’t think so, no. If you want to show that something is absurd, coming up with an example that demonstrates this absurdity is a good way of going about it. How else would you do it? We’ve had our fair share of absurd analogies in this very thread - I think they can be a valuable tool that takes us closer to the truth. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.


----------



## SG854 (May 25, 2022)

I think Abortion should be legal

Sometimes God likes to impregnate Women even if they never had sex without their consent. Not all Pregnancies is a result of SEX!!!

Many Women financially struggle & not all Women can afford to raise the next Messiah. Therfore they should be allowed to abort their baby.


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> As you say, Marty can only exist in one place in space and time. However, he is in a superposition state specifically because of his interference, and he can either completely vanish or continue to exist depending on what actions he undertakes. In that sense, he is, but simultaneously isn’t - his state is uncertain until he guarantees his own existence.



The reason why I don't think it's a quantum super state is the text on the fax that Jennifer had which said "You're Fired" slowly fades away after Marty didn't race. There appears to be some other unexplained process going on.


----------



## smf (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t think so, no. If you want to show that something is absurd, coming up with an example that demonstrates this absurdity is a good way of going about it.


No, it's never a good way.  If you disagree with something, then you should deal with the specific points. Rather than trying to go round that by pretending that what they say is absurd.

At best it looks like he built a straw man.

I kinda figured that someone with your similar style would think it's ok though, despite a ton of evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

smf said:


> The reason why I don't think it's a quantum super state is the text on the fax that Jennifer had which said "You're Fired" slowly fades away after Marty didn't race. There appears to be some other unexplained process going on.


Well, we know that Marty gets fired for some kind of financial malfeasance. Needles effectively bullies him into scanning his card. Judging by the disappearance of the fax after the fact, we can surmise that the transaction had something to do with the collision that would’ve occurred if Marty did choose to participate in the car race, as it’s pretty clear that the near miss would’ve been more severe if he did. We don’t have enough information to determine exactly what happened other than the two events being connected in some way.

EDIT: The way I interpret it is that it taught Marty restraint, which affected his decision-making later down the line. Being able to say “no” to the car race taught him how to say “no” to having his card scanned, thus removing the cause of his firing. It’s just a theory though - the matter isn’t fully explained.


smf said:


> No, it's never a good way.  If you disagree with something, then you should deal with the specific points. Rather than trying to go round that by pretending that what they say is absurd.
> 
> At best it looks like he built a straw man.
> 
> I kinda figured that someone with your similar style would think it's ok though, despite a ton of evidence to the contrary.


Like I said, different strokes for different folks. I like examples. If I see something that’s absurd, all it takes is an example to demonstrate why. Ideally you’d like to discuss that example after the fact so that the problem can be further explored, but that doesn’t always happen. In the realm of the laws of physics, finding an exception to a proposed law is a pretty big deal - it signifies that a variable is being omitted somewhere along the train of thought.


----------



## MicroNut99 (May 25, 2022)

*The cat is both alive and dead.
The box isn't yours to open. 
Its not your choice to make.
Back on the track... 
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/06/1096676197/7-persistent-claims-about-abortion-fact-checked*


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

You know what @smf and @Dark_Ansem? I’m enjoying the BTTF conversation more than I probably should, all the abortion talk aside. If you want to talk about the movies some more, along with their associated paradoxes, I’d be more than happy to continue it in a dedicated thread where we can talk strictly about the movies. If you guys want, I can make a new thread and move all of the content we’ve discussed so far to it, so that we can carry on without distracting from the abortion debate. If y’all interested in Marty’s adventures, we have a dedicated board for movies. It’ll let us all simmer down too, which is an added benefit.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You know what @smf and @Dark_Ansem? I’m enjoying the BTTF conversation more than I probably should, all the abortion talk aside. If you want to talk about the movies some more, along with their associated paradoxes, I’d be more than happy to continue it in a dedicated thread where we can talk strictly about the movies. If you guys want, I can make a new thread and move all of the content we’ve discussed so far to it, so that we can carry on without distracting from the abortion debate. If y’all interested in Marty’s adventures, we have a dedicated board for movies. It’ll let us all simmer down too, which is an added benefit.


A satisfactory idea. Let's make a BTTF thread.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> A satisfactory idea. Let's make a BTTF thread.


I’d love that. If all the other participants are game too, I’ll do just that - seems like a better use of our time than causing distractions here.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 25, 2022)

thread is about abortion

discussion is about back to the future.

we live in a society where it has veered off topic.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 25, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> thread is about abortion
> 
> discussion is about back to the future.
> 
> we live in a society where it has veered off topic.


Such timing of yours, to say this right when we decided to put an end to the derailing.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 25, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> thread is about abortion
> 
> discussion is about back to the future.
> 
> we live in a society where it has veered off topic.


Correct. With that being said, the discussion is admittedly rather entertaining, so the remedy shouldn’t cause loss of content. The ideal solution is to move it to a more appropriate venue if the participants are willing to continue.


----------



## tabzer (May 25, 2022)

smf said:


> I was talking about pedestrians. They do not consent to being knocked over, even if they get distracted when crossing the road.
> 
> There are various signs that demonstrate a consent to being pregnant, not having an abortion if they get pregnant would be a clear sign. Having an abortion is a clear sign they didn't consent.
> 
> What you seem to want to do, is force consent onto someone.



Getting an abortion is not the same as not having gotten pregnant.  Having an abortion is a form of withdrawing consent, not proof or evidence that consent wasn't given in the first place.  Participating in actions where the outcome is a reasonable expectation carries a degree of implicit consent.  Participating in actions where the outcome is definitely expected is intent.  Where am I trying to force consent?  I'm trying to identify it. 

I'm not sure what pedestrians crossing the road symbolize for you in the analogy that driving cars is operating one's sexual drive.  I've already likened someone who isn't driving, and getting hit by a car, as a form of rape.


----------



## Nothereed (May 25, 2022)

alex61194 said:


> it´s his opinion i differ from him but it´s just that an opinion


And? people act on those opinions. It's how they act about them that matters. I'll make the clear difference again with marijuana as an example. I personally heavily dislike marijuana for clarity here.
1. "I dislike marijuana, but I'm okay with others people choice to have it" (this is me. I can rationally understand why people choose to do it. I don't exactly agree with it, and if I think that they harming of themselves because of that. I'll state it, but I will not enforce my belief on someone else. It's not causing me or anyone else harm. nor is it addictive in the same way as other substances)
2. "I dislike marijuana, and I want it banned"
One is tolerant of the other. One is not. marijuana isn't hurting anyone else. 
Reminder that there used to be (and still is) the opinion that all jews are horrible monsters that should be killed.
If you just put it under the veil of "well it's just an opinion" I'm sorry to say but people act on those opinions, and it can be in the determent of others.


----------



## Noctosphere (May 25, 2022)

Let's just say that some states like Texas really protect their childrens...
While they're in their mom...
Once they are out, ciao bye, you're on your own kid


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 26, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> Let's just say that some states like Texas really protect their childrens...
> While they're in their mom...
> Once they are out, ciao bye, you're on your own kid


If this were REALLY about children, the state would ensure they have access to the things required to LIVE their life: healthcare, education, meals, playtime. None of this happens.


----------



## Noctosphere (May 26, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> If this were REALLY about children, the state would ensure they have access to the things required to LIVE their life: healthcare, education, meals, playtime. None of this happens.


THATS my point
They do care about them... when they are inside the belly of their mom
As i said, once they're out, ciao bye kid, you're on your own


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 26, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> Let's just say that some states like Texas really protect their childrens...
> While they're in their mom...
> Once they are out, ciao bye, you're on your own kid



Most of the time they aren't on their own. Once they are born there are the mother and father whose responsibility is to raise the child.


----------



## Noctosphere (May 26, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Most of the time they aren't on their own. Once they are born there are the mother and father whose responsibility is to raise the child.


i meant about the involving of the government in protecting them


----------



## Noctosphere (May 26, 2022)

and btw, you know it was a joke right?


----------



## CPG_ (May 26, 2022)

am i watching the comedy channel or is this real life


----------



## Noctosphere (May 26, 2022)

blumbus said:


> am i watching the comedy channel or is this real life


it's GBATemp's politics forum
So I guess... both?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (May 26, 2022)

Almost 90 pages of back and forth vicious arguing and strangling each other and neither side has convinced the other. Incredibly productive and civil political conversations indeed that needed to be desperately on this site.

This whole thread should be the example on why a politics section is not nor ever needed on a game modding site, or any site on the web in general.


----------



## regnad (May 26, 2022)

Viri said:


> I more don't like the idea of the federal gov enforcing laws on state gov. I personally am indifferent towards abortion being legal or not, I just don't like a law being forced onto a state, that didn't vote for it. I feel the same way about gay marriage and weed.
> 
> Also, having such things leak out early is just wrong, and should be investigated.


And slavery! 

Anyway the real crime here is the leak. How dare anyone leak information! Squirrel!


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

regnad said:


> Anyway the real crime here is the leak. How dare anyone leak information! Squirrel!


Yes, I understand your point, but this sets a really bad precedent. 

If someone disagrees with something, they can leak it, get people riled up, and if they're caught, just point to the supreme justice case and say "They weren't punished, so why am I?"


----------



## AdamCatalyst (May 26, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> Basically, "the religious will never stop fighting their religious war against human rights. its best to find a compromise where we can at least establish some of the more basic human rights, even if the science has to be ignored to do."? it's a bit depressing, but hard to argue.


Nope, that’s not what I am saying at all. What you’re saying is grossly ignorant, and demonstrates the zealotry that entrenches this problem.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 26, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Yes, I understand your point, but this sets a really bad precedent.
> 
> If someone disagrees with something, they can leak it, get people riled up, and if they're caught, just point to the supreme justice case and say "They weren't punished, so why am I?"


Why should they be punished when one SC judge and his wife actively conspired against the POTUS and nothing was done.


----------



## AdamCatalyst (May 26, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Oy, where to begin with this one...


I can't tell if you're trolling, or if you are really this profoundly ignorant.. In short…




Dakitten said:


> First, the ideology of those against abortion rights is rooted in theology.


FALSE: There are many people opposed to abortion who are atheistic or agnostic.
FALSE: Abortion is not a right. Never was. 




Dakitten said:


> Any compromise would legitimize a state religion and that would be a pretty miserable state of affairs.


FALSE: The USA has a myriad of cultural and religious exceptions in its law, which is one of the main reasons that so many people migrated there. The end effect has been a pluralism, and not a monolith state law. All of history would seem to contradict your horrifying assertion agains… “compromise.” Are you also against peace & love?




Dakitten said:


> Roe v Wade may not have had the strongest legal foundation, but the Supreme Court did honor it and consistently had elected officials bring it up before adding members to the bench, only to have many members betray the trust of the representatives of the people. It might have been struck down on a legal premise, but it was removed over a theological concept against the will of the populous it serves.


FALSE: The extremely well documented problems with Roe v Wade is strictly constitutional law. There is no theological argument being made.




Dakitten said:


> Admitting that abortion is murder is just wrong on its face. Unless menstruation is accidental manslaughter like Baxter's insane rant about soul vessels and "natural death", it isn't murder, it is a medical procedure done for a myriad of reasons on something with the potential for life.


FALSE: Infanticide is murder. The question is when does abortion become infanticide? Is it ok to allow abortion one minutes after a baby is born? How about one minute before? Once you admit there is a limit. There is a real, blurry aline that needs to be dealt with. Ad-absurdium arguments about menstruation are about as uselessly childish as covering your ears and screaming ‘I can't hear you!’




Dakitten said:


> If you're having an issue about when something is viable or alive or whatever, I encourage you to talk with somebody who has had an abortion or even a miscarriage. It is an emotional, painful thing, something nobody would wish on themselves a second time let alone anybody else, and accusing people of being murderers on top of it is just disgusting.


FALSE: I have spoken with people who have had abortions, and am deeply sympathetic towards them. I have never, and would never, EVER, equate them with murderers. I ask that you apologize for publicly making such a disgraceful false statement about me.

That mere fact that you mention "miscarriages" reveals a profound lack of self-awareness. Why would anyone care about miscarriage? It's just a thing that happens your body, like indigestion? Nothing has been lost, right?




Dakitten said:


> Topping off, like I've said before, nobody has a 5 month abortion just because they got a wild hair up their butt one day. I don't know what kinds of scenarios guys think women get abortions for, but it just doesn't work like that.


FALSE: This has literally nothing to do with sex & gender politics. The fact is that most anti-bortion (and pro-choice) lobbyist are female.




