# Roe V Wade has been repealed



## Noctosphere (Jun 24, 2022)

So... it's official, abortion is now illegal in USA
Your though?
https://www.google.com/search?q=roe...HSnUCtsQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1920&bih=899&dpr=1

EDIT : Just so that people stop saying it, I understand now that i MISunderstood the news
I know now that abortion right is now up to states juridiction
It just isn't constitutional anymore and not illegal


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Abortion is not "illegal in the US." It is now up to each state to decide.


----------



## Viri (Jun 24, 2022)

It's not illegal. lol


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Viri said:


> It's not illegal. lol


In some states, it now is.


----------



## ZeroFX (Jun 24, 2022)

Nice


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

ZeroFX said:


> Nice


Not nice


----------



## Creamu (Jun 24, 2022)

What I find interesting is that so many people who are engaged in infertile lifestyles are interested in this subject.


----------



## Viri (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> In some states, it now is.


I'm well aware, but it's not illegal in the entire US.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Creamu said:


> What I find interesting is that so many people who are engaged in infertile lifestyles are interested in this subject.



It's pretty selfish to only care about things that affect you. I'm sorry if that's how you navigate the world.
The overturning of Roe is bad, regardless of whether or not it affects you personally.
A court that can take away one group's civil rights can take away your civil rights.
Roe itself has been used as specific precedent for other cases, including but not limited to cases pertaining to contraception, many sex acts, and same-sex marriage. Thomas himself says in his concurring opinion striking down Roe that these cases should be reexamined.



Viri said:


> I'm well aware, but it's not illegal in the entire US.


That's what I said.


----------



## caki883 (Jun 24, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> So... it's official, abortion is now illegal in USA
> Your though?
> https://www.google.com/search?q=roe...HSnUCtsQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1920&bih=899&dpr=1


Rubber is your friend


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Abortion is not "illegal in the US." It is now up to each state to decide.


And there are going to be quite a few states with either people leaving or dying in dirty motels. “Pro-lifers” don’t care about the harm they are about to cause


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

caki883 said:


> Rubber is your friend


It is, but contraception is not 100% effective, and the same people who are against abortion have also reduced access to contraception and safe sex education.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It's pretty selfish to only care about things that affect you. I'm sorry if that's how you navigate the world.


I understand that, but it seems like there are more infertile people that care about it than people that can actually reproduce.



Lacius said:


> A court that can take away one group's civil rights can take away your civil rights.


Yeah, thats valid as long as people take principled stands but thats not what I am observing neither.


Lacius said:


> Roe itself has been used as specific precedent for other cases, including but not limited to cases pertaining to contraception, many sex acts, and same-sex marriage. Thomas himself says in his concurring opinion striking down Roe that these cases should be reexamined.


Interesting, thanks for the inforamtion. It seems as we make sexuality and gender center of our identities we get more victorian about it.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Creamu said:


> I understand that


Clearly you don't if you're still trying to make a point about it.



Creamu said:


> It seems as we make sexuality and gender center of our identities we get more victorian about it.


What are you yammering about?


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> A court that can take away one group's civil rights can take away your civil rights.


This part is the most terrifying part to me. It’s proof that no right is safe. It’s worse knowing the same people cheering this on will definitely be cheering on every other right being stripped away.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Clearly you don't if you're still trying to make a point about it.


I am making a point that unprincipled people engage in that behaviour.


Lacius said:


> What are you yammering about?


Well you have in a cluster of different personalities people who take the center points of culture (like sexual identity) and use them to signal their purity to establish moral high ground.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2022)

AMAZING DAY BABY YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA   Now the states will decide


----------



## DbGt (Jun 24, 2022)

Good, the right to life should always be prioritised


----------



## caki883 (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It is, but contraception is not 100% effective, and the same people who are against abortion have also reduced access to contraception and safe sex education.


damn are we doomed for Hand Job ?


----------



## HalfScoper (Jun 24, 2022)

caki883 said:


> damn are we doomed for Hand Job ?


Just take it in the butt (goes for both sides) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Xzi (Jun 24, 2022)

As if red states weren't already third-world enough.  Now my state has to deal with abortion tourism from hypocritical Texans in addition to all the weed tourism we already got from them.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 24, 2022)

Xzi said:


> As if red states weren't already third-world enough.


EDIT: The whole of america is going to sh**.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 24, 2022)

DbGt said:


> Good, the right to life should always be prioritised


This change is gonna kill so many actual living breathing people, who already have families who depend on them etc. What kind of "right to life" is that?


----------



## AncientBoi (Jun 24, 2022)

I would Not have an abortion. I want to be the first gay man to have a child. Now I got to find another husband to help me in that endeavor. 


I do NOT agree on the decision of the Supreme Court.


----------



## XDel (Jun 24, 2022)

I like how the mentality is to pretend that getting pregnant is the same as catching a virus, and if there are no services that will go along with your claim that you have merely caught a virus and need it removed, that you must seek help in the proverbial back alley.

What is lacking from this story is SELF RESPONSIBILITY. Something people have had to have to live for centuries now, the further back in history you go, the more undeniable its importance was; today though we all got it easy, so we find things to complain about and people to blame, not unlike a child.

 And again if anyone wants to start bringing up random rape statistics, to them I say, that we as a human race have failed culturally considering EVERYTHING has been sexualized, including churches, and so long as we continue to surround our  selves with a culture of sex ang Godlessness, then rape will continue to be a factor, especially in the prison system, because after all, what you are saying is that people can't live without sex or at the very least, with masterbaition; though on that note, I don't know of an animal species that is literally in heat day in and day out, week after week, and month to month...


----------



## Creamu (Jun 24, 2022)

XDel said:


> I like how the mentality is to pretend that getting pregnant is the same as catching a virus, and if there are no services that will go along with your claim that you have merely caught a virus and need it removed, that you must seek help in the proverbial back alley.
> 
> What is lacking from this story is SELF RESPONSIBILITY. Something people have had to have to live for centuries now, the further back in history you go, the more undeniable its importance was; today though we all got it easy, so we find things to complain about and people to blame, not unlike a child.
> 
> And again if anyone wants to start bringing up random rape statistics, to them I say, that we as a human race have failed culturally considering EVERYTHING has been sexualized, including churches, and so long as we continue to surround our  selves with a culture of sex ang Godlessness, then rape will continue to be a factor, especially in the prison system, because after all, what you are saying is that people can't live without sex or at the very least, with masterbaition; though on that note, I don't know of an animal species that is literally in day in and day out, week after week, and month to month...


Yes, and what goes completly missing is a positive outlook on motherhood. It's a toxic debate and those who are infertile seem to be most interested in it (without following principles.)


----------



## DbGt (Jun 24, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> This change is gonna kill so many actual living breathing people, who already have families who depend on them etc. What kind of "right to life" is that?


it will not, why should it? "Actual living breathing people" already can choose what to do and how to live, pregnancy is a choice


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 24, 2022)

XDel said:


> I like how the mentality is to pretend that getting pregnant is the same as catching a virus, and if there are no services that will go along with your claim that you have merely caught a virus and need it removed, that you must seek help in the proverbial back alley.
> 
> What is lacking from this story is SELF RESPONSIBILITY. Something people have had to have to live for centuries now, the further back in history you go, the more undeniable its importance was; today though we all got it easy, so we find things to complain about and people to blame, not unlike a child.
> 
> And again if anyone wants to start bringing up random rape statistics, to them I say, that we as a human race have failed culturally considering EVERYTHING has been sexualized, including churches, and so long as we continue to surround our  selves with a culture of sex ang Godlessness, then rape will continue to be a factor, especially in the prison system, because after all, what you are saying is that people can't live without sex or at the very least, with masterbaition; though on that note, I don't know of an animal species that is literally in day in and day out, week after week, and month to month...


How about pregnancy complications that are easily treated, but the treatment is, can you guess? Go on. No? Ok, the treatment is abortion. Those people are gonna die easily avoidable deaths for no reason. Oh the reason is it's God's plan? Your god is a real piece of shit then.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 24, 2022)

DbGt said:


> it will not, why should it? "Actual living breathing people" already can choose what to do and how to live, pregnancy is a choice


See above, dumbass.


----------



## caki883 (Jun 24, 2022)

I mean I realy don´t care what´s in the US 
Have 3 kids , wife,
But that should be the females decision , of course in early stages.
 Vasectomy


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It is, but contraception is not 100% effective, and the same people who are against abortion have also reduced access to contraception and safe sex education.


close your legs


----------



## JeepX87 (Jun 24, 2022)

Xzi said:


> As if red states weren't already third-world enough.  Now my state has to deal with abortion tourism from hypocritical Texans in addition to all the weed tourism we already got from them.


I'm all for end the disbursement of federal funds that collected from donor states like California and New York, and give to recipient states like Alabama and Mississippi, so Alabama is going to be third world if it wasn't help with funds from federal government.

If you paid tax in Colorado, so those funds should be used for Colorado, not other states. I'm not fan of Robin Hood scheme.

If y'all live in states that ban on abortion, so you can use jury nullification to acquit anyone who got involved in illegal abortion.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Creamu said:


> I am making a point that unprincipled people engage in that behaviour.


You're post is incoherent. Who is unprincipled, why are they unprincipled, and what behavior are they engaging in?



Creamu said:


> Well you have in a cluster of different personalities people who take the center points of culture (like sexual identity) and use them to signal their purity to establish moral high ground.


Are you seriously trying to argue that it's bad to have a sexual identity?



Valwinz said:


> AMAZING DAY BABY YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA   Now the states will decide


To be clear, are you happy about states' rights, or are you happy about women being unable to get abortions?

The good news is this isn't the end of the abortion debate. There are still lots of things to consider:

For those who can financially do so, travel to other states with legal abortion is still possible.
Medicated abortion should be relatively easy to get in states where it's illegal, and it's relatively safe.
The US Congress can still act (even if it's not in the immediate future) to legalize abortion nationwide.
This may be the kick in the pants needed to increase Democratic voter turnout. We will see. If this does happen, then we may get a lot more than just re-legalized abortion.
Abortion is arguably still legal on federal lands/waters, regardless of which state they're in. With just an executive order from a Democratic president, women could still get abortion care there without having to travel as far as they might have had to.



DbGt said:


> Good, the right to life should always be prioritised


So you'd be happy with a state law that mandates you donate one of your kidneys to a stranger who needs it then? "The right to life should always be prioritized."



caki883 said:


> damn are we doomed for Hand Job ?


It's honestly not a bad idea, assuming Thomas doesn't get his way on Lawrence v. Texas and states don't criminalize hand jobs too.



HalfScoper said:


> Just take it in the butt (goes for both sides) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


If Thomas gets his way, that will be illegal in some states again.



hippy dave said:


> This change is gonna kill so many actual living breathing people, who already have families who depend on them etc. What kind of "right to life" is that?


Antiabortion laws will inarguably result in women dying. Anti-gay laws being pushed right now will inarguably result in gay kids dying. This isn't a political party that actually cares about the lives of people.



XDel said:


> I like how the mentality is to pretend that getting pregnant is the same as catching a virus, and if there are no services that will go along with your claim that you have merely caught a virus and need it removed, that you must seek help in the proverbial back alley.
> 
> What is lacking from this story is SELF RESPONSIBILITY. Something people have had to have to live for centuries now, the further back in history you go, the more undeniable its importance was; today though we all got it easy, so we find things to complain about and people to blame, not unlike a child.
> 
> And again if anyone wants to start bringing up random rape statistics, to them I say, that we as a human race have failed culturally considering EVERYTHING has been sexualized, including churches, and so long as we continue to surround our  selves with a culture of sex ang Godlessness, then rape will continue to be a factor, especially in the prison system, because after all, what you are saying is that people can't live without sex or at the very least, with masterbaition; though on that note, I don't know of an animal species that is literally in day in and day out, week after week, and month to month...





Valwinz said:


> close your legs


It sounds like you two don't understand that sex is generally a biological drive comparable to the drive for food or water. Not having sex can literally cause depression, anxiety, and posting anti-choice rants on GBATemp.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 24, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> close your legs


Close your mouth for once in your shitty obnoxious life. Or read my above post. Or both.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

DbGt said:


> it will not, why should it? "Actual living breathing people" already can choose what to do and how to live, pregnancy is a choice


Pregnancy should be a choice, yes. I am glad we agree.


----------



## Noctosphere (Jun 24, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> This change is gonna kill so many actual living breathing people, who already have families who depend on them etc. What kind of "right to life" is that?


thats exactly what pro lifes dont seem to understand
Women who really want abortion in place where it is illegal will go with quack who will sell their shit and do the abortion for them.
Those women will surely die of infection or stuff like that


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 24, 2022)

DbGt said:


> it will not, why should it? "Actual living breathing people" already can choose what to do and how to live, pregnancy is a choice


The right to safe abortions was sparked by people dying in dirty motels


----------



## DbGt (Jun 24, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> How about pregnancy complications that are easily treated, but the treatment is, can you guess? Go on. No? Ok, the treatment is abortion. Those people are gonna die easily avoidable deaths for no reason. Oh the reason is it's God's plan? Your god is a real piece of shit then.


lol, making an argument for your general case based on exceptions makes it incredibly weak. The case you are mentioning, the option of abortion remains open; when the life of the pregnant woman is in danger


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2022)

Good news  States are deciding



> Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt activates the state's Roe v. Wade "trigger law." With Roe overturned, the law authorizes the attorney general to ban abortion by a stroke of a pen. Missouri becomes the first state in the union to effectively end abortion.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You're post is incoherent. Who is unprincipled, why are they unprincipled, and what behavior are they engaging in?


Look, american hyperpolarization is at an historical high of any developed democracy ever by far. This indicates that people aren't by and large taking principled stances in general anymore.


Lacius said:


> Are you seriously trying to argue that it's bad to have a sexual identity?


No, I argue that in a cluster of different personalities, there are people who take the center points of culture (like sexual identity is one theses days) and use them to signal their purity to establish moral high ground. If banana eating was a center point of american culture, people would signal their purity through banana eating, it doesnt matter.


----------



## Noctosphere (Jun 24, 2022)

DbGt said:


> lol, making an argument for your general case based on exceptions makes it incredibly weak. The case you are mentioning, the option of abortion remains open; when the life of the pregnant woman is in danger


in some state, abortion will still be illegal in case of raping or incest
Do you really think if the woman life is in danger it will change something for those states? I don't think so... they just don't care


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Look, american hyperpolarization is at an historical high of any developed democracy ever by far. This indicates that people aren't by and large taking principled stances in general anymore.


We're polarized because the right-wing in this country has taken a hard right against civil rights and towards authoritarianism. That's nobody's fault except the political right's. I agree with you that people aren't taking principled stances anymore, but don't act like that's a problem on both sides.



Creamu said:


> No, I argue that in a cluster of different personalities, there are people who take the center points of culture (like sexual identity is one theses days) and use them to signal their purity to establish moral high ground. If banana eating was a center point of american culture, people would signal their purity through banana eating, it doesnt matter.


Or, people are coming out because they're LGBTQ and don't want to live in the closet or under an oppressive government that's more likely to be oppressive if they're invisible.

The fact that you're blaming out gay people for the right-wing stripping away people's rights is nonsensical and, frankly, just plain stupid.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Jun 24, 2022)

Its not ilegal, its upto the states and not reated as a "right".

I am all for abortion. This will badly impact communities decimated by illegitimacy and crime. You know who I mean.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 24, 2022)

Creamu said:


> Look, american hyperpolarization is at an historical high of any developed democracy ever by far. This indicates that people aren't by and large taking principled stances in general anymore.


You're right, this type of regression has nothing to do with principles or morals.  It's just idiotic nostalgia for a time period that sucked to begin with, but is now viewed through rose-tinted glasses.  Same motivation behind Putin invading Ukraine and every other decision forced on us by narcissistic boomers.


----------



## Noctosphere (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> We're polarized because the right-wing in this country has taken a hard right against civil rights and towards authoritarianism.


you're wrong, they are ALL IN FAVOR for guns


----------



## DbGt (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Pregnancy should be a choice, yes. I am glad we agree.


Pregnancy has always been a choice, becoming pregnant has always been a choice. Ending someones right to life is not right



Lacius said:


> So you'd be happy with a state law that mandates you donate one of your kidneys to a stranger who needs it then? "The right to life should always be prioritized."


Nah, pregnancy is a physiological process, women are literally designed to get pregnant.

Removing a kidney is not. Bad example. Also, you are not ending anyone right to life.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> We're polarized because the right-wing in this country has taken a hard right against civil rights and towards authoritarianism. That's nobody's fault except the political right's. I agree with you that people aren't taking principled stances anymore, but don't act like that's a problem on both sides.


When you see an historical high of hyperpolarization, it is the case that all sides start to take this kind of position, with all of them being comparativly correct in their way.


Lacius said:


> Or, people are coming out because they're LGBTQ and don't want to live in the closet or under an oppressive government that's more likely to be oppressive if they're invisible.


That'S a part of it for sure. But as soon as you make anything to a cultural centerpoint you will have moral signalers purity spiraling for moral high ground.


Lacius said:


> The fact that you're blaming out gay people for the right-wing stripping away people's rights is nonsensical and, frankly, just plain stupid.


? Where is this coming from?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Good to see the conservatives all up in arms about taking away abortion rights while still holding on to their "you can't take away my guns" 2A rights. Both political parties might be crap, but only the Republicans are so blatantly full of hypocrisy that it's almost laughable.

Currently it seems like the current Republican movement seems to be:
Take away voting rights
Take away abortion (and by extent, women's) rights
Take away the ability to sue law enforcement 
Reiterate the policy's jobs to be nothing more than ticket takers
Take away protesting rights
And give everyone guns. 

Hope nobody gets radicalized enough to fight back against the government to give them reason to enact martial law. 

Some of y'all are really f*cking weird.


----------



## Noctosphere (Jun 24, 2022)

DbGt said:


> Pregnancy has always been a choice, becoming pregnant has always been a choice. Ending someones right to life is not right


you are in contradiction
Because even the first few states that illegalised abortion said that abortion was still legal within the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
Are you saying that the foetus is alive starting on 6th week?
come on...


----------



## DbGt (Jun 24, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> in some state, abortion will still be illegal in case of raping or incest
> Do you really think if the woman life is in danger it will change something for those states? I don't think so... they just don't care


Change what? it is already legal to have an abortion in those states if the woman`s life is in danger


----------



## SonowRaevius (Jun 24, 2022)

Considering the same people have already outlined they are also going after contraceptive, Gay Marriage, and LGBTQ+ people in general after this? Not great, honestly. 

Seems kinda odd/hypocritical that the party of "Freedom and Less Government" is trying their best to get rid of freedoms and expand the government as long as it is to their liking.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

DbGt said:


> Pregnancy has always been a choice, becoming pregnant has always been a choice.


Sex is not consent to become pregnant, and sex does not mean one chose to become pregnant.



DbGt said:


> Ending someones right to life is not right


An embryo is not a person, and even if it were, that wouldn't change the fact that a person should have a right to bodily autonomy.



DbGt said:


> Nah, pregnancy is a physiological process, women are literally designed to get pregnant.


You should look up the _naturalistic fallacy_.



DbGt said:


> Also, you are not ending anyone right to life.


If you don't give this stranger one of your kidneys, they die. It's an apt analogy.



Creamu said:


> That'S a part of it for sure.


It's all of it.



Creamu said:


> Where is this coming from?


You're blaming people for being out about their sexuality identities for their identities and liberties being attacked. It's victim-blaming, as well as ridiculous.


----------



## Noctosphere (Jun 24, 2022)

DbGt said:


> Change what? it is already legal to have an abortion in those states if the woman`s life is in danger


Pretty sure that if the baby can be saved, they won't care about the woman...
I mean, if the woman's life is in danger but the baby's isn't, they'll think "hey, a life is a life, fuck the woman, she'll live lesser than the baby, let's save the baby"


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

And according to Clarence Thomas, same-sex relationships, marriage and contraception are next on the chopping block. Interracial relationships too, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And according to Clarence Thomas, same-sex relationships, marriage and contraception are next on the chopping block. Interracial relationships too, if I'm not mistaken.


Yep. He outright said so in his concurring opinion. I'm surprised he went out of his way to say it. In some of these cases, Roe was literally precedent for them. In others, now-old interpretations of the 14th amendment were the basis for the old rulings.

Either way, all of the things you listed would likely be struck down by this Supreme Court if those cases came before them.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

DbGt said:


> Nah, pregnancy is a physiological process, women are literally designed to get pregnant.



So therefore their right to their own body becomes moot when something that may eventually become life enters her body?

I bet you were against masks because it's your body,  your rights,  am I correct?



DbGt said:


> Pregnancy has always been a choice, becoming pregnant has always been a choice. Ending someones right to life is not right



So it has a right before it even becomes a person? And you don't find that blatantly absurd in comparison to taking away the rights of someone who already is a person?


----------



## Creamu (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And according to Clarence Thomas, same-sex relationships, marriage and contraception are next on the chopping block. Interracial relationships too, if I'm not mistaken.


That would mean the collapse of america as we know it.


----------



## Darthagnon (Jun 24, 2022)

Lol Americanski fighting over the things their overlords say are an issue. Why you all obsessed with killing/not killing babies? Not an issue anywhere outside of USA, it's just there your two parties have an interest and need a story to pull votes. 

Abortion is not the issue, just don't sleep around and you won't have problems.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It's all of it.


That's a ridicously simplistic look at complex social movements.


Lacius said:


> You're blaming people for being out about their sexuality identities for their identities and liberties being attacked. It's victim-blaming, as well as ridiculous.


No, I am not.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And according to Clarence Thomas, same-sex relationships, marriage and contraception are next on the chopping block. Interracial relationships too, if I'm not mistaken.


Fucking piece of shit should be disbarred, and the fact that that's not even within the realm of possibility is a serious problem for our country.  These decisions are just going to get more and more draconian until the shape of our new Christian Sharia law has been revealed in its entirety.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And according to Clarence Thomas, same-sex relationships, marriage and contraception are next on the chopping block. Interracial relationships too, if I'm not mistaken.


Imagine hating freedom as much as Conservatives do


----------



## Fighter92 (Jun 24, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> So... it's official, abortion is now illegal in USA
> Your though?
> https://www.google.com/search?q=roe...HSnUCtsQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1920&bih=899&dpr=1
> 
> ...


It's me or this would end in 30 pages of comments?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Darthagnon said:


> Not an issue anywhere outside of USA


First, yeah it is. Second, it's not an issue in a lot of places because they have legal abortion.



Darthagnon said:


> it's just there your two parties have an interest and need a story to pull votes.


It wouldn't be an issue if one political party weren't trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.



Darthagnon said:


> Abortion is not the issue, just don't sleep around and you won't have problems.


The drive for sex is generally a biological drive analogous to the drive for food or water.


----------



## Noctosphere (Jun 24, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Imagine hating freedom as much as Conservatives do


as i said, conservatives don't hate freedom
They are ALL IN FAVOR for guns


----------



## MadonnaProject (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And according to Clarence Thomas, same-sex relationships, marriage and contraception are next on the chopping block. Interracial relationships too, if I'm not mistaken.


Yeah no, this isn't the case.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Darthagnon said:


> Abortion is not the issue, just don't sleep around and you won't have problems.



"Just don't get raped, and you won't have problems"



Creamu said:


> That would mean the collapse of america as we know it.



Good. Let it f*cking fall at this point.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Good to see the conservatives all up in arms about taking away abortion rights while still holding on to their "you can't take away my guns" 2A rights.



One of those things is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, and one is not in the Constitution anywhere. Not even by inference. 

That's all this is to me. The scope of the Federal government's power begins and ends with the Constitution. The Constitution says one of these things, the right to keep and bear arms, cannot be denied or infringed. The other thing, abortion, is none of the Federal government's business.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> Yeah no, this isn't the case.


Roe was precedent for a lot of these rights, and Thomas himself says that these things should be relitigated. If any of these issues came before the Supreme Court, they'd strike them down. Not only would it be consistent, but again, Thomas said as much.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Good. Let it f*cking fall at this point.


If persons of order would alleviate the situation I think that would be preferable for most. Practical? Im not so optimistic...


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> Yeah no, this isn't the case.


Thank God you're right

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...ng-precedents-on-contraceptives-lgbtq-rights/

https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...0PADegQIChAH&usg=AOvVaw2kcclTqy27MHEOIvc2sjkY

https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...0PADegQIChAL&usg=AOvVaw3zNFKc_Do6hVFZNgd4NnUu


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 24, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> as i said, conservatives don't hate freedom
> They are ALL IN FAVOR for guns


Unless it’s people of color owning them, Conservatives have a long history of not like that


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> Yeah no, this isn't the case.


Are you illiterate or have you read the decision?


----------



## WiiHomebrew+Snes (Jun 24, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> One of those things is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, and one is not in the Constitution anywhere. Not even by inference.
> 
> That's all this is to me. The scope of the Federal government's power begins and ends with the Constitution. The Constitution says one of these things, the right to keep and bear arms, cannot be denied or infringed. The other thing, abortion, is none of the Federal government's business.


Which is why the second it's possible to vote on a new amendment ensuring the right to abortion nationwide I will be voting to support it. Or moving to Canada, whichever comes first.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> The Constitution says one of these things, the right to keep and bear arms, cannot be denied or infringed.


You left out the, uh, militia part.



Hanafuda said:


> and one is not in the Constitution anywhere. Not even by inference.


Just because a word isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't apply to that thing. The Second Amendment doesn't mention any modern weapons, yet you are all arguing that it applies to them.


----------



## Phenj (Jun 24, 2022)

Based


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 24, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> Good news  States are deciding


There’s no such thing as ending abortion. Abortions are just going to be moved out of the clean and professional environment and into dirty motels again. Abortions are going to keep happening regardless of the law.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Jun 24, 2022)

Fucking lame


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> One of those things is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, and one is not in the Constitution anywhere. Not even by inference.
> 
> That's all this is to me. The scope of the Federal government's power begins and ends with the Constitution. The Constitution says one of these things, the right to keep and bear arms, cannot be denied or infringed. The other thing, abortion, is none of the Federal government's business.



Even though you could be "technically" correct it's not about that as much as giving more people more room to set legal precedence to take away more rights under other guises. With as many anti abortion and anti women politicians we have, even on state and local levels, this now gives them more opportunities to oppress as they see fit, no longer under the protection of a larger umbrella law. Some states may stand solid on their abortion rights, but other states will follow suit and start banning them left and right, which is an infringement of a person's right to bodily autonomy. Not to mention, those who need abortions will still get them, but will lack many important services to ensure their lives aren't lost in the process.  It's kinda like the 2A argument "Ban guns and criminals will still get them" except in this case, those seeking medically necessary abortions in red states may get the death penalty as opposed to 30 days and a fine for owning a gun they shouldn't. 

What a scummy way to tell women they never should've saw themselves as anything other than 

"Designed to give birth", paraphrased from an earlier quote.


----------



## DbGt (Jun 24, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> Because even the first few states that illegalised abortion said that abortion was still legal within the first 6 weeks of pregnancy
> Are you saying that the foetus is alive starting on 6th week?
> come on...


As far as I know only in Texas its like this, and yes, of course a fetus is alive.... 



Lacius said:


> Sex is not consent to become pregnant, and sex does not mean one chose to become pregnant.


Consent from who? lol, pregnancy is a physiological process, it does not need consent from anyone. You had unprotected sex? then theres a probability you can get pregnant, very simple. Cause and effect, action and consequence. 



Lacius said:


> An embryo is not a person, and even if it were, that wouldn't change the fact that a person should have a right to bodily autonomy.


Nobody said its a person, but its a human being in development . Again, becoming pregnant is a choice, every person has the right of becoming pregnant or not 


Lacius said:


> You should look up the _naturalistic fallacy_.


Im just replying to your bad "analogy". You are comparing a physiological process to removing a kidney........


Lacius said:


> If you don't give this stranger one of your kidneys, they die. It's an apt analogy.


no, its not. In your example, a disease will kill the person. In an abortion the mother kills her own child


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You left out the, uh, militia part.
> 
> 
> Just because a word isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't apply to that thing. The Second Amendment doesn't mention any modern weapons, yet you are all arguing that it applies to them.



You left out the distinguishing between the prefatory clause and the operative clause. The 2A guarantees the right to the people, not to a militia.

The "modern weapons" argument is also a loser. Does 1st amendment freedom of the press apply only to newspapers and "hand bills" printed on manual presses using moveable type? The 2nd Amendment intends for the people to have access to meaningful, effective weapons for defense and resistance. That means current, not archaic.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2022)

This also stop alot of peopl


The Catboy said:


> There’s no such thing as ending abortion. Abortions are just going to be moved out of the clean and professional environment and into dirty motels again. Abortions are going to keep happening regardless of the law.


i guess practice safe sex


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> i guess practice safe sex


Not if contraception is struck down, like Clarence Thomas plans to do.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not if contraception is struck down, like Clarence Thomas plans to do.


thats not how that works did you even read it ?


----------



## lokomelo (Jun 24, 2022)

This news shows why Canada and Europe keeps getting better than USA by just doing nothing.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 24, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> as i said, conservatives don't hate freedom
> They are ALL IN FAVOR for guns


And the reason they're _permitted_ to care about the freedom to own guns is because they're all spineless bootlickers. They'd never bite the kleptocratic hand that feeds them, even if it only feeds them the tiniest of table scraps. They claim to hate big government, but if a Republican is in charge, they'll gladly accept and submit to any amount of oppression; they've been programmed to hate the "other" more than they like themselves. 1% chance they try to overthrow the government when/if it's actually necessary, 99% chance they just shoot up a minority neighborhood instead when the anger boils over and they misplace blame for the state of their lives. Doesn't bother our oligarchs any, and least of all the conservative leadership.

/Rant


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> i guess practice safe sex



What about rape?

Oh wait. I forget that only happens in Republican fantasies. 



lokomelo said:


> This news shows why Canada and Europe keeps getting better than USA by just doing nothing.



Leave it to the good old USA to leave the bar on the floor.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> thats not how that works did you even read it ?


Unlike you, illiterate, I have. And considering how biased the SCOTUS is, it doesn't matter whether the precedent has legal basis or not - they'll overturn it out of spite.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> thats not how that works did you even read it ?


Did you read Thomas' concurring opinion? He thinks cases relating to contraception, sodomy laws, same-sex marriage, etc. should be relitigated.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

DbGt said:


> As far as I know only in Texas its like this, and yes, of course a fetus is alive....
> 
> 
> Consent from who? lol, pregnancy is a physiological process, it does not need consent from anyone. You had unprotected sex? then theres a probability you can get pregnant, very simple. Cause and effect, action and consequence.
> ...


So, I shouldn't have a right to do what I want with my own body if I'm interrupting a "physiological process"?


----------



## appleburger (Jun 24, 2022)

This will always boil down to the moral issue.  If people truly feel abortion = murder, then of course they're going to want the law to be consistent.  Murder is bad.
That then leads to a big domino effect on both sides.  If abortion = murder, then the implications of sex change completely.  I think it's all contingent on that.  People leaning left generally feel this is oppressive; people leaning right feel this is as simple as "murder bad - plz ban"
We all have to concede that we don't know when personhood truly begins - it's still heavily debated among scientists.  It's worth talking about, but none of us have the resources to convince the other side.  It's still a philosophical point unless Science can get closer to something we can agree on.
This issue is a giant, juicy apple for politicians.  It being divisive is what gives it so much power.  There's a reason you're hearing about abortion every election cycle.  I just hope more and more people can see it for what it is, politically.
Many users on here are talking about this being a slippery slope, where this sets a precedence for more left or right leaning policies on each side of the debate.  While you're 100% correct, that holds potentially true for every law, left or right.  I feel that makes it a moot point.  I see commentators mention this talking point on the left and right a lot.  It's the same logic used by anti-maskers.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> So, I shouldn't have a right to do what I want with my own body if I'm interrupting a "physiological process"?


Somehow it's a choice to become pregnant but to STOP being pregnant isn't...


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

@Valwinz 



SyphenFreht said:


> Thank God you're right
> 
> https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...ng-precedents-on-contraceptives-lgbtq-rights/
> 
> ...



From the mouth of the bastard himself. Guess we'll find condoms on the black market next to assault rifles soon, huh?

Y'all won't be happy until everyone's rights are taken away, won't you?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

appleburger said:


> It's the same logic used by anti-maskers.


So, by real murderers then. Of actual, real people, not embryo cells.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2022)

wait is this how it works states get to decide? how dare they people voting so democrazy


----------



## appleburger (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> So, by real murderers then. Of actual, real people, not embryo cells.


I completely agree.  That's why I think it's more effective to use arguments that can't be thrown back at us.  I think the slippery slope fallacy gives others ammunition.


----------



## DbGt (Jun 24, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> There’s no such thing as ending abortion. Abortions are just going to be moved out of the clean and professional environment and into dirty motels again. Abortions are going to keep happening regardless of the law.


The same can be said about literally all crimes, they will continue to happen regardless of the law, so as they will just continue to happen, should we then do nothing about them?


SyphenFreht said:


> What about rape?
> 
> Oh wait. I forget that only happens in Republican fantasies.


How many abortions were carried out because of rape? not even 1%. You cant argue your general cause using exceptions


Lacius said:


> So, I shouldn't have a right to do what I want with my own body if I'm interrupting a "physiological process"?


No, you should not have a right to end someone else right to life


----------



## SG854 (Jun 24, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> close your legs


Why are you against enjoying sex?


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 24, 2022)

My quick thoughts is, is that court just going lose its legitimacy.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Why are you against enjoying sex?


im the sickest most deprave fucker you could meet and even I know safe sex and I think the consequences


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Somehow it's a choice to become pregnant but to STOP being pregnant isn't...



Replace "pregnant" with "a parent" ... then try it out.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

appleburger said:


> This will always boil down to the moral issue.  If people truly feel abortion = murder, then of course they're going to want the law to be consistent.  Murder is bad.


The belief it's murder is a religious belief, and a person's religious rights end where another person's rights begin. Even if a person is religious and thinks abortion is immoral, they should still know that it shouldn't be illegal.



appleburger said:


> That then leads to a big domino effect on both sides.  If abortion = murder, then the implications of sex change completely.  I think it's all contingent on that.  People leaning left generally feel this is oppressive; people leaning right feel this is as simple as "murder bad - plz ban"


It doesn't mean both sides are being rational. One side is clearly acting irrationally.



appleburger said:


> We all have to concede that we don't know when personhood truly begins - it's still heavily debated among scientists.  It's worth talking about, but none of us have the resources to convince the other side.  It's still a philosophical point unless Science can get closer to something we can agree on.


We can at least agree that, absent silly religious beliefs, something without a brain is not a person.



appleburger said:


> This issue is a giant, juicy apple for politicians.  It being divisive is what gives it so much power.  There's a reason you're hearing about abortion every election cycle.  I just hope more and more people can see it for what it is, politically.


You're hearing about it because the right-wing politicians are taking away abortion access. There's no other reason we are hearing about it.



appleburger said:


> Many users on here are talking about this being a slippery slope, where this sets a precedence for more left or right leaning policies on each side of the debate.  While you're 100% correct, that holds potentially true for every law, left or right.  I feel that makes it a moot point.  I see commentators mention this talking point on the left and right a lot.  It's the same logic used by anti-maskers.


We know that Roe was literally legal precedent for other rulings (gay marriage, sodomy laws, etc.). And for the issues that didn't use Roe as precedent, they at least took views of the 14th Amendment that were used with Roe that seem to no longer apply. It isn't a slippery slope to discuss these things. Learn how legal precedent works.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> im the sickest most deprave fucker you could meet and even I know safe sex and I think the consequences


The right-wing politicians have made it more difficult to access contraceptives and comprehensive sex education.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Replace "pregnant" with "a parent" ... then try it out.


A pregnant person is not necessarily a parent.


----------



## MMX (Jun 24, 2022)

politics is really the worst of debates, especially this, and on gbatemp which has probably 99% of LGBT people which literally doesn't concern them, since most go onto blind dates in their fursuit.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The right-wing politicians have made it more difficult to access contraceptives and comprehensive sex education.


lacius you need to stop having sex with random hookers behind gas stations


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

DbGt said:


> The same can be said about literally all crimes, they will continue to happen regardless of the law, so as they will just continue to happen, should we then do nothing about them?
> 
> How many abortions were carried out because of rape? not even 1%. You cant argue your general cause using exceptions


The difference is we know a world without legal abortion is a world where women die unnecessarily.



DbGt said:


> No, you should not have a right to end someone else right to life


An embryo is not a person.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> lacius you need to stop having sex with random hookers behind gas stations


I'll give you my gas station hooker when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

DbGt said:


> How many abortions were carried out because of rape? not even 1%. You cant argue your general cause using exceptions



Less than 1% is still 3 million women at most. And of course I can argue based on exceptions, they're what proves the rule. What you can't do is make blanket laws that cover every instance without question. Not everyone is the same, why should everyone be treated that way?



DbGt said:


> No, you should not have a right to end someone else right to life



It's not a person yet. Moot argument.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Replace "pregnant" with "a parent" ... then try it out.



Are you implying everyone who gets pregnant deserves to be a parent?


----------



## appleburger (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The belief it's murder is a religious belief, and a person's religious rights end where another person's rights begin. Even if a person is religious and thinks abortion is immoral, they should still know that it shouldn't be illegal.
> 
> 
> It doesn't mean both sides are being rational. One side is clearly acting irrationally.
> ...


The murder angle isn't purely religious, though the religious camp certainly holds that opinion more often than not.  I live deep in the bible belt.  I've anecdotally spoken to pro-life atheists and pro-choice Christians.   

I know how legal precedent works, and I also know how the Slippery Slope fallacy works.  It's independent of political discussion.  You are correct that it's a legal precedent - like I said, that applies either way you slice it, left or right.  That's what makes the point moot, imo - it always applies logically.

Also to quickly throw out there, I'm pro-choice and agree with just about every post you've made on this topic.  I'm throwing my hat in the ring to point out what seems to make either argument stronger or weaker.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> wait is this how it works states get to decide? how dare they people voting so democrazy



Whether or not it's left up to a vote is irrelevant to whether or not we're talking about stripping away civil rights and a right to one's own body. I don't think you'd appreciate it if things you want to do to your body were up to the voters.

Hopefully states that have ballot referendums vote for legal abortion, but red states have a habit of striking down ballot measures that don't go the way they want, or rewording the referendum so it goes another way the year after.



appleburger said:


> The murder angle isn't purely religious


When we're talking about something that doesn't have a brain, then yeah it is.



appleburger said:


> I know how legal precedent works, and I also know how the Slippery Slope fallacy works.