Dakitten said:


> There is no room for compromise here, women are masters of their own bodies and should be able to choose if something should or shouldn't be inside of them.


FALSE: There is always room for compromise. There is only no room for compromise if you want to fight a forever war. You could easily open your eyes and see that the overwhelming majority of people do not believe that women should be able to kill their unborn child right up to the moment it traverses the vaginal canal.




Dakitten said:


> IF there is some lady out there who wants to endure all the pain and agony of going to 5 months routinely just so they can imagine they're a mass murderer, that person needs mental help immediately, not legal repercussions.


FALSE: I have never, ever, equated abortion with mass-murder. I ask that you apologize for publicly making such a disgraceful false statement about me.




Dakitten said:


> Everyone else has reasons, and men have to learn to respect that. End of story.


FALSE: Men have every bit as responsibility as women to protect their unborn children, and to protect the bodily autonomy of women. Sex & gender are not a zero-sum game.




Dakitten said:


> Oh, if this thread has proven anything, it is EASY to argue. Difficult to convince others on, maybe, but at least in America, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, so the argument is that religion shouldn't alter policy.


FALSE: The argument is not religions. Never was. You clearly haven't bothered to read my message, or the leaked Supreme Court doc.




Dakitten said:


> And here we come back to my favorite. I'll tell you what, you come up with a way to have a birth with your own body in a society where all your needs for a happy and healthy life for you and your child are guaranteed by the government, and I will humor this argument endlessly. Until then, I'm going to focus on the fact that you say it is a blessing with no earthly idea of what it can do to your body and mind and pocketbook and personal goals, and that you actually said the quiet part out loud and mentioned the church becoming the state. Good luck with that in Japan.


You are literally arguing my assertions that there needs to be compassion, compromise, limits, social supports in order to find peace. Good luck with your angry extremism.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 26, 2022)

AdamCatalyst said:


> FALSE: This has literally nothing to do with sex & gender politics. The fact is that most anti-bortion (and pro-choice) lobbyist are female


This is false.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Why should they be punished when one SC judge and his wife actively conspired against the POTUS and nothing was done.


just because one person was not punished doesn't mean you should be allowed to leak confidential information.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 26, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> just because one person was not punished doesn't mean you should be allowed to leak confidential information.


Not just "one person": the wife of the judge himself. That's a blatant conflict of interests that should lead to resignation and yet...


----------



## smf (May 26, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Getting an abortion is not the same as not having gotten pregnant. Having an abortion is a form of withdrawing consent,


If you get punched and your nose broken and then you go to the hospital to get your nose set, then you aren't withdrawing consent to having your nose broken. You never did consent.

It's pretty much the same, women are just going back to having their wombs reset.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 26, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> just because one person was not punished doesn't mean you should be allowed to leak confidential information.



If it's the left they get a pass on leaking, stealing, rioting tens of thousands of times, arson, murder, trespassing, assault and all forms of violence because for some reason its their civic duty. However if you're on the right you can't do any of those things just a single time or you're some fascist that needs to be locked away. The lefties are really fucked in the head.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 26, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> If it's the left they get a pass on leaking, stealing, rioting tens of thousands of times, arson, trespassing, assault and all forms of violence because for some reason its their civic duty. However if you're on the right you can't do any of those things just a single time or you're some fascist that needs to be locked away. The lefties are really fucked in the head.


Yes it was the left who assaulted the capitol last year, those terrorists! Ah no wait. Those were RepubliKKKunts terrorists


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yes it was the left who assaulted the capitol last year, those terrorists! Ah no wait. Those were RepubliKKKunts terrorists


at least they weren't the terrorists that burnt down cities, beat people to death, and forced us to create a law making it legal to run protesters over if they block the entire road

was it bad? yes, but don't act as if the left is innocent.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 26, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> at least they weren't the terrorists that burnt down cities, beat people to death, and forced us to create a law making it legal to run protesters over if they block the entire road
> 
> was it bad? yes, but don't act as if the left is innocent.


Those were the proud boys. Not BLM. The one beating people to death are cops.

And that law doesn't belong in any democracy. No wonder America is a joke. Protests are meant to be disruptive, you murderer. Getting all high and mighty about a cluster of cells but no issues at all murdering adults protesting for their eifht to live. Disgusting.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Those were the proud boys. Not BLM. The one beating people to death are cops.


Then why did it happen at BLM rallies? Seems as if you're trying to make excuses for them.



Dark_Ansem said:


> And that law doesn't belong in any democracy. No wonder America is a joke. Protests are meant to be disruptive, you murderer.


Yes, because I personally travelled to every protest to have a legal right to run everyone over. Yes, I am personally the murderer who did this, and this isn't just an excuse to make me seem bad. Yeah, that's it.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Getting all high and mighty about a cluster of cells but no issues at all murdering adults protesting for their eifht to live. Disgusting.


You mean right? You seem as if you had a stroke there, bucko.

Also if they block the road, preventing ambulances from getting in, they deserve to get run over. You shouldn't block someone's right to live just because oh no! cop did another bad thing! riot!


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

Look, I support the ideals of BLM, but the group itself are a corrupt bunch of bastards.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (May 26, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> at least they weren't the terrorists that burnt down cities, beat people to death, and forced us to create a law making it legal to run protesters over if they block the entire road
> 
> was it bad? yes, but don't act as if the left is innocent.



It was tens of thousands times worse than a few people tresspassing and destroying property on a single accurate at the capitol. However, it's the lefts tactic to say "what about" and list a single riot when they have tens of thousands under their belt. It's utter bullshit. The left are tens of thousands of times more guilty of what they claim the right is guilty of. Don't pay attention to their "whatabout" this. They need to own what they did and what they support then and now. They are evil.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 26, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Also if they block the road, preventing ambulances from getting in, they deserve to get run over. You shouldn't block someone's right to live just because oh no! cop did another bad thing! riot!


This literally never happened.

And yea, if cops break the law rioting is the only solution, because cops don't break the laws they enforce if they're punished for it.

The hypocrisy and evil of pro-birthers is beyond reason, justifying terrorism then punishing women for enjoying sex.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 26, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Look, I support the ideals of BLM, but the group itself are a corrupt bunch of bastards.


Support them so much you're happy to have them murdered because they inconvenience your morning routine.


----------



## tabzer (May 26, 2022)

smf said:


> If you get punched and your nose broken and then you go to the hospital to get your nose set, then you aren't withdrawing consent to having your nose broken. You never did consent.
> 
> It's pretty much the same, women are just going back to having their wombs reset.



Getting an abortion is withdrawing consent from being pregnant.  It is possible to consent to getting your nose broken.  Even if without consent of getting your nose is broken, it is possible to accept that your nose is broken after it is broken, just as it is possible to consent to remaining pregnant until your abortion appointment.

What's the argument?  All pregnancy that ends in abortion means that getting pregnant happened without consent?  Or is it that getting pregnant is like getting your nose broken?

Resetting your nose doesn't make it not broken, but getting an abortion does make one not pregnant.  If you could instantly un-break your nose, then I would consider that as withdrawing consent to possessing a broken nose.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> This literally never happened.
> 
> And yea, if cops break the law rioting is the only solution, because cops don't break the laws they enforce if they're punished for it.
> 
> The hypocrisy and evil of pro-birthers is beyond reason, justifying terrorism then punishing women for enjoying sex.


what? I was never justifying terrorism. 

Are we just making stuff up now? Ok, I'll play ball. Joe Biden raped every child in the united states, therefore we can kick him out. There, I can lie as well, see?



Dark_Ansem said:


> Support them so much you're happy to have them murdered because they inconvenience your morning routine.


I don't want anyone murdered. Hell, I'm lucky to live in a town where people don't riot because surprise surprise cop did another bad thing, so we must burn down gas stations and cry when we are shot to death when trying to take a innocent kid's gun.

No one here tries to ruin everyone's day because cop did bad thing, and I am sad when people die, but if you stand in the road, that's literally just the darwin award at that point for every idiot who stands in the road trying to protest.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 26, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Are we just making stuff up now? Ok, I'll play ball. Joe Biden raped every child in the united states, therefore we can kick him out. There, I can lie as well, see?


You've been making stuff up since you started posting! Unlike me. 

Also, Biden? It wasn't Biden lusting after his own daughter, you sick pervert. While the US police DID break the rules it's meant to enforce AND obey.

Are you simply stupid and perverted?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You've been making stuff up since you started posting! Unlike me.


No, YOU'VE been making stuff up. I've been telling the truth.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Also, Biden? It wasn't Biden lusting after his own daughter, you sick pervert. While the US police DID break the rules it's meant to enforce AND obey.
> 
> Are you simply stupid and perverted?


No shit Biden didn't rape every child, I was just showing you I can lie about the other side as well. If you want to call our side terrorists, I'll call your side child rapists and not lose a wink of sleep at all. (and with movies like Cuties, I wouldn't be surprised if your side really was child rapists.)


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 26, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> No, YOU'VE been making stuff up. I've been telling the truth


LIAR.



KennyAtom said:


> No shit Biden didn't rape every child, I was just showing you I can lie about the other side as well. If you want to call our side terrorists, I'll call your side child rapists and not lose a wink of sleep at all. (and with movies like Cuties, I wouldn't be surprised if your side really was child rapists.


Fun fact: most convicted child molesters are Republicans, and rhe capitol terrorists ARE terrorists per your own laws, you idiot.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> LIAR.


LIAR.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Fun fact: most convicted child molesters are Republicans, and rhe capitol terrorists ARE terrorists per your own laws, you idiot.


idk man, Weinstein was liberal, that one guy who the Clintons had killed was a liberal and he had an entire island where he, along with both liberals and repubilicans, commited pedophilia on a daily basis.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 26, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> idk man, Weinstein was liberal, that one guy who the Clintons had killed was a liberal and he had an entire island where he, along with both liberals and repubilicans, commited pedophilia on a daily basis.


Lol conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated nonsense.

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

The truth is you lot are obsessed with children just because you want to abuse them. Sick hypocrites.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Lol conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated nonsense.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/30/republicans-gop-party-children-abuse
> 
> The truth is you lot are obsessed with children just because you want to abuse them. Sick hypocrites.


Yes, just because I am part of a party with a few bad apples means I am a child molester. Good logic.

Sorry bud, but that "conspiracy theory" is real. Guards just don't walk away, cameras don't just shut off.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 26, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Yes, just because I am part of a party with a few bad apples means I am a child molester. Good logic.
> 
> Sorry bud, but that "conspiracy theory" is real. Guards just don't walk away, cameras don't just shut off.


You literally smeared a man with rhe accusation of "having raped every child in America". You don't get to play the "no hyperbole allowed" card. Plus there's the fact you literally want the right to mow down protesters with your car.

Are you a Vladimir Putin fanboy? Is genocide next on your list?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You literally smeared a man with rhe accusation of "having raped every child in America".


I literally admitted myself that was a falsehood, made because you felt good with making falsehoods as well. Also you should go back to English school, considering the fact that you can't even spell "the" correctly.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Plus there's the fact you literally want the right to mow down protesters with your car.
> 
> Are you a Vladimir Putin fanboy? Is genocide next on your list?


And more falsehoods. Of course I don't want the right to mow down protesters with my car, I just want the right to go to work without being forced to wait for people playing, quite literally, a real life game of Chicken with cars on a highway or road.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 26, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> And more falsehoods. Of course I don't want the right to mow down protesters with my car, I just want the right to go to work without being forced to wait for people playing, quite literally, a real life game of Chicken with cars on a highway or road.


It's amazing how someone so interested in the potential life of an embryo is so happy to throw the life of adults to the wind.

Where are hundreds, if not thousands, of people supposed to march if not on the city roads? In the sky or rooftops?


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's amazing how someone so interested in the potential life of an embryo is so happy to throw the life of adults to the wind.
> 
> Where are hundreds, if not thousands, of people supposed to march if not on the city roads? In the sky or rooftops?


maybe on the sidewalks or with a permit? Block the roads off or create a detour, don't punish people who actually have to work and don't have all the free time in the world because we have daddies trust fund or whatever the fuck these protesters who somehow have all the time in the world have.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 26, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> maybe on the sidewalks or with a permit? Block the roads off or create a detour, don't punish people who actually have to work and don't have all the free time in the world because we have daddies trust fund or whatever the fuck these protesters who somehow have all the time in the world have.



Fit 1000 people on a pedestrian walk while marching, I dare you. 

Marchers cannot block roads or create detours, that's the job of the police. Which is why usually such events are communicated to the police beforehand so that they may authorise them. It's very rare for unauthorised big events to happen.