Then you know none of the points about gay marriage, contraception, sodomy, interracial marriage, etc. are slippery slope arguments. They're very real and very relevant issues in response to today's ruling. Thomas even brought them up.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> A pregnant person is not necessarily a parent.





Lacius said:


> An embryo is not a person.



That's just like, your opinion, man.

But most of your posts are.

For example, above, you state that, "right-wing politicians have made it more difficult to access contraceptives." How is that so? I can walk into any 7-11, bar toilet, or grocery store in the country and come out with a pack of rubbers. Girls can get birth control pills prescribed anywhere, no questions asked, and it's usually FREE. I can only assume you mean some conservatives have voted against handing out condoms at school, passing them out to people on the street, putting a condom fountain in the town square or something. Not providing free condoms at taxpayer expense and not forcing contraceptives upon children is not the same as "limiting access."


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> wait is this how it works states get to decide? how dare they people voting so democrazy



Because misinformation isn't a thing and Americans are really smart LMAO The only place where referendums work is Ireland, these days.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 24, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> This also stop alot of peopl
> 
> i guess practice safe sex


Abortions still happen in countries where even a miscarriage results in the death penalty. Abortions happen in areas with strict abortion laws. Abortions happened before Roe V Wade. Abortions are still going to happen. I don’t understand how people don’t realize this and believe that outlawing safe abortions is going to stop abortions.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I don’t understand how people don’t realize this and believe that outlawing safe abortions is going to stop abortions.


"People" are imbeciles.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> That's just like, your opinion, man.


It's a fact, by definition. Try again.



Hanafuda said:


> For example, above, you state that, "right-wing politicians have made it more difficult to access contraceptives." How is that so? I can walk into any 7-11, bar toilet, or grocery store in the country and come out with a pack of rubbers. Girls can get birth control pills prescribed anywhere, no questions asked, and it's usually FREE. I can only assume you mean some conservatives have voted against handing out condoms at school, passing them out to people on the street, putting a condom fountain in the town square or something. Not providing free condoms at taxpayer expense and not forcing contraceptives upon underaged persons is not the same as "limiting access."


You have right-wing politicians all over the country banning discussion of contraception in sex education. You have right-wing politicians, including the former administration, limiting access to forms of contraception under their health insurance plans; you have conservative courts doing the same thing. You have right-wing politicians outright banning or saying they want to ban certain forms of contraception. You have Thomas outright saying today that legal access to contraception should be relitigated.

With respect, your posts have a tendency to be poorly researched. I shouldn't have to do all the work for you. My recommendation is to fact-check your points instead of going with what just "feels right." The tends to be a big problem on the political right.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> With respect, your posts have a tendency to be poorly researched.


Such a diplomatic way.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Such a diplomatic way.


I don't dislike @Hanafuda.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> That's just like, your opinion, man.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499222/

It's come to a general consensus that an embryo is not considered a person in any form until it at least starts showing characteristics of being a person, generally   no sooner than 8 weeks.



Hanafuda said:


> For example, above, you state that, "right-wing politicians have made it more difficult to access contraceptives." How is that so? I can walk into any 7-11, bar toilet, or grocery store in the country and come out with a pack of rubbers. Girls can get birth control pills prescribed anywhere, no questions asked, and it's usually FREE. I can only assume you mean some conservatives have voted against handing out condoms at school, passing them out to people on the street, putting a condom fountain in the town square or something. Not providing free condoms at taxpayer expense and not forcing contraceptives upon children is not the same as "limiting access."



Equate that same analogy to gun rights and you'll see the problem.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> "People" are imbeciles.


I wish it could just be that but I think a lot of people really believe the pro-life propaganda and believe that they are “protecting children.” I think a lot of them either don’t care care or realize the harm they are causing. I don’t think people realize that the history leading up to Roe v Wade was a history filled dead bodies in motels, people dying from infections, and people suffering for years with the results of a unprofessional abortion. I don’t think these people realize the lives they are actually threatening. I wish they would though. I wish they would actually care.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 24, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I wish it could just be that but I think a lot of people really believe the pro-life propaganda and believe that they are “protecting children.” I think a lot of them either don’t care care or realize the harm they are causing. I don’t think people realize that the history leading up to Roe v Wade was a history filled dead bodies in motels, people dying from infections, and people suffering for years with the results of a unprofessional abortion. I don’t think these people realize the lives they are actually threatening. I wish they would though. I wish they would actually care.


They pretend they are doing it for the children


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 24, 2022)

SG854 said:


> They pretend they are doing it for the children



What do you think they're doing it for?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> What do you think they're doing it for?


Blind religious ideology.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> What do you think they're doing it for?


Votes and radicalization.


----------



## VinsCool (Jun 24, 2022)

SG854 said:


> They pretend they are doing it for the children


More like they only care about outdated values and produce more disposable people they could profit on, so obviously they *must* come to living, grow up, become trapped in the work/wage hell and in their turn also be forced to carry children they cannot afford to have, and then be the ones accused of poor parenting just for being poor or overwhelmed.
it's such a great mentality, breed more babies, and fuck you! (literally and figuratively).
You cannot afford to have a kid, and your contraception failed? or you were raped and are now pregnant? well too bad, you must *preserve* the child's life that hasn't even come into being at your own expense, if you die or miscarry, it's also your fault!
You just can't win in that kind of mess, isn't that funny?


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 24, 2022)

SG854 said:


> They pretend they are doing it for the children


By doing _it_, you mean _not _killing their own babies?


----------



## appleburger (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> When we're talking about something that doesn't have a brain, then yeah it is.


That doesn't add up.  I can discuss with you where we draw the line on personhood regardless of any deity or that deity's rules.  This debate is ongoing in the Scientific community as well, and I have never come across a religious argument from any of the papers I've looked at.  I'll admit I haven't parsed carefully through every single research paper I've come across, but at a high level the debate seems to fall around brain activity in that field.  Religion is not a necessary component.  I can provide you with examples, if you'd like.



> Then you know none of the points about gay marriage, contraception, sodomy, interracial marriage, etc. are slippery slope arguments. They're very real and very relevant issues in response to today's ruling. Thomas even brought them up.


I am very aware of all of these.  And yes, they are very real - the issue I'm trying to draw your attention to is that it's not logically reasonable to assume that legal precedent is a reason to hold back or push forward a decision, because while our decisions _can_ be a slippery slope, and _do _set a precedent, it's not guaranteed.  It's just a weaker structure for an argument when debating these topics, I think.  The Wikipedia article on Slippery Slope fallacy can probably make the case more clearly than I can, but I think it really just has people spinning their wheels.  Both left and right parties feel there's a slippery slope on nearly every hot topic.

There are cases where this kind of argument is sound, but only in the context of "if you do this, there will be consequences you may have not considered, and here's what could happen..."  But in the context of political discussion, it suggests that the next outcome from the government is inevitable, when we know we can look at each issue, vote, talking point, etc. independently.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It's a fact, by definition. Try again.



See, this is what I'm talking about. Some things can be defined objectively, sure. But definitions that relate to subjective and controversial matters are not absolutes. "An embryo is not a person" doesn't become a true statement of fact just because someone claiming to be the arbiter writes a definition. From my perspective, your reliance on sources of "truth" that agree with your opinions is the proof of your immature reasoning. "A person with a penis can be a woman if they think they are" is "truth" according to sources you can quote as authority, but patently absurd in reality. "An embryo is not a person" may be something you believe strongly, but if some other person believes an embryo's individual and unique DNA, beating heart, nervous system and brain activity all do make it a person, their belief is just as valid as yours. No matter what Priscilla Prickly-Tits at Merriam-Webster has to say about it. That's the nature of controversial topics ... different people rationally believe different things, and you're not automatically correct just because some twerp at DailyKos said the same thing as you.


----------



## DbGt (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The difference is we know a world without legal abortion is a world where women die unnecessarily.


No, theres no difference to what i was saying. All crimes would increase if not for preventive measures and programs. 


Lacius said:


> An embryo is not a person.


Never wrote it is a person, still it has the right to life, still it is protected by law, and has moral and legal rights, and in some countries it is recognized as a person, so it also depends.


SyphenFreht said:


> Less than 1% is still 3 million women at most. And of course I can argue based on exceptions, they're what proves the rule. What you can't do is make blanket laws that cover every instance without question. Not everyone is the same, why should everyone be treated that way?


???? 3 million is the 1% of all women in US, not all women in US had abortions and 3 million women did not committed an abortion because of an unwanted pregnancy due to rape.... I said that out of all abortions that were carried out, not even 1% of said abortions were due to rape. Its a weak argument to use an exception that does not even constitute 1% of abortions for your general cause. and no, you cant argue based on exceptions, thats a fallacy lol, and your saying does not apply here at all, you are not proving anything.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> What do you think they're doing it for?


Themselves.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 24, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> By doing _it_, you mean _not _killing their own babies?


You care about the baby being born but not what happens after it's born. You want to know nothing about it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

appleburger said:


> That doesn't add up.  I can discuss with you where we draw the line on personhood regardless of any deity or that deity's rules.  This debate is ongoing in the Scientific community as well, and I have never come across a religious argument from any of the papers I've looked at.  I'll admit I haven't parsed carefully through every single research paper I've come across, but at a high level the debate seems to fall around brain activity in that field.  Religion is not a necessary component.  I can provide you with examples, if you'd like.



That's kinda the point though, isn't it? If we use deductive reasoning to reason that religion is not a component when it comes to science, then it must be true that when science isn't explicitly used in an anti abortion argument, then the component must be emotion. Except, we have several generations of Christian values that have equated anti abortion sentiments alongside emotionally based, moralistic value. It's not unheard of to be against the extinguish of life in any capacity, any form, but when you have notably Conservative Republican Christians pushing the anti science agenda when it comes to pro life debates, one can deduce that their emotional reasoning comes from a belief in a higher power that dictates their moralistic values.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499222/
> 
> It's come to a general consensus that an embryo is not considered a person in any form until it at least starts showing characteristics of being a person, generally   no sooner than 8 weeks



I'm not opposed to legal abortion FWIW. I'm not really here to debate the issue, I just think the pro-abortion side is too dismissive of the opposition's concern. Your talking about "general consensus" like that makes it the truth. It's just opinion.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Blind religious ideology.



Can't a non-religious person believe that fetuses have moral status?    I also think animals have moral status -- is that religious too?



SyphenFreht said:


> radicalization.



Radicalisation for what purpose?  To achieve what?  What's the end game?  Control?  Authoritarianism?



Dark_Ansem said:


> Themselves.



How does it benefit themselves?   

I suppose even when people help others it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling inside and this technically benefits themselves because it feels good, and some philosophers go as far as saying altruist acts are inherently selfish because of this, but I don't necessarily agree.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> By doing _it_, you mean _not _killing their own babies?


Embryos are not babies.



appleburger said:


> That doesn't add up.  I can discuss with you where we draw the line on personhood regardless of any deity or that deity's rules.  This debate is ongoing in the Scientific community as well, and I have never come across a religious argument from any of the papers I've looked at.  I'll admit I haven't parsed carefully through every single research paper I've come across, but at a high level the debate seems to fall around brain activity in that field.  Religion is not a necessary component.  I can provide you with examples, if you'd like.


If religion is not part of the conversation, then we can certainly agree that something without a brain lacks personhood.



appleburger said:


> I am very aware of all of these.  And yes, they are very real - the issue I'm trying to draw your attention to is that it's not logically reasonable to assume that legal precedent is a reason to hold back or push forward a decision, because while our decisions _can_ be a slippery slope, and _do _set a precedent, it's not guaranteed.  It's just a weaker structure for an argument when debating these topics, I think.  The Wikipedia article on Slippery Slope fallacy can probably make the case more clearly than I can, but I think it really just has people spinning their wheels.  Both left and right parties feel there's a slippery slope on nearly every hot topic.
> 
> There are cases where this kind of argument is sound, but only in the context of "if you do this, there will be consequences you may have not considered, and here's what could happen..."  But in the context of political discussion, it suggests that the next outcome from the government is inevitable, when we know we can look at each issue, vote, talking point, etc. independently.


It isn't a slippery slope argument to talk about legal precedents and what the concurrent opinion literally suggested should come next.

Not to sound disrespectful, but why are you still talking?



Hanafuda said:


> See, this is what I'm talking about. Some things can be defined objectively, sure. But definitions that relate to subjective and controversial matters are not absolutes. "An embryo is not a person" doesn't become a true statement of fact just because someone claiming to be the arbiter writes a definition. From my perspective, your reliance on sources of "truth" that agree with your opinions is the proof of your immature reasoning. "A person with a penis can be a woman if they think they are" is "truth" according to sources you can quote as authority, but patently absurd in reality. "An embryo is not a person" may be something you believe strongly, but if some other person believes an embryo's individual and unique DNA, beating heart, nervous system and brain activity all do make it a person, their belief is just as valid as yours. No matter what Priscilla Prickly-Tits at Merriam-Webster has to say about it. That's the nature of controversial topics ... different people rationally believe different things, and you're not automatically correct just because some twerp at DailyKos said the same thing as you.


If we ignore a person's religious beliefs on the topic, there's no definition I'm aware of by which an embryo would be considered a person. An embryo doesn't have any brain activity worth talking about.

I'm talking about facts, not opinions or religious beliefs. A parent is not defined as someone who is pregnant. An embryo and a baby are two different things.



DbGt said:


> No, theres no difference to what i was saying. All crimes would increase if not for preventive measures and programs.


The difference is abortion should not be a crime, and even when criminalized, abortions still occur (albeit less safely). The only significant consequence of anti-abortion laws is women dying.



DbGt said:


> Never wrote it is a person, still it has the right to life


If it isn't a person, why does it have a right to life?



DbGt said:


> still it is protected by law


It shouldn't be protected by law at the expense of an actual person (the one who is pregnant).



DbGt said:


> ???? 3 million is the 1% of all women in US, not all women in US had abortions and 3 million women did not committed an abortion because of an unwanted pregnancy due to rape.... I said that out of all abortions that were carried out, not even 1% of said abortions were due to rape. Its a weak argument to use an exception that does not even constitute 1% of abortions for your general cause. and no, you cant argue based on exceptions, thats a fallacy lol, and your saying does not apply here at all, you are not proving anything.


If the incidence of rape isn't 0, then abortion should be legal in the case of rape.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 24, 2022)

SG854 said:


> You care about the baby being born but not what happens after it's born. You want to know nothing about it.


It's not particularly concerning to me on an individual level and indeed I would prefer that such people don't spawn, but of course it's a tough sell to normalize industrialized child sacrifice sold as retroactive birth control.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm not opposed to legal abortion FWIW. I'm not really here to debate the issue, I just think the pro-abortion side is too dismissive of the opposition's concern. Your talking about "general consensus" like that makes it the truth. It's just opinion.


Cry me a river that I'm dismissive of somebody's belief in taking away a person's right to bodily autonomy, lol.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

DbGt said:


> ???? 3 million is the 1% of all women in US, not all women in US had abortions and 3 million women did not committed an abortion because of an unwanted pregnancy due to rape.... I said that out of all abortions that were carried out, not even 1% of said abortions were due to rape. Its a weak argument to use an exception that does not even constitute 1% of abortions for your general cause. and no, you cant argue based on exceptions, thats a fallacy lol, and your saying does not apply here at all, you are not proving anything.



Sorry, I meant to say 3 million "people", not women exclusively. My bad. 

So how many is 1% of all abortions? How many of these women and their situations are completely meaningless? 

Of course you say it's a fallacy, because your whole contention is based off miswording on my part. The actual argument should be focusing on those that get caught unfairly under this blanket of obliviation, and instead you'd rather dissect an argument based on semantics than prove the idea that you think women are made for giving birth and nothing else. 

Try again.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Can't a non-religious person believe that fetuses have moral status?


Yes, and I'm one of those people, but belief that fetuses have moral consideration is different than saying abortion should be illegal and a fetus's moral considering takes precedence over a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Feel free to re-ask the question in a different way.



NoobletCheese said:


> I also think animals have moral status -- is that religious too?


Whether or not it's rational depends on what that moral status is. No, it doesn't have to be religious. Again, you've changed the question. Please be more specific.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm not opposed to legal abortion FWIW. I'm not really here to debate the issue, I just think the pro-abortion side is too dismissive of the opposition's concern. Your talking about "general consensus" like that makes it the truth. It's just opinion.



It seems that when abortion was legal and federally backed you were against it, so what's the difference now? At what point is abortion legal in your eyes?

And in this same thread we have people arguing that less than 1% of abortions are from rape and therefore should be ignored. Seems like both sides argue in favor of the majority, doesn't it? The difference is, my argument doesn't restrict the rights of already established people.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Radicalisation for what purpose?  To achieve what?  What's the end game? Control? Authoritarianism?



Yes. You appeal to a strong subset of voters so you can stay in power. Like Hitler did.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Cry me a river that I'm dismissive of somebody's belief in taking away a person's right to bodily autonomy, lol.



Regarding bodily autonomy, am I correct in presuming you're not ok with abortions beyond a certain number of months?   If that is the case then you also want to take away women's autonomy, just a bit later on.


----------



## appleburger (Jun 24, 2022)

> It isn't a slippery slope argument to talk about legal precedents and what the concurrent opinion literally suggested should come next.



That's correct.  Talking about legal precedents is not necessarily usage of the slippery slope fallacy.  Saying we should make one decision because the next precedent is even worse _is_ - explicit and objectively usage of it, and that's what I was referencing to in the point you rebutted. 



> Not to sound disrespectful, but why are you still talking?


Did I disrespect you?  If I did, I'm sorry, that wasn't intentional, but if I didn't then don't disrespect me.  I'd appreciate it if you showed me the same respect you would in person.  I'll flame people on here if they're rude to me, you can see it in my post history, but I'm not interested in flame wars.

I'm still talking because I find it engaging to discuss issues with people.  It helps me form more sound opinions and gives me an opportunity to challenge my views.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 24, 2022)

SG854 said:


> You care about the baby being born but not what happens after it's born. You want to know nothing about it.


He is actually a neo-Nazi that is open about his goal of forcing more white people into the world. This isn’t a joke, this actually something he said in a now deleted thread.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Regarding bodily autonomy, am I correct in presuming you're not ok with abortions beyond a certain number of months?   If that is the case then you also want to take away women's autonomy, just a bit later on.


A woman has a right to bodily autonomy 100% of the time, whether it's 9 days or 9 months into a pregnancy. However, a right to bodily autonomy means only that: a right to her own body. If she terminates a pregnancy at 9 days, it's an abortion. If she terminates at 9 months, it's a birth. That's why the previous precedent of fetal viability was correct.

There is no case in which I would take away a woman's bodily autonomy rights.


----------



## rensenware (Jun 24, 2022)

Pisses me off how what we have is a vitally important complex of civil rights that are all based on shoddy legal reasoning by judges legislating from the bench. Instead of recognizing how fragile they were, democrats were too cowardly and moronic to do anything to enshrine them into law, believing for god knows what that this was a settled issue. The reasoning behind Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v Hodges, etc. were all very shoddy in my opinion and we should never have relied on them. This was always going to fall at some point, and we never did anything to catch it.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

appleburger said:


> Did I disrespect you?  If I did, I'm sorry, that wasn't intentional, but if I didn't then don't disrespect me.  I'd appreciate it if you showed me the same respect you would in person.


My point is you seem to be arguing with me without disagreeing with me, so I don't know what the point is.


----------



## appleburger (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> That's kinda the point though, isn't it? If we use deductive reasoning to reason that religion is not a component when it comes to science, then it must be true that when science isn't explicitly used in an anti abortion argument, then the component must be emotion. Except, we have several generations of Christian values that have equated anti abortion sentiments alongside emotionally based, moralistic value. It's not unheard of to be against the extinguish of life in any capacity, any form, but when you have notably Conservative Republican Christians pushing the anti science agenda when it comes to pro life debates, one can deduce that their emotional reasoning comes from a belief in a higher power that dictates their moralistic values.


I think you're right that the vast majority of the wave against abortion is coming from Right wing Conservative Christians, without a doubt.  The thing is, if we want to make our position absolutely clear, we owe it to ourselves to acknowledge that there is a non-religious argument to be made, and while that group people making those arguments is smaller, and not the driving force behind the politics, I don't want to give those on that side of the argument the opportunity to call us out on using fallacious arguments or making assumptions about the other side.



> ...it must be true that when science isn't explicitly used in an anti abortion argument, then the component must be emotion.


I can see how you got there, but I think it's more specifically a philosophical point.  Now, people's philosophy can obviously drive very strong emotions, but the argument can be made without an appeal to emotion.  The current consensus is that most people agree "killing" is bad - that's easy; the hard part is determining when personhood is present, which is a requirement for killing.

I agree with @Lacius that without a brain it doesn't seem reasonable to assume personhood could possibly be present.  That's consistent with what the Scientific community currently thinks.  Once brain development begins, it gets more difficult to draw that line.  I personally am not sure where I'd draw it, but my gut tells me that abortion is morally sound until fetal viability.  Hard to get more specific from there for me.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> How does it benefit themselves?
> 
> I suppose even when people help others it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling inside and this technically benefits themselves because it feels good, and some philosophers go as far as saying altruist acts are inherently selfish because of this, but I don't necessarily agree.


Like it benefits bigots and racists: ever watched the early episode of the Simpsons "Marge vs Itchy and Scratchy"?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

appleburger said:


> I think you're right that the vast majority of the wave against abortion is coming from Right wing Conservative Christians, without a doubt.  The thing is, if we want to make our position absolutely clear, we owe it to ourselves to acknowledge that there is a non-religious argument to be made, and while that group people making those arguments is smaller, and not the driving force behind the politics, I don't want to give those on that side of the argument the opportunity to call us out on using fallacious arguments or making assumptions about the other side.
> 
> 
> I can see how you got there, but I think it's more specifically a philosophical point.  Now, people's philosophy can obviously drive very strong emotions, but the argument can be made without an appeal to emotion.  The current consensus is that most people agree "killing" is bad - that's easy; the hard part is determining when personhood is present, which is a requirement for killing.
> ...


To be clear, even if a fetus were completely sentient/sapient, it wouldn't justify violating the pregnant woman's right to bodily autonomy. My point about an embryo not being a person, or a pregnant person not being a parent, was about terminology only.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> See, this is what I'm talking about. Some things can be defined objectively, sure. But definitions that relate to subjective and controversial matters are not absolutes. "An embryo is not a person" doesn't become a true statement of fact just because someone claiming to be the arbiter writes a definition. From my perspective, your reliance on sources of "truth" that agree with your opinions is the proof of your immature reasoning. "A person with a penis can be a woman if they think they are" is "truth" according to sources you can quote as authority, but patently absurd in reality. "An embryo is not a person" may be something you believe strongly, but if some other person believes an embryo's individual and unique DNA, beating heart, nervous system and brain activity all do make it a person, their belief is just as valid as yours. No matter what Priscilla Prickly-Tits at Merriam-Webster has to say about it. That's the nature of controversial topics ... different people rationally believe different things, and you're not automatically correct just because some twerp at DailyKos said the same thing as you.


You disagreeing with facts doesn't make them wrong. "Their belief is just as valid as yours" is demonstratably false. Just look at the "stolen election" garbage. It was not true at all, never was. People chose to believe it, and no their belief was not just as valid as the people who didn't believe it. The same applies here. Science is a process for finding the truth, when the truth is found and hurts your feelings that's not a valid reason to disagree with it and demand that your view be seen as "just as valid". The nature of controversial topics in this manner is always boiling down to just that, people who can't handle the truth. This isn't fucking 1998 WWF and people debating if it's okay for dick jokes to be made by D-Generation X on prime time television, that was a controversial topic. This is just people stuck in out dated religious beliefs trying to force those beliefs on the rest of the country because they can't handle that the facts moved on and left them in the dust.


----------



## appleburger (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> My point is you seem to be arguing with me without disagreeing with me, so I don't know what the point is.


Ah, gotcha.  I was mostly trying to steelman your argument in my responses, not fight against it.  My first post mentioning Slippery Slope was also in response to multiple users.


----------



## Deleted member 575334 (Jun 24, 2022)

Edit 2: Apperantly Some people think i am a Woman. i have to clarify that i am NOT A WOMAN (if that wasn't obvious by my name already). The text below already said that. But people still read over it.


Idk about this: For me its double (I am not a woman) but i can only think of this as bad.
Why:

1/2. 1: If someone desides to have unsafe sex and a women gets pregnant. That their own fault. There are tools to prevent unwanted pregnancys. (And yes, I know unsafe can feel better. But is that a risk you are willing to take if you dont want to have kids?) 2: Someone that decides to have kids shouldn't yell later: I dont want to have kids. You had the chance to prevent it.

3: In a case of Rape: You should be allowed to make a abortus. Because no one wants to have kids from a rapist. (This is the only argument why i think abortus can be a good thing.)

4; Human lives are worthy, You have a right to be alive. of course. No one asked to be on this rock. Sure i get it. but is ending the right to have abortus a good thing? On some points it is. But on some points (see number 3) i don't think that is smart.

I can only imagine more rape cases, people trying to dump their child in the weirdest places and people trying to get illegal abortion.

I am not from the USA, so technically i have no say in this. But i just wanted to share my opinion on this.
But of course. My Local news channels are also discussing it. So the world is aware of this. 


Edit: Fixed minor spelling mistakes.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Abortion is not "illegal in the US." It is now up to each state to decide.


Until GQP has supermajority and federally bans it. This is "States rights" until they have the ability to subjugate further

McConnell confirmed that a federal ban is their endgame, and only backtracked when he realized that he shouldn't have said that


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> It seems that when abortion was legal and federally backed you were against it, so what's the difference now? At what point is abortion legal in your eyes?
> 
> And in this same thread we have people arguing that less than 1% of abortions are from rape and therefore should be ignored. Seems like both sides argue in favor of the majority, doesn't it? The difference is, my argument doesn't restrict the rights of already established people.



Never against abortion being legal anywhere, only against there being a Federal "right" to an abortion, because the Constitution doesn't say anything about it. Im not against some regulation of abortion though. There are some circumstances like birth defects, congenital diseases, that would justify abortion past viability (about 23 weeks now) but very damned few. As for the first 8 weeks as you mentioned above, I support absolute, no questions asked legal abortion on demand. 

But even if that's what I think now, I'm open to discussing the issue and listening to someone who believes differently. There are possibilities, or future scientific developments, etc., that could maybe change my mind someday. Thats why Im not especially persuaded by "general consensus" type stuff...the general consensus once upon a time was that if you float you're a witch, but if you sink you're innocent.


----------



## appleburger (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> To be clear, even if a fetus were completely sentient/sapient, it wouldn't justify violating the pregnant woman's right to bodily autonomy. My point about an embryo not being a person, or a pregnant person not being a parent, was about terminology only.


I think this is a good point, and it's why I personally feel the autonomy argument is stronger than fighting over the line drawn on personhood.  That's where a lot of folks get stuck.  The moral implications of "killing" can still be brought up here by the other side, so there's no avoiding it completely and that's why I think this will be philosophical until Science can get further, but I think discussing bodily autonomy and those implications are much stronger than the "fetus=baby" point that gets slapped around a lot, as things currently stand.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

appleburger said:


> I think this is a good point, and it's why I personally feel the autonomy argument is stronger than fighting over the line drawn on personhood.  That's where a lot of folks get stuck.  The moral implications of "killing" can still be brought up here by the other side, so there's no avoiding it completely and that's why I think this will be philosophical until Science can get further, but I think discussing bodily autonomy and those implications are much stronger than the "fetus=baby" point that gets slapped around a lot, as things currently stand.


In a consistent world, the day a woman is required to carry a pregnancy to term in the interest of "preserving life" is the same day I can be required to donate one of my kidneys to a stranger.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

UnreaLorenzo said:


> 1/2. 1: If someone desides to have unsafe sex and a women gets pregnant. That their own fault. There are tools to prevent unwanted pregnancys. (And yes, I know unsafe can feel better. But is that a risk you are willing to take if you dont want to have kids?) 2: Someone that decides to have kids shouldn't yell later: I dont want to have kids. You had the chance to prevent it.
> 
> 3: In a case of Rape: You should be allowed to make a abortus. Because no one wants to have kids from a rapist. (This is the only argument why i think abortus can be a good thing.)


1/2. Children should not be seen as a consequence or punishment, and punishing someone by forcing them to have a child will only lead to resentment for that child. There is a strong argument to be made that conservatives hate their children based on how much they cling to this argument, which makes me feel bad for their kids. It's damaging to children to grow up in a home like that, but that's what conservatives in this country want.

3. Multiple states have already removed their rape and medical exemptions in preparation for this. The idea is absolutely to punish. You were raped? Well, look into the face of your rapist every day for the rest of your life. You life is in danger due to pregnancy complications? Well, fucking die then. Then they call themselves "pro life".

This issue in America is about control and punishment, nothing more and nothing less. It's not about the lives of children or they wouldn't all claim that children of unemployed parents don't deserve food or healthcare, they're literally voting against school lunch programs right now. They're garbage and a disease in this country. You might be able to have a reasonable conversation about this, but they are not. They proclaim anyone pro choice to be a baby murderer while patting themselves on the back for starving children, sending parents to prison for desperately leaving their kids at a McDonald's play place while they go to a job interview, striking down any after school programs that let parents get in those extra couple hours a day that add up to a full days work, their goal is to destroy the working class and this is part of it. If you aren't forced to have the child then you can't be put into these situations.


----------



## appleburger (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> In a consistent world, the day a woman is required to carry a pregnancy to term in the interest of "preserving life" is the same day I can be required to donate one of my kidneys to a stranger.


Don't hate me, but this can also be drawn up to a false equivalence.  I agree with this sentiment, but only because you and I both presuppose that the fetus isn't alive (at least up to a point), so this still gives opponents the opportunity to say we're comparing a liver to a human being.  So it still boils back down to that same point.

I think your point above of saying, "Okay, let's assume for sake of argument that it IS an alive human.  Here's why my argument still holds up" puts more pressure on the other side, because now you've stripped away their potential to run back to "stop killing babies", because you've eliminated that point, and now they have to be more honest with their actual point.  When I do this, eventually I learn that many pro-life advocates I talk to are really just hiding behind that talking point to hide their real objection (which so far has always been less tasteful and easy to call out for being a terrible take), or have blindly adopted it and aren't actually sure what they think the right call is.

In our other abortion thread, I walked one of the pro-life users through their own logic until we all found they were more pro-choice than most of us were, once we weeded out the "baby/fetus" stuff.  I don't want to call the user out directly, but I know a few of you were around to witness that.

I'll rescind this - I misunderstood the comparison.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

appleburger said:


> Don't hate me, but this can also be drawn up to a false equivalence.  I agree with this sentiment, but only because you and I both presuppose that the fetus isn't alive (at least up to a point), so this still gives opponents the opportunity to say we're comparing a liver to a human being.  So it still boils back down to that same point.
> 
> I think your point above of saying, "Okay, let's assume for sake of argument that it IS an alive human.  Here's why my argument still holds up" puts more pressure on the other side, because now you've stripped away their potential to run back to "stop killing babies", because you've eliminated that point, and now they have to be more honest with their actual point.  When I do this, eventually I learn that many pro-life advocates I talk to are really just hiding behind that talking point to hide their real objection (which so far has always been less tasteful and easy to call out for being a terrible take), or have blindly adopted it and aren't actually sure what they think the right call is.
> 
> In our other abortion thread, I walked one of the pro-life users through their own logic until we all found they were more pro-choice than most of us were, once we weeded out the "baby/fetus" stuff.  I don't want to call the user out directly, but I know a few of you were around to witness that.


I think you've misunderstood the comparison.

The fetus is the stranger who needs the organ, the kidney-removal is the pregnancy, and the person unwillingly giving up a kidney is the woman being unable to have an abortion under state law.

So, it doesn't matter if we say a fetus is a person or not (it's not), because the stranger who needs an organ is a person, and we would still be appalled at violating one's right to bodily autonomy by taking an organ from them.

If I refused to give someone a kidney, we wouldn't say I killed that person.


----------



## Deleted member 575334 (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> 1/2. Children should not be seen as a consequence or punishment, and punishing someone by forcing them to have a child will only lead to resentment for that child. There is a strong argument to be made that conservatives hate their children based on how much they cling to this argument, which makes me feel bad for their kids. It's damaging to children to grow up in a home like that, but that's what conservatives in this country want.
> 
> 3. Multiple states have already removed their rape and medical exemptions in preparation for this. The idea is absolutely to punish. You were raped? Well, look into the face of your rapist every day for the rest of your life. You life is in danger due to pregnancy complications? Well, fucking die then. Then they call themselves "pro life".
> 
> This issue in America is about control and punishment, nothing more and nothing less. It's not about the lives of children or they wouldn't all claim that children of unemployed parents don't deserve food or healthcare, they're literally voting against school lunch programs right now. They're garbage and a disease in this country. You might be able to have a reasonable conversation about this, but they are not. They proclaim anyone pro choice to be a baby murderer while patting themselves on the back for starving children, sending parents to prison for desperately leaving their kids at a McDonald's play place while they go to a job interview, striking down any after school programs that let parents get in those extra couple hours a day that add up to a full days work, their goal is to destroy the working class and this is part of it. If you aren't forced to have the child then you can't be put into these situations.



I have to add after your reply that With point 1/2 I didnt meant it as a punishment/consequence. People of course deside when or what or with who they have sex.

Point 3: Yes i have been raped (by a other guy) when i was 8. So yeah there is that. Also. I did note that i am a guy. (Idk if you read that but. if you didnt here you go.)  Added: I know rapist are dealing with a lot of stuff in their past. I cant imagine someone raping out of nowhere unless that person is really mentally ill.

But still, I dont get the point why removed the right to abortion. if what you are saying is true and its only about control and punishment. Then why did they created in the first place? We are all humans after all.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

appleburger said:


> I think you're right that the vast majority of the wave against abortion is coming from Right wing Conservative Christians, without a doubt.  The thing is, if we want to make our position absolutely clear, we owe it to ourselves to acknowledge that there is a non-religious argument to be made, and while that group people making those arguments is smaller, and not the driving force behind the politics, I don't want to give those on that side of the argument the opportunity to call us out on using fallacious arguments or making assumptions about the other side.
> 
> 
> I can see how you got there, but I think it's more specifically a philosophical point.  Now, people's philosophy can obviously drive very strong emotions, but the argument can be made without an appeal to emotion.  The current consensus is that most people agree "killing" is bad - that's easy; the hard part is determining when personhood is present, which is a requirement for killing.
> ...



And I totally agree. Unfortunately when it gets to that point, it comes to emotional arguments, and those tend to make little leeway on either front. With the rise in this new generation of pro-lifers against science, you can't even argue reasoning against them. 

I can't say I'm on a different platform than yours, as I have no bearing or say in what women do with their bodies at whatever stage of development the fetus may be in, but I know for a fact I'm against restricting the rights of one party to pave way for the rights of another, especially when the advocates pushing for having these rights taken away don't care about the life after it's born. It's only about control with them.



Hanafuda said:


> Never against abortion being legal anywhere, only against there being a Federal "right" to an abortion, because the Constitution doesn't say anything about it. Im not against some regulation of abortion though. There are some circumstances like birth defects, congenital diseases, that would justify abortion past viability (about 23 weeks now) but very damned few. As for the first 8 weeks as you mentioned above, I support absolute, no questions asked legal abortion on demand.
> 
> But even if that's what I think now, I'm open to discussing the issue and listening to someone who believes differently. There are possibilities, or future scientific developments, etc., that could maybe change my mind someday. Thats why Im not especially persuaded by "general consensus" type stuff...the general consensus once upon a time was that if you float you're a witch, but if you sink you're innocent.



Would it continue being an issue, with you, if the Constitution was amended to protect women in that aspect? And if not, how easy do you feel it would be to get that amended considering the current state of government?

It's hard to argue against "general consensus" when we have to tackle blanket laws that conform to the general consensus. I wish to call it a useless platform, but in the glaring eye of politics these days, it's almost a requirement.

I'm curious though. How feasible do you think it would be to find a way to legalize abortions on a federal level while appeasing pro lifers?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

appleburger said:


> I think you're right that the vast majority of the wave against abortion is coming from Right wing Conservative Christians, without a doubt.  The thing is, if we want to make our position absolutely clear, we owe it to ourselves to acknowledge that there is a non-religious argument to be made, and while that group people making those arguments is smaller, and not the driving force behind the politics, I don't want to give those on that side of the argument the opportunity to call us out on using fallacious arguments or making assumptions about the other side.
> 
> 
> I can see how you got there, but I think it's more specifically a philosophical point.  Now, people's philosophy can obviously drive very strong emotions, but the argument can be made without an appeal to emotion.  The current consensus is that most people agree "killing" is bad - that's easy; the hard part is determining when personhood is present, which is a requirement for killing.
> ...



And I totally agree. Unfortunately when it gets to that point, it comes to emotional arguments, and those tend to make little leeway on either front. With the rise in this new generation of pro-lifers against science, you can't even argue reasoning against them. 

I can't say I'm on a different platform than yours, as I have no bearing or say in what women do with their bodies at whatever stage of development the fetus may be in, but I know for a fact I'm against restricting the rights of one party to pave way for the rights of another, especially when the advocates pushing for having these rights taken away don't care about the life after it's born. It's only about control with them.



Hanafuda said:


> Never against abortion being legal anywhere, only against there being a Federal "right" to an abortion, because the Constitution doesn't say anything about it. Im not against some regulation of abortion though. There are some circumstances like birth defects, congenital diseases, that would justify abortion past viability (about 23 weeks now) but very damned few. As for the first 8 weeks as you mentioned above, I support absolute, no questions asked legal abortion on demand.
> 
> But even if that's what I think now, I'm open to discussing the issue and listening to someone who believes differently. There are possibilities, or future scientific developments, etc., that could maybe change my mind someday. Thats why Im not especially persuaded by "general consensus" type stuff...the general consensus once upon a time was that if you float you're a witch, but if you sink you're innocent.



Would it continue being an issue, with you, if the Constitution was amended to protect women in that aspect? And if not, how easy do you feel it would be to get that amended considering the current state of government?

It's hard to argue against "general consensus" when we have to tackle blanket laws that conform to the general consensus. I wish to call it a useless platform, but in the glaring eye of politics these days, it's almost a requirement.

I'm curious though. How feasible do you think it would be to find a way to legalize abortions on a federal level while appeasing pro lifers?


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

UnreaLorenzo said:


> I have to add after your reply that With point 1/2 I didnt meant it as a punishment/consequence. People of course deside when or what or with who they have sex.
> 
> Point 3: Yes i have been raped (by a other guy) when i was 8. So yeah there is that. Also. I did note that i am a guy. (Idk if you read that but. if you didnt here you go.)  Added: I know rapist are dealing with a lot of stuff in their past. I cant imagine someone raping out of nowhere unless that person is really mentally ill.
> 
> But still, I dont get the point why removed the right to abortion. if what you are saying is true and its only about control and punishment. Then why did they created in the first place? We are all humans after all.


I didn't mean to imply that you think these things. I know you're both male and not from America, if you're conservative you're not the same as our conservatives here. I was trying to explain what conservative talking points are here, what they have been doing, and why.


----------



## Deleted member 575334 (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> I didn't mean to imply that you think these things. I know you're both male and not from America, if you're conservative you're not the same as our conservatives here. I was trying to explain what conservative talking points are here, what they have been doing, and why.


Yes, I know and i can't imagine how that feels like. I mean you are from there. so you must know whats best and whats not.

I am sorry if my reply came over douchey/rude. That wasnt my intention and I've read your reply.

Maybe its time for a change then in the whole system. You should know whats best and not. so i leave that up to you. 

Edit: TBH. I am not busy with Politics and such. I have already a lot to deal with. So i dont even know if i am a democrat or conservative. Also. I've never voted in my life so.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Yes, and I'm one of those people, but belief that fetuses have moral consideration is different than saying abortion should be illegal and a fetus's moral considering takes precedence over a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Feel free to re-ask the question in a different way.



Alright I'll lay my cards on the table.

At some point between conception and birth I think the fetus/baby has a status or value that could be characterised as nontrivial.  I don't know exactly at which month of pregnancy this occurs, but I also don't know exactly what age everyone gains the ability to consent to sex.

My guiding principle is to err on the side of caution if the consequences of getting it wrong are disastrous.  In the case of consent I see two possibilities for disaster:

1. People getting falsely convicted of rape (if I set the age of consent too high)
2. Letting rapists go free (if I set it too low)

In my view it's better to let a guilty person go free than convict an innocent person, so I'll pick an age of consent value that is biased slightly lower.

In the case of abortion, also two possibilities for disaster:

1. Denying women of their bodily autonomy (if I set the abortion cutoff month too early)
2. Killing a baby (if I set the cutoff month too late)

In my view, killing a baby would be a worse disaster than denying a woman of their bodily autonomy, so I'll bias the cutoff month slightly lower to reflect that.  Basically I want to be confident that I'm not killing something that might be a person, or something similar to a person, or a baby.

The fact that contraception and emergency contraception are available as alternatives play a part in my reasoning as well.

Most rules have exceptions, so I wouldn't find it particularly shocking or remarkable if there are scenarios where a later term abortion may be justified.  eg. if the baby threatens the mothers life, then it may be justified as a self-defence killing regardless of how late term it is.  Or in the case of rape where the mother couldn't access contraception or emergency contraception, then a later abortion may be justified.  But how late am I willing to go?  Would I kill a baby a few weeks before birth if the mother was raped?

Also I think it's unwise to "shoot first and ask question later", so the burden of proof should be on the person who proposes to kill something.  I can't even kill a tree without getting approval from city council as it might be protected species or animal habitat.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

Joe Biden - it's all Putin's Fault.


----------



## DoctorBagPhD (Jun 24, 2022)

It really feels like the US is just a third-world country trying to masquerade as a first-world one. Dire education, dire public health & infrastructure, an evident lack of women's rights and not to mention so, so many mass shootings that it's almost comical.

It's starting to feel like the great experiment has failed. Land of the free my arsehole. Free to die in poverty, maybe.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> At some point between conception and birth I think the fetus/baby has a status or value that could be characterised as nontrivial.  I don't know exactly at which month of pregnancy this occurs


I agree.



NoobletCheese said:


> In the case of abortion, also two possibilities for disaster:
> 
> 1. Denying women of their bodily autonomy (if I set the abortion cutoff month too early)
> 2. Killing a baby (if I set the cutoff month too late)


An embryo is not a baby, but my significant rebuttals are below.



NoobletCheese said:


> In my view, killing a baby would be a worse disaster than denying a woman of their bodily autonomy,


New scenario. There's an organ shortage, and people are dying on the waiting list because there aren't enough organs to go around. The state could, however, forcibly compel people to donate organs like kidneys. There are two scenarios:

Deny people their bodily autonomy
Killing a person who needs an organ
Per your logic, #1 is preferable. Yikes. 



NoobletCheese said:


> The fact that contraception and emergency contraception are available as alternatives play a part in my reasoning as well.


These aren't as readily available as you think to some people in some areas. In addition, politicians are making access to contraception, particularly emergency contraception, more difficult and in some cases outright illegal. We don't even need to talk about the lack of sex education in the USA.

Whether or not contraception can be or was used is also irrelevant to the topic of bodily autonomy, unless you want to argue that a person who doesn't use contraception is also on the hook for being compelled by the state to donate a kidney to a stranger if/when the need arises.



NoobletCheese said:


> Most rules have exceptions, so I wouldn't find it particularly shocking or remarkable if there are scenarios where a later term abortion may be justified.  eg. if the baby threatens the mothers life, then it may be justified as a self-defence killing regardless of how late term it is.  Or in the case of rape where the mother couldn't access contraception or emergency contraception, then a later abortion may be justified.  But how late am I willing to go?  Would I kill a baby a few weeks before birth if the mother was raped?


A woman should have a right to bodily autonomy, which means she should be able to end a pregnancy at any point. If she terminates the pregnancy before fetal viability, it's an abortion. If she terminates after fetal viability, it's a birth.

If a fetus cannot survive outside the woman's body, that's too bad if the woman exerts her right to bodily autonomy, just like it would be too bad if you needed my kidney to survive and I said no.



NoobletCheese said:


> Also I think it's unwise to "shoot first and ask question later", so the burden of proof should be on the person who proposes to kill something.  I can't even kill a tree without getting approval from city council as it might be protected species or animal habitat.


"This embryo is siphoning resources from my body, it's causing irreparable and permanent changes to my body, and it has the potential to cause irreparable damage to my body or even kill me. I do not want this embryo inside me." That's more than enough of a justification for doing whatever she wants to her own body.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 24, 2022)

So much for separation of church and state.  And don't kid yourself, this absolutely comes down to religious beliefs.  If you believe that microscopic thing growing inside of you has a soul, then you consider abortion murder, and if you're Christian, you believe it has original sin and that's why it can't be killed.  Now, if you don't think it has a soul, you might recognize it as a murder, but a murder with no consequences to a thing with no feeling, awareness, or memories, really not even as bad then as stepping on bug.  Cool if you wish to believe such a thing has a soul, but messed up for the government to rule on that belief as fact.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

MikaDubbz said:


> So much for separation of church and state.  And don't kid yourself, this absolutely comes down to religious beliefs.  If you believe that microscopic thing growing inside of you has a soul, then you consider abortion murder, and if you're Christian, you believe it has original sin and that's why it can't be killed.  Now, if you don't think it has a soul, you might recognize it as a murder, but a murder with no consequences to a thing with no feeling, awareness, or memories, really not even as bad than stepping on bug.  Cool if you wish to believe such a thing has a soul, but messed up for the government to rule on that belief as fact.


Do you think you have a soul? If so at what point of your life did you get it? Did you think it was the instant you were born, what if you were born prematurely, would you not have a soul? Did you get your soul at 9 weeks, 17 weeks, 9 months?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Do you think you have a soul? If so at what point of your life did you get it? Did you think it was the instant you were born, what if you were born prematurely, would you not have a soul? Did you get your soul at 9 weeks, 17 weeks, 9 months?


There's no evidence the soul exists, and even if it did, and even if a fetus had one, it wouldn't be justification for anti-abortion laws.

If I needed your kidney to survive, you'd probably be pretty upset if the state forced you to donate it, even if you think I have a soul.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Do you think you have a soul? If so at what point of your life did you get it? Did you think it was the instant you were born, what if you were born prematurely, would you not have a soul? Did you get your soul at 9 weeks, 17 weeks, 9 months?


I genuinely have no idea.  And that really is a huge part of it.  We have no idea if a soul is a real thing even when we're alive, so why are we all then forced as a country to believe in such a religious idea is in effect in the womb, when supposedly there is supposed to be a separation of church and state?  I would love if the government ruled on things based on facts and data, while letting religions preach their views how they please.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> There's no evidence the soul exists, and even if it did, and even if a fetus had one, it wouldn't be justification for anti-abortion laws.
> 
> If I needed your kidney to survive, you'd probably be pretty upset if the state forced you to donate it, even if you think I have a soul.


There's a big differnce between defending someone from murdering a defenceless baby and someone trying to steal your kidney. Both are illegal - get over it you tyrant.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> There's a big differnce between defending someone from murdering a defenceless baby and someone trying to steal your kidney. Both are illegal - get over it you tyrant.


There's a big difference between a baby and newly fertilized egg too.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

MikaDubbz said:


> I genuinely have no idea.  And that really is a huge part of it.  We have no idea if a soul is a real thing even when we're alive, so why are we all then forced as a country to believe in such a religious idea is in effect in the womb, when supposedly there is supposed to be a separation of church and state?  I would love if the government ruled on things based on facts and data, while letting religions preach their views how they please.


All that's happened is it's now the decision of each state - if you don't like the laws of the state you live in you can always move to another state where you prefer the laws.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> All that's happened is it's now the decision of each state - if you don't like the laws of the state you live in you can always move to another state where you prefer the laws.


K.  What was wrong with the system we already had?  Why go back on a decision and in turn go against the very idea of the separation of church and state?


----------



## DoctorBagPhD (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Do you think you have a soul? If so at what point of your life did you get it? Did you think it was the instant you were born, what if you were born prematurely, would you not have a soul? Did you get your soul at 9 weeks, 17 weeks, 9 months?


They never got one at any point because they don't exist. Only people who believe in mad shit like talking snakes, dude's with donkey penises, rings-within-rings covered in eyes and not eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics think there's a magic ghost inside them. I guess the US christian right keep forgetting not only is there a recipe for inducing an abortion in the bible but god is pretty cool with *real* child murder as opposed to terminating a fetus (Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. -Psalm 137:9).


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 24, 2022)

I guess we should all consider ourselves 9 months older than we really are too.  I mean if it's murder, you can't have been killed at negative 8 months years old.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

MikaDubbz said:


> There's a big difference between a baby and newly fertilized egg too.


At what point does that fertilised egg that is a growing baby become a baby, the moment of fetilisation or after 9 weeks, what about 8 weeks and 6 days? The thing is, at some point the egg is classed as a human, where do you draw the line? Nobody can stop a women going to a place where abortion is legal - you can have the abortion there, or you can just not have sex, or use contraception, the morning after pill etc - there's lots of choices available.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> All that's happened is it's now the decision of each state


Just because the states are the ones taking away civil rights/bodily autonomy rights doesn't mean it's somehow a good thing.

States have also criminalized oral sex, interracial marriage, contraception, etc., and it took the courts to undo that.



mrdude said:


> if you don't like the laws of the state you live in you can always move to another state where you prefer the laws.


That's easier said than done for people who don't have the money or convenience to be able to move states. A person's right to bodily autonomy shouldn't depend on their ZIP code, lol.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> At what point does that fertilised egg that is a growing baby become a baby, the moment of fetilisation or after 9 weeks, what about 8 weeks and 6 days? The thing is, at some point the egg is classed as a human, where do you draw the line? Nobody can stop a women going to a place where abortion is legal - you can have the abortion there, or you can just not have sex, or use contraception, the morning after pill etc - there's lots of choices available.


See the fun part about trying to split these hairs is that they don't' even matter anymore.  They said all abortion is illegal, be it when they're a fetus or just a newly fertilized egg.  So while we could dwell on these questions, they make no difference to the outcome.  Though it is clearly wrong to label all abortions as the murder of babies (at negative X months old at that), when many abortions are just the dropping of a fertilized egg.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

DoctorBagPhD said:


> They never got one at any point because they don't exist. Only people who believe in mad shit like talking snakes, dude's with donkey penises, rings-within-rings covered in eyes and not eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics think there's a magic ghost inside them. I guess the US christian right keep forgetting not only is there a recipe for inducing an abortion in the bible but god is pretty cool with *real* child murder as opposed to terminating a fetus (Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. -Psalm 137:9).


What makes a person a person then? What is it about you tha's different from me, or your mum? Do you think nobody has a soul? or is it something else that makes people different - if so what do you call that. If someone you love dies why are you upset?


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Just because the states are the ones taking away civil rights/bodily autonomy rights doesn't mean it's somehow a good thing.
> 
> States have also criminalized oral sex, interracial marriage, contraception, etc., and it took the courts to undo that.
> 
> ...


If you don't have the money to go and visit another state - you really shouldn't be putting yourself in a position where you have unprotected sex, and if you do you should take the pill, the morning after pill and make sure the person you're having sex with is wearing a condom.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

MikaDubbz said:


> I guess we should all consider ourselves 9 months older than we really are too.  I mean if it's murder, you can't have been killed at negative 8 months years old.


So if you are a murderer and you murder an 8 month pregnant woman, in a civilised country you are murdering an unborn child and a woman - is this not the case, or do you only class the women as the one that would have been murdered and the child didn't matter because it wasn't born yet?


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

MikaDubbz said:


> K.  What was wrong with the system we already had?  Why go back on a decision and in turn go against the very idea of the separation of church and state?


All that's been done is it's now the states decision to make it's own laws and not the governments.


----------



## DoctorBagPhD (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> If someone you love dies why are you upset?


Because my brain released prolactin, adrenocorticotropic hormone, and Leu-enkephalin among other chemicals.

And no, nobody has a 'soul' in the biblical sense. If you want to talk about consciousness and the philosophy behind it then go right ahead but please stop trying to attribute such things to what some ancient fan-fiction that's been re-translated so many times it's like one of those hilarious google translate memes has to say.

People who're proud to believe in things without being presented any shred of evidence are fucking cretins. I have more respect for people that believe that UFOs are aliens than the majority of those following organised religion because hell, at least there's photographs of lights in the sky. Most religions just have some shitty old book.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> So if you are a murderer and you murder an 8 month pregnant woman, in a civilised country you are murdering an unborn child and a woman - is this not the case, or do you only class the women as the one that would have been murdered and the child didn't matter because it wasn't born yet?


You still have done nothing to excuse away the embracing of church and state here instead of the supposed separation that supposedly is meant to exist in this country.  I appreciate that you believe in the soul and you think this all murder and all that.  I'm sure this gels well with your own religious beliefs, but many people don't share these beliefs and nothing you can say will change how fucked up it is that the government is slamming religious beliefs down all our throats as if they're fact.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

I personally don't agree with abortion as a "Get out of jail free" card from one's irresponsible behavior and seeming inability abstain from sex if one isn't confident in the effectiveness of or outright doesn't want to use contraception methods such as condoms, birth control, pull out, etc. Nor do I like the fact that giving a no questions asked abortion enables those that engage in said behavior to continue their reckless lifestyle that one day may have larger implications and consequences than "oops I'm knocked up better go get an abortion"

But I also don't agree with the idea that the government can tell people what they can and cant do to themselves.

Weird position to be in.

All I can hope is that this will make people think a bit harder before they just bone down without even trying to prevent lifeforms that would eventually become a child from being created...but I guess there is always tourism if they absolutely must insist.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> All that's been done is it's now the states decision to make it's own laws and not the governments.


It's still in the hands of the government, just not the FEDERAL government, but the State government. 

You're illiterate, functionally and otherwise, and think you have the knowledge to debate this issue?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> At what point does that fertilised egg that is a growing baby become a baby


Fetal viability is a good standard, since it comports with a woman's bodily autonomy rights. One thing I can tell you for sure is a single-celled zygote should have zero rights, and to say otherwise is religious dogma being forced onto others.



mrdude said:


> Nobody can stop a women going to a place where abortion is legal - you can have the abortion there


Socioeconomic inequalities might be able to stop a woman from doing that. Your argument seems to be coming from a place of extreme privilege that lacks any real common sense about how the real world works.



mrdude said:


> or you can just not have sex


A human's sex drive, generally, is a biological drive comparable to the drive for food or water. Telling someone to just "not have sex" generally doesn't work, and telling someone to "just not have sex" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of sexuality and sex.



mrdude said:


> or use contraception


Good idea, but it's not readily available to everybody in every location, and sex education in this country is horrible. Right-wing politicians are also doing what they can to make contraception harder to get, if not outright illegal to get.



mrdude said:


> the morning after pill


Right-wing politicians are making this illegal in places where they haven't already done so. It also isn't readily available to everyone, and there's a narrow time window to use it.



mrdude said:


> What makes a person a person then? What is it about you tha's different from me, or your mum? Do you think nobody has a soul? or is it something else that makes people different - if so what do you call that. If someone you love dies why are you upset?


Human cognition, sapience, and consciousness. Nothing else matters.

Whether or not someone is a person with consciousness and sapience is also irrelevant to whether or not abortion should be legal. I am a human, and you should still be able to use your right to bodily autonomy to not have to donate a kidney to save me.



mrdude said:


> If you don't have the money to go and visit another state - you really shouldn't be putting yourself in a position where you have unprotected sex


See my above comments on how that's easier said than done. Also, perhaps the people who don't have the money to visit or move to another state shouldn't be forced by the dystopian right-wing state to carry a pregnancy to term, particular when the aforementioned society doesn't offer health care, maternity leave, childcare, etc.



mrdude said:


> and if you do you should take the pill, the morning after pill and make sure the person you're having sex with is wearing a condom.


See above.



mrdude said:


> So if you are a murderer and you murder an 8 month pregnant woman, in a civilised country you are murdering an unborn child and a woman - is this not the case, or do you only class the women as the one that would have been murdered and the child didn't matter because it wasn't born yet?


A fetus in this example is passed the point of fetal viability, so for all intents and purposes, it can be considered a baby. If I cause bodily harm to a 2-month pregnant woman and she miscarries, that matters because of what the pregnancy meant to the woman and her family, not because the embryo was a person.


----------



## rensenware (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> I personally don't agree with abortion as a "Get out of jail free" card from one's irresponsible behavior and seeming inability abstain from sex if one isn't confident in the effectiveness of or outright doesn't want to use contraception methods such as condoms, birth control, pull out, etc. Nor do I like the fact that giving a no questions asked abortion enables those that engage in said behavior to continue their reckless lifestyle that one day may have larger implications and consequences than "oops I'm knocked up better go get an abortion"
> 
> But I also don't agree with the idea that the government can tell people what they can and cant do to themselves.
> 
> ...


Abortion is something that is far more of a deliberate and potentially traumatic decision than you are making it out to be. The number of people that have this 'lifestyle' you're talking about is not large enough to where restricting or banning it for people that need it is anything but barbaric. Believe it or not, people often understand the implications of their actions.


----------



## g00s3y (Jun 24, 2022)

You can tell the  virgins on here who wish they could control women as much as they do in their hentai garbage they play on steam.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Would it continue being an issue, with you, if the Constitution was amended to protect women in that aspect?



Philosophically it would probably still continue being "an issue" with me, in the same way any other moral consideration is. But if the Constitution is amended, then it's amended. I would support such an amendment provided it is limited to pre-viability of the fetus and some very narrow other exceptions. And I'm not concerned with whether pro-lifers are "appeased" or not. If the process for amending the Constitution is followed, that's enough.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> I personally don't agree with abortion as a "Get out of jail free" card from one's irresponsible behavior and seeming inability abstain from sex if one isn't confident in the effectiveness of or outright doesn't want to use contraception methods such as condoms, birth control, pull out, etc. Nor do I like the fact that giving a no questions asked abortion enables those that engage in said behavior to continue their reckless lifestyle that one day may have larger implications and consequences than "oops I'm knocked up better go get an abortion"
> 
> But I also don't agree with the idea that the government can tell people what they can and cant do to themselves.
> 
> ...


I generally don't like abortion in the vast majority of cases, and if I were a woman and could get pregnant, I would probably never get an abortion under any circumstance unrelated to my health, but it isn't inconsistent to also say women should have legal access to abortion.

People are cosher for religious reasons, but they generally don't want to make that the law everyone has to follow. The same should go for abortion, regardless of your religious beliefs or how you personally feel about abortion.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> An embryo is not a baby



Elsewhere you defined a baby as coming into being at the moment of birth, and not before the moment of birth.  To me this is like saying a person wakes up on the morning of their birthday and suddenly has the ability to consent to sex.  I think it's more of a gradual process with a grey area that we can only approximate.   Are you morally comfortable killing the fetus a few days before birth?



Lacius said:


> New scenario. There's an organ shortage, and people are dying on the waiting list because there aren't enough organs to go around. The state could, however, forcibly compel people to donate organs like kidneys. There are two scenarios:
> 
> Deny people their bodily autonomy
> Killing a person who needs an organ
> Per your logic, #1 is preferable. Yikes.



I would rephrase the options like so:

1. Steal people's organs
2. Allow people to die of natural causes (organ failure)

Then the choice becomes a lot easier 



Lacius said:


> In addition, politicians are making access to contraception, particularly emergency contraception, more difficult and in some cases outright illegal.



I can't see a justification for that.



Lacius said:


> "This embryo is siphoning resources from my body, it's causing irreparable and permanent changes to my body, and it has the potential to cause irreparable damage to my body or even kill me. I do not want this embryo inside me." That's more than enough of a justification for doing whatever she wants to her own body.



I would need to see the logical steps and connectives between the premises and conclusions.  Can you express this as a valid & sound syllogism?


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

MikaDubbz said:


> You still have done nothing to excuse away the embracing of church and state here instead of the supposed separation that supposedly is meant to exist in this country.  I appreciate that you believe in the soul and you think this all murder and all that.  I'm sure this gels well with your own religious beliefs, but many people don't share these beliefs and nothing you can say will change how fucked up it is that the government is slamming religious beliefs down all our throats as if they're fact.


I'm not religious, in fact I am an Atheist, however that doen't mean I don't repect people having religious views and those that value unborn children. I don't know if a soul exists or not - but when you see someone that's alive and then look at them dead - you know they aren't sleeping and that their lifeforce/soul or whatever you want to call it has left their body.
As I already said - now it's up to each indidual state to make it's own laws up, which is not a bad thing, and if you want to get pregnant and then kill your baby well that's up to you because as far as I know you can still go to another state where abortion is legal, if you can't afford to do that - don't put yourself in that position.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> I'm not religious, in fact I am an Atheist, however that doen't mean I don't repect people having religious views and those that value unborn children. I don't know if a soul exists or not - but when you see someone that's alive and then look at them dead - you know they aren't sleeping and that their lifeforce/soul or whatever you want to call it has left their body.
> As I already said - now it's up to each indidual state to make it's own laws up, which is not a bad thing, and if you want to get pregnant and then kill your baby well that's up to you because as far as I know you can still go to another state where abortion is legal, if you can't afford to do that - don't put yourself in that position.


What you're doing is just shrugging off the fact that the church and state are in bed together, because it was only on a federal level and not a state level?  Do you realize how ridiculous a stance that is?  You're just straight up ok with that foundation of this country being destroyed, so long as its only on a federal level?  Man you would just roll over and happily let a tyrant take over, huh?

Also, hate to break it to ya, but you sound to be more agnostic than atheist, perhaps not in regard to a God, but atheists also don't believe in any supernatural beings including souls.  The fact that you're on the fence about that kind of idea makes you agnostic.


----------



## DoctorBagPhD (Jun 24, 2022)

g00s3y said:


> You can tell the  virgins on here who wish they could control women as much as they do in their hentai garbage they play on steam.


Absolutely beautiful lmao.

Let me have your baby (so I may then abort it).


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Elsewhere you defined a baby as coming into being at the moment of birth, and not before the moment of birth.


No I didn't.



NoobletCheese said:


> 1. Steal people's organs
> 2. Allow people to die of natural causes (organ failure)
> 
> Then the choice becomes a lot easier


Cool, I can play.


Violate a woman's bodily autonomy, force her through the psychological trauma of having no control over her own life or body, and force her to potentially die from a condition she didn't want to have
Allow a fetus to die of natural causes (being unable to survive outside a woman's womb)
You don't appear to be having this conversation in good faith.



NoobletCheese said:


> I would need to see the logical steps and connectives between the premises and conclusions.  Can you express this as a valid & sound syllogism?


Lol, if that's where you want to go, you first, but I can probably save you some grief by letting you know that you aren't going to like where this goes. When it comes to issues of legality, the onus is on the person saying X should be illegal to demonstrate why it should be illegal, not the other way around.



mrdude said:


> I'm not religious, in fact I am an Atheist, however that doen't mean I don't repect people having religious views and those that value unborn children. I don't know if a soul exists or not - but when you see someone that's alive and then look at them dead - you know they aren't sleeping and that their lifeforce/soul or whatever you want to call it has left their body.
> As I already said - now it's up to each indidual state to make it's own laws up, which is not a bad thing, and if you want to get pregnant and then kill your baby well that's up to you because as far as I know you can still go to another state where abortion is legal, if you can't afford to do that - don't put yourself in that position.


Respecting a person's religious beliefs and their right to have them is different from whether or not they should be able to force those beliefs down other people's throats through state law. If state law reflects those dogmatic religious beliefs, things look at lot less like the US and a lot more like Gilead.



mrdude said:


> those that value unborn children.


Real women > hypothetical children



mrdude said:


> now it's up to each indidual state to make it's own laws up, which is not a bad thing


If the laws are unjust, yeah it is. Just because a state can do something and does it doesn't mean it's morally justified.



mrdude said:


> and then kill your baby


A fetus is not a baby.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Respecting a person's religious beliefs and their right to have them is different from whether or not they should be able to force those beliefs down other people's throats through state law. If state law reflects those dogmatic religious beliefs, things look at lot less like the US and a lot more like Gilead.


Nobody is forcing religious beliefs on anyone. The power has now been given to indvidual states to make their own laws, which is how it should have been all along. If you want to live in a civil society you should follow the laws, if not you should move somewhere else so you can live according to your moral compass.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

rensenware said:


> Abortion is something that is far more of a deliberate and potentially traumatic decision than you are making it out to be. The number of people that have this 'lifestyle' you're talking about is not large enough to where restricting or banning it for people that need it is anything but barbaric. Believe it or not, people often understand the implications of their actions.


I can only speak on what I've personally seen with my own eyes.
There were plenty of girls in my High School getting pregnant, most of them got abortions for no other reason than and to quote one of them "fuck that I aint raising no snot nose little fucker that is going to ruin my life." or "I'd rather party than be a parent"

That's not an exaggeration those are actual quotes.

I'm not unsympathetic to those who find themselves in unfortunate situations such as Sexual Assault, Incest, or actually wanting to keep the baby, but doing so isn't viable for health or economic purposes. There are situations I can understand getting an abortion, and which I, much as I would like to see the children have a chance at life, can agree with.

Letting half the football team run a train on you with no protection is not one of those things.

That's just me though, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2022)

the Mississippi law prohibiting abortion after 15 weeks is less restrictive than the laws of France and Germany (12 wks). One of the deepest red states is in this sense more liberal than our West European friends. This is what people are freaking out about.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Nobody is forcing religious beliefs on anyone. The power has now been given to indvidual states to make their own laws, which is how it should have been all along. If you want to live in a civil society you should follow the laws, if not you should move somewhere else so you can live according to your moral compass.


Anti-abortion laws are, in fact, religious people forcing religious beliefs onto others.



mrdude said:


> If you want to live in a civil society you should follow the laws


What about when laws are unjust?



Valwinz said:


> the Mississippi law prohibiting abortion after 15 weeks is less restrictive than the laws of France and Germany (12 wks). One of the deepest red states is in this sense more liberal than our West European friends. This is what people are freaking out about.


You think that's where Mississippi is going to stop now that Roe is gone? Lol.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 24, 2022)

It is funny how the same people screaming about their rights being taken away are the same ones screaming at the top of their lungs tring to get  guns taken away (aka someone elses rights.) They want to be allowed to legally mass murder children but dont want you to be able to carry a concealed weapon (or any gun for that matter.) The difference is one of these things actually is hard written in the constitution and the other should be a fucking no brainer.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Anti-abortion laws are, in fact, religious people forcing religious beliefs onto others.
> 
> 
> What about when laws are unjust?
> ...


Move somewhere else if you don't like it, or these laws affect you and you can't deal with it - or abstain from Sex until you want a child.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

wartutor said:


> It is funny how the same people screaming about their rights being taken away are the same ones screaming at the top of their lungs tring to get  guns taken away (aka someone elses rights.) They want to be allowed to legally mass murder children but dont want you to be able to carry a concealed weapon (or any gun for that matter.) The difference is one of these things actually is hard written in the constitution and the other should be a fucking no brainer.


There's only one kind of situation in the US recently in which there was a "mass murder of children," and it had nothing to do with abortion.



mrdude said:


> Move somewhere else if you don't like it, or these laws affect you.


I've explained how moving out of state is easier said than done for a lot of people. You also didn't answer my question. Should I always follow the law, no matter what? Even when the law is unjust?

Spoiler: You made a stupid comment, and now you're trapped.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> There's only one kind of situation in the US recently in which there was a "mass murder of children," and it had nothing to do with abortion.
> 
> 
> I've explained how moving out of state is easier said than done for a lot of people. You also didn't answer my question. Should I always follow the law, no matter what? Even when the law is unjust?
> ...


Thousands apon thousands of children are aborted each day in the country what you are hinting at was what 24....drop in the liberal bucket when compaired. Blood is on the ground no matter how you look at it. If the one dont offend you then shut the fuck up about the other....there is little to no difference. Both involved killing the innocent.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> When it comes to issues of legality, the onus is on the person saying X should be illegal to demonstrate why it should be illegal, not the other way around.



Let x = murder.  Does a murderer have the burden to justify killing someone, or does the victim have to prove why they shouldn't?



> 2. Allow a fetus to die of *natural causes* (being unable to survive outside a woman's womb)



The definition of natural cause is too broad here I think.  I could breed fish, take them out of water and say they died of natural causes.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Thousands apon thousands of children are aborted each day in the country what you are hinting at was what 24....drop in the liberal bucket when compaired. Blood is on the ground no matter how you look at it. If the one dont offend you then shut the fuck up about the other....there is little to no difference. Both involved killing the innocent.


Children don't get aborted. Fetuses and embryos do.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Let x = murder.


'Kay?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Thousands apon thousands of children are aborted each day in the country what you are hinting at was what 24....drop in the liberal bucket when compaired. Blood is on the ground no matter how you look at it. If the one dont offend you then shut the fuck up about the other....there is little to no difference. Both involved killing the innocent.



And yet Republicans are set to extinguish the rights of women instead of restricting gun laws to prevent the other "mass killing of innocent children". 

So it seems like the agenda is to force birth these children so we can shoot them later. Can't wait to cast my Republican vote in two years.


----------



## mightymuffy (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> A fetus is not a baby.


I'm gonna abstain from most of this subject coz... woah.... but, whilst I actually agree with some of what you've said on here (a feat in itself coming from you) ...I'm guessing you're telling us at a certain point, probably number of days, a little bundle of flesh magically transforms into a 'baby'? Is this at a certain exact time? Like the strike of midnight? As in, do little fairies fly down from the rainbow of life or summat, and wiggle their arses in front of the mums belly until a little light passes through and hey presto we have a baby?!

No no, I'm teasing I suppose, let me guess, this is what your favourite scientist has told you? As in this is scientifically accurate no? Remember "Science doesn't know anything, otherwise it would stop"  I'm not completely disagreeing, I guess there's maybe.... some... evidence to support the whole 'transition' between 'fetus' and 'baby', cognitive development, etcetc, but try to actually read what you're fukkin typing here - how can any of us actually determine when a baby is a baby? Even the greatest scientific minds?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

mightymuffy said:


> I'm gonna abstain from most of this subject coz... woah.... but, whilst I actually agree with some of what you've said on here (a feat in itself coming from you) ...I'm guessing you're telling us at a certain point, probably number of days, a little bundle of flesh magically transforms into a 'baby'? Is this at a certain exact time? Like the strike of midnight? As in, do little fairies fly down from the rainbow of life or summat, and wiggle their arses in front of the mums belly until a little light passes through and hey presto we have a baby?!
> 
> No no, I'm teasing I suppose, let me guess, this is what your favourite scientist has told you? As in this is scientifically accurate no? Remember "Science doesn't know anything, otherwise it would stop"  I'm not completely disagreeing, I guess there's maybe.... some... evidence to support the whole 'transition' between 'fetus' and 'baby', cognitive development, etcetc, but try to actually read what you're fukkin typing here - how can any of us actually determine when a baby is a baby? Even the greatest scientific minds?


There is no magical time at which a fetus becomes a baby. I am fine with treating it like a baby around the time of fetal viability, since that is when it has autonomy.

If you want to talk about little fairies flying down and sprinkling magic glitter on a pregnant woman, talk to those who think the soul begins magically at conception.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 24, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Thousands apon thousands of children are aborted each day in the country what you are hinting at was what 24....drop in the liberal bucket when compaired. Blood is on the ground no matter how you look at it. If the one dont offend you then shut the fuck up about the other....there is little to no difference. Both involved killing the innocent.


See the problem is equating an unfeeling, unknowing, unaware being with that of a child that has lived a few years is inherently impossible.

Now if we all agreed that every fertilized egg instantly has something like a soul and that every soul is initially damned before it is baptized, then I can see how there should be concern there.  Maybe that's true, but there has yet to be proof of it, and therein lies the problem.  Because even if it is murder, who is being hurt?  The being wont feel it and it's soul I don't believe is inherently damned if the soul does indeed exist.  It feels more appropriate almost to protest the many times I've stepped on ants and spiders in my life.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

mightymuffy said:


> I'm gonna abstain from most of this subject coz... woah.... but, whilst I actually agree with some of what you've said on here (a feat in itself coming from you) ...I'm guessing you're telling us at a certain point, probably number of days, a little bundle of flesh magically transforms into a 'baby'? Is this at a certain exact time? Like the strike of midnight? As in, do little fairies fly down from the rainbow of life or summat, and wiggle their arses in front of the mums belly until a little light passes through and hey presto we have a baby?!
> 
> No no, I'm teasing I suppose, let me guess, this is what your favourite scientist has told you? As in this is scientifically accurate no? Remember "Science doesn't know anything, otherwise it would stop"  I'm not completely disagreeing, I guess there's maybe.... some... evidence to support the whole 'transition' between 'fetus' and 'baby', cognitive development, etcetc, but try to actually read what you're fukkin typing here - how can any of us actually determine when a baby is a baby? Even the greatest scientific minds?



Is there a point to this nonsense beside the obvious attempt at trolling with condescending whataboutism and strawman statements?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

MikaDubbz said:


> Now if we all agreed that every fertilized egg instantly has something like a soul and that every soul is initially damned before it is baptized, then I can see how there should be concern there.



And you would be wrong anyway, Pope Benedict established that Limbo doesn't exist anymore or, if it does, unbaptised children do not go there anyway, they are directly sent to Heaven.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And you would be wrong anyway, Pope Benedict established that Limbo doesn't exist anymore or, if it does, unbaptised children do not go there anyway, they are directly sent to Heaven.


Ah, well I haven't kept up.  So all the more my point.  If the soul isn't even in danger here. What is the issue?  The life being lost hasn't experienced anything and wont feel anything.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

It's not illegal and the fact you and probably hundreds of millions of people think it is says everything you need to know about the propaganda being peddled about this decision


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> It's not illegal and the fact you and probably hundreds of millions of people think it is says everything you need to know about the propaganda being peddled about this decision



It's already illegal in some states and the GQP said federal ban was the ultimate plan. Clutching at straws, that is what you're doing.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> There's only one kind of situation in the US recently in which there was a "mass murder of children," and it had nothing to do with abortion.
> 
> 
> I've explained how moving out of state is easier said than done for a lot of people. You also didn't answer my question. Should I always follow the law, no matter what? Even when the law is unjust?
> ...



Have you got figures for number of aborted babies and number of children killed with assault rifles?

Can you post those please. Thanks.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> It's not illegal and the fact you and probably hundreds of millions of people think it is says everything you need to know about the propaganda being peddled about this decision


It's now illegal in some states, and the list of states is growing. There has also already been talk about Republicans making it illegal nationwide if they get control of Congress and the presidency.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Have you got figures for number of aborted babies and number of children killed with assault rifles?
> 
> Can you post those please. Thanks.



Why would anyone indulge in your nonsense? Pathetic attempt at sealioning.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Have you got figures for number of aborted babies and number of children killed with assault rifles?
> 
> Can you post those please. Thanks.


Babies don't get aborted; fetuses and embryos are aborted.

Why would I care how many embryos are aborted? They aren't school children being gunned down in their classrooms.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Why would anyone indulge in your nonsense? Pathetic attempt at sealioning.



So like 1,000,000:1 then?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> So like 1,000,000:1 then?


You might as well be asking how many conceptions don't happen because of condoms vs. how many children die from gun violence? Who cares? It's irrelevant as well as whataboutism.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> So like 1,000,000:1 then?



Clearly, neither maths nor logic are strong with you.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> It's not illegal and the fact you and probably hundreds of millions of people think it is says everything you need to know about the propaganda being peddled about this decision


It's now illegal in some states, but it's up to each state to make their own laws so it will become illegal in more states, I can imagine there will be a few tantrums and some will be offended on the behalf of others.
There will also be pregnant woman from today that were thinking about having an abortion that won't - these kids will be born, grow up and be happy that they weren't murdered before they were born and their kids and grandkids will grow up in the future and will be running the show when most of the people on this forum are dead or shitting their pants in an old folks home.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Yes, I meant to say it isn't illegal "nationwide"

In the interest of fairness and democracy shouldn't they just have a 50 state referendum and put it to the people in each state to vote whether it should be legal or not? Let the people decide.

Rather than just yoyoing back in forth by stacking the supreme court.


----------



## rensenware (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> It's now illegal in some states, but it's up to each state to make their own laws so it will become illegal in more states, I can imagine there will be a few tantrums and some will be offended on the behalf of others.
> There will also be pregnant woman from today that were thinking about having an abortion that won't - these kids will be born, grow up and be happy that they weren't murdered before they were born and their kids and grandkids will grow up in the future and will be running the show when most of the people on this forum are dead or shitting their pants in an old folks home.


The reality is that unwanted babies are more often than not raised by those without the financial security or emotional state to raise a child effectively.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Have you got figures for number of aborted babies and number of children killed with assault rifles?
> 
> Can you post those please. Thanks.