Spoken like an entitled and privileged republican who didnt have to work a single day in life. Maybe you have no soul, but theres plenty of us with no trust funds politcially active because its the right thing to do, not because we gain something out of it. The time invested doesn't return.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Fit 1000 people on a pedestrian walk while marching, I dare you.


Then march somewhere else, don't interrupt my working time.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Marchers cannot block roads or create detours, that's the job of the police. Which is why usually such events are communicated to the police beforehand so that they may authorise them. It's very rare for unauthorised big events to happen.


Exactly why I said get a permit. Don't block off roads and play chicken, set up permits and blocks/detours.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Spoken like an entitled and privileged republican who didnt have to work a single day in life. Maybe you have no soul, but theres plenty of us with no trust funds politcially active because its the right thing to do, not because we gain something out of it. The time invested doesn't return.


Well sorry I cannot protest because I have something called a minimum wage job, which will punish me harshly if I miss a single day for something unimportant because it's called work, not take off time for your own interests-rk.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 26, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Well sorry I cannot protest because I have something called a minimum wage job, which will punish me harshly if I miss a single day for something unimportant because it's called work, not take off time for your own interests-rk.


Lol and the others don't? You think you're the only one working? Get real. You're the only one selfish and well-off enough to ignore what doesn't directly affect you.



KennyAtom said:


> Exactly why I said get a permit. Don't block off roads and play chicken, set up permits and blocks/detours.


They did have a permit.



KennyAtom said:


> Then march somewhere else, don't interrupt my working time.


Like where? A city has only so many places to reach the City Hall.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 26, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Lol and the others don't? You think you're the only one working? Get real. You're the only one selfish and well-off enough to ignore what doesn't directly affect you.


Me? Selfish? Well off? Don't make me laugh, bucko.


Dark_Ansem said:


> They did have a permit.


Then don't block highways. That's just a invitation to killing yourself, a darwin award.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Like where? A city has only so many places to reach the City Hall.


Like maybe no major roads,a specific route like parades have.


----------



## smf (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> What's the argument?  All pregnancy that ends in abortion means that getting pregnant happened without consent?  Or is it that getting pregnant is like getting your nose broken?
> 
> Resetting your nose doesn't make it not broken, but getting an abortion does make one not pregnant.


It depends on how good your surgeon is fixing your nose. And how good the abortion is.

Ideally you'd end up in the position you always wanted to be.

Without you breathing down their necks saying "but you consented, YOU CONSENTED!!!!!!!!!1"



KennyAtom said:


> Well sorry I cannot protest because I have something called a minimum wage job, which will punish me harshly if I miss a single day for something unimportant because it's called work, not take off time for your own interests-rk.


The irony.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

smf said:


> It depends on how good your surgeon is fixing your nose. And how good the abortion is.
> 
> Ideally you'd end up in the position you always wanted to be.
> 
> Without you breathing down their necks saying "but you consented, YOU CONSENTED!!!!!!!!!1"



This isn't an abortion clinic or a hospital.  It is a thread about the controversy surrounding the Roe v Wade leak on a gaming forum.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

smf said:


> The irony.


and what irony is that?


----------



## smf (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> and what irony is that?


Republicans think you should get paid what you're worth, you are republican and on minimum wage.


----------



## smf (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> This isn't an abortion clinic or a hospital.  It is a thread about the controversy surrounding the Roe v Wade leak on a gaming forum.


Are you ok?

Because that is the weirdest post I've ever seen from you and that is saying something.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

smf said:


> Are you ok?
> 
> Because that is the weirdest post I've ever seen from you and that is saying something.


It doesn't say anything really, mainly because it's you saying it.  If you are accusing me of breathing down your neck and saying "you consented," it is only because you found your way here, of all places, and asked me to tell you how.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It doesn't say anything really, mainly because it's you saying it. If you are accusing me of breathing down your neck and saying "you consented," it is only because you found your way here, of all places, and asked me to tell you how.


And you keep making not even a iota of sense.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And you keep making not even a iota of sense.



"Without you breathing down their necks saying "but you consented, YOU CONSENTED!!!!!!!!!1""

Please make sense of the relevance of this.  I'm not sneaking into abortion clinics and hospitals, breathing down people's necks and saying,"but you consented, YOU CONSENTED!!!!!!!!!1"


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> "Without you breathing down their necks saying "but you consented, YOU CONSENTED!!!!!!!!!1""
> 
> Please make sense of the relevance of this.  I'm not sneaking into abortion clinics and hospitals, breathing down people's necks and saying,"but you consented, YOU CONSENTED!!!!!!!!!1"


Actually, you are. There's plenty of doctors and nurses who, from their imaginary pedestal, judge women and do their best to dissuade them from exercising freedom and autonomy for their bodies just because they are sanctimonious twats. So YOU, personally, may not (maybe because you're not allowed in hospitals unless as patient?) but whoever acts with your same ideas certainly does.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Actually, you are. There's plenty of doctors and nurses who, from their imaginary pedestal, judge women and do their best to dissuade them from exercising freedom and autonomy for their bodies just because they are sanctimonious twats. So YOU, personally, may not (maybe because you're not allowed in hospitals unless as patient?) but whoever acts with your same ideas certainly does.


You know, context matters, right?  I'm not sure how many abortions you had, or how many abortionists breathed down your neck, telling you that you consented.  I can tell you that I wasn't one of them.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You know, context matters, right?  I'm not sure how many abortions you had, or how many abortionists breathed down your neck, telling you that you consented.  I can tell you that I wasn't one of them.


And as I just said, I'm not disputing that YOU personally, as in physical person, didn't do it. But YOU "pro-birthers" have been doing it for half a century now. So it doesn't really matter if you don't do it personally, your faction does it, and you are complicit in it.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And as I just said, I'm not disputing that YOU personally, as in physical person, didn't do it. But YOU "pro-birthers" have been doing it for half a century now. So it doesn't really matter if you don't do it personally, your faction does it, and you are complicit in it.


My faction?  What are you on about?  Again, context matters.  

I'm not sure what "pro-birther" means to you, but I'm not encouraging the enforcement of birthing.  I do like a happy family though.  Sorry?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> My faction?  What are you on about?  Again, context matters.
> 
> I'm not sure what "pro-birther" means to you, but I'm not encouraging the enforcement of birthing.  I do like a happy family though.  Sorry?


You totally are, since you're both anti-abortion and absolutely against measures of a, can't get around it, socialist, nature, to ensure that the right to live a GOOD life of the child are enforced. This is because you're not pro-life, you're just pro-birth, largely because of a desire to punish women for having sex and a (worrying) sense of entitlement and control on their bodies.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You totally are, since you're both anti-abortion and absolutely against measures of a, can't get around it, socialist, nature, to ensure that the right to live a GOOD life of the child are enforced. This is because you're not pro-life, you're just pro-birth, largely because of a desire to punish women for having sex and a (worrying) sense of entitlement and control on their bodies.


Show me where I am anti abortion.  @smf  has proven to be more anti abortion than I.  I argue ethics and logical arguments, but I don't condemn anyone or wish promote for them to be ruled over.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> A child is a baby adult and a fetus is a baby baby.  You are your mother's baby.  Are we clear?





tabzer said:


> I wouldn't take anyone's words about my consciousness over my own.  So, I wouldn't advocate people doing that, in general.
> 
> If you think your grandfather, who is on life support, should be unplugged--it is probably because you think there is no hope for him.
> 
> But to do that for developing baby?  I doubt you are aware enough to speak on the awareness of others.





tabzer said:


> I've made the point before @Lacius, that the analogy of forced organ transplant does not coordinate with the conditions of a forced pregnancy.  It is a broken analogy of convenience.  You apparently hate analogies, and only use them as a last resort.  (You are bad at them)
> 
> A life is created and it is indentured to its condition.  Those responsible to creating this indentured condition are responsible for maintaining it, or providing an alternative that is better, not worse--unless they are willing to sacrifice that life.  Your organ transplant analogy will not acknowledge a situation where the person being forced to give an organ made the organ transplant necessary.
> 
> And yes, sex does lead to pregnancy, if done correctly.  The pregnancy is a reasonable expectation.  When would you argue that people should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions when the consequences are the expected outcome?





tabzer said:


> It's not because I said it that makes it true.  It's because it's true that it's true.  It's a matter of record now.  You brought up blood transfusions as if they changed the point.  You are either an idiot or did not read.  I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





tabzer said:


> I already told you why I used the word "consequence", and I find it daft that I would have to explain the biological role of sex.
> 
> Though consequence isn't always negative, in the analogy it was likened as an affliction.  It was out of respect to the nomenclature used, not a personal belief.
> 
> If A -> B.  Even though many people respond to pregnancy with a Pikachu face, it isn't because the outcome is an unreasonable one.





tabzer said:


> I understand your perspective about the role of the state and that the state should be held liable in forcing harmful outcomes on its people.  I disagree that the analogy was "perfectly serviceable" for the reason I already pointed.
> 
> If you have a complaint about the argument I made, then I would like to hear it.  Diversions to hating women or not being capable of "finding sex" are not appreciated.
> 
> In attempt to be progressive, if someone stabbed  you in your kidney, and they are a good match as a donor, would you consider it justice that you take their kidney?





tabzer said:


> The biological function of sex is reproduction.  Having sex is consent to the "risks" involved.
> 
> 
> 
> Your question didn't factor in how the parents are creating the conditions for their children's ailments.  It is intentionally blurring causality.  If you want to ask me if one thinks a parent should be required to feed and shelter their children, well I doubt anyone would contest that.



All these u?

@smf that true? You're more anti-abortion than tabzer?


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> All these u?
> 
> @smf that true? You're more anti-abortion than tabzer?


None of that promoted the adjustment or enforcement of any legislature or laws.  @smf is on record suggesting that some adjustment to the window may be acceptable (something like that).

If you don't like my arguments, then why are you holding onto them?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> None of that promoted the adjustment or enforcement of any legislature or laws.  @smf is on record suggesting that some adjustment to the window may be acceptable (something like that).
> 
> If you don't like my arguments, then why are you holding onto them?


I'm actually holding YOU accountable to your "arguments". I'm not holding onto them, keeping them close to my heart.

And frankly, just like @smf , I also agree that abortion shouldn't be UNRESTRICTED, as in demanding one at a 8 months 3 weeks pregnancy stage. Because pro-choice individuals, despite the bilious propaganda of pro-birthers Republicans and religious nutcases (usually both simultaneously) are NOT child killers (let alone the fact that foetuses aren't children, because if they were, they'd be called children, and not foetuses).


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm actually holding YOU accountable to your "arguments". I'm not holding onto them, keeping them close to my heart.
> 
> And frankly, just like @smf , I also agree that abortion shouldn't be UNRESTRICTED, as in demanding one at a 8 months 3 weeks pregnancy stage. Because pro-choice individuals, despite the bilious propaganda of pro-birthers Republicans and religious nutcases (usually both simultaneously) are NOT child killers (let alone the fact that foetuses aren't children, because if they were, they'd be called children, and not foetuses).



You say you are holding me accountable to my arguments.  Can you point out what you disagree with, or specifically why?

Both of you have promoted for more restrictions, while I have not.  Isn't that ironic?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm not sure where someone from the UK would have a say on American politics, or why they should.


And here comes the racist "argument".

Well done, you're checking all the RepubliKKKan checkboxes! You must be a Proud Boy.

Noted how I'm not the only one not American but you singled me out with your xenophobic drivel.




tabzer said:


> You say you are holding me accountable to my arguments. Can you point out what you disagree with?


First of all, your nonsense about a foetus being a baby. Not the same, and you know it. In fact I doubt you'd be able to distinguish a human foetus from a pig one.

Secondly, your nonsensical idea of people having to "suffer the consequences of sex" because they implicitly consented to them. First of all, you're a creep for thinking that. Secondly, humans aren't breeding cows. We can reproduce because virtually all living things can reproduce, some without sex. If the Lord made it so enjoyable, it was certainly to motivate us to reproduce and multiply, but First and foremost for us to enjoy.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Both of you have promoted for more restrictions, while I have not. Isn't that ironic?


Nope. Because you think, and want, the whole thing to disappear.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And here comes the racist "argument".
> 
> Well done, you're checking all the RepubliKKKan checkboxes! You must be a Proud Boy.
> 
> ...



Your nationality isn't a race.  It's a representation of what government you are beholden too.  If your government has a history with another government,  I don't think that is not notable.  I don't know what "race" you are, or if you even have one.

If you cannot decipher the meaning behind the suggestion that a fetus is a baby to the expecting-mother and a fetus is a clump of cells to someone who wants to rationalize an abortion, then you are lost on this one.  It was commentary about two groups are irreconcilable.

I never said someone should have to "suffer the consequence of sex".  I've only gone as far to say that they do.  How they be allowed to manage it hasn't been in my interest of dictating.   What I have said is not at odds with reality.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Your nationality isn't a race. It's a representation of what government you are beholden too. If your government has a history with another government, I don't think that is not notable. I don't know what "race" you are, or if you even have one.


No one believes this nonsense, you pro-birther xenophobe.




tabzer said:


> If you cannot decipher the meaning behind the suggestion that a fetus is a baby to the expecting-mother and a fetus is a clump of cells to someone who wants to rationalize an abortion, then you are lost on this one. It was commentary about two groups are irreconcilable


There is no "meaning", just you being a disingenous liar relying on falsehoods to promote images that aren't real.



tabzer said:


> I never said someone should have to "suffer the consequence of sex". I've only gone as far to say that they do. How they be allowed to manage it hasn't been in my interest of dictating. What I have said is not at odds with reality.


You're ridiculous. These are your own words. If you're eating them back, fine, but at least admit it.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You're ridiculous. These are your own words. If you're eating them back, fine, but at least admit it.



I searched this whole forum and your posts are the first two that said it, and then one of mine for quoting you.

Is it your intention to look unhinged?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I searched this whole forum and your posts are the first two that said it, and then one of mine for quoting you.
> 
> Is it your intention to look unhinged?


Is it your intention to be a backpedaling xenophobic hypocrite?


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Is it your intention to be a backpedaling xenophobic hypocrite?



Point it out.

I know that "RebupliKKKunts" have been trying to gaslight you for years. Have they succeeded?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Point it out.
> 
> I know that "RebupliKKKunts" have been trying to gaslight you for years. Have they succeeded?


Point out what? You literally told me to stay out of American politics because I'm not American, that's kinda xenophobic innit.




tabzer said:


> I know that "RebupliKKKunts" have been trying to gaslight you for years. Have they succeeded?


That's funny, I don't recall saying that. I think you need to eat more fish, it does wonders for brainpower.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Point out what? You literally told me to stay out of American politics because I'm not American, that's kinda xenophobic innit.



I did edit the message, because I realized that you would be more "triggered" than predisposed to understanding what was said.

Neither of us have a say on American politics or its policy.  Otherwise, we, and maybe our countries, are "interfering".

Maybe it's okay to interact with the philosophy, rhetoric, and the logic of the current arguments?



Dark_Ansem said:


> That's funny, I don't recall saying that. I think you need to eat more fish, it does wonders for brainpower.



Nah.  Right Wingers, Republikkan, RepubliKKKunts.  Whatever.  Don't worry about my fish diet.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Nah. Right Wingers, Republikkan, RepubliKKKunts. Whatever. Don't worry about my fish diet.


I think that even if you ingested shark-like quantities of fish you'd stay the same dimwit you are.



tabzer said:


> Neither of us have a say on American politics or its policy. Otherwise, we, and maybe our countries, are "interfering".


We do not live in a vacuum, what happens even on the other side of the world has consequences.




tabzer said:


> I did edit the message, because I realized that you would be more "triggered" than predisposed to understanding what was said.


Apology and concession accepted. Maybe.



tabzer said:


> Maybe it's okay to interact with the philosophy, rhetoric, and the logic of the current arguments?


Depends on WHICH arguments we're talking about.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Apology and concession accepted. Maybe.



Me: I realized that you would be more "triggered" than predisposed to understanding what was said.

You:  Seems like you might understand me after all.

Lol, fuck off.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Lol, fuck off.


Only if you DON'T join in, tyvm.


----------



## smf (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You say you are holding me accountable to my arguments.  Can you point out what you disagree with, or specifically why?
> 
> Both of you have promoted for more restrictions, while I have not.  Isn't that ironic?


I haven't "promoted" for more restrictions, I've said I'm open to discussions.

While you, as far as I can tell, just want to restrict abortion fully. Or am I missing something?


----------



## smf (May 27, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Show me where I am anti abortion.  @smf  has proven to be more anti abortion than I.  I argue ethics and logical arguments, but I don't condemn anyone or wish promote for them to be ruled over.


So trolling.

You certainly seem to condemn people with your arguments.


----------



## MicroNut99 (May 27, 2022)

There is nothing here that cannot be decided by all of the people directly involved in the decision.
At any level banning abortion ignores the facts on the ground.
Its good that many here feel good about taking on that blind responsibility.
Big hearts and shoulders to go with such large fat brains.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

smf said:


> Republicans think you should get paid what you're worth, you are republican and on minimum wage.


wait, so you're trying to insult me? nice try kiddo.

i'm moving to a different job soon, I was laid off a few months earlier and had to take this job to tide me over while I found a new job.


----------



## MicroNut99 (May 27, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> wait, so you're trying to insult me? nice try kiddo.
> 
> i'm moving to a different job soon, I was laid off a few months earlier and had to take this job to tide me over while I found a new job.


Maybe you should hold back a little about your personal life. 
It's not often a direct reflection of your beliefs. 
...No matter how ill conceived...


----------



## KennyAtom (May 27, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> Maybe you should hold back a little about your personal life.
> It's not often a direct reflection of your beliefs.
> ...No matter how ill conceived...


i mean as long as it doesn't identify me it doesn't matter.

there are many people who get laid off and need to find a new job.


----------



## tabzer (May 27, 2022)

smf said:


> I've said I'm open to discussions.



And I'm not.  Understand?



smf said:


> So trolling.
> 
> You certainly seem to condemn people with your arguments.



I think a couple people here are idiots and irresponsible, but I haven't condemned anyone for getting an abortion.  

The reason "consent" was brought up in the first place was because it was a key difference in the forced organ donation vs enforced carry-to-term analogy.

If you call anything that you don't like trolling, then the word just means "something smf doesn't like".  I'm not worried about it.

If you want to see trolling, go back to the "back to the future" part.


----------



## MicroNut99 (May 28, 2022)

tabzer said:


> And I'm not.  Understand?


Then why are you here?


tabzer said:


> I think a couple people here are idiots and irresponsible, but I haven't condemned anyone for getting an abortion.


That is mighty thoughtful of you.


tabzer said:


> The reason "consent" was brought up in the first place was because it was a key difference in the forced organ donation vs enforced carry-to-term analogy.


Consent isn't the proper word and Slavery would be a better analogy.  See The Handmaid's Tale


----------



## tabzer (May 28, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> Then why are you here?



Because the topic is interesting.  I didn't realize this was the place for people to gather and decide how to regulate women's pregnancies.



MicroNut99 said:


> That is mighty thoughtful of you.



It's a challenge for him to present my alleged condemnation.



MicroNut99 said:


> Consent isn't the proper word and Slavery would be a better analogy. See The Handmaid's Tale



Consent was a major difference that I pointed out between two scenarios.  If you want to make an argument that something is like slavery, you are going to have to be more specific.  As far as I can tell, you are suggesting that outlawing abortion parallels sex slavery.  Is that what you mean?


----------



## JaapDaniels (May 28, 2022)

Haloman800 said:


> Rape and incest is less than 1% of abortions. For the sake of argument, if we said "you can murder your unborn child if they are the product of rape/incest", are you on board with protecting the life of the other 99%?
> 
> Let me guess, you aren't. So stop bringing up "rape" as an excuse to justify murdering unborn children.


1 percent, sorry sir, it's way higher than 1%, not even 25% of the victims ever talk about it, going for justice. most victims of incest feel ashamed, still feel love towards the perpetrator or are to affraid of what it means for the rest of the family.
For those who got raped it also ain't 100% go for justice, some feel too ashamed to talk about it, some don't know whether it was rape for they didn't stop the perpetrator.
those who got forced in to sex are high percentages, but it's not rape for they start it themselves for they need thier shot of whatever, or thier friend/husband comes up with the sad story it's his only way out of overdue bills.
think of the childeren not going to have a father, think of the childeren not getting any love from either parents.
not all pregnants are good for the child within the mothers womb.
if the mother is in the state of mind now, so far off she wants to terminate the child, knowing full well that she will always have to live with the feelings  of not beeing a mother of it... if she's at that point killing a dream now, she's not gonna love that child.
so chances go way up for this going to be so called saved child of yours is going to be the next school shooter.
so you get to choose for saving an unwanted blob of flesh and maybe blood with the high chance of dealing with a lot of broken families later, or killing this one dream, and maybe one adults dream.


----------



## MicroNut99 (May 28, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Because the topic is interesting.  I didn't realize this was the place for people to gather and decide how to regulate women's pregnancies.


No, I mean why are you here?
Seriously, the topic is clear as a bell.  


tabzer said:


> It's a challenge for him to present my alleged condemnation.


I won't condemn you, outright.


tabzer said:


> Consent was a major difference that I pointed out between two scenarios.  If you want to make an argument that something is like slavery, you are going to have to be more specific.  As far as I can tell, you are suggesting that outlawing abortion parallels sex slavery.  Is that what you mean?


The Handmaid's Tale is a strong reference to all of the above. The story covers most of the sick nuances involved.
To be direct its human slavery with the twist that it could only ever apply to half the population.
btw I have made my pro-choice position clear many times.
Right or Wrong its not our choice to make. The Woman, her doctors and immediate family members and... that's it.
Insight into the future and the specific details of every women's situation the law must have.
Big hearts and Broad shoulders it must take to harbor the burden of the choice from the greatest of distances.
The most intimate of acts regulated by the most disinterested of parties.
Sounds like slavery to me.


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> No, I mean why are you here?
> Seriously, the topic is clear as a bell.



Do you want to give me a list of answers that are acceptable to you?  I thought I was pretty clear about my lack of capacity to decide laws regarding the subject.  The topic indicates this of federal government, too.



MicroNut99 said:


> I won't condemn you, outright.



Find a subtle condemnation then.



MicroNut99 said:


> The Handmaid's Tale is a strong reference to all of the above. The story covers most of the sick nuances involved.
> To be direct its human slavery with the twist that it could only ever apply to half the population.
> btw I have made my pro-choice position clear many times.
> Right or Wrong its not our choice to make. The Woman, her doctors and immediate family members and... that's it.
> ...



Yes, a literary work may cover a myriad of themes.  What's the argument or analogy?  To say that outlawing (or restricting) abortion is on par with slavery lacks perspective.  You can argue that limiting options is a step in the direction of (an implicit) slavery.  However, the act of forcing someone to become pregnant and carry to term is not the same as denying access to an abortion, and that's why I am asking you to clarify.



MicroNut99 said:


> Right or Wrong its not our choice to make. The Woman, her doctors and immediate family members and... that's it.



So you think immediate family members and doctors should be able to decide what the woman can and cannot do with her body.  That's interesting.


----------



## MicroNut99 (May 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Do you want to give me a list of answers that are acceptable to you?  I thought I was pretty clear about my lack of capacity to decide laws regarding the subject.  The topic indicates this of federal government, too.


No.
Someone made the choice to have you... right?
Maybe was a planned choice or not... I will never know and its not my place to know.


tabzer said:


> Find a subtle condemnation then.


I did that.


tabzer said:


> Yes, a literary work may cover a myriad of themes.  What's the argument or analogy?  To say that outlawing (or restricting) abortion is on par with slavery lacks perspective.  You can argue that limiting options is a step in the direction of (an implicit) slavery.  However, the act of forcing someone to become pregnant and carry to term is not the same as denying access to an abortion, and that's why I am asking you to clarify.


I did clarify. Forcing someone to carry is slavery of the body to an ideal or set of restrictive laws that can never be met. I've outlined exactly why in my argument.


tabzer said:


> So you think immediate family members and doctors should be able to decide what the woman can and cannot do with her body.  That's interesting.


Out of context and out of line.
In order of importance I've listed the Women first.... so fuck you for implying otherwise. (a direct condemnation btw)
MicroNut99 said:
Right or Wrong its not our choice to make. The Woman, her doctors and immediate family members and... that's it.


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> No.
> Someone made the choice to have you... right?
> Maybe was a planned choice or not... I will never know and its not my place to know.



Then why ask?



MicroNut99 said:


> I did that.



Great.  Please point out where.



MicroNut99 said:


> I did clarify. Forcing someone to carry is slavery of the body to an ideal a set of laws that can never be met. I've outlined exactly why in my argument.