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...EQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw37W0mJ8PkwYT1sI2ck1gPe

https://violence.chop.edu/gun-violence-facts-and-statistics

Now what?


----------



## mightymuffy (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> There is no magical time at which a fetus becomes a baby. I am fine with treating it like a baby around the time of fetal viability, since that is when it has autonomy.
> 
> If you want to talk about little fairies flying down and sprinkling magic glitter on a pregnant woman, talk to those who think the soul begins magically at conception.


A fair comment. You agree with the man in the white overall, fair enough - I'm not disagreeing with him, I'm merely pointing out, in a touchy subject like this, 'a fetus is not a baby' - ?? - I wouldn't say it like that whether I believed it or not. And neither would the man in the white overall.... this topic doesn't need stoking.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> It's now illegal in some states, but it's up to each state to make their own laws so it will become illegal in more states, I can imagine there will be a few tantrums and some will be offended on the behalf of others.
> There will also be pregnant woman from today that were thinking about having an abortion that won't - these kids will be born, grow up and be happy that they weren't murdered before they were born and their kids and grandkids will grow up in the future and will be running the show when most of the people on this forum are dead or shitting their pants in an old folks home.


Or the women will run into a point where they can't or don't want to take care of the child and rather than dropping it off at the orphanage it'll grow up under constant stress from financial factors, psychological and emotional factors, and otherwise probably end up either shooting a school or committing suicide. But who cares? All life is precious if it comes from controlling someone else.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> There will also be pregnant woman from today that were thinking about having an abortion that won't.


There will be pregnant women from today that were thinking about having an abortion, live in a state where they can't, and so they will get seriously sick or die when they try to have one in a dirty motel anyway.



mrdude said:


> There will also be pregnant woman from today that were thinking about having an abortion that won't - these kids will be born, grow up and be happy that they weren't murdered before they were born and their kids and grandkids will grow up in the future and will be running the show when most of the people on this forum are dead or shitting their pants in an old folks home.


In a world where contraception becomes illegal:

There will also be women from today who were thinking about having sex with an IUD who will have sex without one - these kids will be born, grow up and be happy that they weren't murdered before they were born and their kids and grandkids will grow up in the future and will be running the show when most of the people on this forum are dead or shitting their pants in an old folks home.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

rensenware said:


> The reality is that unwanted babies are more often than not raised by those without the financial security or emotional state to raise a child effectively.


That's true and some of these kids will be adopted by people that can't have kids and will love them, others will be put into care homes. orphaniges etc - but once they are mature enough to look after themselves at least they can have a choice on how to live their lives. Some will go on the be good/great people while some others will be degenrates - just the same as everyone that's been foturate enough to have been born and survived to adulthood has had a choice on how they want to live their life, at least that choice won't be taken from some of them.


----------



## appleburger (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I think you've misunderstood the comparison.
> 
> The fetus is the stranger who needs the organ, the kidney-removal is the pregnancy, and the person unwillingly giving up a kidney is the woman being unable to have an abortion under state law.
> 
> ...


Oh, you're right - I definitely read that wrong.  Yes, that makes perfect sense.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jun 24, 2022)

I think this is a reason for women to use their 2nd amendment rights. Get ready, agree on a date, and march out together on a job day carrying guns to parliamentary buildings and to courts.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...EQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw37W0mJ8PkwYT1sI2ck1gPe
> 
> https://violence.chop.edu/gun-violence-facts-and-statistics
> 
> Now what?


It says 600,000 abortions on average

I mean, your second link don't have any sort of accurate data for children murdered but its certainly less than 600,000


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Or the women will run into a point where they can't or don't want to take care of the child and rather than dropping it off at the orphanage it'll grow up under constant stress from financial factors, psychological and emotional factors,


I was a planned and wanted pregnancy and that still happened. Life can be unfair sometimes. I'm still happy I had the chance to live, despite having dropped the ball several times, growing up in borderline squalor and being severely depressed as an adult, needing pharmaceuticals and the occasional joint to keep myself stable.



Dark_Phoras said:


> I think this is a reason for women to use their 2nd amendment rights. Get ready, agree on a date, and march out together on a job day carrying guns to parliamentary buildings and to courts.


Great way to put yourself in a grave or a prison cell. But hey, your body your choice right? Fell free to choose how you waste your life.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Great way to put yourself in a grave or a prison cell. But hey, your body your choice right? Fell free to choose how you waste your life.



Alt-right and Trumpeters have done it for years and nothing happened to them. If it's a right, it's a right for everyone, not only for who you'd like it to be.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> It's now illegal in some states, but it's up to each state to make their own laws so it will become illegal in more states, I can imagine there will be a few tantrums and some will be offended on the behalf of others.
> There will also be pregnant woman from today that were thinking about having an abortion that won't - these kids will be born, grow up and be happy that they weren't murdered before they were born and their kids and grandkids will grow up in the future and will be running the show when most of the people on this forum are dead or shitting their pants in an old folks home.



Only to get shot at school. Because once they're born, who cares. You're evil and delusional.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> There will be pregnant women from today that were thinking about having an abortion, live in a state where they can't, and so they will get seriously sick or die when they try to have one in a dirty motel anyway..


If abortion is illegal in your state then go to the state to your left where it's legal, or the one to your right. Or the one above, or the one below.

I have no idea why people expect the right to have unfettered 24/7 drive thru access to abortion.

Oh no I have to travel 3 hours to have my unborn child killed rather than 20 minutes.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Children don't get aborted. Fetuses and embryos do.



So the mods would be perfectly ok with photos being posted here of little human body chunks, severed human limbs, eyeballs dangling from semi-skinned skulls, etc? The products of late 2nd trimester, early 3rd trimester abortions. Those chunks of human flesh and bone and organs aren't and weren't persons according to your defintion, so there shouldn't be anything offensive or objectionable about images like that, right?

I know better and you do too. There's a reason such images are taboo everywhere. There's a reason people don't want to be made aware of what it looks like.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Only to get shot at school. Because once they're born, who cares. You're evil and delusional.


I don't do drugs so I have no idea what trippy level your brain was at when you posted this. I'm sure in your own head it makes sense, I'll just reply with - wibble!


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> Alt-right and Trumpeters have done it for years and nothing happened to them. If it's a right, it's a right for everyone, not only for who you'd like it to be.


They deserve the same thing. It's not political.
But it's no secret that the government is corrupt, and the corruption can and had benefitted both of the two major sides of the political spectrum.

Unless your neither Red nor Blue, to say your party of choice hasn't engaged or benefitted from corruption is to willingly close your eyes and plug your ears. The only reason other political parties, Green and such, don't tend to get to enjoy the same corruption is simply because most people don't care about them enough to put them in positions of power, not because they are above it or wouldn't turn a blind eye to questionable means.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jun 24, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> So the mods would be perfectly ok with photos being posted here of little human body chunks, severed human limbs, eyeballs dangling from semi-skinned skulls, etc? The product of late 2nd trimester, early 3rd trimester abortions. Those chunks of human flesh and bone and organs aren't and weren't persons according to your defintion, so there shouldn't be anything offensive or objectionable about images like that, right?
> 
> I know better and you do too. There's a reason such images are taboo everywhere. There's a reason people don't want to be made aware of what it looks like.



Pictures of periods and poops are also taboo to post...


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> Pictures of periods and poops are also taboo to post...



Not for the same reason. Your being obtuse if you're seriously suggesting otherwise.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Wow, bunch incel fucks in here.

Let me break it down:  This isn't about life, its about control.  As many posts have stated, this is only the beginning.  Also, if you don't have a uterus, you really shouldn't be making any decisions about people's bodies who have a uterus.  it's not that hard.

Some of you say birth control is the way to go.  Female birth control severely fucks with hormones and can cause a lot of issues. Condoms and other non-hormone based contraceptives are not 100 percent effective either, and guess what, I'm pretty sure if someone's forcing themselves on someone, they don't typically give a shit about protection.  

You can't even get a historectomy in this country without a "good reason" (and a lot of times, it requires a fucking husband to sign off, and to have at least a kid or two, and that's fucking disgusting)  but people with penises can get a vasectomy at any point.  Adding on to the "it's about control point"

A embryo isn't alive until it's born by definition,  if that bothers you then that's fine, but it's not up to your moral compass to make a definition, or to control someone else's body.  

Also, are you going to pull a tapeworm out of you?  it's alive, and it requires your body to live.  if you cherish life so much then let that tapeworm suck you dry.  An embryo by all definitions is a parasite until birth. 

Lastly,  and this is the one I have to stress the most.  forcing people to have kids is a bad idea.  Some people make mistakes, and then if they can't choose, then they have to raise a kid and totally fuck them up.  That kid has a high statistic of either killing itself anyway, or hurting others because it didn't get the proper care it needed, because it's parent wasn't fit to be a parent.  If it would have been aborted before that, it woudln't have even known it was alive, didn't have to feel the pain of being an unwanted child.

FFS y'all need to grow up and stop acting like you have a choice in their bodies.  

also, all of this is coming from a cis white male.  so if I can understand that, then the rest of you incel fucks can too.


----------



## Deleted member 481923 (Jun 24, 2022)

Most of the degenerates who are freaking out about this already live in a craphole that will always allow abortions, so what's the problem?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> If abortion is illegal in your state then go to the state to your left where it's legal, or the one to your right. Or the one above, or the one below.
> 
> I have no idea why people expect the right to have unfettered 24/7 drive thru access to abortion.
> 
> Oh no I have to travel 3 hours to have my unborn child killed rather than 20 minutes.



The entitlement and selfishness I swear. I pity that poor girl who has the misfortune of being with you.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> Pictures of periods and poops are also taboo to post...


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

wizwuz said:


> Most of the degenerates who are freaking out about this already live in a craphole that will always allow abortions, so what's the problem?


Not true by any means.  I care a whole lot and my state's getting ready to vote to ban abortions.


----------



## Deleted member 481923 (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> The entitlement and selfishness I swear. I pity that poor girl who has the misfortune of being with you.


It's not like a baby is born in a week.  There's plenty of time to go kill it.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> The entitlement and selfishness I swear. I pity that poor girl who has the misfortune of being with you.


At least his kid would have a better survival chance.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

wizwuz said:


> Most of the degenerates who are freaking out about this already live in a craphole that will always allow abortions, so what's the problem?



Degenerate? The only degenerates I see here are those anti-abortion creeps who think they're entitled to women's bodies. Like you.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> If abortion is illegal in your state then go to the state to your left where it's legal, or the one to your right. Or the one above, or the one below.
> 
> I have no idea why people expect the right to have unfettered 24/7 drive thru access to abortion.
> 
> Oh no I have to travel 3 hours to have my unborn child killed rather than 20 minutes.


You can see my earlier post for why that's easier said than done for many women. You can also see my earlier post for how Republicans are already talking about banning it nationwide if they take Congress and the presidency.

We are also talking about trips and round-trips far longer than 3 hours in many cases, trips that are near impossible for some women.

You seem to be looking at this topic from the point of view of someone with a lot of privilege and little understanding of how the real world works.



Hanafuda said:


> So the mods would be perfectly ok with photos being posted here of little human body chunks, severed human limbs, eyeballs dangling from semi-skinned skulls, etc? The products of late 2nd trimester, early 3rd trimester abortions. Those chunks of human flesh and bone and organs aren't and weren't persons according to your defintion, so there shouldn't be anything offensive or objectionable about images like that, right?
> 
> I know better and you do too. There's a reason such images are taboo everywhere. There's a reason people don't want to be made aware of what it looks like.


Nobody wants to see pictures of you taking a shit, but that doesn't mean we're going to ban toilets.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jun 24, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Not for the same reason. Your being obtuse if you're seriously suggesting otherwise.



Tell me the difference, then.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

wizwuz said:


> It's not like a baby is born in a week.  There's plenty of time to go kill it.



You can't kill something that isn't alive. And it takes time to detect a pregnancy.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

wizwuz said:


> Most of the degenerates who are freaking out about this already live in a craphole that will always allow abortions, so what's the problem?


My state banned abortion already.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> At least his kid would have a better survival chance.


To live a short life of misery before being shot at a school. Because in your America, guns have more rights than women.


----------



## Deleted member 481923 (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Degenerate? The only degenerates I see here are those anti-abortion creeps who think they're entitled to women's bodies. Like you.


I don't really care about abortion.  When I see the type of people out marching around, I totally do not want them to reproduce.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> To live a short life of misery before being shot at a school. Because in your America, guns have more rights than women.


Or killing themselves because their parents didn't want them and take their anger out on the kid.  It's pretty gross tbh


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

wizwuz said:


> I don't really care about abortion.


And yet you're here vocally expressing your opinion, therefore either you're a narcissist with a constant need to be engaged with, or a liar.


wizwuz said:


> When I see the type of people out marching around, I totally do not want them to reproduce.


We would all be better off if religious nutcases and GQP traitors didn't reproduce.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You can't kill something that isn't alive. And it takes time to detect a pregnancy.


At what poin does it become alive, do you think the egg is dead and the sperm is  dead - before the egg is fertalised does it just come alive after 6 weeks or something, or do you think the cells are alive from day 1 when they start to divide?


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> All that's happened is it's now the decision of each state - if you don't like the laws of the state you live in you can always move to another state where you prefer the laws.


That's not an option for 99% of the damn country dude. Come back to reality, the vast, VAST majority cannot afford to do that financially. You know what people opposed to abortion could do before this happened? Not get a fucking abortion.



mrdude said:


> At what point does that fertilised egg that is a growing baby become a baby, the moment of fetilisation or after 9 weeks, what about 8 weeks and 6 days? The thing is, at some point the egg is classed as a human, where do you draw the line? Nobody can stop a women going to a place where abortion is legal - you can have the abortion there, or you can just not have sex, or use contraception, the morning after pill etc - there's lots of choices available.


Actually yeah several states have passed laws to stop exactly that.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> At what poin does it become alive, do you think the egg is dead and the sperm is  dead - before the egg is fertalised does it just come alive after 6 weeks or something, or do you think the cells are alive from day 1 when they start to divide?


By all accounts the sperm and the egg were never alive to begin with.  it takes both cells to perform meiosis...  

also, there's a definite definition, and a fetus doesn't become a baby until it's born.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

mituzora said:


> Wow, bunch incel fucks in here.
> 
> Let me break it down:  This isn't about life, its about control.  As many posts have stated, this is only the beginning.  Also, if you don't have a uterus, you really shouldn't be making any decisions about people's bodies who have a uterus.  it's not that hard.
> 
> ...



"Killing babies isn't about killing babies it's actually about controlling women, incel!"

Okay, sweetheart.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> At what poin does it become alive, do you think the egg is dead and the sperm is  dead - before the egg is fertalised does it just come alive after 6 weeks or something, or do you think the cells are alive from day 1 when they start to divide?


An amoeba is alive yet you wouldn't call it murder if you squashed one, would you?


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> "Killing babies isn't about killing babies it's actually about controlling women, incel!"
> 
> Okay, sweetheart.


nothing logical to add.  didin't think so.  

okay incel.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Killing babies isn't about killing babies


A foetus isn't a baby, no matter how many times you repeat it, jack***. It's a well known tactic of your side, not gonna fool anyone here.


----------



## Deleted member 481923 (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Degenerate? The only degenerates I see here are those anti-abortion creeps who think they're entitled to women's bodies. Like you.


I misspoke.  I shouldn't have used the word 'degenerate'.  There are plenty of legit abortions.  Im talking about the people who use abortion a birth control.
This is no better than someone just assuming I am a 'white trumper' because I think differently.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> You know what people opposed to abortion could do before this happened? Not get a fucking abortion


Odds are though is they took 5 seconds to put a condom on for take a pill. Try to prevent the need for an abortion before it arose.

It might not be 100% effective, but at least they tried unlike the party girls at my high school I mentioned in a previous post, who didn't care because "oh! I don't have to sacrifice my irresponsible life style! Mommy and Daddy will pay for an abortion so I can have my cake and eat it!"


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> We would all be better off if religious nutcases and GQP traitors didn't reproduce.


People in every country have been religious since time began, for thousands of years every civilisation has had it's own gods and own religions - you are the end product from one of these ancestors that you have that have been religious. If they didn't reproduce you me and every single person on the planet wouldn't be here and the human race would be long extinct.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> "Killing babies isn't about killing babies it's actually about controlling women, incel!"
> 
> Okay, sweetheart.


Luckily, for those of us living in reality, a zygote isn't a baby.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Odds are though is they took 5 seconds to put a condom on for take a pill. Try to prevent the need for an abortion before it arose.
> 
> It might not be 100% effective, but at least they tried unlike the party girls at my high school I mentioned in a previous post...


So going back to my previous post, it's about using children as a punishment then. You didn't do X, therefore your punishment is Y. And when that's your stance, you forfeit the "pro life" and "the babies are sacred" arguments because you openly admitted its about control and punishment.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> It says 600,000 abortions on average
> 
> I mean, your second link don't have any sort of accurate data for children murdered but its certainly less than 600,000


Because you're not going to get accurate statistics on children murdered by assault rifles. It's too narrow among a broad range of what is considered an assault rifle and by extension, how these sites define concepts like murder, gun violence, and child.



Elodain said:


> I was a planned and wanted pregnancy and that still happened. Life can be unfair sometimes. I'm still happy I had the chance to live, despite having dropped the ball several times, growing up in borderline squalor and being severely depressed as an adult, needing pharmaceuticals and the occasional joint to keep myself stable.



I was an unplanned pregnancy that was unwanted at time of actual birth, when they found out I wasn't the gender they wanted. Instead of giving me up for adoption, they stuck by their Christian values and kept me, subjecting me to a life of abuse in many forms.  Do I wish I had been aborted? Irrelevant, because I made my life happier, something many other people having gone through similar experiences never achieve. But if I had been? Who cares. Would've saved me years of suffering.

While I applaud your resistance and hope you continue to prosper, I don't (and can't,) hold my biased beliefs to other people and their lives. What women do with their bodies and whatever stage of development their fetus may be in is no one's business but theirs, and detracting from that in any way is a gross invasion of privacy, at best.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> A foetus isn't a baby, no matter how many times you repeat it, jack***. It's a well known tactic of your side, not gonna fool anyone here.


If I run up to a pregnant woman and punt her in the gut and she misscarries did I just kill her baby/unborn child?

Or did I just kill "a clump of cells" or whatever it is you psychotics claim it is.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> So going back to my previous post, it's about using children as a punishment then. You didn't do X, therefore your punishment is Y. And when that's your stance, you forfeit the "pro life" and "the babies are sacred" arguments because you openly admitted its about control and punishment.


I'd like to add that it's just punishing the working class mind you because I guarantee you the upper class will still have safe options to remove unwanted embryos.  I think it's more about control than punishment personally, but I agree at the same time


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Because you're not going to get accurate statistics on children murdered by assault rifles. It's too narrow among a broad range of what is considered an assault rifle and by extension, how these sites define concepts like murder, gun violence, and child.


Why can't we get that? Shouldn't it be incredibly easy? It's literally less than 100 a year.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Odds are though is they took 5 seconds to put a condom on for take a pill. Try to prevent the need for an abortion before it arose.
> 
> It might not be 100% effective, but at least they tried unlike the party girls at my high school I mentioned in a previous post, who didn't care because "oh! I don't have to sacrifice my irresponsible life style! Mommy and Daddy will pay for an abortion so I can have my cake and eat it!"


Contraception is not readily accessible for everyone, sex education in the US is a joke because of the political right, and the political right is trying to reduce or eliminate access to many forms of contraception.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Nobody is forcing religious beliefs on anyone. The power has now been given to indvidual states to make their own laws, which is how it should have been all along. If you want to live in a civil society you should follow the laws, if not you should move somewhere else so you can live according to your moral compass.


Let me get this straight. about 60% of americans want roe v wade to remain. This in turn results in states, not being able to stop abortions. The crowd of people who are anti aborition are not only historically, but also most commonly christian.
You just had this same supreme court, force state legislature to provide funding to religious schools, since nearly all of them in some compacity will fund public schools.

So just on that decision alone, it's pretty clear it's religious reasons to ban abortion, one of you littearly started ask if we have a soul. So let me repeat this. 40% of people just forced a decision on the remaining populous that opens them up to not being able to do what they considered a right for several decades.
_How is this not forcing_
Edit:
Sure your not pointing a goddamn gun at our head, but your threatening the remaining 60% with incarceration and oppertinuities to be fined and imprisoned for it. This is force


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> If I run up to a pregnant woman and punt her in the gut and she misscarries did I just kill her baby/unborn child?
> 
> Or did I just kill "a clump of cells" or whatever it is you psychotics claim it is.


You probably killed her, you psychotic numbskull.

Also, pregnant for how long? One day, one week, one month? I appreciate your smooth brain lacks acumen, but even so you should at least attempt to be precise.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> People in every country have been religious since time began, for thousands of years every civilisation has had it's own gods and own religions - you are the end product from one of these ancestors that you have that have been religious. If they didn't reproduce you me and every single person on the planet wouldn't be here and the human race would be long extinct.


This is wholly irrelevant to the point that was being made.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> You didn't do X, therefore your punishment is Y.


Going back to my previous post, in a situation where abortion is a tool to abuse when you just don't want to deal with something you could have easily prevented it...yeah.

I'm not against abortion as a whole, I'm against abortion being used to escape the consequences of your dumb actions.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> If I run up to a pregnant woman and punt her in the gut and she misscarries did I just kill her baby/unborn child?
> 
> Or did I just kill "a clump of cells" or whatever it is you psychotics claim it is.


I'm fairly certain, from a legal standpoint, that you would only be charged for assault/battery of the woman and any mental distress your actions cause. Similarly, you can't claim the so called "baby" on your taxes or collect child support for it, until it's born.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> If I run up to a pregnant woman and punt her in the gut and she misscarries did I just kill her baby/unborn child?
> 
> Or did I just kill "a clump of cells" or whatever it is you psychotics claim it is.


Seeing that y'all always like to claim laws.  It depends.  there's states who definitely have laws against unborn children and hurting them.

but moving away from laws,  it's called assault, you dick.  Why would you randomly punch someone in the gut?


----------



## Deleted member 481923 (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And yet you're here vocally expressing your opinion, therefore either you're a narcissist with a constant need to be engaged with, or a liar.
> 
> We would all be better off if religious nutcases and GQP traitors didn't reproduce.


Actually, you could probobaly see that my post count has been like 5 in however many years I've been here.  Im just sick of all the far left crap on the forum whenever I visit the homepage.  Like an idiot I decided to click on it today.  This is the most posts I've ever had on a forum.  
Also, Im not religious and am an independant.  Why does everyone left of center just assume everyone else is a gun-toting, truck riding, country loving, hillbilly.  There are more than just 2 types of people in this world.

Edit:  I clicked on this forum because it falsely said that abortion is illegal in the US.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Contraception is not readily accessible for everyone, sex education in the US is a joke because of the political right, and the political right is trying to reduce or eliminate access to many forms of contraception.


I've never used a condom.
To my awareness none of the girls I've slept with were on birth control.

That might make me a bit of a hypocrite but...

I know how to pull out, or stop having sex before I'm so close to finishing I cant get out in time...It's not as hard as some people like to think it is.

Pulling out is free and every man is capable of it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Why can't we get that? Shouldn't it be incredibly easy? It's literally less than 100 a year.



Pull the statistic then. But even if you're right on the money, I thought all life was precious? 



Purple_Shyguy said:


> If abortion is illegal in your state then go to the state to your left where it's legal, or the one to your right. Or the one above, or the one below.
> 
> I have no idea why people expect the right to have unfettered 24/7 drive thru access to abortion.
> 
> Oh no I have to travel 3 hours to have my unborn child killed rather than 20 minutes.



Remember that the next time you need a life saving operation that your local hospital isn't equipped to deal with.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Going back to my previous post, in a situation where abortion is a tool to abuse when you just don't want to deal with something you could have easily prevented it...yeah.
> 
> I'm not against abortion as a whole, I'm against abortion being used to escape the consequences of your dumb actions.


Okay, so where is the cut off then? Just birth? Seems arbitrary. If you kid is born with health issues and needs one of your organs, can you force that too? I mean, that kid was born as "the consequences of your dumb actions". And if you expand it to include forced organ donation to your children, does it still only apply to the woman or does it now apply to the man who fathered the child as well?

But again, you don't give a damn about the child at all. You literally just referred to children as a consequence. They're not people to you, they're inconveniences we have to deal with.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

wizwuz said:


> Im just sick of all the far left crap on the forum whenever I visit the homepage


Sick of something that doesn't exist then? I still think you're a liar.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Let me get this straight. about 60% of americans want roe v wade to remain. This in turn results in states, not being able to stop abortions. The crowd of people who are anti aborition are not only historically, but also most commonly christian.
> You just had this same supreme court, force state legislature to provide funding to religious schools, since nearly all of them in some compacity will fund public schools.
> 
> So just on that decision alone, it's pretty clear it's religious reasons to ban abortion, one of you littearly started ask if we have a soul. So let me repeat this. 40% of people just forced a decision on the remaining populous that opens them up to not being able to do what they considered a right for several decades.
> ...


But the supreme court justices reason to overturn it wasn't on religious grounds.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You probably killed her, you psychotic numbskull.
> 
> Also, pregnant for how long? One day, one week, one month? I appreciate your smooth brain lacks acumen, but even so you should at least attempt to be precise.


Literally any point dude.

1 week or 15. You decide. Lmao, why would it kill the woman? Lmao. Just another the question instead of dodging.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

mituzora said:


> I'd like to add that it's just punishing the working class mind you because I guarantee you the upper class will still have safe options to remove unwanted embryos.  I think it's more about control than punishment personally, but I agree at the same time


Oh absolutely. And it's always been this way. How often have we heard about some pro life christian conservative getting their mistress an abortion? The rule is never for them. Also there's several posts floating around from people who work at clinics being screamed at by pro life conservatives who are getting an abortion about how their abortion is "different" and the people working at the clinic are murderers. Even for conservative women, the rule is just for people they view as beneath them.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Let me get this straight. about 60% of americans want roe v wade to remain. This in turn results in states, not being able to stop abortions. The crowd of people who are anti aborition are not only historically, but also most commonly christian.
> You just had this same supreme court, force state legislature to provide funding to religious schools, since nearly all of them in some compacity will fund public schools.
> 
> So just on that decision alone, it's pretty clear it's religious reasons to ban abortion, one of you littearly started ask if we have a soul. So let me repeat this. 40% of people just forced a decision on the remaining populous that opens them up to not being able to do what they considered a right for several decades.
> ...


People in each state can vote who they want to be in power - if they want the laws changed, they can vote in different people. This is democracy and you and each state have the right to vote so can determine you own future based on the electorates views. This might upset you that not everything will always go the way you want it, but this is democracy and if you don't like it you can move to a little island with a cult that has you as the head dictator.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Literally any point dude.
> 
> 1 week or 15. You decide.


One week? You killed nothing, as there is nothing to kill. Nothing.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> But the supreme court justices reason to overturn it wasn't on religious grounds.


That's like your employer firing you for being gay, but instead writing down the reason to be something extremely bs. It's pretty blantely obivious it's for religious grounds. And it STILL does not change that 60% of the population considered that a right.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> People in each state can vote who they want to be in power - if they want the laws changed, they can vote in different people. This is democracy and you and each state have the right to vote so can determine you own future based on the electorates views. This might upset you that not everything will always go the way you want it, but this is democracy and if you don't like it you can move to a little island with a cult that has you as the head dictator.


This is completely false as something known as GERRYMANDERING exists, ie making some votes matter and voiding others of any meaning. Something you GQP are extremely proficient at.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> That's like your employer firing you for being gay, but instead writing down the reason to be something extremely bs. It's pretty blantely obivious it's for religious grounds. And it STILL does not change that 60% of the population considered that a right.


AKA the Philadelphia case.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

mituzora said:


> Seeing that y'all always like to claim laws.  It depends.  there's states who definitely have laws against unborn children and hurting them.
> 
> but moving away from laws,  it's called assault, you dick.  Why would you randomly punch someone in the gut?


I'm not asking legally. I'm asking YOU your thoughts.

If your cousin was pregnant and someone assaulted her and she misscarries did that person kill her baby?


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> People in each state can vote who they want to be in power - if they want the laws changed, they can vote in different people.


except that's not how that works, because the Republican party heavily focuses on gerrymandering, which means you can overwrite the actual people out of the equation. And be nearly 2 or 3 times more represented than you actually are. Oh it's also convient that Republicans voted against bills to stop gerrymandering, surprising on how that works.


----------



## Deleted member 481923 (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Sick of something that doesn't exist then? I still think you're a liar.


Lying about what?


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> I'm not asking legally. I'm asking YOU your thoughts.
> 
> If your cousin was pregnant and someone assaulted her and she misscarries did that person kill her baby?


No, you're using a logical fallacy to try and tug at heartstrings.  you are missing a lot of info here.  Did my cousin know that they were pregnant?  did they want to have the baby?  personally, it's not my decision as it's not my body.  I would go with what my cousin felt.


----------



## Tomato123 (Jun 24, 2022)

This was always going to be a s**tshow no matter which side won. Let's just hope states are sensible with their new power, but I don't have much faith in that.


----------



## Deleted member 481923 (Jun 24, 2022)

I come to this site for video game info, not to hear about people still whine about donald trump who is no longer even president


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Tomato123 said:


> This was always going to be a s**tshow no matter which side won. Let's just hope states are sensible with their new power, but I don't have much faith in that.


Nonsense.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

wizwuz said:


> I come to this site for video game info, not about donald trump who is no longer even president


So then why are you posting on a politics board?  go back to your video game boards where this shit isn't allowed.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> except that's not how that works, because the Republican party heavily focuses on gerrymandering, which means you can overwrite the actual people out of the equation. And be nearly 2 or 3 times more represented than you actually are. Oh it's also convient that Republicans voted against bills to stop gerrymandering, surprising on how that works.


You seem to dislike republicans - did one of them touch you somewhere once that you didn't like?







PS not every state is a republican state, you could move to one of those if it would me you happier.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> One week? You killed nothing, as there is nothing to kill. Nothing.


Lol.

And 15?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Lol.
> 
> And 15?


LOL what? You laugh at the idea of punching women in the gut? Are you a sociopath?


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> You seem to dislike republicans - did one of them touch you somewhere once that you didn't like?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's the republican controlled supreme court that overturned the ruling, so yeah, that's where they touched where someone didn't like.  fuck off with the fallacies


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

mituzora said:


> It's the republican controlled supreme court that overturned the ruling, so yeah, that's where they touched where someone didn't like.  fuck off with the fallacies


He's an illiterate imbecile cornered and forced to rely on his stupidity.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> You seem to dislike republicans - did one of them touch you somewhere once that you didn't like?
> 
> 
> PS not every state is a republican state, you could move to one of those if it would me you happier.


Nothing he said was wrong, if it was you would have had a real rebuttal.

You don't have real rebuttals, though. That's why you're still in here all jUsT mOvE tO a DiFfErEnT sTaTe even though it's already been explained to you why that isn't an option.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> He's an illiterate imbecile cornered and forced to rely on his stupidity.


Ain't that about the truth!


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> That's why you're still in here all jUsT mOvE tO a DiFfErEnT sTaTe


A statement reeking of "I'm alright jack" mindset, since moving is neither easy nor cheap.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 24, 2022)

Good. Aborting babies is fucking evil.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

mituzora said:


> It's the republican controlled supreme court that overturned the ruling, so yeah, that's where they touched where someone didn't like.  fuck off with the fallacies


So you don't like rebublicans then. in your view are they a basket of deplorables?


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> You seem to dislike republicans - did one of them touch you somewhere once that you didn't like?


Yeah I do. Golly I wonder why, is it because they are against LGBTQ people, against gay marriage, against dealing with climate change, against dealing with any level of political corruption and refuse to help working class people. Have you seen Texas's GOP platform? They STRAIGHT UP, want to prevent gender affirming care. *entirely *doesn't matter if your a teen, or adult.
I _cannot_ in good faith stand idly by and not be angry as I watch my peers ruthlessly prosecuted by that party


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Good. Aborting babies is fucking evil.


Good think no one is doing that. Zygotes, on the other hand.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Children don't get aborted. Fetuses and embryos do.


One equals the other giving time. Life is nothing short of a miracle. Against all odds somehow life took root on this dirty little rock wizing through space. It should be treated precisely and not easily destroyed by some retard that couldnt use protection. (Clearly not talking about rape or any of those arguements. Saying this for the what abouts i know you like to throw up.) I for one believe a woman should have a right to choose but at the same time i believe it should be left to the states own voted in representatives to determine. If you dont like your states laws then vote them out. If they keep winning then the MAJORITY of voters oviously want it that way which is how democracy is suppost to work. What you ask for is a dictator...well we dont like this (even though the majority does) so we make it that way anyway. Move to north korea if thats what u want.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> So you don't like rebublicans then. in your view are they a basket of deplorables?


If you must know I don't care for either side, but in this case, the republicans are the ones pushing for these stupid regressions, so yes, in this case they are a basket of deplorables.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> So you don't like rebublicans then. in your view are they a basket of deplorables?


Republicans are the ones that decided they are deplorables, not us. They were given the choice of being tired of the current administration and desperate for change or being deplorable, and they chose to latch onto deplorable. That's on them.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Good. Aborting babies is fucking evil.


Said the guy who thinks that women who are raped should be forced to bear their rapist's offspring. If there is one "fucking evil" here, it's you.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

mituzora said:


> No, you're using a logical fallacy to try and tug at heartstrings.  you are missing a lot of info here.  Did my cousin know that they were pregnant?  did they want to have the baby?  personally, it's not my decision as it's not my body.  I would go with what my cousin felt.


You're so defensive lmao. It's not an attack or a trick question. I'm genuinely just curious how you feel. When I see people who have the (insane) belief that a baby in the womb isn't a human being I just wonder they're take on that hypothetical. 

It's hilarious you even need like 15 variables clarified to make a decision.

Ok bro. Yes your cousin knew she was pregnant. She's excited and had a baby shower with all your relatives. There was even a gender reveal party. It's a girl! Your mom bought her some baby diapers as a present. They're naming the kid Roxanne. 

And you give such a copout answer. "My thoughts are whatever that person feels". Like fuck off, dude.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Good. Aborting babies is fucking evil.


That's your opinion and you're entitled to your opinion, but unless you have a uterus, you are NOT entitled to controlling their bodies, so fuck off


----------



## Deleted member 481923 (Jun 24, 2022)

I just recieved a message that since I've now made 5 posts on the forum, I am now 'newcomer status'. Well im out.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> I've never used a condom.
> To my awareness none of the girls I've slept with were on birth control.
> 
> That might make me a bit of a hypocrite but...
> ...


22% of people who attempt pulling out end up pregnant. When done perfectly, it still fails 4% of the time.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Said the guy who thinks that women who are raped should be forced to bear their rapist's offspring. If there is one "fucking evil" here, it's you.


What % of abortions are from rape?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

wartutor said:


> One equals the other giving time.


And a sperm and an egg equal a zygote given time. So what?


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> So you don't like rebublicans then. in your view are they a basket of deplorables?


republicans do not make up 50% of voters in a non electoral collage situation, they are a minority ruling over the majority and causing a ton of harm while on the way.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

wartutor said:


> One equals the other giving time. Life is nothing short of a miracle. Against all odds somehow life took root on this dirty little rock wizing through space. It should be treated precisely and not easily destroyed by some retard that couldnt use protection. (Clearly not talking about rape or any of those arguements. Saying this for the what abouts i know you like to throw up.) I for one believe a woman should have a right to choose but at the same time i believe it should be left to the states own voted in representatives to determine. If you dont like your states laws then vote them out. If they keep winning then the MAJORITY of voters oviously want it that way which is how democracy is suppost to work. What you ask for is a dictator...well we dont like this (even though the majority does) so we make it that way anyway. Move to north korea if thats what u want.


1. If one equals the other given time then you're actually killing an 80+ year old adult who has lived a full life.
2. If you consider children a punishment for unprotected sex you have zero valid opinions about life being a "miracle".
3. Gerrymandering has already been brought up, republicans are factually running on minority rule.
4. Asking for something to be legal is not asking for a dictatorship. A dictatorship is actually what we are moving toward with decisions like this one. Holy shit.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Lol.
> 
> And 15?



At that point you could probably argue that you're punching a baby. I wonder how many of these are going on compared to the average numbers of abortions by rape that (always?) take place while the baby isn't even a clump of cells.



mrdude said:


> So you don't like rebublicans then. in your view are they a basket of deplorables?



No, just the ones that advocate taking away people's rights.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> You're so defensive lmao. It's not an attack or a trick question. I'm genuinely just curious how you feel. When I see people who have the (insane) belief that a baby in the womb isn't a human being I just wonder they're take on that hypothetical.
> 
> It's hilarious you even need like 15 variables clarified to make a decision.
> 
> ...


Not a copout.  it's not my body, so it doesn't really matter what my feeling is on it.  Like fuck off dude.  You're the one who simply doesn't get that it's not your body, so it's not your choice.  plain and simple


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> What % of abortions are from rape?


Doesn't. Fucking. Matter.

Also several states have removed their rape exemptions and you're literally in here showing them your full support.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

mituzora said:


> That's your opinion and you're entitled to your opinion, but unless you have a uterus, you are NOT entitled to controlling their bodies, so fuck off


They ARE entitled on deciding laws on whether it's legal to decapitate babies though.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> They ARE entitled on deciding laws on whether it's legal to decapitate babies though.


*zygotes.  not a baby till they're born. and no they're not because it's not your body, it's not your choice.  plain n simple


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> They ARE entitled on deciding laws on whether it's legal to decapitate babies though.


you know what? I think the rest of us are going to choose to ignore you. We've talked about how abortion isn't killing babies it's a fetus, the potential for a baby, but instead, you continue to non stop push misinformation about how an abortion works.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> They ARE entitled on deciding laws on whether it's legal to decapitate babies though.