"Forcing someone to carry" as slavery is loaded and doesn't address the appeal to accountability for willfully getting pregnant in the first place.  It's a real argument that you are failing to address.  If you think women shouldn't be accountable for their pregnancies, you can honestly say that and one can honestly disagree.  As an analogy to slavery, it doesn't capture the concerns addressed; so it falls short.



MicroNut99 said:


> Out of context and out of line.
> In order of importance I've listed the Women first.... so fuck you for implying otherwise. (a direct condemnation btw)
> MicroNut99 said:
> Right or Wrong its not our choice to make. The Woman, her doctors and immediate family members and... that's it.



I'm still not sure why you are including anyone other than the woman.  Are you suggesting that it's an immediate community thing?  Save your outrage.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> "Forcing someone to carry" as slavery is loaded and doesn't address the appeal to accountability for willfully getting pregnant in the first place.


The only case in which you willfully get pregnant is when both partners say "We want a child". End of. Anything else it's your usual mysoginist nonsense.


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> The only case in which you willfully get pregnant is when both partners say "We want a child". End of. Anything else it's your usual mysoginist nonsense.



I think you are overestimating how assertive a male's role is in a woman's pregnancy.  Are you suggesting that the partner should have a say over whether or not a woman should have an abortion, if they did not verbally consent to her getting pregnant?

Also, if pregnancy is an expected outcome of having sex, how is it not consent to getting pregnant?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Are you suggesting that the partner should have a say over whether or not a woman should have an abortion, if they did not verbally consent to her getting pregnant?


As I already said in a different post which you obviously didn't read, they already have a say but, for the better or the worse, they can't enforce their will. What should be possible, however, is paternity refusal, as in "You wanted a baby and I didn't. and despite my precautions you still got pregnant? You're on your own".

But as I said in my other post, usually this behaviour is a crime known as stealthing, which is exceedingly difficult to prove unless the one who carried it out confesses.


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> As I already said in a different post which you obviously didn't read, they already have a say but, for the better or the worse, they can't enforce their will. What should be possible, however, is paternity refusal, as in "You wanted a baby and I didn't. and despite my precautions you still got pregnant? You're on your own".



If words have no weight in the decision making process, how is it that "having a say"?  If a couple were particularly lazy about taking precautions during sex, and the woman wants to support a resulting pregnancy while the partner doesn't, would it be reasonable to argue "you wanted a baby and I didn't" as a means to bow out of supporting the child?




Dark_Ansem said:


> But as I said in my other post, usually this behaviour is a crime known as stealthing, which is exceedingly difficult to prove unless the one who carried it out confesses.



I'm not rationalizing any degrees of rape or intentional deception.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> f words have no weight in the decision making process, how is it that "having a say"


Didn't say they have no weight. I said they have no power of compulsion (in a healthy, non-abusive relationship).



tabzer said:


> If a couple were particularly lazy about taking precautions during sex, and the woman wants to keep a resulting pregnancy and the partner doesn't, would it be reasonable to argue "you wanted a baby and I didn't" as a means to bow out of supporting the child?


Not the example I made, so stop moving the goalposts. Also, how do you define "lazy precautions"? Ogino-knaus or basal body temperature are real techniques, not 100% accurate but no contraception is 100% accurate.


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Didn't say they have no weight. I said they have no power of compulsion (in a healthy, non-abusive relationship).



I said that they have no weight on the decision to have an abortion.  "They have a say" is just a platitude, empty in context of "rights".



Dark_Ansem said:


> Not the example I made, so stop moving the goalposts.


It's an example I made.  You don't have to answer.  You introduced this idea of being able to deny paternal support.  I want clarity on it.  If a woman getting pregnant is a reasonable expectation of having sex, should the male partner be able to bow out of paying child support if he doesn't want to maintain it?


----------



## smf (May 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> And I'm not.  Understand?



Not really, if you are so closed minded you don't want to discuss something then why are you spending so much time in a thread discussing it?


----------



## smf (May 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> *If* a woman getting pregnant is a reasonable expectation of having sex, should the male partner be able to bow out of paying child support if he doesn't want to maintain it?



_For most couples trying to conceive, the odds that a woman will become pregnant are *15% to 25%* in any particular month._ 

Odds seem low. Maybe child support should be paid based on number of attempts, rather than it being a lottery.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If a woman getting pregnant is a reasonable expectation of having sex, should the male partner be able to bow out of paying child support if he doesn't want to maintain it?


Again, I already told you your nonsensical ideas about "reasonable expectations" isn't up for debate. Reasonable expectations aren't certainties and certainly they can't be taken as expressions of consent. Stop moving the goalposts.


tabzer said:


> If a couple were particularly lazy about taking precautions during sex, and the woman wants to support a resulting pregnancy while the partner doesn't, would it be reasonable to argue "you wanted a baby and I didn't" as a means to bow out of supporting the child?


And I already told you to define "lazy precautions".


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

Seems like you guys really don't want to pay paternity, and it looks like the burden of birth control (or abortion) falls on the women.  I think I'm satiated with your responses.  Thanks.



smf said:


> if you are so closed minded you don't want to discuss something then why are you spending so much time in a thread discussing it?



I haven't been nor am I interested in discussion about how the legal window for abortion should or could be decreased.  I don't pretend that I am in an position to decide.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Seems like you guys really don't want to pay paternity, and it looks like the burden of birth control (or abortion) falls on the women. I think I'm satiated with your responses. Thanks.


Not at all but hey, lying is your forte.


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not at all but hey, lying is your forte.


Not seeing the disagreement.  At best, a misdirection.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Not seeing the disagreement. At best, a misdirection.


Again, from you. As usual.


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Again, from you. As usual.


You can disagree with me saying it out loud, but you even leave that much too ambiguous.

Would you try to convince a partner you impregnated, by accident (per your own measure, reason be damned), to get an abortion because you don't want to be responsible for a child?

I'm shifting the goalpost to match the game you are trying to play.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Would you try to convince a partner you impregnated, by accident (per your own measure, reason be damned), to get an abortion because you don't want to be responsible for a child?


Yes, because neither of us want the kid, and no one consented to becoming mother or father. Classical example (which happened to me IRL, and not once) is the broken condom.

And I didn't need to insist that much.


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

I believe if you wear a condom while having sex, pregnancy is not a reasonable expectation.  Despite you saying so, what's "reasonable" is debatable even if we both agree.

My question, though, didn't presume that she didn't want the child.  Is it possible that you convinced her not to have the child, and she felt compelled to agree?  If she consulted a lawyer, instead of you, and found that she could have you pay paternity, might it be possible that she'd elect to raise a child without you being around?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> My question, though, didn't presume that she didn't want the child. Is it possible that you convinced her not to have the child, and she felt compelled to agree? If she consulted a lawyer, instead of you, and found that she could have you pay paternity, might it be possible that she'd elect to raise a child without you being around?


What your question presumed doesn't concern me since you didn't specify it, so I'm gonna steer the conversation where I want.

It's not possible that she felt compelled to agree, because we both knew we weren't (and still aren't) ready. And honestly the risk wasn't worth it, a couple days later after the incident all was clear. 

Even if she found out she'd have forced me to pay for the child, truth is I owned very little and had no salary. So it would have done her F ALL to do so.




tabzer said:


> believe if you wear a condom while having sex, pregnancy is not a reasonable expectation. Despite you saying so, what's "reasonable" is debatable even if we both agree.


Don't backpedal your own points. Per your own words, the mere fact of having intercourse constitutes reasonableness. Just like your insinuation that life begins at conception. 

You're wrong, of course, but that's your own fault.


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> What your question presumed doesn't concern me since you didn't specify it, so I'm gonna steer the conversation where I want.
> 
> It's not possible that she felt compelled to agree, because we both knew we weren't (and still aren't) ready. And honestly the risk wasn't worth it, a couple days later after the incident all was clear.
> 
> Even if she found out she'd have forced me to pay for the child, truth is I owned very little and had no salary. So it would have done her F ALL to do so.



You do know the definition of "insist", right?  I'm at odds with your predisposition, as I would be more concerned with why a woman may feel the need to abort.  Is it because of financial reasons?  Is it because of social expectations?  It's more intimate to her than it is to her partner, by definition.  She should have complete freedom of expression on what it means to her.  



Dark_Ansem said:


> Don't backpedal your own points. Per your own words, the mere fact of having intercourse constitutes reasonableness. Just like your insinuation that life begins at conception.
> 
> You're wrong, of course, but that's your own fault.



I never said that the mere fact of having intercourse constitutes a reasonable expectation of pregnancy.  

Pregnancy begins at conception.  Life began way before either of us.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I never said that the mere fact of having intercourse constitutes a reasonable expectation of pregnancy.
> 
> Pregnancy begins at conception. Life began way before either of us.


You totally did, and you're completely ridiculous with this idea. The last one is a list of nonsensical points you've been making.



tabzer said:


> You do know the definition of "insist", right? I'm at odds with your predisposition, as I would be more concerned with why a woman may feel the need to abort. Is it because of financial reasons? Is it because of social expectations? It's more intimate to her than it is to her partner, by definition. She should have complete freedom of expression on what it means to her.


Your hypocrisy is astounding. How does it feel to have no principles of your own, always skating to get a rise out of people.


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You totally did, and you're completely ridiculous with this idea. The last one is a list of nonsensical points you've been making.





Dark_Ansem said:


> Your hypocrisy is astounding. How does it feel to have no principles of your own, always skating to get a rise out of people.



For both of these claims I'd like a direct reference.  Saw you from a mile away.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> For both of these claims I'd like a direct reference.  Saw you from a mile away.


I've literally been quoting your ridiculous assertions until now.


----------



## MicroNut99 (May 29, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Then why ask?


To be polite.


tabzer said:


> Great.  Please point out where.


Anything you say *Wybie.*


tabzer said:


> "Forcing someone to carry" as slavery is loaded and doesn't address the appeal to accountability for willfully getting pregnant in the first place.  It's a real argument that you are failing to address.  If you think women shouldn't be accountable for their pregnancies, you can honestly say that and one can honestly disagree.  As an analogy to slavery, it doesn't capture the concerns addressed; so it falls short.


Who are you to say that you know any details involving a Woman's choice.... Ever.
You are blind to situation and have cast doubt where there should be little.
Broad shoulders and infinite wisdom you must carry.... impressive.
Forced labor and children women must endure because you said so.... not knowing a damn thing about that person.
You now own them... you now control the reproductive rights of half the population.
Slavery.


tabzer said:


> I'm still not sure why you are including anyone other than the woman.  Are you suggesting that it's an immediate community thing?


The situation involves the most important people closest to the person making the decision.


tabzer said:


> Save your outrage.


All for you... because you are a well crafted liar.  
I'm sure this is what you wanted to hear anyway. 
Troll food for a troll.


----------



## KennyAtom (May 29, 2022)

ok, what's with everyone thinking that people with a opposing viewpoint is trolling?

you won't make any progress this way, you don't have to believe what they say, but at least listen and debate it, don't call them a troll just because you disagree.


----------



## MicroNut99 (May 29, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> ok, what's with everyone thinking that people with a opposing viewpoint is trolling?
> 
> you won't make any progress this way, you don't have to believe what they say, but at least listen and debate it, don't call them a troll just because you disagree.


Because he isn't presenting any counter argument. 
He just washes out or generalizes anything he doesn't like and then says your wrong.
I can debate anyone who is willing and able enough to express a viewpoint.
and imho tabzer really has none.... just bones to pick... and that's what Trolls do.


----------



## tabzer (May 29, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> Who are you to say that you know any details involving a Woman's choice.... Ever.



Well, I suppose that's up to the woman to disclose or how far state monitoring can observe.  The reason your analogy fails is because it presumes that all pregnancies are forced upon them and doesn't account for the situations where the pregnancy was an act of will.  "Who are you to say that you know any details involving a Woman's choice.... Ever."

I said it first, but in a way that was too subtle for you to understand, aka the argument itself.



Dark_Ansem said:


> I've literally been quoting your ridiculous assertions until now.



I never said that the mere fact of having intercourse constitutes a reasonable expectation of pregnancy.

I get that you don't like being shown how your persuasion of a girl to get an abortion after you knocked her up doesn't appear noble.  Calling me a hypocrite suggests that I would do the same thing despite me already telling you how I'd approach the situation, and it comes out sideways.


----------



## MicroNut99 (May 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Well, I suppose that's up to the woman to disclose or how far state monitoring can observe.  The reason your analogy fails is because it presumes that all pregnancies are forced upon them and doesn't account for the situations where the pregnancy was an act of will.  "Who are you to say that you know any details involving a Woman's choice.... Ever."
> 
> I said it first, but in a way that was too subtle for you to understand, aka the argument itself.