Good thing no one is doing that.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

mituzora said:


> Not a copout.  it's not my body, so it doesn't really matter what my feeling is on it.  Like fuck off dude.  You're the one who simply doesn't get that it's not your body, so it's not your choice.  plain and simple


It's literally a man's child. It's half his genetic material.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Yeah I do. Golly I wonder why, is it because they are against LGBTQ people, against gay marriage, against dealing with climate change, against dealing with any level of political corruption and refuse to help working class people. Have you seen Texas's GOP platform? They STRAIGHT UP, want to prevent gender affirming care. *entirely *doesn't matter if your a teen, or adult.
> I _cannot_ in good faith stand idly by and not be angry as I watch my peers ruthlessly prosecuted by that party


What's wrong with being against Alphabet people - I mean if you come from some country where it's a death penalty to be gay or you are a from a backgound where these people are seen as degenerates what make you think that your views are better than theirs? Climate change has always been a thing, we have had at least 5 ice ages and are still coming out of the last one just now. It's not a man made thing it's a natural thing, you've been misled by the media and politicians with an agenda. All political parties are corrupt, Nancy Pelosi has been doing insider trading for decades, The Clintons are as corrupt as they come and there's a reason people call Washington the swamp. You govenment is run by lobby groups and you politicains are in the pockets of large companies. As for this gender crap - there's natural born males and natural born females and that's it - no matter how hard this is for you to comprehend, you will always be the same sex you were born as. You might wear a wig and makeup or whatever - but that's just the same as a clown wearing a clown mask, under the mask you are what you are. You might not like that fact, but others pandering to your emotions won't change the facts.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> you know what? I think the rest of us are going to choose to ignore you. We've talked about how abortion isn't killing babies it's a fetus, the potential for a baby, but instead, you continue to non stop push misinformation about how an abortion works.


Yeah, I think I've told them "Not their body, not their choice" enough.  lmao


----------



## DKB (Jun 24, 2022)

It seems like people will attack you no matter your opinion on abortion. I don't even know what to say.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> It's literally a man's child. It's half his genetic material.


Blowing a load into a napkin is 100% a man's genetic material. Rally for making that illegal too or fuck off.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> It's literally a man's child. It's half his genetic material.


And?  a man doesn't have to carry a parasite for 9 months in their womb.  it's not their choice, because it's not their body.  Sure it sucks when they have the kid, but until a person with a penis carries a parasite for 9 months it will never be their choice.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

DKB said:


> It seems like people will attack you no matter your opinion on abortion. I don't even know what to say.


Yeah man. Anti-fascists attack fascists and fascists attack anti-fascists. It's always been this way. If you're "pro life" you're advocating and fighting for fascism.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

DKB said:


> It seems like people will attack you no matter your opinion on abortion. I don't even know what to say.


If you don't like abortions that's fine,  I'm not arguing for people who don't want them.  that's their choice.  I'm arguing about stripping that right away in general.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Are you illiterate or have you read the decision?


I meant they wouldn't repeal gay marriage and interracial marriage. Curb your outrage stroke.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

A parasite.

You people are truly psychotic lol


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> What's wrong with being against Alphabet people - I mean if you come from some country where it's a death penalty to be gay or you are a from a backgound where these people are seen as degenerates what make you think that your views are better than theirs?


If your view is that its okay to murder someone for being gay then yes, people who disagree are better than you. 100% of the time. 

Its absolutely wild to me, though, that you're in here screaming that abortion is murder and we're all evil for supporting it then turn around and say "murder is actually fine though you're not better than someone for opposing it".


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> I meant they wouldn't repeal gay marriage and interracial marriage. Curb your outrage stroke.


Yeah, not gonna bank on this idiotic optimism, TYVM. It's obvious y'all can't be trusted.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> A parasite.
> 
> You people are truly psychotic lol


You've literally referred to them as a consequence. Eat shit.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> A parasite.
> 
> You people are truly psychotic lol


No, just using the definition of what a zygote is until it's born.  It is by all definitions a parasite.  it cannot survive without a host and it takes all of it's nutrients away from the host,  It's a parasitic symbiotic relationship to the person's body until it's born.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Blowing a load into a napkin is 100% a man's genetic material. Rally for making that illegal too or fuck off.


Dude, this guy is arguing that the father of a unborn child shouldn't be allowed to have AN OPINION on whether his child should live or die.

We're not talking him controlling the women's decision. This guy thinks he isn't even entitled to AN OPINION on it.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

mituzora said:


> No, just using the definition of what a zygote is until it's born.  It is by all definitions a parasite.  it cannot survive without a host and it takes all of it's nutrients away from the host,  It's a parasitic symbiotic relationship to the person's body until it's born.


But it's a human being "parasite", right?


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Dude, this guy is arguing that the father of a unborn child shouldn't be allowed to have AN OPINION on whether his child should live or die.
> 
> We're not talking him controlling the women's decision. This guy thinks he isn't even entitled to AN OPINION on it.


If the guy doesn't want a woman to have an abortion he can keep his dick in his pants. 100% chance he won't ever be in this situation that way.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yeah, not gonna bank on this idiotic optimism, TYVM. It's obvious y'all can't be trusted.


Ohhhhhhh. I was wondering why you started to swear in your initial post, got aggressive and rude subsequently.

Then you said "Y'all". All the pieces fell into place.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> If your view is that its okay to murder someone for being gay then yes, people who disagree are better than you. 100% of the time.
> 
> Its absolutely wild to me, though, that you're in here screaming that abortion is murder and we're all evil for supporting it then turn around and say "murder is actually fine though you're not better than someone for opposing it".


And yet I haven't condoned murder, all I have said the the laws (and people's views) are different depening on where you live - if you don't like the laws you should move to somewhere that suits you better.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Dude, this guy is arguing that the father of a unborn child shouldn't be allowed to have AN OPINION on whether his child should live or die.
> 
> We're not talking him controlling the women's decision. This guy thinks he isn't even entitled to AN OPINION on it.


I mean, I can have an opinion on it if I want, but it's not my body that has to carry the embryo, so it's not my choice to keep the embryo.  It would suck ass if I want a kid but the partner doesn't but I respect their right to body autonomy.  something you obviously don't get.  

FWIW I have kids, and I still respect body autonomy.  If my wife didn't want the kids, then I would respect that decision, but she wanted them, I wanted to stay around, and everything is good.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> Ohhhhhhh. i was wondering why you started to swear in your initial post, got aggressive and rude.
> 
> Then you said "Y'all". Then the pieces fell into place.


Gaslighting 101. Be calm while being abusive then when someone finally snaps at you, turn it around and accuse them of abuse.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> And yet I haven't condoned murder, all I have said the the laws (and people's views) are different depening on where you live - if you don't like the laws you should move to somewhere that suits you better.


"I'm alright Jack" at its finest. I can't wait for you to be found wanting and left alone. "Move somewhere else", spoken like some petty xenophobe too.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Gaslighting 101. Be calm while being abusive then when someone finally snaps at you, turn it around and accuse them of abuse.


LOL he failed miserably, I've really no clue why a contraction would have given him some sort of insight. Then again, GQP smooth-brains function in laughable ways.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> What's wrong with being against Alphabet people - I mean if you come from some country where it's a death penalty to be gay or you are a from a backgound where these people are seen as degenerates what make you think that your views are better than theirs? Climate change has always been a thing, we have had at least 5 ice ages and are still coming out of the last one just now. It's not a man made thing it's a natural thing, you've been misled by the media and politicians with an agenda. All political parties are corrupt, Nancy Pelosi has been doing insider trading for decades, The Clintons are as corrupt as they come and there's a reason people call Washington the swamp. You govenment is run by lobby groups and you politicains are in the pockets of large companies. As for this gender crap - there's natural born males and natural born females and that's it - no matter how hard this is for you to comprehend, you will always be the same sex you were born as. You might wear a wig and makeup or whatever - but that's just the same as a clown wearing a clown mask, under the mask you are what you are. You might not like that fact, but others pandering to your emotions won't change the facts.


Oh and of course, a climate change denialist and a homophobe, what a surprise.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

mituzora said:


> I mean, I can have an opinion on it if I want, but it's not my body that has to carry the embryo, so it's not my choice to keep the embryo.  It would suck ass if I want a kid but the partner doesn't but I respect their right to body autonomy.  something you obviously don't get.
> 
> FWIW I have kids, and I still respect body autonomy.  If my wife didn't want the kids, then I would respect that decision, but she wanted them, I wanted to stay around, and everything is good.


Should a man have the right to opt out of child support if he doesn't wish the zygote parasite be brought "to term"

You know. Cus you're all for equal rights and stuff.
Lol


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Oh and of course, a climate change denialist and a homophobe, what a surprise.


Whoa bro your being islamophobic


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Dude, this guy is arguing that the father of a unborn child shouldn't be allowed to have AN OPINION on whether his child should live or die.
> 
> We're not talking him controlling the women's decision. This guy thinks he isn't even entitled to AN OPINION on it.



So then a rapist should have an opinion, right?


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I can't wait for you to be found wanting and left alone.


Spoken like a true lefty, selfish to the very core of your being. You are happy to kill defenseless babies and want others to be left alone, no wonder you are angry - you're a psychopath.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> What's wrong with being against Alphabet people - I mean if you come from some country where it's a death penalty to be gay or you are a from a backgound where these people are seen as degenerates what make you think that your views are better than theirs? Climate change has always been a thing, we have had at least 5 ice ages and are still coming out of the last one just now. It's not a man made thing it's a natural thing, you've been misled by the media and politicians with an agenda. All political parties are corrupt, Nancy Pelosi has been doing insider trading for decades, The Clintons are as corrupt as they come and there's a reason people call Washington the swamp. You govenment is run by lobby groups and you politicains are in the pockets of large companies. As for this gender crap - there's natural born males and natural born females and that's it - no matter how hard this is for you to comprehend, you will always be the same sex you were born as. You might wear a wig and makeup or whatever - but that's just the same as a clown wearing a clown mask, under the mask you are what you are. You might not like that fact, but others pandering to your emotions won't change the facts.


Here we have another climate denier. I'll make it extra special to grill you to the max. Only fair since you threw so many personal attacks.
First off, we're in a freezing period, and the temperatures are still rising. This is not normal. climate scientist's have measured the temperature and total carbon emissions through using deeply drilled ice to measure co2 levels captured in said ice. We also know a fuck ton of what the temperatures were back then through various data. Such as people measuring the total amount of sunspots over the ages, which essentially told us that the sun hasn't became much hotter. And through using other methods of tempeturr measuring.Now I guess you must of bought into the coal industries lies that they are somehow not causing the planet to warm up. Why the fuck do you think we've been experiencing non stop drought?
Oh and I'll agree all parties are corrupt
But the Republican party is the most corrupt for forcing their bullshit policies on the majority of people. Actively siding with actual fucking Nazis. and if you want to pretend that isn't the case 

*Why was there at least 4 different white supremacists groups at the capital.*


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Bro you have to like respect minorites culi beo
> 
> Should a man have the right to opt out of child support if he doesn't wish the zygote parasite be brought "to term"
> 
> ...


Absolutely!  the street goes both ways,  If someone didn't want to have a kid, but the person carrying the kid wanted it, then they shouldn't have to be entitiled to child support, and in many, many cases, this has been the case.  I know someone who had a child with someone that completely renounced fatherhood and didn't have to pay a cent.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> culi beo


This means absolutely nothing.


Purple_Shyguy said:


> Should a man have the right to opt out of child support if he doesn't wish the zygote parasite be brought "to term"


Er, it is possible in some places. Very limited cases, but possible.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Gaslighting 101. Be calm while being abusive then when someone finally snaps at you, turn it around and accuse them of abuse.


He called me illiterate in his first post. Unprovoked. I just assumed he was having a rage seizure. Then called me idiotic in the second one. Stop being biased, its low intelligence.

Just because you use an in-vogue psychological term such as "gaslighting" doesn't make you right.

I was calm then, I am calm now. Civilised people CAN have a sharp discussion without beating their chest and jumping up and down you know.

Hmmm, but you wouldn't know I suppose.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Should a man have the right to opt out of child support if he doesn't wish the zygote parasite be brought "to term"
> 
> You know. Cus you're all for equal rights and stuff.
> Lol


Yeah, he should. And then have nothing to do with the child ever again.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So then a rapist should have an opinion, right?


Ah, the 'ol rapist defence switcharoo.

Yes, they should have an opinion. We would all agree nobody would give a fuck about his opinion but why shouldn't he have one? They should also rot in jail probably. Hell, if it wasn't for you liberals we could have hanged him.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> He called me illiterate in his first post. Unprovoked. I just assumed he was having a rage seizure. Then called me idiotic in the second one. Stop being biased, its low intelligence.
> 
> Just because you use an in-vogue psychological term such as "gaslighting" doesn't make you right.
> 
> ...


But he was nice about all of this you guys, so clearly I'm the problem.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Spoken like a true lefty, selfish to the very core of your being. You are happy to kill defenseless babies and want others to be left alone, no wonder you are angry - you're a psychopath.


I'm not the one putting guns above women and children, you numbskull.


MadonnaProject said:


> He called me illiterate in his first post. Unprovoked. I just assumed he was having a rage seizure. Then called me idiotic in the second one. Stop being biased, its low intelligence.


I see no falsehoods there. You are illiterate, and have said plenty of idiotic things. Including disputing what Clarence Thomas put in clear writing. So either you didn't understand that because you're illiterate, or you lied. Which one is it? Are you a liar in bad faith or merely stupid?

EDIT; actually, in my first post I reported what clarence thomas wrote, and you denied it was a thing. So once again you're lying. Or you forgot.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Yeah, he should. And then have nothing to do with the child ever again.


Which, for the record, is already a thing. They just have to file the parental rights termination paperwork with the court and they're free.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Hell, if it wasn't for you liberals we could have hanged him.


Yep because US justice is never wrong, innit.

You know, I'm happy if you want to go with the lynching route. But if you're wrong, you get to suffer the same fate.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> What's wrong with being against Alphabet people


Holy fucking shit. I just realized your against LGBTQ people. "what's wrong with that" HOW ABOUT THOSE ARE ACTUAL FUCKING HUMAN BEINGS. And should be treated as such instead of fucking suppressing them


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Yeah, he should. And then have nothing to do with the child ever again.


So when are feminists taking to the streets to protest for the abolishing of child support? Let's go bro me and you arm in arm against that!!!


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Ah, the 'ol rapist defence switcharoo.
> 
> Yes, they should have an opinion. They should also rot in jail probably. Hell, if it wasn't for you liberals we could have hanged him.


Yeah, the rapist defence again. You act like rapes are rare and always one sided.

Why are they allowed to commit a crime and still be actively involved in the outcome of anything related to the crime? Is your disrespect for women so great that you accidentally come across as a rapist sympathizer?


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yep because US justice is never wrong, innit.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Holy fucking shit. I just realized your against LGBTQ people. "what's wrong with that" HOW ABOUT THOSE ARE ACTUAL FUCKING HUMAN BEINGS. And should be treated as such instead of fucking suppressing them


But why don't they simply MoVe SoMeWhErE eLsE, said by a xenophobe who hates non-whites.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> So when are feminists taking to the streets to protest for the abolishing of child support? Let's go bro me and you arm in arm against that!!!


Real feminists wouldn't give a shit about the parent opting out of child support,  these "feminists" you're talking about don't want equality.  and that's a problem as well.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Should a man have the right to opt out of child support if he doesn't wish the zygote parasite be brought "to term"


Of course not. It never goes both ways. Men are never held to a similar standard by this crowd.

Course the man could have helped stopped the child from existing in a few different ways, so at that point there is a certain amount of responsibility he has to at least give the child a fair shake I suppose. Can't really expect the woman to carry to term and possibly raise the child without expecting the father to throw a few dollars their way in order to contribute to the raising of the person he helped create.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yep because US justice is never wrong, innit.
> 
> You know, I'm happy if you want to go with the lynching route. But if you're wrong, you get to suffer the same fate.


I'm totally in agreement with you here. I have a psychotic ex gf when I was 16 accuse me of raping her.

I'm obviously only talking instances where it's 10000000000000% guaranteed for certain GUILTY. But if it's absolutely for sure then fucking just kill them.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Holy fucking shit. I just realized your against LGBTQ people. "what's wrong with that" HOW ABOUT THOSE ARE ACTUAL FUCKING HUMAN BEINGS. And should be treated as such instead of fucking suppressing them


How many future LGBQTPAIQQ+ people are aborted every year?


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> But the Republican party is the most corrupt for forcing their bullshit policies on the majority of people. Actively siding with actual fucking Nazis. and if you want to pretend that isn't the case
> 
> *Why was there at least 4 different white supremacists groups at the capital.*


What is it with lefty's calling people they disagree with white supremasists and Nazi's? Do you think there's loads of people (that aren't mental leftys) walking around in KKK clothes and SS uniforms? Jings that's litterally like me claiming that eveyone that isn't a republican is an Antifa member and a peadophile.

Make sure you check under your bed tonight - there could be a nazi hiding under it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> So when are feminists taking to the streets to protest for the abolishing of child support? Let's go bro me and you arm in arm against that!!!



Why bring feminists into this? They have their own battles that I'm sure some will join at their leisure. Do you not know how child support typically works?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> I'm obviously only talking instances where it's 10000000000000% guaranteed for certain GUILTY. But if it's absolutely for sure then fucking just kill them.


And how do you do that FFS, with a police system like the murican one, where evidence is forged just to show something is done.


Purple_Shyguy said:


> I'm totally in agreement with you here. I have a psychotic ex gf when I was 16 accuse me of raping her.


So, by your own logic, your ex gf's father should have quartered you.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> How many future LGBQTPAIQQ+ people are aborted every year?


How many future Hitlers and Stalins and Putins are aborted every year? Sound argument there.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> What is it with lefty's calling people they disagree with white supremasists and Nazi's? Do you think there's loads of people (that aren't mental leftys) walking around in KKK clothes and SS uniforms? Jings that's litterally like me claiming that eveyone that isn't a republican is an Antifa member and a peadophile.
> 
> Make sure you check under your bed tonight - there could be a nazi hiding under it.


How exhausting it is, to be a total _minus habens_?


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> How many future Hitlers and Stalins and Putins are aborted every year? Sound argument there.


I love this comeback! but you're 100 percent right.


----------



## Kopimist (Jun 24, 2022)

DbGt said:


> it will not, why should it? "Actual living breathing people" already can choose what to do and how to live, pregnancy is a choice


Pregnancy is not always a choice. There are cases of r*** and I***** what about victims of those crimes?


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Kopimist said:


> Pregnancy is not always a choice. There are cases of r*** and I***** what about victims of those crimes?


It's an arguement that incels love to use because they can't get laid themselves lol

edit, To clarify, I'm not talking about your reply, talking about the person you're replying to


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Kopimist said:


> Pregnancy is not always a choice. There are cases of r*** and I***** what about victims of those crimes?


What about victims of goddamn broken condoms? What about victims of stealthing? What about people who, like me, are clinically allergic to latex?


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Yeah, the rapist defence again. You act like rapes are rare and always one sided.
> 
> Why are they allowed to commit a crime and still be actively involved in the outcome of anything related to the crime? Is your disrespect for women so great that you accidentally come across as a rapist sympathizer?


My point is that everyone should be allowed to have an opinion. This guy's literally arguing that a loving husband shouldn't be entitled to even a fucking opinion on whether his unborn child should live or die.

And you are coming in twisting it by saying "should a EVIL RAPIST be allowed an opinion, huh? You're PRO RAPE!"

Fuck you with your disingenuous weasling.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> My point is that everyone should be allowed to have an opinion.


Everyone IS allowed to have an opinion. But not every opinion is equal.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 24, 2022)

Anyway enough arguing - the laws have been passed now, deal with it. I'm off to watch the new episode of The Boys, while you lot can get women pregnant and force them to have your children, muwhahahahahaaaaaaa.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> But he was nice about all of this you guys, so clearly I'm the problem.


Clearly.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Anyway enough arguing - the laws have been passed now, deal with it. I'm off to watch the new episode of The Boys, while you lot can get women pregnant and force them to have your children, muwhahahahahaaaaaaa.


Did you just make an apology for rape, you sicko?


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> How many future Hitlers and Stalins and Putins are aborted every year? Sound argument there.


Significantly less than the number of alphabet people?


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> What about victims of goddamn broken condoms? What about victims of stealthing? What about people who, like me, are clinically allergic to latex?


There are victims in other ways as well. Like shit you see on TV shows, they didn't just have that idea that's shit that actually happened that they read about. Sadly enough it was on a sitcom so it was framed as being funny, but one of the characters faked getting a vasectomy then knocked up his fiancé. Then people like the one you quoted would tell a woman in that situation that they deserve to be punished with a child for having unprotected sex.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Significantly less than the number of alphabet people?


It's funny you lot think "alphabet people" is an insult of sorts.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Then people like him would tell a woman in that situation that they deserve to be punished with a child for having unprotected sex.


Not really. Not me anyway. Considering she THOUGHT she was safe, she was not intentionally making a bad choice the way Becky did with the high school foot ball team.

It's not her fault the dude lied to her. At that point it would be nice if she carried the child to term, but I could stand with an abortion in that scenario while the guy rots in prison because that's probably a crime.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> My point is that everyone should be allowed to have an opinion. This guy's literally arguing that a loving husband shouldn't be entitled to even a fucking opinion on whether his unborn child should live or die.



I don't inherently disagree with you on this; everyone should be allowed to have and their opinion. However, not everyone should be given a platform to voice it on.



Purple_Shyguy said:


> And you are coming in twisting it by saying "should a EVIL RAPIST be allowed an opinion, huh? You're PRO RAPE!"



Actually I was implying that your current phrasing of your argument is making you appear that way, hoping you would get the hint and change how you present your arguments (I like to see the good in people). If you're not a rapist sympathizer, I'm sure you'll try to come across a little differently. Otherwise, well... I guess you already called it.

Don't get it completely twisted; when laws like Roe v Wade get overturned it leads to a lot of fucked up pretenses that can be further used to create a terrible system for anyone that isn't a rich white man. The pro rape clause is already spreading like fire through the legal system and further diminishing a woman to a glorified incubator is only going to continue this spiral.




Purple_Shyguy said:


> Fuck you with your disingenuous weasling.



*sorrynotsorry


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Not really. Not me anyway. Considering she THOUGHT she was safe, she was not intentionally making a bad choice the way Becky did with the high school foot ball team.
> 
> It's not her fault the dude lied to her. At that point it would be nice if she carried the child to term, but I could stand with an abortion in that scenario while the guy rots in prison because that's probably a crime.


Again with the "children a consequence for being stupid" bullshit. I get it, dude. You hate children, and you hate women so you want to punish them with children. Enough.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Not really. Not me anyway. Considering she THOUGHT she was safe, she was not intentionally making a bad choice the way Becky did with the high school foot ball team.
> 
> It's not her fault the dude lied to her. At that point it would be nice if she carried the child to term, but I could stand with an abortion in that scenario while the guy rots in prison because that's probably a crime.


The fact that you somehow think sex leads to "faults" and is inherently a "bad choice" for a woman is quite concerning.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> My point is that everyone should be allowed to have an opinion. This guy's literally arguing that a loving husband shouldn't be entitled to even a fucking opinion on whether his unborn child should live or die.
> 
> And you are coming in twisting it by saying "should a EVIL RAPIST be allowed an opinion, huh? You're PRO RAPE!"
> 
> Fuck you with your disingenuous weasling.


Really grasping at straws here.  someone uses one argument for pro-choice, and you focus on the "rape" angle.  There are plenty of arguments you can focus in on here, but instead, you focus that everyone who is pro-choice is focusing in on the rape aspect.  

It's been stated millions of times, but aside from the "it's their body" argument, there's also legiitmate reasons aside from just rape and body autonomy.

Medical reasons:  Sometimes you gotta save a life, and why pick the life that can't even take care of itself that doesn't even have any memberance of life over someone who has a full, maybe happy life ahead of them if they choose to live.

Reasons of an unfit parent:  There are plenty of people, and i mean PLENTY of people who are definitely unfit to raise a human being.  they can barely take care of themselves.  and I know Adoption is an option as well, but there's already an overcrowded foster care system, and we don't need to be adding any more unwanted lives to an institution, in of it's own, is kinda fucked up too.  

If we are being really primal here:  Population control.  I don't necessarily believe this is a good argument, but I'm going to state it anyways as it IS an argument.  At least in the US, things are becoming more and more difficult to raise a child, especially in lower-economic homes that would largely benefit from abortions in the first place.  By forcing birth, we are making things even worse.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Significantly less than the number of alphabet people?



I have yet to see any alphabet people subjugate anyone for any preference. So far I'd rather be surrounded by them than Nazis and Republicans.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> The fact that you somehow think sex leads to "faults" and is inherently a "bad choice" for a woman is quite concerning.


Having risky, unprotected sex without birth control and letting four dudes nut inside you when you are not in a position to or want to raise a child is in fact a bad choice no matter how you slice it.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> What is it with lefty's calling people they disagree with white supremasists and Nazi's? Do you think there's loads of people (that aren't mental leftys) walking around in KKK clothes and SS uniforms? Jings that's litterally like me claiming that eveyone that isn't a republican is an Antifa member and a peadophile.
> 
> Make sure you check under your bed tonight - there could be a nazi hiding under it.


Because that's what it fucking is. Nazi Germany didn't come out of the blue. They had an extremely decent democratic system. However then fascists grew stronger in their rehetoric when the economy was in a economic down turn. Hitler did a coup failed. Was arrested and then successfully did it on the second try.
He removed people's rights first, he killed his political opposition. And how it all fucking starts, is the removal of people's rights in minority groups.
The Republican party at this point proto Nazi's. With MAGA being the real thing. if someone didn't follow Hitler they died. The party he came out of them, many were executed because the disobeyed one order. Trump straight up said that maybe Mike pence should be hung. He is a facist.
It all starts when your start treating someone as inhuman. And it get's worse when people don't nip it in the bud. Capitalism would give into facism for the short sighted profits than given into any other alternatives
So in other words I'm calling what the kettle is and I'm not going to stop. And nor will my peers. We are not going to go through that atrocity a second time, we don't have the time to go through another genocide by facists.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Jun 24, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm not the one putting guns above women and children, you numbskull.
> 
> I see no falsehoods there. You are illiterate, and have said plenty of idiotic things. Including disputing what Clarence Thomas put in clear writing. So either you didn't understand that because you're illiterate, or you lied. Which one is it? Are you a liar in bad faith or merely stupid?
> 
> EDIT; actually, in my first post I reported what clarence thomas wrote, and you denied it was a thing. So once again you're lying. Or you forgot.


No, you just didn't understand what I meant. Don't worry, gay marriage and interracial marriage is not going anywhere. Anyways let's not do this. Bye.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

mituzora said:


> Really grasping at straws here.  someone uses one argument for pro-choice, and you focus on the "rape" angle.  There are plenty of arguments you can focus in on here, but instead, you focus that everyone who is pro-choice is focusing in on the rape aspect.
> 
> It's been stated millions of times, but aside from the "it's their body" argument, there's also legiitmate reasons aside from just rape and body autonomy.
> 
> ...



I love every letter of this comment with every fiber of my being.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Having risky, unprotected sex and letting four dudes nut inside you when you are not in a position to or want to raise a child is in fact a bad choice no matter how you slice it.


Exactly. Hence there are cultures with virtually little illegitimacy and abortion.

Guess which these are. Not cariibean, african, mexican, european.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Having risky, unprotected sex and letting four dudes nut inside you when you are not in a position to or want to raise a child is in fact a bad choice no matter how you slice it.


It's funny how automatically, this is where your brain goes.  I know a lot of people, and this happens way more often in porn than in real life.  and if they do have parties like that, they're typically using protection.  You should really research on deviant culture.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

mituzora said:


> Really grasping at straws here.  someone uses one argument for pro-choice, and you focus on the "rape" angle.  There are plenty of arguments you can focus in on here, but instead, you focus that everyone who is pro-choice is focusing in on the rape aspect.
> 
> It's been stated millions of times, but aside from the "it's their body" argument, there's also legiitmate reasons aside from just rape and body autonomy.
> 
> ...


Until it no longer costs 10s of thousands of dollars for the adoption process, and all these conservatives are willing to go bring all the kids in our fucked up broken foster system into their homes, conservatives need to keep the word adoption out of their mouths.

Sadly, my wife and I were looking into adoption once our youngest starts kindergarten (next year) but unless things turn around in the economy (lol) it's not financially viable for us anymore which is sad because I was making $13 in 2019 when we decided we wanted to do that and I'm making $20 now, but that $20 is getting less than $13 was back then.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

MadonnaProject said:


> No, you just didn't understand what I meant. Don't worry, gay marriage and interracial marriage is not going anywhere. Anyways let's not do this. Bye.


You guys said literally exactly this about Roe v Wade.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Until it no longer costs 10s of thousands of dollars for the adoption process, and all these conservatives are willing to go bring all the kids in our fucked up broken foster system into their homes, conservatives need to keep the word adoption out of their mouths.
> 
> Sadly, my wife and I were looking into adoption once our youngest starts kindergarten (next year) but unless things turn around in the economy (lol) it's not financially viable for us anymore which is sad because I was making $13 in 2019 when we decided we wanted to do that and I'm making $20 now, but that $20 is getting less than $13 was back then.


Oh yikes,  that's rough.  I'm sorry you and your wife had to go through that.  But you're absolutely right.  People want to argue that adoption is a solution, when those people who argue that (and are typically in a place that they can afford to go that route) typically don't care about those kids.  

It's all about the embryo,  once it's born, they don't typically give a fuck and blame the parents..  it's rather sickening tbh


----------



## XDel (Jun 24, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> How about pregnancy complications that are easily treated, but the treatment is, can you guess? Go on. No? Ok, the treatment is abortion. Those people are gonna die easily avoidable deaths for no reason. Oh the reason is it's God's plan? Your god is a real piece of shit then.


Medical technology is so good these days that unsurvivable complications are rare. Also a lot of complications are brought on by how she treats her self while pregnant.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

mituzora said:


> It's funny how automatically, this is where your brain goes.


Considering that's literally how one of the girls at my high school got knocked up, yeah of course my mind goes there. It sticks out when you actually hear people talking about it and you see the girl in question being enraged at them when she is just as responsible for it happening in the first place. It was consensual. There were no drugs and alcohol involved.

Dudes just wanted to run a train and she wanted the train ran on her. Nobody wanted to use protection and she was happy to let all four of them finish inside.

Then she decided to abort the child so she could get back to partying and sleeping around sooner.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Considering that's literally how one of the girls at my high school got knocked up, yeah of course my mind goes there. It sticks out when you actually hear people talking about it and you see the girl in question being enraged at them when she is just as responsible for it happening in the first place. It was consensual. There were no drugs and alcohol involved.
> 
> Dudes just wanted to run a train and she wanted the train ran on her.
> 
> Then she decided to abort the child so she could get back to partying and sleeping around sooner.


Okay but this shit is even more rare than rape, and what was the argument from your side about how many abortions are from rape?


XDel said:


> Medical technology is so good these days that unsurvivable complications are rare. Also a lot of complications are brought on by how she treats her self while pregnant.


Part of that medical technology is abortion.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 24, 2022)

The misogyny in this thread is entirely gross.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> and what was the argument from your side about how many abortions are from rape?


Considering that wasn't me that said that, and I'm all for abortions in rape scenarios, you're barking up the wrong tree on that one.

Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth though.


----------



## XDel (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It sounds like you two don't understand that sex is generally a biological drive comparable to the drive for food or water. Not having sex can literally cause depression, anxiety, and posting anti-choice rants on GBATemp.


The study on sex that you are referring to is old, debunked, junk science.

If we do not orgasm through sex, then we will release during our sleep or self release. You guys are merely trying to justify your particular material addictions.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 24, 2022)

mituzora said:


> That's your opinion and you're entitled to your opinion, but unless you have a uterus, you are NOT entitled to controlling their bodies, so fuck off



I'm defending unborn life when you're advocating on killing it. Plus, liberal minded people speaking out against control is an oxymoron isn't it? Liberals advocate for laws to control almost anything and everything. Oh, and you can fuck off. I want babies to live, not to get their brains sucked out and body shredded to bits.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Considering that's literally how one of the girls at my high school got knocked up, yeah of course my mind goes there. It sticks out when you actually hear people talking about it and you see the girl in question being enraged at them when she is just as responsible for it happening in the first place. It was consensual. There were no drugs and alcohol involved.
> 
> Dudes just wanted to run a train and she wanted the train ran on her. Nobody wanted to use protection and she was happy to let all four of them finish inside.
> 
> Then she decided to abort the child so she could get back to partying and sleeping around sooner.





n00bsaib0t said:


> Okay but this shit is even more rare than rape, and what was the argument from your side about how many abortions are from rape?


Like n00b said.  this is incredibly uncommon.  and also it's High school.  High schoolers aren't fully developed.  they  do stupid shit.  a lot of times getting them in trouble.  High schoolers think they're invincible, and making someone pay the price by raising an illegitimate child because of a stupid choice is asinine, and again, will inevitably lead to more harm than good.  

Adults who practice in this stuff are smart about it, there's communities around it, and if you don't play by their rules (i.e. using protection) then you don't get to play.  

Imagine if you did something really stupid before you were 18 and had to live the rest of your life with a punishment for it, even though the punishment was easily avoidable.  the rest of your life down the drain because you wanted to have fun, and were stupid about it.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Considering that wasn't me that said that, and I'm all for abortions in rape scenarios, you're barking up the wrong tree on that one.
> 
> Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth though.


My bad you have so many shitty opinions about children being nothing but an inconvenience and a punishment I just assumed you subscribed to all the far right ideologies.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm defending unborn life when you're advocating on killing it. Plus, liberal minded people speaking out against control is an oxymoron isn't it? Liberals advocate for laws to control almost anything and everything. Oh, and you can fuck off. I want babies to live, not to get their brains sucked out and body shredded to bits.


Fuck off. Your not defending Jack shit. Do you have any idea how many women I had heard straight up said they would kill themselves if they became pregent and couldn't access abortion.
Do you have any fucking idea about the women who would die to complications? Those fucking laws passed in those states DO NOT have any exceptions. So you can fuck off on your bs "pro life" stance. You don't support pro life. Your plainly anti abortion. You wouldn't fucking support a party who is making it straight up illegal to transition at all if you were pro life. Which guess what? A lot of them are going to be sucidal or kill themselves because your only pro life to the unborn, and fuck all to anything else. you won't, help feed, cloth, keep a roof over that child you forced someone to have in. You would fucking claim "it's personal responsibility" well how about you use your responsibility to get out of other people's fucking lives.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm defending unborn life when you're advocating on killing it. Plus, liberal minded people speaking out against control is an oxymoron isn't it? Liberals advocate for laws to control almost anything and everything. Oh, and you can fuck off. I want babies to live, not to get their brains sucked out and body shredded to bits.


Protip: they don't have brains, or anything recognisable as a body. "Late term abortions" are a spooky old wives tale used as propaganda to brainwash chumps like you - they literally never happen except in extreme medical emergencies.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm defending unborn life when you're advocating on killing it. Plus, liberal minded people speaking out against control is an oxymoron isn't it? Liberals advocate for laws to control almost anything and everything. Oh, and you can fuck off. I want babies to live, not to get their brains sucked out and body shredded to bits.


They're not babies they're zygotes. But please, keep this energy next time gun control is brought up because a bunch of kids were shot in their classrooms in literally the only first world country this shit happens in. Please, keep this energy when medicare for all is brought up again and all your conservative overlords vote against it. Please, keep this energy over all the school lunch programs your conservative overlords have been voting against. You don't give a shit about kids, conservatives never do.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm defending unborn life when you're advocating on killing it. Plus, liberal minded people speaking out against control is an oxymoron isn't it? Liberals advocate for laws to control almost anything and everything. Oh, and you can fuck off. I want babies to live, not to get their brains sucked out and body shredded to bits.


Okay, so then go and defend a tapeworm because they can't live without a host.  Same difference.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Fuck off. Your not defending Jack shit. Do you have any idea how many women I had heard straight up said they would kill themselves if they became pregent and couldn't access abortion.
> Do you have any fucking idea about the women who would die to complications? Those fucking laws passed in those states DO NOT have any exceptions. So you can fuck off on your bs "pro life" stance. You don't support pro life. Your plainly anti abortion. You wouldn't fucking support a party who is making it straight up illegal to transition at all if you were pro life. Which guess what? A lot of them are going to be sucidal or kill themselves because your only pro life to the unborn, and fuck all to anything else. you won't, help feed, cloth, keep a roof over that child you forced someone to have in. You would fucking claim "it's personal responsibility" well how about you use your responsibility to get out of other people's fucking lives.



I'm not forcing anyone to get pregnant.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Protip: they don't have brains, or anything recognisable as a body. "Late term abortions" are a spooky old wives tale used as propaganda to brainwash chumps like you - they literally never happen except in extreme medical emergencies.



Good luck. After about five back and forths using logic and relatable standpoints I still got ignored because they're adamant about "abortion=murder" and do nothing but troll in response.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not forcing anyone to get pregnant.


And no one was forcing anyone to get an abortion, but you are in favor of forcing someone to stay pregnant. Something the UN has decided is a crime against humanity btw. Wild how conservative views always align with fascism.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Why shouldn't Roe v Wade be thrown out?

The entire thing was a lie anyway. She lied about being raped. The whole trial was a sham. You don't have a constitutional right to have an abortion.

Abortion should ALWAYS have been handled at a State level. This is fair and reasonable.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jun 24, 2022)

States rights huh: *https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics/republican-reaction-abortion-congress/index.html *

The whole "states rights" is fucking bullshit and you know it.  "States Rights" is just a filler until you can subjugate the entire populace which is what their endgame is.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm defending unborn life when you're advocating on killing it. Plus, liberal minded people speaking out against control is an oxymoron isn't it? Liberals advocate for laws to control almost anything and everything. Oh, and you can fuck off. I want babies to live, not to get their brains sucked out and body shredded to bits.



JonhathonBaxster said:
_I don't think abortions should happen for any reason, including the condom breaking *or the women being raped.*_

Oh just shut your fucking misogynistic mouth.  This opinion alone should make you disqualified from ANY opinion on this.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not forcing anyone to get pregnant.


Yeah, you seem to be forgetting the fact that pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.  Nobody is forcing anyone to get abortions, they're just defending the right to do so.  if you don't like them, that's fine, but that's your choice.  stop forcing your beliefs on other people just because they don't line up with yours.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> And no one was forcing anyone to get an abortion, but you are in favor of forcing someone to stay pregnant. Something the UN has decided is a crime against humanity btw. Wild how conservative views always align with fascism.





JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not forcing anyone to get pregnant.



Not "yet". Quite the drip on this one.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not forcing anyone to get pregnant


Oh I'm sorry. So fucking sorry that you have to change my fucking argument.
Because guess what?
*Your forcing a women to carry a pregency regardless of the situation.*

Key word, carry. You are forcing them to carry a pregency they may or may not want. Or a pregency that's fucking fatal. So pro life you are!


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

Snipped


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Protip: they don't have brains, or anything recognisable as a body. "Late term abortions" are a spooky old wives tale used as propaganda to brainwash chumps like you - they literally never happen except in extreme medical emergencies.


The fuck are you talking about "they" don't have a body? Are you implying all abortions take place at the same time of development?


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Snipped


This is a great course of action for anyone with testicles.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Why shouldn't Roe v Wade be thrown out?
> 
> The entire thing was a lie anyway. She lied about being raped. The whole trial was a sham. You don't have a constitutional right to have an abortion.
> 
> Abortion should ALWAYS have been handled at a State level. This is fair and reasonable.



Because it's still the same argument at that level, but so many more factors get brought into it because, honestly, some of those politicians have some t weird draconian ways of thinking. Just because you're progressive enough to know a woman should have equal rights to a man (God I hope you think that), doesn't automatically mean everyone else does, and some of these people get to be governors, senators, even president(!) 

When it was backed by federal law it was... "easier" to be able to have access to what you needed and when if you wanted to try and ensure pregnancy didn't happen (contraceptives). When you have dozens of politicians that have high Christian values all over the place, you're bound to run into at least a few that ban contraceptives too, because now there's no Federal backing. And then what next? No divorces because it's against the Bible? It's not the semantics of the argument that's being debated, it's the implications that have already happened and will assuredly happen again now that it's been repealed.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 24, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Do you think you have a soul? If so at what point of your life did you get it? Did you think it was the instant you were born, what if you were born prematurely, would you not have a soul? Did you get your soul at 9 weeks, 17 weeks, 9 months?


I don’t think I have a soul and I don’t believe religion has to answer to what a “soul” is. I believe religious beliefs like this shouldn’t be involved in law nor in the conversation about other people’s health. If someone is religiously against abortions because they believe in a soul, then that person shouldn’t get an abortion. If they believe that their belief should dictate if others should or shouldn’t get an abortion, then that’s a violation of First Amendment.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jun 24, 2022)

How about let's codify* all *the shit Clarence Thomas says should be overturned like contraceptive access or even better yet LOVING VS. VIRGINIA, lets even say Brown vs Board of Education?? Because THAT'S Not in the constitution either. What's fair is fair isn't it Thomas??

Lets have any spineless republican vote against or filibuster interracial marriage, racial integration or access to condoms on their goddamn record so we know where they truly stand. "They aren't racist" so there shouldn't be any excuse to codify it right?? We already had one politician from Illinois say that interracial marriage should be left up to states but later backtracked...PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR FUCKING MOUTH IS.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Why shouldn't Roe v Wade be thrown out?
> 
> The entire thing was a lie anyway. She lied about being raped. The whole trial was a sham. You don't have a constitutional right to have an abortion.
> 
> Abortion should ALWAYS have been handled at a State level. This is fair and reasonable.


Sources?


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> The fuck are you talking about "they" don't have a body? Are you implying all abortions take place at the same time of development?


The large majority are in the "clump" stage, anything else is an exception. We're all about the exceptions today apparently.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not forcing anyone to get pregnant.


Yet you believe people should be forced to carry a child if they are raped, incest, or going to die. That’s literally forcing them to stay pregnant. Even if you aren’t forcing them to get pregnant, you are still willing to force them to stay pregnant.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Yet you believe people should be forced to carry a child if they are raped, incest, or going to die. That’s literally forcing them to stay pregnant. Even if you aren’t forcing them to get pregnant, you are still willing to force them to stay pregnant.


The dude is so pro life he doesn't care who has to die for that pregnancy to continue.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Because it's still the same argument at that level, but so many more factors get brought into it because, honestly, some of those politicians have some t weird draconian ways of thinking. Just because you're progressive enough to know a woman should have equal rights to a man (God I hope you think that), doesn't automatically mean everyone else does, and some of these people get to be governors, senators, even president(!)
> 
> When it was backed by federal law it was... "easier" to be able to have access to what you needed and when if you wanted to try and ensure pregnancy didn't happen (contraceptives). When you have dozens of politicians that have high Christian values all over the place, you're bound to run into at least a few that ban contraceptives too, because now there's no Federal backing. And then what next? No divorces because it's against the Bible? It's not the semantics of the argument that's being debated, it's the implications that have already happened and will assuredly happen again now that it's been repealed.


I understand why it is beneficial that it was federal and the implications of it no longer being federal.

But the point is why should it be? In an unbiased fair take why should it be? It was made federally legal based on legal precedent of a trial that was completely fraudulent. 

Being completely fair and honest and partisan it should be overturned and that's exactly what happened.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> The dude is so pro life he doesn't care who has to die for that pregnancy to continue.


I am aware but I am going to call out bullshit when I see it. It’s the same wordplay over and over again and that shit needs to be called out


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Sources?


My source? Literally Jane fucking Roe.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I am aware but I am going to call out bullshit when I see it. It’s the same wordplay over and over again and that shit needs to be called out


Sorry, I was trying to play off Peace Keeper saying he loves peace so much he doesn't care how many men, women, or children he needs to kill to get it. I know you know what this dude is lol.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> My source? Literally Jane fucking Roe.


What source do you have to back up the claim that it was false accusation of rape? From what I can tell, the case had nothing to do with rape and rape was never even mentioned. What source do you have to your claim?


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> But the point is why should it be? In an unbiased fair take why should it be? It was made federally legal based on legal precedent of a trial that was completely fraudulent.


I'm going to disregard entirely your part about it being fraudulent since you have no evidence for it.  And state this:
No you fucking asshat, it was made federal so parties (like the GOP) couldn't decide to be a dipstick and decide to ovrrule what the majority of people wanted or thought, since gerymandering is a thing Again, you voted against stoping.
 Again most people are not Republicans, the Republican party is a minority ruling over the majority. Most of us didn't want it removed, but it was removed anyways.


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It sounds like you two don't understand that sex is generally a biological drive comparable to the drive for food or water. Not having sex can literally cause depression, anxiety, and posting anti-choice rants on GBATemp.


You're incorrect that it is comparable to food or water it's not even close to comparable because food and water give us the energy we need to survive, sex actually consumes energy.

We can all agree the body doesn't need sex to live in fact there are people who are asexual.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

mituzora said:


> Imagine if you did something really stupid before you were 18 and had to live the rest of your life with a punishment for it, even though the punishment was easily avoidable. the rest of your life down the drain because you wanted to have fun, and were stupid about it.


Hm. Well. Does retail fraud count?

Got arrested just soon after turning 17 for that and because in my state 17 year old's, still legally considered a minor, can be charged as adults I have retail fraud forever on my record, may be a relatively small thing compared to pregnancy and abortion. but I'm sure most retail stores wouldn't want to hire me if they ever caught wind I used to steal from places like theirs, say they ran a background check?

Could have easily avoided it. Could have...not done it, though about the possible outcomes for instance, but I did because I liked the cheap thrill of stealing stuff from stores at the time. Hell I even got away with it once and was dumb enough to go back to the same place, because I thought it was easy.

The difference I suppose is that I'm willing to accept the consequence. Because it was my fault I ended up there.

Guess some people, myself included, just need to I dunno, think before they do? Put aside the abortion argument for a minute, thinking about your choices in advance could solve so many problems in the world.

Anyway, I think I'm done arguing. We'll have to agree to disagree. Feel free to think whatever heinous thoughts you want about me if you want to be petty over me having a different stance. I respect your opinion, I just felt like debating for a while.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> The difference I suppose is that I'm willing to accept the consequence. Because it was my fault I ended up there.
> 
> Guess some people, myself included, just need to I dunno, think before they do? Put aside the abortion argument for a minute, thinking about your choices in advance could solve so many problems in the world.


No we're not going to "put aside the abortion argument"
Because a minority party just ruled over the majority and took away a federal right we had for decades, when NONE of us wanted it removed. That is not democratic in the fucking slightest.


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 24, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> thats exactly what pro lifes dont seem to understand
> Women who really want abortion in place where it is illegal will go with quack who will sell their shit and do the abortion for them.
> Those women will surely die of infection or stuff like that


I feel for the women who have lost their lives to unsafe abortions but those cases will make women a *LOT* more cautious of becoming pregnant unexpectedly, which will increase responsibility in the next generation.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> No we're not going to "put aside the abortion argument"
> Because a minority party just ruled over the majority and took away a federal right we had for decades, when NONE of us wanted it removed. That is not democratic in the fucking slightest.


I've already bowed out of the debate, re-read my post, I edited it. You're free to be as pissy over my opinion as you want but I'm done.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> ou're incorrect that it is comparable to food or water it's not even close to comparable because food and water give us the energy we need to survive, sex actually consumes energy.
> 
> We can all agree the body doesn't need sex to live in fact there are people who are asexual.


that is a fucking gross misunderstanding of asexual people.
People don't just "become" asexual. they are generally speaking born that way. WHICH MEANS the reverse is also fucking true, people are born to have attraction to someone else.

Saying that someone just needs abstain is fucking stupid and a gross misunderstanding of sex in peoples lives, because condoms and birth control can fail, they work most of the time, but that's why we have plan C, abortion.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 24, 2022)

_Zee tears are delicious~_


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> I understand why it is beneficial that it was federal and the implications of it no longer being federal.
> 
> But the point is why should it be? In an unbiased fair take why should it be? It was made federally legal based on legal precedent of a trial that was completely fraudulent.
> 
> Being completely fair and honest and partisan it should be overturned and that's exactly what happened.



Because why shouldn't bodily autonomy be in the Constitution? Why was it specifically left out that no one person should have hold over the body of another? You don't think it's weird that the government, that anyone, should have a say in what another person does with their body? 

In the case of abortion, I can understand where people who argue Father's rights are coming from, but aside from any party directly involved in the birth and care of that child, why should anyone have a deciding factor in what happens? We abolished slavery (outside debt and the for profit prison industry) but we as a nation still try to desperately hold onto what little control we have left on people and for what?


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Hm. Well. Does retail fraud count?
> 
> Got arrested just soon after turning 17 for that and because in my state 17 year old's, still legally considered a minor, can be charged as adults I have retail fraud forever on my record, may be a relatively small thing compared to pregnancy and abortion. but I'm sure most retail stores wouldn't want to hire me if they ever caught wind I used to steal from places like theirs, say they ran a background check?
> 
> ...


According to your own logic you should have been forced to raise a child at 17 because you did something dumb. Funny how that didn't have to apply to you though, just women you think deserve the punishment.



SyphenFreht said:


> Because why shouldn't bodily autonomy be in the Constitution? Why was it specifically left out that no one person should have hold over the body of another? You don't think it's weird that the government, that anyone, should have a say in what another person does with their body?
> 
> In the case of abortion, I can understand where people who argue Father's rights are coming from, but aside from any party directly involved in the birth and care of that child, why should anyone have a deciding factor in what happens? We abolished slavery (outside debt and the for profit prison industry) but we as a nation still try to desperately hold onto what little control we have left on people and for what?


According to their own logic they have no right to not be an organ doner since there is nothing in the constitution granting them that right. If they want that right they need to pass an amendment.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 24, 2022)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> How about let's codify* all *the shit Clarence Thomas says should be overturned like contraceptive access or even better yet LOVING VS. VIRGINIA, lets even say Brown vs Board of Education?? Because THAT'S Not in the constitution either. What's fair is fair isn't it Thomas??
> 
> Lets have any spineless republican vote against or filibuster interracial marriage, racial integration or access to condoms on their goddamn record so we know where they truly stand. "They aren't racist" so there shouldn't be any excuse to codify it right?? We already had one politician from Illinois say that interracial marriage should be left up to states but later backtracked...PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR FUCKING MOUTH IS.


Yeah here is the mind set. What about the next thing they may turn over. Just cause 1 person said they should look into it doesnt mean its guaranteed to get overturned. One does not mean the other quit trying to add to what this decesion means. At any time those could be looked at even if row v. Wade was still intact.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> _Zee tears are delicious~_


drinking tears of being an asshat towards a majority of people and ruling over them? Wow what a humane response


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

wartutor said:


> What about the next thing they may turn over. Just cause 1 person said they should look into it doesnt mean its guaranteed to get overturned. One does not mean the other quit trying to add to what this decesion means. At any time those could be looked at even if row v. Wade was still intact.


what if roe v wade was involved in several hundreds of supreme court decisions, used as the legal basis for some other major court rulings. What if perhaps just maybe, your knocking the entire structural pillar on other major rulings. And if you didn't remove roe, you wouldn't have the precedent to remove decisions based on or relating to after roe.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Yeah here is the mind set. What about the next thing they may turn over. Just cause 1 person said they should look into it doesnt mean its guaranteed to get overturned. One does not mean the other quit trying to add to what this decesion means. At any time those could be looked at even if row v. Wade was still intact.


I'll repeat myself again, this is exactly what you guys said before Roe v Wade was overturned.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> drinking tears of being an asshat towards a majority of people and ruling over them? Wow what a humane response


As if you and your ilk are in any way humane yourselves. You're not. Keep crying and reeing.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 24, 2022)

The Childfree-Friendly Doctors List, for those who need to find someone open to performing sterilisations (without the usual "you'll change your mind"/"what if your hypothetical future husband wants kids?" bullshit):

https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/wiki/doctors/


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> According to your own logic you should have been forced to raise a child at 17 because you did something dumb. Funny how that didn't have to apply to you though, just women you think deserve the punishment


Last I knew shoplifting doesn't get women pregnant but hey, whatever you have to tell yourself to make using abortion as a crutch to continually escape becoming a parent an acceptable alternative to just trying to not conceive in the first place.

Agree to disagree.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> As if you and your ilk are in any way humane yourselves. You're not. Keep crying and reeing.


This is what projection looks like.



hippy dave said:


> The Childfree-Friendly Doctors List, for those who need to find someone open to performing sterilisations (without the usual "you'll change your mind"/"what if your hypothetical future husband wants kids?" bullshit):
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/wiki/doctors/


This is exactly what every man opposed to abortion should be doing, to help ensure less abortions happen. Thank you for your service.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> As if you and your ilk are in any way humane yourselves. You're not. Keep crying and reeing.


Okay supporter of a fascist party, causing several thousands to suffer through the unpopular policies and rulings your advocating. 
Republican party is a minority party, drink your own tears.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Last I knew shoplifting doesn't get women pregnant but hey, whatever you have to tell yourself to make using abortion as a crutch to continually escape becoming a parent an acceptable alternative to just trying to not conceive in the first place.
> 
> Agree to disagree.


You said being a parent is a consequence of doing something dumb. Now suddenly it's not, because you're the one involved. Weird how that always happens with you guys.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> This is what projection looks like.


I'm not the one upset that women- excuse me, "birthing people", can't kill babies easily in certain states now, am I?


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I'm not the one upset that women- excuse me, "birthing people", can't kill babies easily in certain states now, am I?


Let's turn the wording around. You're the one who is upset that women can terminate a zygote in some states. Luckily for me, no one is killing babies. Keep crying about it, fascist.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I'm not the one upset that women- excuse me, "birthing people", can't kill babies easily in certain states now, am I?





BitMasterPlus said:


> Because they need the easiest access to sacrifice unborn babies to Satan without that much effort or push back duh lol




Is this you?


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> You said being a parent is a consequence of doing something dumb. Now suddenly it's not, because you're the one involved. Weird how that always happens with you guys.


Still fail to see how shoplifting means I somehow contributed to the conception to a child by stealing from a store. Last I knew you needed to have unprotected sex and finish inside for that to happen.


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> And no one was forcing anyone to get an abortion, but you are in favor of forcing someone to stay pregnant. Something the UN has decided is a crime against humanity btw. Wild how conservative views always align with fascism.


Umm, we all agree murder is wrong though so there's no dictating here.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Let's turn the wording around. You're the one who is upset that women can terminate a zygote in some states. Luckily for me, no one is killing babies. Keep crying about it, fascist.


I'm not crying, I'm happy and laughing at people like you who think this is the worst thing to happen in human history.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> Umm, we all agree murder is wrong though so there's no dictating here.


Great we agree too! But were not killing children, it's a fetus, a zygoate, not developed enough to be a baby, thanks.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2022)

Be careful they are asking for money just like BLM did and you know what ended up with them buying missions 

is funny how it always ends up with them asking for donations


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Still fail to see how shoplifting means I should be forced to raise a child when I didn't contribute to the conception to a child by stealing from a store.


Either doing something dumb = being forced to have the consequences of an unwanted kid or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. You either want to subject an unwanted resented child to abuse it's entire life or you don't.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Either doing something dumb = being forced to have the consequences of an unwanted kid or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. You either want to subject an unwanted resented child to abuse it's entire life or you don't.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I'm not the one upset that women- excuse me, "birthing people", can't kill babies easily in certain states now, am I?



Must be bothered enough to come troll in a thread where your contribution is vitriol, at best.

But please, respond with something along the lines of "owning libs" and "drinking tears" to solidify yourself on the sidelines.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I'm not crying, I'm happy and laughing at people like you who think this is the worst thing to happen in human history.


"I'm not crying, I'm happy and laughing"


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I'm not crying, I'm happy and laughing at people like you who think this is the worst thing to happen in human history.


this you?


BitMasterPlus said:


> As if you and your ilk are in any way humane yourselves. You're not. Keep crying and reeing.







this is you right? Because if you didn't care so much you wouldn't bother responding.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Great we agree too! But were not killing children, it's a fetus, a zygoate, not developed enough to be a baby, thanks.


Ok, well it's wrong to kill "zygotes" lol


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> "I'm not crying, I'm happy and laughing"
> View attachment 315183


lmao holy shit I didn't think you would be thinking exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

XDel said:


> The study on sex that you are referring to is old, debunked, junk science.


No, it isn't.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> "I'm not crying, I'm happy and laughing"
> View attachment 315183


I mean, who's really taking the L today, lads?

You guys or pro life folks?


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Ok, well it's wrong to kill "zygotes" lol


but okay to let people die by starvation, kill trans people by denying them entirely the ability for gender affirming care. It's fine because that's there "personal responsiblity" right? Seems that you care only about certain life, not all.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> snip


You have no reply, though. Your dumb decision shouldn't come with any real consequence, but unprotected sex should, right? Explain why.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> You're incorrect that it is comparable to food or water it's not even close to comparable because food and water give us the energy we need to survive, sex actually consumes energy.
> 
> We can all agree the body doesn't need sex to live in fact there are people who are asexual.


I was talking about the biological drives being comparable. I'll pretend you just didn't understand. Reread my post and try to make sure you're having a good-faith conversation before responding. Thanks.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> but okay to let people die by starvation, kill trans people by denying them entirely the ability for gender affirming care. It's fine because that's there "personal responsiblity" right?


Those things can also be bad?  Lmao


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Must be bothered enough to come troll in a thread where your contribution is vitriol, at best.
> 
> But please, respond with something along the lines of "owning libs" and "drinking tears" to solidify yourself on the sidelines.


I can't help it when it's so easy to see how people get upset that they can't get their way on killing babies easier anymore. I mean, wouldn't you find grown ass adults throwing tantrums like 2 years olds a bit funny and sad?



Nothereed said:


> this you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Speaking of projection....


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> If I keep lying about what a baby is it will be true!


Nope.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> "I'm not crying, I'm happy and laughing"
> View attachment 315183


Meant to reply to this, but works in both comments.

Speaking of projection...


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> I'm a moron.


See? I can do that too.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I can't help it when it's so easy to see how people get upset that they can't get their way on killing babies easier anymore. I mean, wouldn't you find grown ass adults throwing tantrums like 2 years olds a bit funny and sad?


Wouldn't it be sad for someone to spend several hours of their life on this board constantly misrepresenting the others argument non stop, being corrected about it time and time again, continuing non stop to spread misinformation, until the point that nobody likes you?
Wouldn't that be sad?


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Meant to reply to this, but works in both comments.
> 
> Speaking of projection...


"I know you are but what am I" is a bit 3rd grade, but I guess it goes with the average conservative reading level.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> I mean, who's really taking the L today, lads?
> 
> You guys or pro life folks?



Don't worry, it'll be y'all next month:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61890403


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> See? I can do that too.





n00bsaib0t said:


> "I know you are but what am I" is a bit 3rd grade, but I guess it goes with the average conservative reading level.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> "I know you are but what am I" is a bit 3rd grade, but I guess it goes with the average conservative reading level.


You brought up projection first, and then you showed actual projection. I just pointed it out. No need to get mad bro.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I can't help it when it's so easy to see how people get upset that they can't get their way on killing babies easier anymore. I mean, wouldn't you find grown ass adults throwing tantrums like 2 years olds a bit funny and sad?



Your definition of tantrum and mine must be different. I've seen some name calling and "Fuck offs" but I just thought that was standard forum etiquette.

You gonna be alright when that gun bill passes the house within a month or two?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I'm not forcing anyone to get pregnant.


LIAR.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> You have no reply, though. Your dumb decision shouldn't come with any real consequence, but unprotected sex should, right? Explain why.


Who said my dumb decision shouldn't come with a consequence?

I got arrested, I did a year prohibition, got drug tested twice a month when I had at that point, never touched a substance drug tests looked for. I did 80 Hours community service, and then another 80 hours basically for free in exchange for not having to pay money for my supervision fees. I have a permanent mark on my record that might prevent me from getting a job, if it ever comes down to me possibly needing to apply to a retail store.

I never said I shouldn't have had consequences. I DID have consequences and I accepted them without kicking and screaming and REEEE-ing at people because it was MY fault I ended up there.

That's the difference. I took accountability for my actions and didn't try to get out of what I did to myself.

The fact that you're trying to saddle me with a child for shoplifting when shoplifting =/= having unprotected sex and finishing inside a female who isn't on birth control is an asinine argument and quite frankly is grasping at straws. You have nothing else to use.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> You brought up projection first, and then you showed actual projection. I just pointed it out. No need to get mad bro.


"No need to get mad bro."


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Your definition of tantrum and mine must be different. I've seen some name calling and "Fuck offs" but I just thought that was standard forum etiquette.
> 
> You gonna be alright when that gun bill passes the house within a month or two?


They can pass all the shit they want, but it won't fix gun violence, not the way they're doing it. Only blasting criminals will fix that. The moment they try to go after the 2nd Amendment itself is gonna cause a civil war, since no American will ever give up their guns to the government without a fight.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> "No need to get mad bro."
> View attachment 315185


Ok projectionist.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Who said my dumb decision shouldn't come with a consequence?
> 
> I got arrested, I did a year prohibition, got drug tested twice a month when I had at that point, never touched a substance drug tests looked for. I did 80 Hours community service, and then another 80 hours basically for free in exchange for not having to pay money for my supervision fees. I have a permanent mark on my record that might prevent me from getting a job, if it ever comes down to me possibly needing to apply to a retail store.
> 
> ...


I said real consequence, but because you have no honest argument to make you chose to misrepresent what I said. Typical. Oh, you had a year of probation and community service? Surely that's equal to the lifetime consequence you think women deserve, right?


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Great we agree too! But were not killing children, it's a fetus, a zygoate, not developed enough to be a baby, thanks.


A fetus and a zygote in a human womb is still a human being. How do we know? Because *it's literally alive, growing and could have a amazing future and to stop that growth and that future is murder.*

To kill literally means *to deprive of life or put an end to.*

So as long as it's alive it _*is*_ a human being.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Why shouldn't Roe v Wade be thrown out?
> 
> The entire thing was a lie anyway. She lied about being raped. The whole trial was a sham. You don't have a constitutional right to have an abortion.
> 
> Abortion should ALWAYS have been handled at a State level. This is fair and reasonable.


So yeah, this claim is completely false
https://checkyourfact.com/2022/05/09/fact-check-roe-v-wade-rape-race-claim/
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/10/rape-wasnt-part-of-roe-decision/
https://eu.statesman.com/story/news...e-ruling-consider-rape-allegation/9703052002/
https://apnews.com/article/archive-fact-checking-5473330059

This is what we’ve always been up against. Pro-lifers literally just make shit up and then expect to be taken seriously. People make this kind of shit up shouldn’t be taken seriously in any conversation. It’s clear they either believe everything they are told if fits their beliefs or they just make shit up. Either way, their claims shouldn’t be taken seriously.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 24, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> A fetus and a zygote in a human womb is still a human being. How do we know? Because *it's literally alive, growing and could have a amazing future and to stop that growth and that future is murder.*
> 
> To kill literally means *to deprive of life or put an end to.*
> 
> So as long as it's alive it is a human being.


You're literally talking nonsense and you know it.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> I said real consequence, but because you have no honest argument to make you chose to misrepresent what I said. Typical. Oh, you had a year of probation and community service? Surely that's equal to the lifetime consequence you think women deserve, right?


It's not a life time of consequence they, I dunno, keep their pants on instead of letting any schmuck hit it without taking any sort of precautions.

But Agree to disagree. I'm done with the mental gymnastic squad.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> They can pass all the shit they want, but it won't fix gun violence, not the way they're doing it. Only blasting criminals will fix that. The moment they try to go after the 2nd Amendment itself is gonna cause a civil war, since no American will ever give up their guns to the government without a fight.



Except when they start repealing all these laws and policies constituting people as less than people, radicalizing them against each other and then giving them guns, there won't be much Americans can do. They'll kill each other off first and then martial law will go into effect. And we've been such a bully to every minority and every country global wide, who do you think is gonna help? No one. Pretty soon we'll look worse than Russia while every one else is "owning the libs" and bashing "incels".

What a great take from this.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> tus and a zygoate in a human womb is still a human being. How do we know? Because *it's literally alive, growing and could have a amazing future and to stop that growth and that future is murder.*


Yeah and forcing the mother to carry it when it will kill her will also kill the baby, and that would be murder too. Or how about if the mother can't care for the child, and the child dies of starvation and dies. Murder. OR HOW ABOUT MEDICARE FOR ALL, when the child has diabetes type 1, and needs insulin in order to survive, but because you didn't pass that, they are going to fucking die. That's murder too isn't it? That future is heavily deprived because you refuse to help aid in it. You just care for the mother to shit out the child and that's it.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 24, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> A fetus and a zygote in a human womb is still a human being. How do we know? Because *it's literally alive, growing and could have a amazing future and to stop that growth and that future is murder.*
> 
> To kill literally means *to deprive of life or put an end to.*
> 
> So as long as it's alive it _*is*_ a human being.


Arguing the potential of a bright future is naïve at best or attempting to play on emotions at worse.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> It's not a life time of consequence they, I dunno, keep their pants on instead of letting any schmuck hit it without taking any sort of precautions.
> 
> But Agree to disagree. I'm done with the mental gymnastic squad.


That's the extreme minority of cases but okay. Enjoy living the rest of your life without consequences while being hateful toward others who make a specific mistake.


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 24, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> I understand why it is beneficial that it was federal and the implications of it no longer being federal.
> 
> But the point is why should it be? In an unbiased fair take why should it be? It was made federally legal based on legal precedent of a trial that was completely fraudulent.
> 
> Being completely fair and honest and partisan it should be overturned and that's exactly what happened.


The Roe v Wade decision was the US Supreme Court legislating and creating a law which they can't do. Even RBG agreed that it wasn't handled properly.

The Supreme Court reviews laws that were passed by the Congressional branch and then signed by the Executive branch and then rule if they are constitutional or not.

Congress is free to bring this up and try to create a new amendment. But good luck getting the needed votes to pass it, it's almost like half the country doesn't agree with it or something. They could also try backdooring the policy and without funds from states unless they they do x/y/z. This is why we have a standard 21 drinking age across all the states, if states didn't raise it to that they didn't get federal road funds.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 24, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Except when they start repealing all these laws and policies constituting people as less than people, radicalizing them against each other and then giving them guns, there won't be much Americans can do. They'll kill each other off first and then martial law will go into effect. And we've been such a bully to every minority and every country global wide, who do you think is gonna help? No one. Pretty soon we'll look worse than Russia while every one else is "owning the libs" and bashing "incels".
> 
> What a great take from this.


But I guess the BLM/Antifa riots that went unchecked was ok? If the country goes into turmoil, it's not gonna be the way you think. And I don't know if other countries will help us, and I don't care since a civil war involves the country itself, and no one else really.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> That's the extreme minority of cases but okay. Enjoy living the rest of your life without consequences while being hateful toward others who make a specific mistake.


Hateful. That's what we now call wanting people to think about what they are doing and take accountability.

What if I told you it was hateful to assume everyone who doesn't agree with you is hateful?

Enjoy your hate.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> But I guess the BLM/Antifa riots that went unchecked was ok? If the country goes into turmoil, it's not gonna be the way you think. And I don't know if other countries will help us, and I don't care since a civil war involves the country itself, and no one else really.


There were thousands of arrests made over those and over half of them were white supremacists (your boys) convicted for arson and inciting riots but yeah man keep regurgitating what Fox News tells you.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Look over here


Yeah we're not playing that game. Minority party ruling over the majority and removing a fundamental right. Either answer for that, or go home.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Hateful. That's what we now call wanting people to think about what they are doing and take accountability.
> 
> What if I told you it was hateful to assume everyone who doesn't agree with you is hateful?
> 
> Enjoy your hate.


Yeah man, saying that children are a punishment is hateful.


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 24, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I was talking about the biological drives being comparable. I'll pretend you just didn't understand. Reread my post and try to make sure you're having a good-faith conversation before responding. Thanks.


I did misunderstand you sorry, but having sex doesn't mean that killing a human being in a human's womb should be legal, I think that's really the issue here.


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 24, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Arguing the potential of a bright future is naïve at best or attempting to play on emotions at worse.


It's true though and we both know you can't argue with that.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 24, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> There were thousands of arrests made over those and over half of them were white supremacists (your boys) convicted for arson and inciting riots but yeah man keep regurgitating what Fox News tells you.


>tells me I believe in lies
>believes in lies themselves
I can see having a conversation with you would be an intelligent one.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> I did misunderstand you sorry, but having sex doesn't mean that killing a human being in a human's womb should be legal, I think that's really the issue here.


I guess we need to kill it after by denying it food and health care, and refusing to do anything about mass shootings, right?


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 24, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> I did misunderstand you sorry, but having sex doesn't mean that killing a human being in a human's womb should be legal, I think that's really the issue here.


It's legal because the human who owns that womb, in their body, gets to decide what happens in it. End of story. The fetus is not developed enough to be considered a developed human. We aren't killing babies, we aren't doing super late abortions, most of it is caught early, and most doctors wouldn't do an abortion super late unless the mother is at risk of death. Which you know, was banned.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 24, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Yeah we're not playing that game. Minority party ruling over the majority and removing a fundamental right. Either answer for that, or go home.


It's not a minority ruling though. It actually is the majority that support this. The silent majority is coming out, and like it or not, you are outnumbered.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 24, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> >tells me I believe in lies
> >believes in lies themselves
> I can see having a conversation with you would be an intelligent one.


You really are the poster child for far right extremist propaganda. I'm sure you believe the election was stolen, gun control does nothing to stop gun violence, white people are being replaced, and "globalists" are conspiring to turn your kids trans too.


BitMasterPlus said:


> It's not a minority ruling though. It actually is the majority that support this. The silent majority is coming out, and like it or not, you are outnumbered.


I guess we can add that you think all the polls are fabricated too.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> It's not a minority ruling though. It actually is the majority that support this. The silent majority is coming out, and like it or not, you are outnumbered.


It's an absolute minority put in place by a terrorist president who got in only thanks to Russian propaganda and people like you being smooth-brained hate mongers.


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> I guess we need to kill it after by denying it food and health care, and refusing to do anything about mass shootings, right?


This is off topic but that's fixed by better childcare maybe healthcare programs, child protection and GOOD adoption not the ones we have now.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> It's not a minority ruling though. It actually is the majority that support this. The silent majority is coming out, and like it or not, you are outnumbered.


BULL FUCKING SHIT!
what is this then?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/majority-of-americans-dont-want-roe-overturned
or this
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-overturned-despite-public-opinion/
or this!
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/19/1099844097/abortion-polling-roe-v-wade-supreme-court-draft-opinion
Or this!
https://news.gallup.com/poll/393275/steady-americans-not-roe-wade-overturned.aspx
OR this!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-court-should-uphold-roe-post-abc-poll-finds/
No it's not the silent majority coming out, it's the vocal minority trying to overrule the majority.
EDIT:
OR THIS
https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/npr-pbs-newshour-marist-national-poll-abortion-rights-may-2022/


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> You really are the poster child for far right extremist propaganda. I'm sure you believe the election was stolen, gun control does nothing to stop gun violence, white people are being replaced, and "globalists" are conspiring to turn your kids trans too.
> 
> I guess we can add that you think all the polls are fabricated too.


I could use this as a meme to show how some people are completely and irreversibly deluded. Thanks for the material!


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 25, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> It's true though and we both know you can't argue with that.


I wouldn't say it's true or not true because it's not actually something we can actually verify. We can't confirm any belief in the potential of someone's life. We can't verify the world if they came into the world vs the world without them. We don't know if someone born will be a doctor or a murderer. This isn't a good argument because it's literally impossible to prove.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> This is off topic but that's fixed by better childcare maybe healthcare programs, child protection and GOOD adoption not the ones we have now.


That just leaves the problem of violating the woman's bodily autonomy.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Yeah yeah cry more commie.


What a great response, Nothing of substance but ad hominem attack, go try again when you have something of substance to say and an actual argument. Because "cry more commie" isn't a argument.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I could use this as a meme to show how some people are completely and irreversibly deluded. Thanks for the material!


So no rebuttal at all. Figures. It's always the same with you guys. Enjoy your fascist propaganda.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> BULL FUCKING SHIT!
> what is this then?
> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/majority-of-americans-dont-want-roe-overturned
> or this
> ...


The majority of those sites are literally propagandist news sites that cover for the twisted people in the government. It's funny how people accuse me of believing in propagandist news when they're exactly neck deep in the actual stuff. But I don't blame you for believing in them. It's easier to fool people than to convince they've been fooled.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> So no rebuttal at all. Figures. It's always the same with you guys. Enjoy your fascist propaganda.


Cry more commie.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> BULL FUCKING SHIT!
> what is this then?
> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/majority-of-americans-dont-want-roe-overturned
> or this
> ...


Never mind about the links - the law is the law, suck it up buttercup. If you don't want a kid don't get pregnant or don't get woman pregnant. That's all there is to it.

Also I have to laugh at these people saying - my body my choice, the exact same people that were trying to force others to get vaccinated with an experimental vaccine. Hohoho.


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> The fetus is not developed enough to be considered a developed human. We aren't killing babies, we aren't doing super late abortions


It's a developing human which is still a human, not surprisingly, you gave the reason yourself why they shouldn't be killed.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Yeah yeah cry more commie.


Yep there it is. Gotta get in those buzz words your overlords told you to throw around. Have an original thought. Also use a dictionary, you have no fucking idea what a communist is lol


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> It's a developing human which is still a human.


Still not a baby.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> What a great response, Nothing of substance but ad hominem attack, go try again when you have something of substance to say and an actual argument. Because "cry more commie" isn't a argument.


Pretty sure there are several instances of your side of the argument doing the same but I know you don't think you should be held to the same standards so that's par for the course that you would ignore that.

I have no leg in this argument anymore I'm done but figured I'd point that out. Both sides like to insult each other.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Yep there it is. Gotta get in those buzz words your overlords told you to throw around. Have an original thought. Also use a dictionary, you have no fucking idea what a communist is lol


You. That's the definition. lol


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> The majority of those sites are literally propagandist news sites that cover for the twisted people in the government. It's funny how people accuse me of believing in propagandist news when they're exactly neck deep in the actual stuff. But I don't blame you for believing in them. It's easier to fool people than to convince they've been fooled.


Okay then, look outside, look outside right now, look if there's protests happening through out the country, or the sheer number of them, and go tell me again that it's "propaganda"
Your not pulling any wool over anyone's eyes. You don't support women, if you did, you would support  the choice to abortions. End of story.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Pretty sure there are several instances of your side of the argument doing the same but I know you don't think you should be held to the same standards so that's par for the course that you would ignore that.
> 
> I have no leg in this argument anymore I'm done but figured I'd point that out. Both sides like to insult each other.


Didn't you get pissy with me earlier for lumping you in with a hivemind? And yet here you are.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Yeah yeah cry more commie.


Lol you're gonna cry when they put him in jail, reactionary fash pig. And I'll be laughing.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> But I guess the BLM/Antifa riots that went unchecked was ok? If the country goes into turmoil, it's not gonna be the way you think. And I don't know if other countries will help us, and I don't care since a civil war involves the country itself, and no one else really.



This isn't about the BLM/Antifa riots, nor does it have the same mentality. If anything, you should be more compassionate toward those riots as they were against the senseless killing of people, something Republicans seem to conveniently forget when they say abortions are the senseless killings of people. 

You'll care when the government declares martial law on all the people leftover from the civil war who still have guns.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Didn't you get pissy with me earlier for lumping you in with a hivemind? And yet here you are


 Both sides are insulting each other. Glad we agree on that.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> The majority of those sites are literally propagandist news sites that cover for the twisted people in the government. It's funny how people accuse me of believing in propagandist news when they're exactly neck deep in the actual stuff. But I don't blame you for believing in them. It's easier to fool people than to convince they've been fooled.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Okay then, look outside, look outside right now, look if there's protests happening through out the country, or the sheer number of them, and go tell me again that it's "propaganda"
> Your not pulling any wool over anyone's eyes. You don't support women, if you did, you would support  the choice to abortions. End of story.


Yup, psychotic liberals rioting again. And people will get sick of it and put them in their place. Also, supporting abortions is the complete opposite of supporting women's rights.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Lol you're gonna cry when they put him in jail, reactionary fash pig. And I'll be laughing.


If they could they would've by now, but they not less than nothing. He ain't going to jail.  It's gonna be a sad fantasy that'll never come true but you'll still jerk off too at night.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> You. That's the definition. lol





n00bsaib0t said:


> "I know you are but what am I" is a bit 3rd grade, but I guess it goes with the average conservative reading level.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


>



Ok projectionist. How's that Roe v. Wade workin' out for ya? You're still a sad commie lol


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Yup, psychotic liberals rioting again. And people will get sick of it and put them in their place.


There's the inner fascist in you coming out. Glad your threatening violence over your peers who are protesting a minority decision you helped enforce.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Ok projectionist. How's that Roe v. Wade workin' out for ya?





n00bsaib0t said:


> "I know you are but what am I" is a bit 3rd grade, but I guess it goes with the average conservative reading level.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 25, 2022)

Wow... this thread blew up.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Don't worry, it'll be y'all next month:
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61890403


Oh I'll be reminding you of this.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> This isn't about the BLM/Antifa riots, nor does it have the same mentality. If anything, you should be more compassionate toward those riots as they were against the senseless killing of people, something Republicans seem to conveniently forget when they say abortions are the senseless killings of people.
> 
> You'll care when the government declares martial law on all the people leftover from the civil war who still have guns.