"it presumes that all pregnancies are forced upon them"
Not until the Choice is denied.


tabzer said:


> I never said that the mere fact of having intercourse constitutes a reasonable expectation of pregnancy.
> 
> I get that you don't like being shown how your persuasion of a girl to get an abortion after you knocked her up doesn't appear noble.  Calling me a hypocrite suggests that I would do the same thing despite me already telling you how I'd approach the situation, and it comes out sideways.


If you stood for anything or had any real point of view this might be anything but an incredible waste of time.
You've done nothing to advance your position on the subject because you have none.
However if you can, please explain yourself... otherwise Troll on.


----------



## tabzer (May 30, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> "it presumes that all pregnancies are forced upon them"
> Not until the Choice is denied.



No, it presumes that the pregnancy has been forced before the choice for an abortion can be honored or denied.  Forcing people to get pregnant is not the same as denying them access to an abortion.  



MicroNut99 said:


> If you stood for anything or had any real point of view this might be anything but an incredible waste of time.
> You've done nothing to advance your position on the subject because you have none.
> However if you can, please explain yourself... otherwise Troll on.



There are some people who are pro-abortion with the intention of disrespecting women.  I'm thinking of sordid politicians, deceitful philanderers, or deadbeats in general.  I've been arguing against rhetoric that dismisses the existence of accountability.  When people line up to expose themselves, I think the point speaks for itself.


----------



## MicroNut99 (May 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> No, it presumes that the pregnancy has been forced before the choice for an abortion can be honored or denied.  Forcing people to get pregnant is not the same as denying them access to an abortion.


We disagree. Forcing a woman to have a baby is slavery to a people/system/law that remove all the details, dignity and humanity from that persons life. 


tabzer said:


> There are some people who are pro-abortion with the intention of disrespecting women.  I'm thinking of sordid politicians, deceitful philanderers, or deadbeats in general.  I've been arguing against rhetoric that dismisses the existence of accountability.  When people line up to expose themselves, I think the point speaks for itself.


"pro-abortion" that's not really a thing... (Finally some hint at your real position on the subject.)
and who exactly are these people?
Details please. (popcorn)
I ask for the specifics of every situation, you've given none and exposed your own naked argument. 
omg Pro-Choice must be "pro-abortion" is that what you mean?
Depending on your life's perspective these people "sordid politicians, deceitful philanderers, or deadbeats in general" could be anyone on any given side. 
So are you pro-life or pro-choice? 
Do you have any female friends?
Do you have a mother?
Did she make a choice?

Women should be allowed to choose.
I think abortion is wrong but its not up to me to make that choice. 
I just don't know the specifics of any woman's life to make that kind of heavy decision.

Lots of bones to pick, enjoy...


----------



## tabzer (May 30, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> We disagree. Forcing a woman to have a baby is slavery to a people/system/law that remove all the details, dignity and humanity from that persons life.



This isn't a rebuttal to the claim that "forcing people to get pregnant is not the same as denying them access to an abortion".  

If you call,"forcing people to become pregnant and carry out her pregnancy" slavery.

And then you call,"forcing a woman to carry out her pregnancy" slavery.

It doesn't automatically make them the same thing, and it doesn't automatically make them slavery.  

One example has a clear, and important, step further than the other towards slavery.  To say that these are the same is essentially hand-waving the inclusion of rape.  It is a much worse analogy than the one that was presented before yours.  If rape is too "nuanced" for you to see, there is no point in discussing something so "abstract" as accountability.



MicroNut99 said:


> I think abortion is wrong



Ok.  What makes it wrong?



MicroNut99 said:


> "pro-abortion" that's not really a thing... (Finally some hint at your real position on the subject.)
> and who exactly are these people?



You are having trouble understanding the fact that there are men who pressure women into having abortions and want social conditions to benefit them.  They are pro-abortion and would desire to appear as "pro-choice".  Politics isn't a game of red vs blue or pro-choice vs pro-life.  Many people have a variety of interests and views.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> never said that the mere fact of having intercourse constitutes a reasonable expectation of pregnancy.


You absolutely did.



tabzer said:


> get that you don't like being shown how your persuasion of a girl to get an abortion after you knocked her up doesn't appear noble.


Are you illiterate? I never said any of that.



tabzer said:


> Calling me a hypocrite suggests that I would do the same thing despite me already telling you how I'd approach the situation, and it comes out sideways.


Calling you a hypocrite because you've made no contribution and keep moving the goalposts... yep sounds about right.


----------



## tabzer (May 30, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You absolutely did.



You say so, but I'm noticing an interesting lack of reference.  Should be easy.  Just one line, from this thread.  Point at it.  Maybe you assumed I said something.  



Dark_Ansem said:


> Are you illiterate? I never said any of that.



You said that you didn't have to try very hard.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Calling you a hypocrite because you've made no contribution and keep moving the goalposts... yep sounds about right.



I didn't bring cookies and now I am a hypocrite?  How am I moving goalposts?  Say all the buzzwords you want.  They aren't meaningful without supporting context.

Watching you trying to hide after exposing yourself is pretty amusing.  I think it would be easier to delete your account, and try again.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You said that you didn't have to try very hard


Not what I'm talking about. Are you ignorant of basic biology?



tabzer said:


> You say so, but I'm noticing an interesting lack of reference. Should be easy. Just one line, from this thread. Point at it. Maybe you assumed I said something.


Here Is your reference.


tabzer said:


> [Idiotic nonsense].
> 
> And yes, sex does lead to pregnancy, if done correctly.  The pregnancy is a reasonable expectation.  When would you argue that people should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions when the consequences are the expected outcome?





tabzer said:


> I didn't bring cookies and now I am a hypocrite? How am I moving goalposts? Say all the buzzwords you want. They aren't meaningful without supporting context.
> 
> Watching you trying to hide after exposing yourself is pretty amusing. I think it would be easier to delete your account, and try again.


Hide myself? Are you trying to be even stupider than usual? Not that it's possible ofc.


----------



## tabzer (May 30, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not what I'm talking about. Are you ignorant of basic biology?



I drew attention to you convincing a woman to get an abortion.  Where is the ignorance of basic biology relevant?



Dark_Ansem said:


> Here Is your reference.



You should realize that the "if done correctly" is pointing at pregnancy as a goal.  Biology.  Who knew?



Dark_Ansem said:


> Hide myself? Are you trying to be even stupider than usual? Not that it's possible ofc.



You: I am better than you.  I respect women and you do not.  Also, your girlfriend is a slut, lol.

You again: I did noooot.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I drew attention to you convincing a woman to get an abortion. Where is the ignorance of basic biology relevant?


Your mistake, as usual. I convinced NO ONE to get an abortion, I convinced someone to take the morning-after pill. Which any clinician, and any person with half a brain, would agree is birth control, not abortion. Unless you're arguing that somehow they are the same, which they are NOT.


tabzer said:


> You should realize that the "if done correctly" is pointing at pregnancy as a goal. Biology. Who knew?


Not you, obviously, since your only intent is to troll people.


tabzer said:


> Also you: Your girlfriend is a slut, lol.


Actually I never said that, I blamed you 100%, once again your stupidity come back to haunt you,
Also, "girlfriend"? That's the first time you address her so respectfully. The word you used before is "mistress", a word whose meaning is intrinsically linked to cheating and, in general, sordid affairs. Perhaps you should respect your "girlfriend" more and call her as such.


----------



## tabzer (May 30, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Your mistake, as usual. I convinced NO ONE to get an abortion, I convinced someone to take the morning-after pill. Which any clinician, and any person with half a brain, would agree is birth control, not abortion. Unless you're arguing that somehow they are the same, which they are NOT.








Dark_Ansem said:


> Not you, obviously, since your only intent is to troll people.


Nice logic.  "I don't agree with the biological purpose of sex, so you must be a troll."


Dark_Ansem said:


> Actually I never said that, I blamed you 100%, once again your stupidity come back to haunt you,
> Also, "girlfriend"? That's the first time you address her so respectfully. The word you used before is "mistress", a word whose meaning is intrinsically linked to cheating. Perhaps you should respect your "girlfriend" more and call her as such.





It's one step that you chose to assume that she was promiscuous (which isn't a definition).  It was another to present it as an insult (town bike).   Based on what you are saying, even now, it is my responsibility to make sure she makes moral choices.  You must respect women, so much.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Not that it matters that you chose to assume that she was promiscuous. Even if that were the case, you presented it as an insult, which is a particularly "incel" thing to do.


Actually I was faithfully identifying you, and you still don't know what incel means, you bad faith troll.

I'm sorry where, exactly, in that lovely screenshot of yours, is the reference of what you THINK I said? Because It's not anywhere. Is your ignorance that deep? Probably as deep as your functional illiteracy.

For the reference of everyone: incel AND mistress.
Literally nothing I said could be even remotely attributed to "incel" mindset - plenty of what you say, on the other hand, is.


----------



## tabzer (May 30, 2022)

It doesn't matter what I think.

Even if you elected for the most deragatory definition of mistress, you chose to represent her as the town bicycle.  Whether that was a Freudian slip or temporary lapse in definition recall, you chose to attack me by attacking a woman.

My previous post is more succinct in wrapping you up in a nice package.  I don't think I can do better than perfect.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (May 30, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Even if you elected for the most deragatory definition of mistress, you chose to represent her as the town bicycle. Whether that was a Freudian slip or temporary lapse in definition recall, you chose to attack me by attacking a woman.


it wasn't even me who came up with that idea LMAO, no Grand Prix motorcycle knowledge I see, and I attacked no woman because, to me, promiscuity isn't necessarily an undesirable trait. You need to be more careful with your words and respect "your GF" more. You're the one who somehow put across the idea promiscuity was a bad thing, I made no such judgement.


tabzer said:


> My previous post is more succinct in wrapping you up in a nice package. I don't think I can do better than perfect.


LOL you're as far from perfection as you are from making any sort of contribution, or sense, in this thread. Again, it's no one's fault but yours if you're illiterate and ignorant of basic Sex Ed.


tabzer said:


> It doesn't matter what I think.


Finally something we agree on!


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jun 1, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> Look, I support the ideals of BLM, but the group itself are a corrupt bunch of bastards.


Every public group built movement is susceptible to corruption. Mainly because there is no restriction on who can join, why they are doing it and how they are going to do it. I am pretty sure at least a good number of people in the capital riot were just there protesting until a good chunk of them got ballsy enough to actually storm it. Its basically people using the movement as an excuse to commit crimes out of the nature of "protesting". Not everyone under the umbrella of a movement are going to support extremists or petty criminals as it will make the entire movement look bad, but they can't stop them from associating themselves with them either. Its the inherent flaw of open movements.  

Personally I think most public movements are FUBAR at its inception of being made. What starts off as meaningful and peaceful protesting to get awareness becomes a shitstorm of arseholes looking to fuck shit up and get away with it because they are acting under the movement as a means to deflect their activities as "activism".


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 7, 2022)

snipped because I'm a dumb ass sometimes


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 15, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I believe if you wear a condom while having sex, pregnancy is not a reasonable expectation.



Sure it is. It's a risk mitigation effort (and not just against pregnancy) but a condom isn't certain prevention. Even birth control pills are not certain, though they're pretty reliable if taken as directed.

Assuming neither has had a surgical procedure or has a medical condition precluding it, sexual intercourse between  biological male and female = risk of pregnancy. Period. Engaging in sexual intercourse = assumption of that risk. Period. If the sexual intercourse is consensual, then any resulting pregnancy is likewise. Even if you don't want it, even if it occurred as a result of wilfull negligence, by fucking you assumed the risk and allowed for the possibility. Period.

Humans have known all this for thousands of years. It's only since the 1970's that people who don't want to accept that reality have been inventing verbal pretzels to justify denial of the obvious.

There is a whole barrel full of such pretzels in this thread.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 16, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Sure it is. It's a risk mitigation effort (and not just against pregnancy) but a condom isn't certain prevention. Even birth control pills are not certain, though they're pretty reliable if taken as directed.
> 
> Assuming neither has had a surgical procedure or has a medical condition precluding it, sexual intercourse between  biological male and female = risk of pregnancy. Period. Engaging in sexual intercourse = assumption of that risk. Period. If the sexual intercourse is consensual, then any resulting pregnancy is likewise. Even if you don't want it, even if it occurred as a result of wilfull negligence, by fucking you assumed the risk and allowed for the possibility. Period.
> 
> ...



Reasonable outcome, yes.  Reasonable expectation, not so much.  Nobody wears a condom with the expectation of getting pregnant.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 16, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Nobody wears a condom with the expectation of getting pregnant.