Riots are gonna happen soon, just like the BLM/Antifa riots, so yes, it's the same thing. If you'd care you'd be against these violent riots in the past and the ones that will come now by these people.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

Okay now this is literally just back and forth name calling. I think this would be a good place for mods to consider closing this thread. Everything worth saying on both sides of the argument has been said. Now it's just petty.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> There's the inner fascist in you coming out. Glad your threatening violence over your peers who are protesting a minority decision you helped enforce.


Dude, you and most the people in these thread are the actual facists. You're the nazi's. You're the commies. You're the baddies. Different words, but they all mean the same at the end. Two sides of the same coin, and you're both.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Yup, psychotic liberals rioting again. And people will get sick of it and put them in their place. Also, supporting abortions is the complete opposite of supporting women's rights.



Because men can have abortions? What an oddly progressive angle to take.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Dude, you and most the people in these thread are the actual facists. You're the nazi's. You're the commies. You're the baddies. Different words, but they all mean the same at the end. Two sides of the same coin, and you're both.





n00bsaib0t said:


> "I know you are but what am I" is a bit 3rd grade, but I guess it goes with the average conservative reading level.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

@n00bsaib0t  is so mentally broken they can't come up with anything original anymore XD


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> So yeah, this claim is completely false
> https://checkyourfact.com/2022/05/09/fact-check-roe-v-wade-rape-race-claim/
> https://www.factcheck.org/2018/10/rape-wasnt-part-of-roe-decision/
> https://eu.statesman.com/story/news...e-ruling-consider-rape-allegation/9703052002/
> ...


Dude, they chose her because she said she was gang raped. She testified under oath her circumstances. 

How naive do you have to honestly beleive the plaintiff in the case being gang raped had ABSOLUTELY NO significance in the ruling.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Oh I'll be reminding you of this.


You are still active! Are you ever going to post the source for this claim?


Purple_Shyguy said:


> Why shouldn't Roe v Wade be thrown out?
> 
> The entire thing was a lie anyway. She lied about being raped. The whole trial was a sham. You don't have a constitutional right to have an abortion.
> 
> Abortion should ALWAYS have been handled at a State level. This is fair and reasonable.





Purple_Shyguy said:


> Dude, they chose her because she said she was gang raped. She testified under oath her circumstances.
> 
> How naive do you have to honestly beleive the plaintiff in the case being gang raped had ABSOLUTELY NO significance in the ruling.


That's not a source for your claim. No one in Roe v Wade mentioned anything about rape. You claimed that this was about a false accusation of rape, what is your source?


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Riots are gonna happen soon, just like the BLM/Antifa riots, so yes, it's the same thing. If you'd care you'd be against these violent riots in the past and the ones that will come now by these people.


Weird of you to admit that the far right are going to be out there agitating the situation.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> There's the inner fascist in you coming out. Glad your threatening violence over your peers who are protesting a minority decision you helped enforce.


There you go again with the name calling - how many nazi's have you met this week?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Oh I'll be reminding you of this.



I hope so. I like to be proven wrong. 



BitMasterPlus said:


> Riots are gonna happen soon, just like the BLM/Antifa riots, so yes, it's the same thing. If you'd care you'd be against these violent riots in the past and the ones that will come now by these people.



So riots are a bad thing?


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> @n00bsaib0t  is so mentally broken they can't come up with anything original anymore XD


You never said anything original in the first place.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Because men can have abortions? What an oddly progressive angle to take.


No, because killing babies inside the womb is cruel. But I don't expect people like you to have any sense of humane empathy.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> If they could they would've by now, but they not less than nothing. He ain't going to jail. It's gonna be a sad fantasy that'll never come true but you'll still jerk off too at night


No thanks, I don't get aroused by fat evil orange old men. That must be you, smooth-brain. Stop projecting


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> No, because killing babies inside the womb is cruel. But I don't expect people like you to have any sense of humane empathy.


"There was absolutely nothing to be upset about with the police murdering all those people. You have no empathy."

Again, nothing but projection.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Dude, you and most the people in these thread are the actual facists. You're the nazi's. You're the commies. You're the baddies. Different words, but they all mean the same at the end. Two sides of the same coin, and you're both.


Really? Did I just threatened to kill my political opposites because they are protesting over a minority decision? No I didn't say that. _you did_
Your mask is off, we can all read it. No amount of it "You are" is going to change that. You just threatened to kill them.you are in favor of a dictatorship of the minority party. You are a fascist.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So riots are a bad thing?


Um, yes. Protests are ok, but when it escalates to riots where people die, businesses are burned down, and half the country is destroyed, then yes, it's bad. I can't believe I have to explain something that should be common sense.


n00bsaib0t said:


> You never said anything original in the first place.


If that's true, then what you said is even less than original if that's even possible.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> "There was absolutely nothing to be upset about with the police murdering all those people. You have no empathy."
> 
> Again, nothing but projection.


But it's ok for blacks to be constantly killing each other, huh?


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Really? Did I just threatened to kill my political opposites because they are protesting over a minority decision? No I didn't say that. _you did_
> Your mask is off, we can all read it. No amount of it "You are" is going to change that. You just threatened to kill them.you are in favor of a dictatorship of the minority party. You are a fascist.


Lmao get a grip dude. Just take the L today and log off. You're acting totally unhinged.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> No, because killing babies inside the womb is cruel. But I don't expect people like you to have any sense of humane empathy.



If your definition of empathy includes stripping one of their rights to support the rights of another, then that's a profound expectation to make. Remember, this is what America did with slaves, and it sure would be a shame to go back down that road again.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Um, yes. Protests are ok, but when it escalates to riots where people die, businesses are burned down, and half the country is destroyed, then yes, it's bad. I can't believe I have to explain something that should be common sense.


So you agree, all of your boys out there starting fires and running people over that summer was a bad thing and BLM protesting (antifa doesn't fucking exist) was fine.


BitMasterPlus said:


> If that's true, then what you said is even less than original if that's even possible.


Well now you're not even trying.


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 25, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I wouldn't say it's true or not true because it's not actually something we can actually verify. We can't confirm any belief in the potential of someone's life. We can't verify the world if they came into the world vs the world without them. We don't know if someone born will be a doctor or a murderer. This isn't a good argument because it's literally impossible to prove.


Well you should say it's true because it is. My point wasn't to confirm any belief in the potential of someone's life it was to point out that they won't have a life if they're murder.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> If your definition of empathy includes stripping one of their rights to support the rights of another, then that's a profound expectation to make. Remember, this is what America did with slaves, and it sure would be a shame to go back down that road again.


Rights involving taking human life? And actually comparing it to slavery? Gee, I'd like to experience the twisted and deluded world you live in. It must be fun.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Lmao get a grip dude. Just take the L today and log off. You're acting totally unhinged.





BitMasterPlus said:


> Yup, psychotic liberals rioting again. And people will get sick of it and put them in their place.


Then tell off your buddy over there. That term "put them in their place" does not mean putting them in jail. That's a threat of violence with a gun.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Lmao get a grip dude. Just take the L today and log off. You're acting totally unhinged.


Sounds hollow from the guy literally advocating lynching eh


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> So you agree, all of your boys out there starting fires and running people over that summer was a bad thing and BLM protesting (antifa doesn't fucking exist) was fine.


None of "my boys" did that, that was your side.


n00bsaib0t said:


> Well now you're not even trying.


That's you.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> But it's ok for blacks to be constantly killing each other, huh?


No. And absolutely nothing about what I said indicates that I would think it is. But lets lay it all out, shall we. A black person kills another black person. The police come and arrest the murderer, who then spends the rest of their life in prison.

What part of the system didn't work? What do I need to protest here.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 25, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> Well you should say it's true because it is. My point wasn't to confirm any belief in the potential of someone's life it was to point out that they won't have a life if they're murder.


How can you prove that it's true? What evidence do you have to show the potential life could somehow end up being a doctor and not a murderer? Without getting into some woo, what evidence is there?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> None of "my boys" did that, that was your side.


Nah it was your pals the Proud Cun- I mean boys, hope they're having fun getting raided by the FBI and going to jail. I wonder when your turn will come, soon I'm sure.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> None of "my boys" did that, that was your side.
> 
> That's you.


So you're claiming that the far right white supremacists who vote republican are, in fact, both democrat and cool with Jewish people?
https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/...supremacists-disguised-as-black-lives-matter/

And again, more of the "I know you are but what am I". Adorable.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> No. And absolutely nothing about what I said indicates that I would think it is. But lets lay it all out, shall we. A black person kills another black person. The police come and arrest the murderer, who then spends the rest of their life in prison.
> 
> What part of the system didn't work? What do I need to protest here.


Go to the liberal states where they don't even prosecute criminals, like California, then come talk to me.


Nothereed said:


> Then tell off your buddy over there. That term "put them in their place" does not mean putting them in jail. That's a threat of violence with a gun.


Show me where I said "Imma come after ya with a gun!". I wanna see that.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Then tell off your buddy over there. That term "put them in their place" does not mean putting them in jail. That's a threat of violence with a gun.


Legally put them in their place.

Better?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> So you're claiming that the far right white supremacists who vote republican are, in fact, both democrat and cool with Jewish people?
> https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/...supremacists-disguised-as-black-lives-matter/
> 
> And again, more of the "I know you are but what am I". Adorable.


Nope, your side, liberals, BLM, Antifa (which DOES exist moron) did that, and I wouldn't be surprised if you also participated in that considering how crazy you are.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Go to the liberal states where they don't even prosecute criminals, like California, then come talk to me.


Give one source on this that isn't right wing propaganda. Something factual, a real study on the law and how it's enforced in California. Do it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Um, yes. Protests are ok, but when it escalates to riots where people die, businesses are burned down, and half the country is destroyed, then yes, it's bad. I can't believe I have to explain something that should be common sense.



So by your logic, we should've never freed black people or gave women the right to vote or enact work safety laws that includes 40hr work weeks. Do you believe what comes across your fingers or do you just cherry pick what's ok for you?



BitMasterPlus said:


> But it's ok for blacks to be constantly killing each other, huh?



If that's an actual concern for you, why hate the BLM? On the surface it was about police brutality against black people, but underneath was a constant mantra of solidarity among the greater black community. Or, like with the above example, do you cherry pick what you support and disregard the rest?


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Nope, your side, liberals, BLM, Antifa (which DOES exist moron) did that, and I wouldn't be surprised if you also participated in that considering how crazy you are.


Just so we are clear, your argument here is that the police that were being protested against conspired with BLM and a group that every law enforcement agency in the country says isn't real in a ploy to make white supremacists look bad and let the actual rioters off the hook?


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Still not a baby.


...Still a person/*human* though.
18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder​Murder is the unlawful killing of a *human* being with malice aforethought.

Hence, overturn.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> ...Still a person/*human* though.
> 18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder​Murder is the unlawful killing of a *human* being with malice aforethought.


Okay now prove the malice.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> ...Still a person/*human* though.
> 18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder​Murder is the unlawful killing of a *human* being with malice aforethought.



So, nothing to do with abortion then as a foetus isn't a legal person, or a person in any way.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Something factual, a real study on the law and how it's enforced in California.


I'm almost certain that doesn't exist.
Both sides the left and the right twist stats and narratives to suit their means. Basically all sources of news, stats and studies have a political leaning. There are no places that call it down the middle. They might claim to, but it never actually works out.

That's a whole different problem though, I would imagine.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

Can we keep on the topic of liberals seething about not being allowed to murder babies and drop the BLM terrorist organisation discussion?


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Show me where I said "Imma come after ya with a gun!". I wanna see that.


"Yup, psychotic liberals rioting again. And people will get sick of it and put them in their place.*"
"people will get sick of it and put them in their place"*
You didn't choose to say they will get put in their place. Such as "Rioting again. They will get put in their place"
 you _specifically_
said "People will get sick of it and put them in their place"
That is a call to violence. That those "sick of it" people will "put them in their place"
 This is called the English language, we have multiple ways of saying the something. Don't bother trying to feign ignorance.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

Elodain said:


> I'm almost certain that doesn't exist.
> Both sides the left and the right twist stats and narratives to suit their means. Basically all sources of news, stats and studies have a political leaning. There are no places that call it down the middle. They might claim to, but it never actually works out.
> 
> That's a whole different problem though, I would imagine.


bOtH sIdEs


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Rights involving taking human life? And actually comparing it to slavery? Gee, I'd like to experience the twisted and deluded world you live in. It must be fun.



Not a big fan of history, are you? You know they killed a lot of slaves. You know how? They stripped them of the things that make them human, like bodily autonomy. So in that sense, it's almost exactly the same. 

You know, I certainly hope none of those slave owners performed abortions on their slaves, cuz America wasn't founded upon that kind of behavior. 

Oh. Wait...


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Can we keep on the topic of liberals seething about not being allowed to murder babies and drop the BLM terrorist organisation discussion?


Can we keep on the topic of GQP wanting to control women's bodies and claiming to care about kids but actually giving more rights to a gun than to a woman or a child?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Give one source on this that isn't right wing propaganda. Something factual, a real study on the law and how it's enforced in California. Do it.


I've given dozens of legitimate sources on this site in the past and it went nowhere because of how brainwashed people are. I'm done with that, so I'm just gonna point out the hypocrisy and laugh because nothing I will ever do will convince you or anybody otherwise. I could post one of these crazies committing live murder and you'd deny it. Take that what you will but I'm done exhausting myself for people who won't change their ways and rather kill babies to appease their devil.


SyphenFreht said:


> So by your logic, we should've never freed black people or gave women the right to vote or enact work safety laws that includes 40hr work weeks. Do you believe what comes across your fingers or do you just cherry pick what's ok for you?


Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said black shouldn't have been freed. Slavery is wrong, but we do have a crime problem no one is addressing.


SyphenFreht said:


> If that's an actual concern for you, why hate the BLM? On the surface it was about police brutality against black people, but underneath was a constant mantra of solidarity among the greater black community. Or, like with the above example, do you cherry pick what you support and disregard the rest?


No, underneath it's a marxist organization led by two women who stole millions of dollars and instead of giving it to the black community they bought mansions, but keep going and keep supporting and donating to thieves and tell me how that works out for ya.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Can we keep on the topic of GQP wanting to control women's bodies and claiming to care about kids but actually giving more rights to a gun than to a woman or a child?


No, but we can discuss not killing babies.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Not a big fan of history, are you? You know they killed a lot of slaves. You know how? They stripped them of the things that make them human, like bodily autonomy. So in that sense, it's almost exactly the same.
> 
> You know, I certainly hope none of those slave owners performed abortions on their slaves, cuz America wasn't founded upon that kind of behavior.
> 
> Oh. Wait...


Who did? The democrats who also started the KKK and killed blacks?


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I've given dozens of legitimate sources on this site in the past and it went nowhere because of how brainwashed people are. I'm done with that, so I'm just gonna point out the hypocrisy and laugh because nothing I will ever do will convince you or anybody otherwise. I could post one of these crazies committing live murder and you'd deny it. Take that what you will but I'm done exhausting myself for people who won't change their ways and rather kill babies to appease their devil.
> 
> No, underneath it's a marxist organization led by two women who stole millions of dollars and instead of giving it to the black community they bought mansions, but keep going and keep supporting and donating to thieves and tell me how that works out for ya.


So no sources. Got it.

And really, it's telling that you can't separate people and their movement from organizations and corporations. Black Lives Matter existed literally years before the people you're talking about stole it for the name of their organization and the people who support it aren't going to stop supporting it just because of that.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> bOtH sIdEs


Close your eyes all you want.
That doesn't change the fact that everybody wants to be right by any means necessary, and that there simply aren't enough people in the world that actually don't favor either side to put out unbiased and unmanipulated numbers.

That's not an argument. That's just reality. We live in a political world weather we like it or not, and the only sides that anybody really pays any attention to are both corrupt and willing to lie to be in the right.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> No, but we can discuss not killing babies.


No, but we can discuss your hypocrisy in claiming abortion is killing babies when it's not. You know what is killing babies? Mass shootings in schools, and you're not batting an eyelash about it. Murderer. You're an evil murderer.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Who did? The democrats who also started the KKK and killed blacks?


Uh oh bro you gonna have them...

[Furiously googles fact checkers]


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Gee, it almost looks like you've gained a brain cell, but it's just a brain fart really.


So were BLM out there rioting because they hate the police or was it all a big conspiracy with police help? You gotta fucking pick one man.


----------



## Jayro (Jun 25, 2022)

The Supreme Court is fucking up 'bigly'.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> No, but we can discuss your hypocrisy in claiming abortion is killing babies when it's not. You know what is killing babies? Mass shootings in schools, and you're not batting an eyelash about it. Murderer. You're an evil murderer.


Lmao why do you assume I'm not against killing children in schools?

Literally schizo train of thought you have.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Lmao why do you assume I'm not against killing children in schools?


I didn't say that, illiterate schizo. I said you don't care, which you don't. You clearly think guns deserve more rights than women and kids.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Close your eyes all you want.
> That doesn't change the fact that everybody wants to be right by any means necessary, and that there simply aren't enough people in the world that actually don't favor either side to put out unbiased and unmanipulated numbers.
> 
> That's not an argument. That's just reality. We live in a political world weather we like it or not, and the only sides that anybody really pays any attention to are both corrupt and willing to lie to be in the right.


We do live in a political world. And here in the US we have a VERY far right, and a group that are just to the right of center. There is no left wing. So one group of media sources are close to the center, and the other group are far right propaganda. And you're upset at the ones that are close to the center for having the political bias of being close to the center?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said black shouldn't have been freed.



Actually I made a comparative statement based on the stance you tried to take according to the logic you provided. Never once did I, or will I, state you said something when you didn't. I imply based on presented logic and debate accordingly. 



BitMasterPlus said:


> Slavery is wrong, but we do have a crime problem no one is addressing.



And adding abortion to the list of crimes won't muddle this problem up even further?



BitMasterPlus said:


> No, underneath it's a marxist organization led by two women who stole millions of dollars and instead of giving it to the black community they bought mansions, but keep going and keep supporting and donating to thieves and tell me how that works out for ya.



I haven't donated a dime because donations are disingenuous, regardless of parent affiliation. 

I'm curious to know what led you to that conclusion. Do you mind linking something that alludes to that?


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I didn't say that, illiterate schizo. I said you don't care, which you don't. You clearly think guns deserve more rights than women and kids.


You literally said I didn't bash and eyelash at the school shooting. Therefore implying I'm ok with it. Then LITERALLY called me a murderer 

Schizo!!!


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Who did? The democrats who also started the KKK and killed blacks?


Who does the KKK vote for in 2022? Who?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> So no sources. Got it.
> 
> And really, it's telling that you can't separate people and their movement from organizations and corporations. Black Lives Matter existed literally years before the people you're talking about stole it for the name of their organization and the people who support it aren't going to stop supporting it just because of that.


It's a corrupt organization and you're a fool for supporting them. And your "sources" are rancid garbage.



n00bsaib0t said:


> So were BLM out there rioting because they hate the police or was it all a big conspiracy with police help? You gotta fucking pick one man.


They were rioting because they were fooled into thinking police were "hunting them down" when white people get killed by police more than blacks do.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> We do live in a political world. And here in the US we have a VERY far right, and a group that are just to the right of center. There is no left wing. So one group of media sources are close to the center, and the other group are far right propaganda. And you're upset at the ones that are close to the center for having the political bias of being close to the center?


Not wanting to kill unborn babies = far right extremist


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

Jayro said:


> The Supreme Court is fucking up 'bigly'.
> 
> View attachment 315188


Welp, can't do anything about it now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Who did? The democrats who also started the KKK and killed blacks?


Reminder that the republican party used the southern strategy to continue to push against blacks and kill them, and closely aligned with the KKK. Reminder that the republican party of today, was the democratic party back before the party switch.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> You literally said I didn't bash and eyelash at the school shooting. Therefore implying I'm ok with it. Then LITERALLY called me a murderer
> 
> Schizo!!!


I'm sorry you're so illiterate. Do you know what "not batting an eyelash" means?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dic...ise, fear,listened without batting an eyelash.

"To not show fear or surprise." Doesn't imply approval anywhere.

I'm stating to thing your 16yo gf wasn't that crazy, and you might have really hurt her and got away with it.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Actually I made a comparative statement based on the stance you tried to take according to the logic you provided.


Nah you didn't.


SyphenFreht said:


> Never once did I, or will I, state you said something when you didn't. I imply based on presented logic and debate accordingly.


Yes you did.


SyphenFreht said:


> And adding abortion to the list of crimes won't muddle this problem up even further?


No it wouldn't.


SyphenFreht said:


> I haven't donated a dime because donations are disingenuous, regardless of parent affiliation.
> 
> I'm curious to know what led you to that conclusion. Do you mind linking something that alludes to that?


Good for you then.


n00bsaib0t said:


> Who does the KKK vote for in 2022? Who?


The socialist left.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> he socialist left.


Prove it. I dare you.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm sorry you're so illiterate. Do you know what "not batting an eyelash" means?
> 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/not bat an eye/eyelash#:~:text=: to show no surprise, fear,listened without batting an eyelash.
> 
> ...


Yeah it means to not care. Exactly what I said.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Yeah it means to not care. Exactly what I said.


No, it's not what you said at all. I Said that, stop stealing, you GQP maniac.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> It's a corrupt organization and you're a fool for supporting them. And your "sources" are rancid garbage.
> 
> 
> They were rioting because they were fooled into thinking police were "hunting them down" when white people get killed by police more than blacks do.


I don't support the organization. I support the movement. The movement is older than the organization. Kinda like how you still support conservatives even though conservatives started the KKK. You're not letting the KKK stop you from supporting conservatives, are you?

The source was the police, and I do agree that police in general are rancid garbage yes. There have been multiple studies showing they've been infiltrated by white supremacist groups, though, so there's no reason to assume they would lie about white supremacists instigating this.

Yeah man, police killing white people is a problem too. It's fucking weird that you don't think so and are using this as a point of defense. If you pay attention, BLM are the ones that get upset over police killing white people while you lick boots. Just look at the police who knocked on a dude's door in Phoenix and fucking shot him. BLM was outraged, your side fucking jumped on the opportunity to taste leather.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Yeah man, police killing white people is a problem too. It's fucking weird that you don't think so and are using this as a point of defense


It's not, he's kind of the evil village idiot.


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Okay now prove the malice.


Wanting to kill a developing human being because it makes your life easier and is not needed is malice because of the desire to take away it's life which is evil just like it's evil to want to kill an adult.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

Now it's videogame related!

(Actually it's about ethics in videogame journalism)






Does any of our democrat Temp friends think it's in good taste to joke about murdering supreme court justices literally not even 2 weeks after an actual real life planned assassination attempt against one of them?


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> The socialist left.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...aper-has-endorsed-donald-trump-for-president/


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Who did? The democrats who also started the KKK and killed blacks?



Yes. Those Democrats. Who, along with the Republicans at the time, went on to switch parties and ideologies and become what is today's Republicans and Democrats. Both are mostly terrible parties, and your attempt at disrupting the ideologies of today's parties based on their history is... Entertaining. However, currently, the Republicans are taking away women's bodily autonomies, so regardless of which party started being the bigot first, we're in current times, where both parties are really just, crap.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> Wanting to kill a developing human being because it makes your life easier and is not needed is malice because of the desire to take away it's life which is evil just like it's evil to want to kill an adult.


F+ because tautologies are only as funny as they are ridiculous, and this is pathetic.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Prove it. I dare you.


Dare me what? You ain't gonna do nuthin' punk!


n00bsaib0t said:


> I don't support the organization. I support the movement. The movement is older than the organization. Kinda like how you still support conservatives even though conservatives started the KKK. You're not letting the KKK stop you from supporting conservatives, are you?
> 
> The source was the police, and I do agree that police in general are rancid garbage yes. There have been multiple studies showing they've been infiltrated by white supremacist groups, though, so there's no reason to assume they would lie about white supremacists instigating this.
> 
> Yeah man, police killing white people is a problem too. It's fucking weird that you don't think so and are using this as a point of defense. If you pay attention, BLM are the ones that get upset over police killing white people while you lick boots. Just look at the police who knocked on a dude's door in Phoenix and fucking shot him. BLM was outraged, your side fucking jumped on the opportunity to taste leather.


Yeah yeah yeah believe the lies till the end.


Dark_Ansem said:


> It's not, he's kind of the evil village idiot.


Yes we know you are and you proved it repeatedly.


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> F+ because tautologies are only as funny as they are ridiculous, and this is pathetic.


Wanting to kill something isn't evil?


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> We do live in a political world. And here in the US we have a VERY far right, and a group that are just to the right of center. There is no left wing. So one group of media sources are close to the center, and the other group are far right propaganda. And you're upset at the ones that are close to the center for having the political bias of being close to the center?


If Biden and the Blues aren't far left enough for you...you could have voted for someone else...?

It's hard to blame the political leanings of the people in power for not agreeing with you enough when YOU'RE the ones that put him there. I didn't put him there, I didn't vote at all. I refuse to be a part of the corrupt political system and have opinions from all over the spectrum.

I know a lot of people wanted to get rid of orange man, but it seems in their desperation they just voted for anybody BUT orange man and regret it because they can't control the new guy enough to get their way. Guess we're just going back to my argument about THINKING before acting. I'm sure there was someone else that could have been voted for that the left could have taken control of...but nobody wants to deviate from RED v. BLUE so they kind of shot themselves in the foot.

I'm not upset about the existence of the biased news outlets. I may not agree with their methods but I accept their existence.

And if you don't think there aren't any far left news outlets in circulation, you might not be looking hard enough. This is the internet. Everything is on here.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 25, 2022)

Today I decided to upload this picture so you can be reminded that you will need to take responsability for your own actions. If you don't want a baby, don't have unprotected sex!


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Yes we know you are and you proved it repeatedly.


Awww the No U defence, exactly what I expected from your smooth brain.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...aper-has-endorsed-donald-trump-for-president/


Take that to the trash where you belong as well.


SyphenFreht said:


> Yes. Those Democrats. Who, along with the Republicans at the time, went on to switch parties and ideologies and become what is today's Republicans and Democrats. Both are mostly terrible parties, and your attempt at disrupting the ideologies of today's parties based on their history is... Entertaining. However, currently, the Republicans are taking away women's bodily autonomies, so regardless of which party started being the bigot first, we're in current times, where both parties are really just, crap.


Well we can agree on one thing, both parties do suck, which is why real Americans are getting voted in positions of power across the country.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Can we keep on the topic of liberals seething about not being allowed to murder babies and drop the BLM terrorist organisation discussion?


Can you provide a source for this claim?


Purple_Shyguy said:


> Why shouldn't Roe v Wade be thrown out?
> 
> The entire thing was a lie anyway. She lied about being raped. The whole trial was a sham. You don't have a constitutional right to have an abortion.
> 
> Abortion should ALWAYS have been handled at a State level. This is fair and reasonable.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> The socialist left.


Okay by that logic why do democrats have the vote of black people then? Surely if what you were saying was true, most of them would be voting republican, but they don't... _scratches head_ I wonder why. It it because Republicans are against BLM? Is it because we had 31 rioters, who were planing to interfere with a BLM protest violently. Strannnge isn't it. Oh and all of them were heavily right wing individuals.
It's maybe like, your full of shit and it's the increasingly fascist party that's racist.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> Wanting to kill a developing human being because it makes your life easier and is not needed is malice because of the desire to take away it's life which is evil just like it's evil to want to kill an adult.


It's adorable that you've shifted to "developing human" instead of "baby" to try and prove your point but unless you can show that it is, in fact, a real life you have nothing. There is a reason you can't claim it on your taxes until after birth, despite the massive financial expense of carrying it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Nah you didn't.
> 
> Yes you did.
> 
> ...



Not a big fan of reading comprehension either, are we? 

Anyway, I'll give you some time to Dictionary.com some of those bigger terms. I have liberal tears to cry and back alley abortions to administer. Sorry, I mean "perform".


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Can you provide a source for this claim?


She admitted she lied about it. What more do you want?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Today I decided to upload this picture so you can be reminded that you will need to take responsability for your own actions. If you don't want a baby, don't have unprotected sex!


Thankfully you're not at risk, consigned to the life of a wanker as you are.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Awww the No U defence, exactly what I expected from your smooth brain.


Says the guy who gets constantly owned on this site.



Nothereed said:


> Okay by that logic why do democrats have the vote of black people then? Surely if what you were saying was true, most of them would be voting republican, but they don't... _scratches head_ I wonder why. It it because Republicans are against BLM? Is it because we had 31 rioters, who were planing to interfere with a BLM protest violently. Strannnge isn't it. Oh and all of them were heavily right wing individuals.
> It's maybe like, your full of shit and it's the increasingly fascist party that's racist.


They are losing the black vote actually, little by little, because some realize who the true racists and facists are, dems.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Today I decided to upload this picture so you can be reminded that you will need to take responsability for your own actions. If you don't want a baby, don't have unprotected sex!


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Not a big fan of reading comprehension either, are we?
> 
> Anyway, I'll give you some time to Dictionary.com some of those bigger terms. I have liberal tears to cry and back alley abortions to administer. Sorry, I mean "perform".


I don't have to give long winded responses when shorts ones can do the same and be much quicker.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Says the guy who gets constantly owned on this site.


Literally never happened, but again, i don't expect your smooth brain to get it. Or anything else, really.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Take that to the trash where you belong as well.
> 
> Well we can agree on one thing, both parties do suck, which is why real Americans are getting voted in positions of power across the country.



You mean like Biden? You keep having these odd moments of progressiveness.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Thankfully you're not at risk, consigned to the life of a wanker as you are.


The last time I saw democrats this mad - they had just had there slaves taken away from them.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

Elodain said:


> If Biden and the Blues aren't far left enough for you...you could have voted for someone else...?
> 
> It's hard to blame the political leanings of the people in power for not agreeing with you enough when YOU'RE the ones that put him there. I didn't put him there, I didn't vote at all. I refuse to be a part of the corrupt political system and have opinions from all over the spectrum.
> 
> ...


If everyone to the left of fascist voted for who they wanted and the fascists voted for the same fascist (which they did) then we would have a fascist for a president right now. You get that, right? And contrary to what you want to believe, if you aren't voting against them you're part of the problem.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I don't have to give long winded responses when shorts ones can do the same and be much quicker.



That's, uh, that's not what reading comprehension means.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> when shorts ones can do the same and be much quicker.


The story of your intimate performances: quick and short where it matters


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 25, 2022)

Haven’t seen Democrats this upset since we freed their slaves


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> They are losing the black vote actually, little by little, because some realize who the true racists and facists are, dems.


So who did a coup attempt? BLM hasn't.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...aper-has-endorsed-donald-trump-for-president/
Convient that Proud boys aided in that coup, who are known to be racists. Conivent that the KKK also aligns with that same group, and also racists. Racists aiding in a coup attempt? Never heard of it. Not like there was a massive genocide over racism towards a specific demographic of people, or a coup in that very government.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

mrdude said:


> The last time I saw democrats this mad - they had just had there slaves taken away from them.


Oh so you're wait, 300 years old?


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Take that to the trash where you belong as well.


Your coping mechanisms are adorable.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> You mean like Biden? You keep having these odd moments of progressiveness.


"Like Biden." Literally the opposite of what an American is.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Literally never happened, but again, i don't expect your smooth brain to get it. Or anything else, really.


Delusional people keep carrying on.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> She admitted she lied about it. What more do you want?


What's your source? Because it seems like it has nothing to do with Roe V Wade. I am asking for a simple link to verify what you said. Why is that so hard?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> Haven’t seen Democrats this upset since we freed their slaves


Big talk from someone who can't even free his bowels without a couple enemas!


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Your coping mechanisms are adorable.


Ok projectionist for the tenth time.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

#ZygoteLivesMatter


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And according to Clarence Thomas, same-sex relationships, marriage and contraception are next on the chopping block. Interracial relationships too, if I'm not mistaken.


So Clarence Thomas is going to make his own marriage illegal? LOL!!


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> The story of your intimate performances: quick and short where it matters


God you are a sad man to project that.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Delusional people keep carrying on.


Hey smooth brain, don't you have some Fox News to choke on, or some QAnon nonsense to believe in, like Pizzagate?


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> Haven’t seen Democrats this upset since we freed their slaves


You can try and spin that however you want, everyone knows who the KKK sides with today.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> That's, uh, that's not what reading comprehension means.


Posts are going so fast it's hard to read everything but I try, and my statement still stands.


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> So, nothing to do with abortion then as a foetus isn't a legal person, or a person in any way.


_It is a person_ that's developing. From Wikipedia: in human prenatal development, fetal *development* begins from the ninth week after fertilization (or eleventh week gestational age) and continues until birth.

Development means it's becoming a human, which is why it should not be killed.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> What's your source? Because it seems like it has nothing to do with Roe V Wade. I am asking for a simple link to verify what you said. Why is that so hard?


Source: Bing.com "Norma McCorvery"


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> You can try and spin that however you want, everyone knows who the KKK sides with today.


The left. You.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> So Clarence Thomas is going to make his own marriage illegal? LOL!!


Law is not applied retroactively, ignoramus.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> "Like Biden." Literally the opposite of what an American is.



If politicians are supposed to represent their people, I'd say he's pretty American. Old. White. Rich. Male. I think we can both agree he's not very good though.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Ok projectionist for the tenth time.





BitMasterPlus said:


> God you are a sad man to project that.





n00bsaib0t said:


> "I know you are but what am I" is a bit 3rd grade, but I guess it goes with the average conservative reading level.


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> It's adorable that you've shifted to "developing human" instead of "baby" to try and prove your point but unless you can show that it is, in fact, a real life you have nothing. There is a reason you can't claim it on your taxes until after birth, despite the massive financial expense of carrying it.


? Bruh, It's developing isn't that a real life? I don't know if you'll ever be convinced.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> ? Bruh, It's developing isn't that a real life?


Can it survive when it isn't attached to the host?


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 25, 2022)

The sad part is that tonight democrats states are going to burn and the irony is that Abortion still fully legal in those states


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> The left. You.


So you're saying the KKK are out to kill their own?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...a81bc8-6b1f-11eb-9ead-673168d5b874_story.html


----------



## Korozin (Jun 25, 2022)

Personally I don't understand why a general group of people, more often than not a group of _men, _should get to decide what a woman does with their own body. I've gone through most of the pages here and most of the arguments I see against abortions take the moral stand-point. Saying that murdering babies is wrong, taking away someone's right to life is wrong, but by that logic shouldn't it also be considered wrong to condemn other people to painful situations, or possibly death because of a pregnancy? 

The main thing that ticks me off about most of the Pro-Lifers with this argument is they mainly care about controlling a mass of people, rather than actually prioritizing people's life and quality of it as a whole. Most of these people don't even care what happens to the child after it's been born, so maybe we should take a look at some problems that occur after? Let's use an example I've personally seen more times than I can count, a woman gets pregnant, denied abortion, but were unready for the commitment of parent-hood. Their decision? Put the child into foster or adoption, do you know the horrors of the foster-care system? People die there or just get out-right abandoned, and more often than not quite a few children are put into abusive house-holds. Do we suddenly not care about that now? That's where another point lies, people only care about "saving the baby" as soon as a pregnancy is formed, they don't seem to give a shit about it after it's born, nor the situations it's life leads them, so most of these problems go unsolved as everyone is too focused on things they shouldn't be.

More on the point of people thinking it's murder, how is a coagulation of tissue that hasn't even formed a brain, much less any sense of consciousness / sentience considered a person? Are you saying that a unborn baby suddenly invalidates the rights of the person who carries it? Rights to bodily autonomy shouldn't be revoked because someone got pregnant, which let me add isn't always a choice as some people seem to keep saying here. So if getting pregnant is a choice, people should have the _choice_ to stop being so. And don't respond to this with "just don't get pregnant" because that, like said before isn't always a choice for the individual, because getting raped is still a thing. Furthering that stance, if someone gets raped are you seriously saying they have to go through with a pregnancy that could not only be devastating to someone's physical well being, but also their mental? Has literally anyone fighting against abortion thought of that instance? No? Well that's to be expected as it's mostly about controlling women, because people in politics can't seem to stand that women's choices are a thing.

Bottom line is, people shouldn't be trying to enforce this "one size fits all" scenario as everyone has different stances and experiences in life, that's what makes people different and because of these different experiences you can't properly restrict someone's rights like that, it just makes it absurd and any argument in favor of it only covers a small margin of people; not everyone has a choice in the matter and that fact should be remembered. Even if people aren't concerned with the right to abortion being revoked, they should at least use the overturning of the case as a wakeup call to realize, if these rights are on the road to being revoked, what else will be? Only time will tell but no one can say if it's for better or worse, and like @The Catboy has stated quite a few times already, taking away the clean and safe environment for proper abortions will just lead to people choosing a very unsafe route for their abortions since every other way was taken, "dirty motels with dead bodies" seems to be quite a likely outcome in this scenario, not even taking into consideration the fact that people will most certainly take advantage of the prospect and use women looking for abortions as a means to further criminal activities, such as marketing "safe abortions" but then they just steal their kidney in a dirty motel and leave them for dead, overturning this case will most definitely lead to more deaths than saved lives.

Sorry for the rant, lol.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Don't you have to be stupid and a loser somewhere else?


I don't, as I'm neither. Sadly, we cannot say the same for you, GQP ignoramus. Did you get your weekly shock therapy?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Law is not applied retroactively, ignoramus.


But why would he want interracial marriage illegal if he is in an interracial marriage? That is not based on logic or evidence, but neither are so many comments on this thread.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> So you're saying the KKK are out to kill their own?
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...a81bc8-6b1f-11eb-9ead-673168d5b874_story.html


I wouldn't be surprised they're so dumb and twisted.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> The sad part is that tonight democrats states are going to burn and the irony is that Abortion still fully legal in those states


Literally no cities burned before and they won't now, but don't let that stop you from repeating what Fox News tells you to repeat.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Delusional people keep carrying on.








Your party lost their mind over this image this month. Claiming that it's grooming when two non hetrosexual people kissed.
Meanwhile




This




This




OR ALL OF THIS
and this is not grooming? I think your the one Delusional here and needing a fuck ton of Copium.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Literally no cities burned before and they won't now, but don't let that stop you from repeating what Fox News tells you to repeat.