I know what you mean but I would say they wear it with the HOPE of not getting pregnant. Small but important distinction. As SyphenFreht pointed out, torn condoms happen. It's common.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 16, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> I know what you mean but I would say they wear it with the HOPE of not getting pregnant. Small but important distinction. As SyphenFreht pointed out, torn condoms happen. It's common.


Poke and hope.


----------



## smf (Jun 16, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I haven't been nor am I interested in discussion about how the legal window for abortion should or could be decreased.  I don't pretend that I am in an position to decide.


You're still taking a position, maybe the window should be increased?


----------



## smf (Jun 16, 2022)

tabzer said:


> as I would be more concerned with why a woman may feel the need to abort.


She doesn't want to have that child.

It's quite normal for a woman to have sex with a man, but not want to have "his" children.


----------



## smf (Jun 16, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> Every public group built movement is susceptible to corruption. Mainly because there is no restriction on who can join, why they are doing it and how they are going to do it. I am pretty sure at least a good number of people in the capital riot were just there protesting until a good chunk of them got ballsy enough to actually storm it.


Some of the capital rioters, I assume, are good people. Though you'd have to be naive to think it wouldn't have kicked off like that, because all of the social media and news coverage was full of people alluding to what was going to happen.

But yeah, it is complete and utter prejudice to assume that people will be good or bad just because they are supporters of BLM.

People essentially saying that they won't support the aims of the BLM movement, because of the actions of some of it's members, kinda looks like trying to justify racism.

You can take the knee, not shoot black people etc but still try to sort out corruption too.


----------



## KuntilanakMerah (Jun 16, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Life is sacred in or out of the womb. Killing the unborn is wrong. Take responsibility for your actions.


True


----------



## tabzer (Jun 16, 2022)

smf said:


> You're still taking a position, maybe the window should be increased?



I'm not interested in fortifying or changing law.    That's a projection.



smf said:


> She doesn't want to have that child.
> 
> It's quite normal for a woman to have sex with a man, but not want to have "his" children.



First, he "persuaded" her, even if it was easy to do.

Second, the claim that one engages in the act of procreation without the desire of procreating is contradiction.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 16, 2022)

What's the big deal about it being overturned?

Doesn't this just mean abortion won't be a federal law and it will go down to a state by state level of where it should be legal?

If you look into the Rowe trial the whole thing was a sham. She lied about the entire thing.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 16, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> What's the big deal about it being overturned?
> 
> Doesn't this just mean abortion won't be a federal law and it will go down to a state by state level of where it should be legal?
> 
> If you look into the Rowe trial the whole thing was a sham. She lied about the entire thing.


Because they need the easiest access to sacrifice unborn babies to Satan without that much effort or push back duh lol


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Jun 16, 2022)

smf said:


> Some of the capital rioters, I assume, are good people. Though you'd have to be naive to think it wouldn't have kicked off like that, because all of the social media and news coverage was full of people alluding to what was going to happen.
> 
> But yeah, it is complete and utter prejudice to assume that people will be good or bad just because they are supporters of BLM.
> 
> ...


Its become a real murky shitshow with trying to support something when a lot of the original good will behind it has turned sour. In the same vein as the capitol riot the situation with the Floyd riots. Even if the intention was once for good reason and to simply bring support/acknowledgement of the issue it quickly grew out of hand into acts of vandalism/burglary and even arson. No matter what side of the political spectrum you're on this kind of shit just looks bad for everyone involved and taints any respect or good will your movement ever had. 

The real issue is you really cannot support anything anymore without it being an example of being in extreme support of it. It becomes short sighted as well given that the real issues of this country and society in general far expand and extend the limits of BLM or any of those things. 



Purple_Shyguy said:


> What's the big deal about it being overturned?
> 
> Doesn't this just mean abortion won't be a federal law and it will go down to a state by state level of where it should be legal?
> 
> If you look into the Rowe trial the whole thing was a sham. She lied about the entire thing.



You probably do not understand how the legal system works here but basically while state and federal tend to align with each other with laws there are instances where state legality may work against federal legality. A great example of this is with Marijuana legalization. Its legal either medicinally and/or recreationally in some states however federally its still very much against the law, and at any point they could decide out of the blue to send out ATF raids to any dispensary and clean out their store/arrest anyone there regardless of local laws. Its happened before in the past especially in California and as a result its one of the biggest reasons people want it to be federally legalized so these things do not randomly happen.



The issue here is that despite many states and officials having their own issues and opinions on abortion laws in general since Rv.W its on a federal level supported and legal. That means as much as some states and officials would hate it and love to ban/remove these places and services from their state they legally are not within that power to, as that would most likely get the people in that state to get pissed off enough to actually take them to supreme court and force them to keep those services active in said state. There have been plenty of instances, especially unsurprisingly in Southern states where the means and services are so stripped away and made incredibly difficult for anyone to use that some people would have to travel out of state just to get it done, which in that alone is not right. That said they cannot outright remove/ban these services entirely from the state because again, its a federally enforced law that supports having these services available, even if the state makes it nigh-impossible to allow women to get it done, it still has to be offered as a service. 

If Rv.W is overturned, this would basically make it so the states that do not want to have those services freely able to remove them and make it illegal. It also means that depending on your state's governor and parties involved the laws can change and fluctuate over the years. It becomes an already pain in the ass situation far more infinitely difficult. 

If you have to travel out of state or even out of country to get a medical procedure done, that should already note a problem that should not need to exist. Especially if the reason is because its made illegal in your state.


----------



## smf (Jun 16, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> The real issue is you really cannot support anything anymore without it being an example of being in extreme support of it. It becomes short sighted as well given that the real issues of this country and society in general far expand and extend the limits of BLM or any of those things.


The negativity that BLM had at every turn, with the people who opposed it joyfully waiting for problems to occur, shows just how ingrained the problems they face are.

Comparing that to the capitol riot, where basically the same people convinced themselves of voter fraud, is kinda disingenous.

Yes there are problems in the country, but it would be far easier to deal with if it wasn't for them.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 17, 2022)

Dr_Faustus said:


> Its become a real murky shitshow with trying to support something when a lot of the original good will behind it has turned sour. In the same vein as the capitol riot the situation with the Floyd riots. Even if the intention was once for good reason and to simply bring support/acknowledgement of the issue it quickly grew out of hand into acts of vandalism/burglary and even arson. No matter what side of the political spectrum you're on this kind of shit just looks bad for everyone involved and taints any respect or good will your movement ever had.
> 
> The real issue is you really cannot support anything anymore without it being an example of being in extreme support of it. It becomes short sighted as well given that the real issues of this country and society in general far expand and extend the limits of BLM or any of those things.
> 
> ...


So basically exactly what I said.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 17, 2022)

smf said:


> The negativity that BLM had at every turn, with the people who opposed it joyfully waiting for problems to occur, shows just how ingrained the problems they face are.
> 
> Comparing that to the capitol riot, where basically the same people convinced themselves of voter fraud, is kinda disingenous.
> 
> Yes there are problems in the country, but it would be far easier to deal with if it wasn't for them.


You're right. Comparing a one hour riot to 120 days of riots IS disingenuous.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 17, 2022)

BLM doesn't matter.  The organizers are a joke and their riots are aimless.  If you want to wear a slogan because "it's progressive" that's your choice.  If you think someone is racist because they don't support BLM, then you are a race baiting idiot.


----------



## smf (Jun 18, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> You're right. Comparing a one hour riot to 120 days of riots IS disingenuous.


Too many snowflakes these days, the criminals that attacked the capitol were pumped up on right wing lies.

BLM were fighting back after being attacked by right wing bigots.

I get that it sucks when you are the problem, but you chose to be the problem.


----------



## smf (Jun 18, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you think someone is racist because they don't support BLM, then you are a race baiting idiot.



You either think that black lives matter, or you don't. If you do, then you support BLM.

Maybe not totally in everything they do, but we're all grown ups here. You don't have to agree with someone 100% to support them. Anyone who has a girlfriend/wife etc will completely understand that.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 18, 2022)

smf said:


> If you can't support the ideals of BLM because of individuals then you're a bigoted apologist.


How the BLM scam going ?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 18, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> How the BLM scam going ?



Better than the January 6th pissing contest y'all got thrown out of. At least most people respect the BLM and what it's trying to do.


----------



## smf (Jun 18, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> How the BLM scam going ?


What scam?


----------



## tabzer (Jun 18, 2022)

smf said:


> You either think that black lives matter, or you don't. If you do, then you support BLM.



As I suggested, one could pay it no mind.  Rhetoric that relies on and seeks the existence of racism isn't constructed to end it.  It's built to leverage it and utilize it.  Fighting racism with racism is an approach one could take.  But it's not, as you imply, one of only two choices.

The words "black lives matter" doesn't need to enter someone's head space, at all, when making humanitarian choices.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 18, 2022)

smf said:


> Too many snowflakes these days, the criminals that attacked the capitol were pumped up on right wing lies.
> 
> BLM were fighting back after being attacked by right wing bigots.
> 
> I get that it sucks when you are the problem, but you chose to be the problem.


Right wing bigots attacked rioters, looters and arsonists for 100+ days straight? Huh?


----------



## smf (Jun 18, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The words "black lives matter" doesn't need to enter someone's head space, at all, when making humanitarian choices.



No, but also you can be racist when you make a "humanitarian choice". So I'm not sure what point you are making.


----------



## smf (Jun 18, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Right wing bigots attacked rioters, looters and arsonists for 100+ days straight? Huh?


No, it's much longer https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/black-history-milestones

The looting an arson was a side effect of the protests, but it's your own fault.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 18, 2022)

smf said:


> No, but also you can be racist when you make a "humanitarian choice". So I'm not sure what point you are making.


If you think racism can be humanitarian, I think that speaks more about your values.  If you were interested in understanding the point, you would have found it before getting that far into my response.

Again, to spell it out. A person _can _not think "black lives matter" and be less racist than those who do.  Seems like it'd be logical to conclude.


----------



## XDel (Jun 19, 2022)




----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 19, 2022)

smf said:


> The looting an arson was a side effect of the protests, but it's your own fault.


The prime example of "you can't fix stupid".


----------



## XDel (Jun 19, 2022)

Critique the Misuse of Capitalism.


----------



## XDel (Jun 19, 2022)

Abortions, even coat hangers are easy to avoid. Don't have sex.

Rape is easy to reduce, replace the pornographic culture that our main stream media peddles to us now a days, and return the standard back to something a bit more controlled like we had from the 30's -50's. A LOT of research went into the effects of broadcasted propaganda and its effects on society, and before that, there was an ample amount of research on crowd behavior vs individual behavior, so there is no question that our technologies have changed our mind set over the past 100 years, and it is evident that they grow more and more pornographic over time. Seeing as we are all trapped in the flesh with it's hungers, it is best not to keep meat sitting in front of our faces at all hours of the day, keeping us distracted, mesmerized, charmed, horny, and well useless except where more babies are required, but babies are not supposed to be a means to a mere economical end, nor should abortion for that matter.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 19, 2022)

XDel said:


> Don't have sex.


Spoken like someone who doesn't understand sex.



XDel said:


> Rape is easy to reduce


If your argument is that only abortions in cases of rape are permissible, then you need to be able to outright eliminate rape in order to be able to eliminate abortion, by that logic.



XDel said:


> replace the pornographic culture that our main stream media peddles to us now a days


There's no evidence that pornography causes rape. In fact, studies show that increased access to the internet broadly (and its porn) is correlated with reduced rape incidents. You don't see the same correlation with other violent crimes.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 19, 2022)

Lacius said:


> There's no evidence that pornography causes rape. In fact, studies show that increased access to the internet broadly (and its porn) is correlated with reduced rape incidents. You don't see the same correlation with other violent crimes.


Yes, pornography having a pacifing effect is plausible.


----------



## XDel (Jun 19, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Spoken like someone who doesn't understand sex.
> 
> 
> If your argument is that only abortions in cases of rape are permissible, then you need to be able to outright eliminate rape in order to be able to eliminate abortion, by that logic.
> ...



1. I am not here to brag about my sexual adventures, misadventures, and what not, but I can assure you that I'm quite familiar with sex, and not just with my self.

2. My argument is that there should never be an abortion, except in the case where there is zero doubt that having the birth will kill the baby and or mother. Besides, our technologies are so good now that we can perform a successful birth more often than not should there be a complication.

3. There is no evidence that pornography causes rape, but it does increase one's sexual appetite, and by pornography, I am not just talking about dedicated porn sites, magazines, or movies, though while on the topic, when I was a kid growing up, porn was not easy to come by and most clothing catalogs were not that revealing at the time either, so you had to rely upon your imagination.

That said  If we did not have pornographic mantras to our musick, pornographic music videos to go with them, pornographic movies, magazine articles, pseudo science articles, and the like, then we would look at porn and sexuality very differently. Kids like you are too young to know a world that was not fully flooded with pornographic imagery, nor would you have known the world before  Alfred Kinsey's book flew off the book shelves back in the day, before the so called sexual revolution, or before the medical books were forced to change the definition of some disorders, even though emotions and force were used as an argument against them rather than sound science and reason.

The whole world is now more sexually stimulated than it ever has been in history. Therefore rape will occur more often because sex is being pushed to the forefront of more people's minds all of the time.The human being wasn't designed to stay at home and beat off, thinking about sex non-stop. And besides, porn doesn't satisfy like a real woman can.

 If you replaced a culture with sexual icons with one of chaste icons of integrity, logic, reason, mercy, compassion, honesty, etc. You would then produce a culture that thinks less of sex and therefore rapes less. Study the past, look at rape statistics, look at statistics for people having babies out of wedlock, look at divorce rates, etc. As Humanism went up and everyone was free to do what they want without fear of judgement, we got selfish and stopped looking out for the little ones and their concerns. Hence the reason we drag kids to pride parades to be indoctrinated and get thet innocense out of them quick....so that they don't shame us with their innocence.

On a side note, women often have commented to me how over the past few years it has become near impossible to find clothes that were not revealing. Why is it difficult to shop for modest clothing, just like why is it difficult to find food that is actually healthy.

This, like the abortion industry, is one of the sick sides of capitalism and power abuse.


----------



## smf (Jun 19, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you think racism can be humanitarian, I think that speaks more about your values.  If you were interested in understanding the point, you would have found it before getting that far into my response.


No, it points to how bad your arguing is. You make vague points, to make it impossible to discuss things with you.

Humanitarian "concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare."

I can certainly see a white supremacist who is making "humanitarian choices" and favoring white people, because they don't consider black people as human.



tabzer said:


> Again, to spell it out. A person _can _not think "black lives matter" and be less racist than those who do.  Seems like it'd be logical to conclude.


There is no logical conclusion to your confused point.

You either believe black lives matter or you believe black lives don't matter.

I'm not sure it's worth trying to compare how racist someone is, with someone who believes black lives don't matter.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 19, 2022)

smf said:


> I can certainly see a white supremacist who is making "humanitarian choices" and favoring white people, because they don't consider black people as human.


You made the claim that humanitarian choices can be racist.  This is your ridiculous rationalization.  That's racism and not humanitarian.  You are literally entertaining and exercising racism in order to undermine the definition of humanitarianism.



smf said:


> No, it points to how bad your arguing is. You make vague points, to make it impossible to discuss things with you.



Stating that you are wrong and pointing out how you are wrong isn't really an invitation to discuss things further.  The points aren't vague.  You are just a shallow dimwit.



smf said:


> You either believe black lives matter or you believe black lives don't matter.
> 
> I'm not sure it's worth trying to compare how racist someone is, with someone who believes black lives don't matter.



Or you don't engage with racial rhetoric.  You can literally think about people's lives without making their race a qualifier.  Not thinking black lives matter is not the same as believing black lives do not matter.  People shouldn't need "black lives matter" as a personal mantra to remind themselves to not be racist against people because they are black.  It might be a good mental crutch for idiots trying to become "less racist" against a specific racial group.  Do you have enough corporate-approved catchphrases for all other disenfranchised minorities?  Do you have enough room left in your head to think?

It is backwards, to index people by race and what kinds of needs and conditions you think they have based on that information, in an effort to become "not a racist".  It just turns you into a patronizing racist.


----------



## smf (Jun 19, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You are literally entertaining and exercising racism in order to undermine the definition of humanitarianism.


Do you seriously think that someone who holds racist beliefs against one race can't do humanitarian work for someone of another race?

You've literally made no sensible point and are just upset because your usual trolling is no longer working.



tabzer said:


> Or you don't engage with racial rhetoric.  You can literally think about people's lives without making their race a qualifier.  Not thinking black lives matter is not the same as believing black lives do not matter.  People shouldn't need "black lives matter" as a personal mantra to remind themselves to not be racist against people because they are black.



Are you for real? I wasn't suggesting that someone has to be chanting black lives matter.

But you either believe black lives matter, or you believe black lives do not matter.

Those are the only two choices. You don't have to use the exact words, you don't have to be able to speak english.

If when making a decision, you let the color of their skin negatively affect your decision then you don't think their lives matter.



tabzer said:


> It is backwards, to index people by race and what kinds of needs and conditions you think they have based on that information, in an effort to become "not a racist".  It just turns you into a patronizing racist.


You'll need to explain that. I haven't said anything about "kinds of needs and conditions".

You seem to be upset that people expect you to not be racist.

Anyone condemning BLM riots and supporting the attack on the capitol does suggest a racist thought process.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 19, 2022)

smf said:


> I can certainly see a white supremacist who is making "humanitarian choices" and favoring white people, because they don't consider black people as human.





smf said:


> Do you seriously think that someone who holds racist beliefs against one race can't do humanitarian work for someone of another race?


----------



## smf (Jun 20, 2022)

tabzer said:


> View attachment 314505


Again, I'm still not sure what point you are making. I never claimed that people need to chant "black lives matter".

Supporting the capitol riots by white supremacists while trying to undermine the stated aims of BLM because of the riots, is a good sign of racism though.

But hey, if you're happy making a fool of yourself again then who am I to stop you.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 20, 2022)

smf said:


> Again, I'm still not sure what point you are making. I never claimed that people need to chant "black lives matter".
> 
> Supporting the capitol riots by white supremacists while trying to undermine the stated aims of BLM because of the riots, is a good sign of racism though.
> 
> But hey, if you're happy making a fool of yourself again then who am I to stop you.


Who said anything about "the capitol riots"?

Who said I was trying to undermined the stated aims of BLM?

Are you schizophrenic?

We can already tell that you love racism.  Why though?


----------



## smf (Jun 20, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> It was tens of thousands times worse than a few people tresspassing and destroying property on a single accurate at the capitol. However, it's the lefts tactic to say "what about" and list a single riot when they have tens of thousands under their belt. It's utter bullshit. The left are tens of thousands of times more guilty of what they claim the right is guilty of. Don't pay attention to their "whatabout" this. They need to own what they did and what they support then and now. They are evil.





tabzer said:


> Who said anything about "the capitol riots"?
> 
> Who said I was trying to undermined the stated aims of BLM?
> 
> ...


I've posted a link, maybe you aren't aware of the earlier posts in the thread that you are failing to communicate in?

I am not schizophrenic & if you "can already tell" then you have more delusion than I thought.

Your trolling is pretty pathetic these days, you need a rest.


----------



## smf (Jun 20, 2022)

XDel said:


> 2. My argument is that there should never be an abortion, except in the case where there is zero doubt that having the birth will kill the baby and or mother.



Zero doubt by whom? I'm sure you could sit there saying "I have my doubt".


----------



## tabzer (Jun 20, 2022)

So you think I am @JonhathonBaxster?  I am @tabzer.  Still, how is it supporting violence?  It appears to be assumed that violence isn't good, despite who is doing it.  The reference you made seems to suggest that there is disingenuity in saying "this small violence" is more important than "this large violence".  Do you think lawmakers are sacred and citizens are fodder?

I'm still waiting for you to confront the fact that you think that racism can be humanitarian without being racist in the process.

Nobody disputes that you are infatuated with racism.  Not even you.


----------



## smf (Jun 21, 2022)

tabzer said:


> So you think I am @JonhathonBaxster?  I am @tabzer.  Still, how is it supporting violence?  It appears to be assumed that violence isn't good, despite who is doing it.  The reference you made seems to suggest that there is disingenuity in saying "this small violence" is more important than "this large violence".  Do you think lawmakers are sacred and citizens are fodder?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to confront the fact that you think that racism can be humanitarian without being racist in the process.
> 
> Nobody disputes that you are infatuated with racism.  Not even you.


I made a point to Jonathan, which you then seemed to jump on and I repeated the point I was making. My point doesn't change, just because you butted in.

I "confronted" your humanitarian/racism point already. I have no desire to repeat myself. I treat your purposefully vague posts with suspicion because you are always disingenuous.

Nobody disputes you are a troll, not even you.

I disagree with rioting for any purpose, but I am capable of seeing the BLM movement as one that is non violent. The capitol attack was intentionally violent, for the purpose of stopping the rightful transfer of power from the previous president to the new one. There may be some people present there who were unaware of that, but I assume they weren't the ones trying to beat policemen to death or trying to find mike pence so they can hang him.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 22, 2022)

smf said:


> I made a point to Jonathan, which you then seemed to jump on and I repeated the point I was making. My point doesn't change, just because you butted in.



If you check the thread, this did not happen by any stretch.



smf said:


> I "confronted" your humanitarian/racism point already. I have no desire to repeat myself. I treat your purposefully vague posts with suspicion because you are always disingenuous.



My  "vague post" made the point that "black lives matter" is a racially charged idiom that will never end racism.  It would only embellish racism.  The second point was that humanitarianism and racism cannot occupy the same space--that by choosing to respect people as people, instead of considering their race, you end racism by not giving life to it.  You ignored the first claim about an ironic motto because it was too difficult ("vague") for you to understand and, instead, made a really stupid claim that racism can be humanitarian.  Why would you honestly believe that?   "Disingenuous"?

When you view the world through racism-tinted glasses, everything is racist.  



smf said:


> Nobody disputes you are a troll, not even you.



I don't care if you think I am a troll.  It means nothing coming from someone who thinks home invaders yield weapons for self-defense and that rioters are not responsible for their actions.  There are several times where you jump in, make a "point" against an argument that nobody made, and then disappear when addressed.  It's your forte.  I'm sure you are doing a public service somehow, by showing people what stupid looks like.



smf said:


> I am capable of seeing the BLM movement as one that is non violent.





smf said:


> The looting an arson was a side effect of the protests, but it's your own fault.


----------



## smf (Jun 22, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you check the thread, this did not happen by any stretch.



Gaslighting again.

I don't think you are a troll, everyone knows you are a troll. Why, I have no idea. But it's clear from your post style.

If you can't see the difference between a group of black people after a black person has been murdered and a load of white people who are angry because their white supremacist leader didn't get elected for a second term, then you aren't equipped for debate. Their is nuance that you just can't understand.



tabzer said:


> The second point was that humanitarianism and racism cannot occupy the same space--that by choosing to respect people as people, instead of considering their race, you end racism by not giving life to it.


And you don't understand human nature.

Nobody thinks of themselves as racist, because racism is bad. They have racist thoughts and beliefs that they rationalize as everyone is the hero of their internal movie. You don't end racism just by saying you are humanitarian, you are more likely to end up with white savior complex. You have to look at whether your thoughts and actions and those of others around you are unintentionally or deliberately racist.

It's not just looking out for people in white hoods with a burning cross.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/shine-a-light/racism-humanitarian-aid-sector/

You can argue I'm arguing against points you didn't make, but you make a piss poor job of explaining every point you make. It's like you say things that you intentionally want people to disagree with just to make the argument last longer.

I have no idea what your stance is on any subject, but you tell others what their stance is. So yes, I assume every post you make is a trap. I appear to be right more often than I am wrong.

Your superiority complex and lack of empathy will likely result in you making some more trolling posts, which will only enforce my opinion of you.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 22, 2022)

smf said:


> Gaslighting again.



Maybe you look crazy because you are crazy.



smf said:


> If you can't see the difference between a group of black people after a black person has been murdered and a load of white people who are angry because their white supremacist leader didn't get elected for a second term, then you aren't equipped for debate. Their is nuance that you just can't understand.



How racist are you.  Can you tell us?



smf said:


> you are more likely to end up with white savior complex.



Ah, I must be white.



smf said:


> I appear to be right more often than I am wrong.



Keep telling yourself that.  Nobody thinks of themselves as wrong, because wrong is bad.



smf said:


> Your superiority complex and lack of empathy will likely result in you making some more trolling posts, which will only enforce my opinion of you.



"everything I don't like is trolling and validates my point of view."

lol.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jul 1, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm just quoting the statistics. I was surprised to learn that most abortions are done out of convenience too.
> 
> https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/
> https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589
> ...


so your all for killing the mother if there's a 100% chance the pregnancy will cause her demise? because that does happen


----------