Yeah the smooth brains are in full force.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Source: Bing.com "Norma McCorvery"


Be cooler if you could provide the source that shows her false rape accusations were part of Roe v Wade. Your claim was this


Purple_Shyguy said:


> The entire thing was a lie anyway. She lied about being raped. The whole trial was a sham.


So how is this relevant to Roe v Wade? Was her claim part of the trial?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

Korozin said:


> Personally I don't understand why a general group of people, more often than not a group of _men, _should get to decide what a woman does with their own body. I've gone through most of the pages here and most of the arguments I see against abortions take the moral stand-point. Saying that murdering babies is wrong, taking away someone's right to life is wrong, but by that logic shouldn't it also be considered wrong to condemn other people to painful situations, or possibly death because of a pregnancy?
> 
> The main thing that ticks me off about most of the Pro-Lifers with this argument is they mainly care about controlling a mass of people, rather than actually prioritizing people's life and quality of it as a whole. Most of these people don't even care what happens to the child after it's been born, so maybe we should take a look at some problems that occur after? Let's use an example I've personally seen more times than I can count, a woman gets pregnant, denied abortion, but were unready for the commitment of parent-hood. Their decision? Put the child into foster or adoption, do you know the horrors of the foster-care system? People die there or just get out-right abandoned, and more often than not quite a few children are put into abusive house-holds. Do we suddenly not care about that now? That's where another point lies, people only care about "saving the baby" as soon as a pregnancy is formed, they don't seem to give a shit about it after it's born, nor the situations it's life leads them, so most of these problems go unsolved as everyone is too focused on things they shouldn't be.
> 
> ...


A women can't procreate on their own, they need semen, and where does that come from? Men. So yes, men do have a say as well.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jun 25, 2022)

Korozin said:


> Personally I don't understand why a general group of people, more often than not a group of _men, _should get to decide what a woman does with their own body. I've gone through most of the pages here and most of the arguments I see against abortions take the moral stand-point. Saying that murdering babies is wrong, taking away someone's right to life is wrong, but by that logic shouldn't it also be considered wrong to condemn other people to painful situations, or possibly death because of a pregnancy?
> 
> The main thing that ticks me off about most of the Pro-Lifers with this argument is they mainly care about controlling a mass of people, rather than actually prioritizing people's life and quality of it as a whole. Most of these people don't even care what happens to the child after it's been born, so maybe we should take a look at some problems that occur after? Let's use an example I've personally seen more times than I can count, a woman gets pregnant, denied abortion, but were unready for the commitment of parent-hood. Their decision? Put the child into foster or adoption, do you know the horrors of the foster-care system? People die there or just get out-right abandoned, and more often than not quite a few children are put into abusive house-holds. Do we suddenly not care about that now? That's where another point lies, people only care about "saving the baby" as soon as a pregnancy is formed, they don't seem to give a shit about it after it's born, nor the situations it's life leads them, so most of these problems go unsolved as everyone is too focused on things they shouldn't be.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I wouldn't be surprised they're so dumb and twisted.


You might want to re-think your posts dude. You might not be a card carrying member but your view points are definitely KKK adjacent.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> A women can't procreate on their own, they need semen, and where does that come from? Men. So yes, men do have a say as well.


Never a responsibility though. Just a say.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> If politicians are supposed to represent their people, I'd say he's pretty American. Old. White. Rich. Male. I think we can both agree he's not very good though.


So you're ageist, racist and a misandrist?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> You might want to re-think your posts dude. You might not be a card carrying member but your view points are definitely KKK adjacent.


Don't use too big words, the smooth brain will have to guess what they mean!


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> If everyone to the left of fascist voted for who they wanted and the fascists voted for the same fascist (which they did) then we would have a fascist for a president right now. You get that, right? And contrary to what you want to believe, if you aren't voting against them you're part of the problem.


I mean I'm pretty sure that there were more options than TRUMP or BIDEN. There were other people from those political parties that could have picked as the nominee and there are several other independents on the ballot come voting day.

Instead everyone went to one side or the other. And this time the Blues won. I thought that's what you wanted but I guess what you want changes every few seconds.

Yes, I'm part of the problem for not caring which corrupt asshole that doesn't have my best interest at heart gets to pretend to be the king of America for four to 8 years. Consider voting for something other than Blue in two years if you want a change until then, stop blaming the government because you cant control the people you wanted in office.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Never a responsibility though. Just a say.


Yes a responsibility. Women can't asexually reproduce, they need that seed.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Be cooler if you could provide the source that shows her false rape accusations were part of Roe v Wade. Your claim was this
> 
> So how is this relevant to Roe v Wade? Was her claim part of the trial?


Of course it was. She was the plaintiff in a case for making abortion legal. Her case for wanting an abortion was that she was gang raped when she wasn't.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> But why would he want interracial marriage illegal if he is in an interracial marriage? That is not based on logic or evidence, but neither are so many comments on this thread.


If that were to happen, it would only affect future marriages, it wouldn't invalidate existing ones. That's how it works usually, when a law is reformed.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

Elodain said:


> I mean I'm pretty sure that there were more options than TRUMP or BIDEN. There were other people from those political parties that could have picked as the nominee and there are several other independents on the ballot come voting day.
> 
> Instead everyone went to one side or the other. And this time the Blues won. I thought that's what you wanted but I guess what you want changes every few seconds.
> 
> Yes, I'm part of the problem for not caring which corrupt asshole that doesn't have my best interest at heart gets to pretend to be the king of America for four to 8 years. Consider voting for something other than Blue in two years if you want a change until then, stop blaming the government because you cant control the people you wanted in office.


If we start voting for something other than blue then it splits the vote between the centrists and the left while the far right all still vote for the same fascist. If you can't understand that then you don't have any valid opinions on the system or just how fucked we really are.


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Can it survive when it isn't attached to the host?


That's irrelevant to the question of what real life means. To live means to act can the developing human act? Yes. How is it acting? It's developing. It's alive. Should it be killed because it's alive? Never. To say otherwise is to deny all available data.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Of course it was. She was the plaintiff in a case for making abortion legal. Her case for wanting an abortion was that she was gang raped when she wasn't.


Was it? Can you show me where it was brought up during Roe v Wade?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> That's irrelevant to the question of what real life means. To live means to act can the developing human act? Yes. How is it acting? It's developing. It's alive.


More clutching at straws I see.


----------



## Jayro (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Welp, can't do anything about it now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Maybe not, but they deserve every bit of backlash they have coming to them.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> That's irrelevant to the question of what real life means. To live means to act can the developing human act? Yes. How is it acting? It's developing.


It's not irrelevant because the discussion is if a woman deserves bodily autonomy. You're arguing that they don't, I'm arguing that they do. Whether or not the zygote can survive on it's own isn't the woman's problem, and as someone else pointed out if it's far enough along that it can survive then it's a birth so it doesn't matter to you anyway.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Was it? Can you show me where it was brought up during Roe v Wade?


Yeah Ill post the entire court transcript for you bro. Give me 5


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

Jayro said:


> Maybe not, but they deserve every bit of backlash they have coming to them.


That sounds pretty insurrection-y to me just because you don't agree with their decision.


----------



## Korozin (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> A women can't procreate on their own, they need semen, and where does that come from? Men. So yes, men do have a say as well.


While this may be true, they also don't have to deal with the liklihood of death of long-term bodily issues after procreating. While I acknowledge their right to have a say, I don't think they quite understand what the situation fully entails


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Yeah Ill post the entire court transcript for you bro. Give me 5


You can attach it or post a summary.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Dude, Lightyear bombed big time, wtf you talking about moron?


How about the fact that before lightyear came out, you were being extremely dullisional and calling it grooming. That will never change.  I'm just using the latest example of many from your party. Who really REALLY strongly hate LGBTQ people that they'd prefer they die by suicide because of a lack of gender affirming care.


----------



## n00bsaib0t (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Someone a KKK sympathist would say to deflect.


I'm Jewish, actually. I'm not white enough for white supremacists. They actually want me dead. It's why I won't vote for anyone they vote for.

Anyway, this has been fun but I need to cook dinner for my kids. Those of you who don't deserve to fuck off, have a good night. The rest of you can fuck off. You know who you are.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> I'll repeat myself again, this is exactly what you guys said before Roe v Wade was overturned.


I didnt say shit before it was overturned. I do believe the less federal shit the better. On that note if representatives in state set laws that go against it and enough people want a change then vote them out....its the way democracy works. Federal laws telling a state something (like telling a doctor they have to preform an abortion when its against how they think or believe) is 100% a dictatorship. If everyone wants them legal then vote people into your state that will make that happen.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Yeah Ill post the entire court transcript for you bro. Give me 5


I am not asking for the transcript, I am asking for the specific quote(s) where her rape accusations were brought up during the trial. You should be able to just ctrl+f that and post that quote or reference.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> How about the fact that before lightyear came out, you were being extremely dullisional and calling it grooming. That will never change.  I'm just using the latest example of many from your party. Who really REALLY strongly hate LGBTQ people that they'd prefer they die by suicide because of a lack of gender affirming care.


It is grooming and you're jumping to a lot of conclusions thinking that I would all want them to die by suicide or whatever, which I don't.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> How about the fact that before lightyear came out, you were being extremely dullisional and calling it grooming. That will never change.  I'm just using the latest example of many from your party. Who really REALLY





n00bsaib0t said:


> I'm Jewish, actually. I'm not white enough for white supremacists. They actually want me dead. It's why I won't vote for anyone they vote for.
> 
> Anyway, this has been fun but I need to cook dinner for my kids. Those of you who don't deserve to fuck off, have a good night. The rest of you can fuck off. You know who you are.


Omg now you're gonna get harassed by the NWO smooth brains!


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

Korozin said:


> While this may be true, they also don't have to deal with the liklihood of death of long-term bodily issues after procreating. While I acknowledge their right to have a say, I don't think they quite understand what the situation fully entails


Still, half that baby is their and they do have a say if they want it as well. And we have advances in medicine to help with any long term effects women may have. We're not in the stone ages now.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 25, 2022)

The last couple of days have been a salt festival from the lefty's, Now as Africa is having it's worst drought for 40 years - if all these crying soy boys and lefty women and commies bottled their tears, they could send them to that drought area and solve that problem.
It would be pretty funny if gay marriage was made illegal next, that would be a joy to watch all the meltdows on youtube and such like.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> If that were to happen, it would only affect future marriages, it wouldn't invalidate existing ones. That's how it works usually, when a law is reformed.


The part that you are missing is that your statement is not based on evidence or logic. You can't back it up, so why keep pushing this falsehood?


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> How about the fact that before lightyear came out, you were being extremely dullisional and calling it grooming. That will never change.  I'm just using the latest example of many from your party. Who really REALLY strongly hate LGBTQ people that they'd prefer they die by suicide because of a lack of gender affirming care.


What's your opinion on taking small children to draw queen shows and having the kids tuck dollar bills into a half naked dancing man's underwear?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

mrdude said:


> It would be pretty funny if gay marriage was made illegal next, that would be a joy to watch all the meltdows on youtube and such like.


Don't worry, even if gay marriage is outlawed I'm sure that any woman would rather marry a hedgehog than you, so your incel situation ain't gonna change


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> And men and women are both needed for any species to survive so it's not grooming, it's nature.










BitMasterPlus said:


> It is grooming and you're jumping to a lot of conclusions thinking that I would all want them to die by suicide or whatever, which I don't.








Let me get this straight.
One is kissing, the other is also kissing.
In which way is that grooming? they're both kissing. they're both human. They're both doing the exact same action. This is mental gymnastics. I did not ask about "men and women needed for any species to reproduce" which by the way single cell organisms and any creature that can reproduce without a male would like to have a word with you.
I straight up pointed out the double standard that one kiss is "grooming", and the other isn't. Kissing is not how we reproduce by the way.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

mrdude said:


> The last couple of days have been a salt festival from the lefty's, Now as Africa is having it's worst drought for 40 years - if all these crying soy boys and lefty women and commies bottled their tears, they could send them to that drought area and solve that problem.
> It would be pretty funny if gay marriage was made illegal next, that would be a joy to watch all the meltdows on youtube and such like.


I'd get the biggest bag of chips, some soda, and lean back in my recliner and enjoy a day of meltdowns if that were to happen.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> What's your opinion on taking small children to draw queen shows and having the kids tuck dollar bills into a half naked dancing man's underwear?


That you're really odd for thinking the latter, which doesn't really happen anywhere. More hearsay from your fake news machine.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> What's your opinion on taking small children to draw queen shows and having the kids tuck dollar bills into a half naked dancing man's underwear?


It;s degenerate begaviour - these people should have their children taken from them and put into safe houses. The parents should be put into prison for nonce type behaviour.


----------



## Korozin (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Still, half that baby is their and they do have a say if they want it as well. And we have advances in medicine to help with any long term effects women may have. We're not in the stone ages now.


Once again, that may be true. But I'm not trying to argue for abortion to be as a use of birth-control, even with medical advances people still die every year from pregnancy complications and that's not going to change for quite a while, and as much as people hate to admit it abortions can avoid a lot of these complications before they're able to have any long-term effect. What I'm trying to say is that the right to abortions shouldn't be revoked just because a group of people say so, there are still so many reasons why someone would seek for one, like I said before if it's a child that's the product of rape. Are you still going to say that the rapist is able to invalidate the rights of the victim? Not trying to say thing is your stance, just simply pointing out that this is another instance that people seem to overlook or outright disregard.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> The part that you are missing is that your statement is not based on evidence or logic. You can't back it up, so why keep pushing this falsehood?


Actually that's how the law works, are you stupid?


----------



## mrdude (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Don't worry, even if gay marriage is outlawed I'm sure that any woman would rather marry a hedgehog than you, so your incel situation ain't gonna change


I'll let my wife know.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

Elodain said:


> reality hurts. I know.


Not as much as it hurt, for you, not being in Becky's place, clearly


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

mrdude said:


> I'll let my wife know.


She must be the wife of the whole village


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> It's not irrelevant because the discussion is if a woman deserves bodily autonomy. You're arguing that they don't, I'm arguing that they do. Whether or not the zygote can survive on it's own isn't the woman's problem, and as someone else pointed out if it's far enough along that it can survive then it's a birth so it doesn't matter to you anyway.


1. No the question isn't about bodily autonomy it's about whether or not it's okay to kill a developing human.
2. I have never said women shouldn't have control of their bodies they should.
3. Whether or not the zygote can survive on its own _should _be the woman's problem, whether or not she makes it her problem is on her, because it's attached to her, she carries it, and it can't defend its self.

It is an _alive _developing human being after all.

Edit: A laughing reaction isn't an argument, it's making fun of the fact that an alive developing human being dies.
That could have been you or me, but I guess that's funny to you huh? I don't see the humor.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Let me get this straight.
> One is kissing, the other is also kissing.
> In which way is that grooming? they're both kissing. they're both human. They're both doing the exact same action. This is mental gymnastics. I did not ask about "men and women needed for any species to reproduce" which by the way single cell organisms and any creature that can reproduce without a male would like to have a word with you.
> I straight up pointed out the double standard that one kiss is "grooming", and the other isn't. Kissing is not how we reproduce by the way.


Because, as I said, male and female have been together for millions of years, two halves needed for reproduction of any species, and it's grooming because the actual percentage of gays worldwide is still less than 1%, and will always be, despite what inflated numbers you'd like to believe from grooming and being LGBT being the in thing with most young people, a fad.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 25, 2022)

n00bsaib0t said:


> Literally no cities burned before and they won't now, but don't let that stop you from repeating what Fox News tells you to repeat.


you must have been living under a rock lol


----------



## DoctorBagPhD (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> What's your opinion on taking small children to draw queen shows and having the kids tuck dollar bills into a half naked dancing man's underwear?


Reminder it was a straight, white, cisgendered republican who organised that.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Because, as I said, male and female have been together for millions of years, two halves needed for reproduction of any species, and it's grooming because the actual percentage of gays worldwide is still less than 1%, and will always be, despite what inflated numbers you'd like to believe from grooming and being LGBT being the in thing with most young people, a fad.


"Because, as I said, male and female have been together for millions of years, two halves needed for reproduction of any species, and it's grooming because the actual percentage of gays worldwide is still less than 1%,"
that's not the definition of grooming. try again
"Grooming ....
2.
the action by a pedophile of preparing a child for a meeting, especially via an internet chat room, with the intention of committing a sexual offense."
In which way is this kiss trying to groom? Because if you argument is "waaaah, gay people kissing on screen, they're not like the rest of us, waaa"
guess what?
Your homophobic.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> She must be the wife of the whole village


Talking about villages, what does yours do for an idiot when you go on holiday?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Actually that's how the law works, are you stupid?


Do you know how evidence works? Justice Thomas never said anything about interracial marriage. You can't even provide a quote. Why are you even still talking about this?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

Korozin said:


> Once again, that may be true. But I'm not trying to argue for abortion to be as a use of birth-control, even with medical advances people still die every year from pregnancy complications and that's not going to change for quite a while, and as much as people hate to admit it abortions can avoid a lot of these complications before they're able to have any long-term effect. What I'm trying to say is that the right to abortions shouldn't be revoked just because a group of people say so, there are still so many reasons why someone would seek for one, like I said before if it's a child that's the product of rape. Are you still going to say that the rapist is able to invalidate the rights of the victim? Not trying to say thing is your stance, just simply pointing out that this is another instance that people seem to overlook or outright disregard.


No, rapists shouldn't invalidates the rights of the victim. I'd prefer they and pedos get chemically castrated for what they did. And abortion isn't completely outlawed across the country, it's up to the states. As far as I know, only one state so far outlawed it, but it's still available in other states.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Talking about villages, what does yours do for an idiot when you go on holiday?


They come here and ask for you all, and they liked you so much they replaced me with your GQP smooth brains!


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

mrdude said:


> It would be pretty funny if gay marriage was made illegal next,


Eh now that I'm gonna have to disagree with. Getting married and terminating pregnancies willy-nilly are nowhere near the same. Plus I rather like the gay couple that live a few houses down. They grow some kick ass hot peppers in their backyard and decorate their house very well for the holidays. If they weren't allowed to marry they might not be here to make the neighborhood a nicer place to live. Plus the couples could provide loving homes for the kids whos biological parents DIDN'T end their existence out of spite.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Do you know how evidence works? Justice Thomas never said anything about interracial marriage. You can't even provide a quote. Why are you even still talking about this?


Eh, I actually referenced 3 rulings from the commentary. I'm assuming you know how to read, yes?


----------



## Korozin (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> "Because, as I said, male and female have been together for millions of years, two halves needed for reproduction of any species, and it's grooming because the actual percentage of gays worldwide is still less than 1%,"
> that's not the definition of grooming. try again
> "Grooming ....
> 2.
> ...


agreed, I disagree with the "grooming" claims against LGBTs, because if it was genuine grooming the individuals would be actively trying to convert or make the child think a certain way; actual grooming is actively manipulating someone's behavior to think and act a certain way, thus "grooming" them into the desired person the predator has in mind. Simply being gay with a partner does not show this intent, therefore it is not grooming, or intent of it in any manner.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> you must have been living under a rock lol






Mostly PEACEFUL! PEACEFUL!


----------



## DoctorBagPhD (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Because, as I said, male and female have been together for millions of years, two halves needed for reproduction of any species, and it's grooming because the actual percentage of gays worldwide is still less than 1%, and will always be, despite what inflated numbers you'd like to believe from grooming and being LGBT being the in thing with most young people, a fad.


Dude are you okay? Like... In the head? I ask because this legit reads like the ramblings of someone who has a mental sickness and I'm unironically worried for you. Assuming you can either afford it or don't live in a shithole country please speak to a mental health expert.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Yeah Ill post the entire court transcript for you bro. Give me 5


Made it easier for you and looked it up. There are two parts where rape is mentioned and both say the same thing


> Even those statutes, though, allow exceptions — well, New York, for example, says an abortion is lawful up to 24 weeks. But even after the 24 weeks, it is still lawful, where there’s rape or incest, where the mother’s mental or physical health is involved. In other words, even after that period, it’s not a hard-and-fast cutoff.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/1972/70-18_10-11-1972.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
Her false accusation was not part of the trial. Simply put, your claim was false and it's sad that you refuse to realize that.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> "Because, as I said, male and female have been together for millions of years, two halves needed for reproduction of any species, and it's grooming because the actual percentage of gays worldwide is still less than 1%,"
> that's not the definition of grooming. try again
> "Grooming ....
> 2.
> ...


It is grooming, and if you think that's the only way pedo's get kids, then you need to do a lot of research and realization. And calling be homophobic doesn't validate your points or discredit mine, it does the opposite since it shows you've got nothing left but insults.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Made it easier for you and looked it up. There are two parts where rape is mentioned and both say the same thing
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/1972/70-18_10-11-1972.pdf
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
> Her false accusation was not part of the trial. Simply put, your claim was false and it's sad that you refuse to realize that.


He doesn't refuse to realise that, he's lying in bad faith.


----------



## Korozin (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> View attachment 315196
> Mostly PEACEFUL! PEACEFUL!


Ah yes nothing says peaceful like burning everything in sight


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

DoctorBagPhD said:


> Dude are you okay? Like... In the head? I ask because this legit reads like the ramblings of someone who has a mental sickness and I'm unironically worried for you. Assuming you can either afford it or don't live in a shithole country please speak to a mental health expert.


I could say the same to you and plenty of others here. If medical examinations were to take place between all of us, the results would not be what you'd expect at all.


----------



## Korozin (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I could say the same to you and plenty of others here. If medical examinations were to take place between all of us, the results would not be what you'd expect at all.


Sadly that is quite true, even if I disagree with your opinions that doesn't automatically make you wrong. People disagree, that's life as much as it is human nature, and onto your point? I do agree, a lot of people would come up with some sort of mental illness, but the same can be said for the majority of the population. Many people go through mental issues in their life without even fully realizing it thus leading to never getting diagnosed, although this is starting to get a bit off topic. I apologize.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 25, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Eh now that I'm gonna have to disagree with. Getting married and terminating pregnancies willy-nilly are nowhere near the same. Plus I rather like the gay couple that live a few houses down. They grow some kick ass hot peppers in their backyard and decorate their house very well for the holidays. If they weren't allowed to marry they might not be here to make the neighborhood a nicer place to live. Plus the couples could provide loving homes for the kids whos biological parents DIDN'T end their existence out of spite.


I can only just abide the lezzers - I've seen a few of their movies over the years. As for the men that want to put their body parts into other mens anal passages and play with their fecal matter - let's hope god has his own plan for them.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not as much as it hurt, for you, not being in Becky's place, clearly


Well at least nobody accused you of being mature.
Good thing since you're resorting to calling me gay for not agreeing for you. I thought we weren't allowed to do that. Isn't it not WOKE to call people gay when you don't like them?

Are you insinuating it would be bad if I were gay? Aren't you a leftist?


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Made it easier for you and looked it up. There are two parts where rape is mentioned and both say the same thing
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/1972/70-18_10-11-1972.pdf
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
> Her false accusation was not part of the trial. Simply put, your claim was false and it's sad that you refuse to realize that.


They fucking chose her as the plaintiff because she claimed she was gang raped. They used her situation as leverage. It obviously would have had an advantage. Just because they don't EXPLICITLY cite it as a reasoning doesn't mean it wasn't an influence in the decision. She lied about her circumstances. The entire thing was a sham.


----------



## DoctorBagPhD (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I could say the same to you and plenty of others here. If medical examinations were to take place between all of us, the results would not be what you'd expect at all.



Because I live in the first-world I already speak with a mental health expert to help manage depression and anxiety. I'm pleased to say that I can guarantee I'm not a paranoid schizophrenic. Your posts here, on the other hand, are treading a fine line between "hateful cunt" and "crazy homeless person" and it's genuinely difficult to tell which of those you are.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

mrdude said:


> I can only just abide the lezzers - I've seen a few of their movies over the years. As for the men that want to put their body parts into other mens anal passages and play with their fecal matter - let's hope god has his own plan for them.


Kinda hypocritical, but you do you.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Eh, I actually referenced 3 rulings from the commentary. I'm assuming you know how to read, yes?


So you can't provide a direct quote from Justice Thomas saying he wanted to rule against interracial marriage. Gotcha.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> It is grooming, and if you think that's the only way pedo's get kids, then you need to do a lot of research and realization. And calling be homophobic doesn't validate your points or discredit mine, it does the opposite since it shows you've got nothing left but insults.


No, calling someone stupid and leaving it be? that's just a insult. Calling you homophobic after


BitMasterPlus said:


> Because, as I said, male and female have been together for millions of years, two halves needed for reproduction of any species, and it's grooming because the actual percentage of gays worldwide is still less than 1%, and will always be, despite what inflated numbers you'd like to believe from grooming and being LGBT being the in thing with most young people, a fad.


this? And clearly explaining why


Nothereed said:


> ....
> "Grooming ....
> 2.
> the action by a pedophile of preparing a child for a meeting, especially via an internet chat room, with the intention of committing a sexual offense."
> ...


Here if you don't believe me, le'ts look up the term homophobic
"having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people."
You got upset because a gay couple showed up on screen, and instead of saying you don't like it, you rather slander them and also our representation, than admit the truth that you just don't like gay people.
"and it's grooming because the actual percentage of gays worldwide is still less than 1%,"
this is NEVER a valid argument. If I threw anything in there, left handed people, Jews/Muslims, any minority, into that sentence. It would be called antisemitic/Islamophobia. There is no excuse for this.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> So you're ageist, racist and a misandrist?



Show the class where I've exhibited these things and I'll be happy to call myself the same.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

What are all the "my body my choice" people's thoughts on circumcision?


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

DoctorBagPhD said:


> Calm down, gay boy.


So it is okay? Cool. Next time I bicker with someone one here I'll start throwing around homophobic slurs I don't actually mean JUST to be offensive. You've set a precedent that makes it okay, so nobody is allowed to get angry at me or ban me. 

Lest you want to volunteer to be banned to spite me?


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> They fucking chose her as the plaintiff because she claimed she was gang raped. They used her situation as leverage. It obviously would have had an advantage. Just because they don't EXPLICITLY cite it as a reasoning doesn't mean it wasn't an influence in the decision. She lied about her circumstances. The entire thing was a sham.


Bro, you were literally shown the only part where rape was mentioned and still continue? This right here is why you shouldn’t be taken seriously. The case had nothing do with her claims, you can check the transcripts. I am sorry reality doesn’t fit your narrative and I hope more people realize that pro-lifers just cling to whatever bullshit beliefs they keep repeating.


----------



## DoctorBagPhD (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> What are all the "my body my choice" people's thoughts on circumcision?


Probably the same as abortion- if you wanna get one go for it but don't force it on anyone without consent. This isn't the clever "gotcha" you think it is because circumcisions are typically performed on living, breathing humans. Good luck trying to circumcise a fucking zygote though lmao.


----------



## DoctorBagPhD (Jun 25, 2022)

Elodain said:


> homophobic slurs



Actually laughed out loud for real. I'll see you when you're out of the closet, honey


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> What are all the "my body my choice" people's thoughts on circumcision?


Really should be an adult’s choice if they want to be circumcised. I am not sure how you thought this was a “gotcha”


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 25, 2022)

mituzora said:


> Yeah, you seem to be forgetting the fact that pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.  Nobody is forcing anyone to get abortions, they're just defending the right to do so.  if you don't like them, that's fine, but that's your choice.  stop forcing your beliefs on other people just because they don't line up with yours.



You're telling me to change my belief system because you "dislike" how I think. Who's forcing their beliefs in this circumstance? Liberals constantly accuse conservatives of trying to control other people while they sit there trying to control other people. Liberals want the government to have complete 100% control of peoples lives. So you can eat shit. It's just sad that people are killing unborn humans and even sadder that people like you defend them.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> What are all the "my body my choice" people's thoughts on circumcision?


I mean I get what you're saying but snipping off a boy's foreskin is hardly the same as ending a child to be's existence.

I would have liked to keep mine until I was old enough to chose for myself, but I personally am not losing any sleep over the fact that my father chose to have it done when I was a baby.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 25, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You're telling me to change my belief system because you "dislike" how I think. Who's forcing their beliefs in this circumstance?


Look who's taking words out of context again...


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 25, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You're telling me to change my belief system because you "dislike" how I think. Who's forcing their beliefs in this circumstance?


Considering how little you care about lives after they are born, I can see why people would like to see that change.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You're telling me to change my belief system because you "dislike" how I think.


No, it's because your enforcing you belief system on other people, so we're telling you to change that part and quit it out. this isn't the gotcha your looking for. And reminder again, your in support of a minority decision in the highest court of law that forced onto the majority who wanted to keep that decision the same.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Bro, you were literally shown the only part where rape was mentioned and still continue? This right here is why you shouldn’t be taken seriously. The case had nothing do with her claims, you can check the transcripts. I am sorry reality doesn’t fit your narrative and I hope more people realize that pro-lifers just cling to whatever bullshit beliefs they keep repeating.


She publicly spoke to newspapers and reporters about her story. They chose her specifically to be the plaintiff to be a sympathetic victim. I don't know what to say to you if you simply can't decipher that her story would be of some influence to their decision in any way.

You seem to want a 50 page dissertation written in blood saying they did it for that one reason only or something. I don't really know how to get it into your head.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 25, 2022)

DoctorBagPhD said:


> Probably the same as abortion- if you wanna get one go for it but don't force it on anyone without consent. This isn't the clever "gotcha" you think it is because circumcisions are typically performed on living, breathing humans. Good luck trying to circumcise a fucking zygote though lmao.


It's not a gotcha I'm just curious. You're not constantly under attack. Take your tinfoil hat off.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> No, it's because your enforcing you belief system on other people, so we're telling you to change that part and quit it out. this isn't the gotcha your looking for. And reminder again, your in support of a minority decision in the highest court of law that forced onto the majority who wanted to keep that decision the same.



Don't pretend for two seconds that Liberals don't advocate for complete government control of other people.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> What are all the "my body my choice" people's thoughts on circumcision?


Same rule applies.  I think it's kinda dumb for parents to force their kids to get circumcisions due to aesthetic and "cleanliness"  If they want one down the line, that's fine, but let them choose


----------



## DoctorBagPhD (Jun 25, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Don't pretend for two seconds that Liberals don't advocate for complete government control of other people.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> She publicly spoke to newspapers and reporters about her story. They chose her specifically to be the plaintiff to be a sympathetic victim. I don't know what to say to you if you simply can't decipher that her story would be of some influence to their decision in any way.
> 
> You seem to want a 50 page dissertation written in blood saying they did it for that one reason only or something. I don't really know how to get it into your head.


She also choose to remain anonymous. If her case had anything to do with her accusations, then they should have brought it up or even at least mentioned it, but they didn’t because her accusations didn’t have anything to do with Roe v Wade. I am sorry, you are just wrong. Her accusations had nothing to do with Roe v Wade, provide a source to show otherwise. Your comments aren’t a source, telling me to look it up isn’t a source, I’ve done enough legwork for you already.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 25, 2022)

Haha, it was only a matter of time until dementia Joe tried to blame Trump for the supreme courts decision.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...eme-court-overturns-landmark-abortion-ruling/

He blames Trump and Putin for all his failures - what a loser.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Don't pretend for two seconds that Liberals don't advocate for complete government control of other people.


Isn't that both sides of the spectrum though?


----------



## mituzora (Jun 25, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Don't pretend for two seconds that Liberals don't advocate for complete government control of other people.


Don't think you're not full of shit for one second and know what you're talking about.  I know both radical ends of the political spectrum really well here in the US, and I assure you that liberals hate government control just as much as the next individual.  A good chunk of them want guns just as much as they want body autonomy...


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Haha, it was only a matter of time until dementia Joe tried to blame Trump for the supreme courts decision.


Maybe that's because Trump created the supreme court super majority they have right now? With 3 of the justices being appointed by him. And specifically choose people who would align with his political beliefs.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Maybe that's because Trump created the supreme court super majority they have right now? With 3 of the justices being appointed by him. And specifically choose people who would align with his political beliefs.


^This.  This is the reason Roe v Wade was overruled.  If it wasn't so red stacked during his presidency, this wouldn't have ever been a problem.


----------



## DoctorBagPhD (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> It's not a gotcha I'm just curious. You're not constantly under attack. Take your tinfoil hat off.



Aye okay hahaha. That's why you, someone who's vocally anti-choice, posted it in this thread after bleating about how abortion is a bad thing. 

You're as transparent as a ghost's shite, actually away tae fuck with your bad faith pish xD


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

mituzora said:


> ^This.  This is the reason Roe v Wade was overruled.  If it wasn't so red stacked during his presidency, this wouldn't have ever been a problem.


Reminder again, for everyone reading or responding, Republicans are the minority party, they never one the popular vote, for the last  20 years roughly.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

mituzora said:


> ^This.  This is the reason Roe v Wade was overruled.  If it wasn't so red stacked during his presidency, this wouldn't have ever been a problem.



Didn't he spend more office time repealing Obama era mandates and appointing people aligning with his ideas more often than not during the first two years of his presidency? The only time he took a break was to blame COVID on China and use that as an excuse to set up tariffs on them.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Didn't he spend more office time repealing Obama era mandates and appointing people aligning with his ideas more often than not during the first two years of his presidency?


And then in the other half went golfing and relaxing.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 25, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Didn't he spend more office time repealing Obama era mandates and appointing people aligning with his ideas more often than not during the first two years of his presidency? The only time he took a break was to blame COVID on China and use that as an excuse to set up tariffs on them.


Pretty much


----------



## mrdude (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Maybe that's because Trump created the supreme court super majority they have right now? With 3 of the justices being appointed by him. And specifically choose people who would align with his political beliefs.


The supreme court has leaned one way or the other since it was formed, at this point in time it just happens to lean towards the right - maybe if Ruth Ginsburg didn't pop her clogs things would be diffent but she did so the sitting president at the time gets the choice. Are you trying to say it's Trumps fault that Ruth Ginsburg died when he was in office and he changed the rules? Also Biden picked that black chick that can't even define what a woman is? What good is that - especailly when you make laws that effect woman and you can't even say what one is because you're not a biologist.

Biden is an idiot - it's always someone else's fault, this is the typical left ideology - always try to blame someone else when something goes wrong, but take all the credit when something goes right.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 25, 2022)

the tittle of this topic is wrong it is not illegal in the USA


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

mrdude said:


> The supreme court has leaned one way or the other since it was formed, at this point in time it just happens to lean towards the right - maybe if Ruth Ginsburg didn't pop her clogs things would be diffent but she did so the sitting president at the time gets the choice. Are you trying to say it's Trumps fault that Ruth Ginsburg died when he was in office and he changed the rules? Also Biden picked that black chick that can't even define what a woman is? What good is that - especailly when you make laws that effect woman and you can't even say what one is because you're not a biologist.
> 
> Biden is an idiot - it's always someone else's fault, this is the typical left ideology - always try to blame someone else when something goes wrong, but take all the credit when something goes right.


Actually yes, because republican hypocrisy!
Republicans during obama's administration:
"We will let the people decide the next supreme court jusitce" (burns almost 9 months of time)
Gets a republican justice due to trump being elected.

Republicans during trumps last couple few months before the elections are counted:
"We didn't say anything about waiting"
*puts Coney Barrett in the last three months before the year ends*
Yeah... letting the people decide... When it's politically useful.


----------



## DoctorBagPhD (Jun 25, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> View attachment 315201


I feel bad for whoever wasted their time (trying) to Photoshop this hahaha.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Actually yes, because republican hypocrisy!
> Republicans during obama's administration:
> "We will let the people decide the next supreme court jusitce" (burns almost 9 months of time)
> Gets a republican justice due to trump being elected.
> ...


Do you hate republicans?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 25, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> I did misunderstand you sorry, but having sex doesn't mean that killing a human being in a human's womb should be legal, I think that's really the issue here.


A fetus is not a person, but even if it were, that doesn't mean a woman's right to bodily autonomy should be violated. You wouldn't want the state to be able to force you to give me one of your kidneys, even if I would die without it.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Do you hate republicans?


you already asked that question. And you already got decked on for your climate denying stance.


Nothereed said:


> Yeah I do. Golly I wonder why, is it because they are against LGBTQ people, against gay marriage, against dealing with climate change, against dealing with any level of political corruption and refuse to help working class people. Have you seen Texas's GOP platform? They STRAIGHT UP, want to prevent gender affirming care. *entirely *doesn't matter if your a teen, or adult.
> I _cannot_ in good faith stand idly by and not be angry as I watch my peers ruthlessly prosecuted by that party


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Reminder again, for everyone reading or responding, Republicans are the minority party, they never one the popular vote, for the last  20 years roughly.



So what's the problem? Aren't liberals supposed to stick up for the minorities in the country?


----------



## mrdude (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> you already asked that question. And you already got decked on for your climate denying stance.


So you're a hatefull little person, this seems to be the way of the left - I bet you also sympathise with commies.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 25, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> So what's the problem? Aren't liberals supposed to stick up for the minorities in the country?


minority party does not equal a minority race.  one you're born with, one you choose.  But I guess judging by the rest of your fuckery, you don't understand that concept either.


----------



## DoctorBagPhD (Jun 25, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> So what's the problem? Aren't liberals supposed to stick up for the minorities in the country?


...would it be considered spamming to post the same gif of people pointing and laughing at this individual's post? 

'Cause wow can they crank out an amazing amount of tripe.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

mrdude said:


> So you're a hatefull little person, this seems to be the way of the left - I bet you also sympathise with commies.


Hateful of intolerant people who do harm to several minorities at once and want to rule the majority of people with a minority opinion yeah. Glad that your trying to paint me as a "hateful" person, try harder.
And pleease lmao, "sympathize with commies"
You don't understand that word clearly, seems to be word you like to throw out commonly with not understanding what it means.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> So what's the problem? Aren't liberals supposed to stick up for the minorities in the country?



And there it is, hidden in plain sight: jealousy. Republicans are jealous that someone else is getting the spotlight and they're not.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 25, 2022)

mrdude said:


> So you're a hatefull little person, this seems to be the way of the left - I bet you also sympathise with commies.


"OOOOoooooOOO I have no other arguments so I'm going to use the commie cliche"


----------



## DoctorBagPhD (Jun 25, 2022)

I love how any suggestion to improve things in the USA is automatically painted as communism by mercury drinking inbreeds. Sorry, Republicans. I meant to type Republicans.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. I've had enough entertainment for the night. Big thanks to the clowns who debased themselves for my entertainment and big props to the rational folks actually trying to talk sense to them, you have infinitely more patience and faith in peoples' ability to listen to reason than I do.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Maybe that's because Trump created the supreme court super majority they have right now?


That's politics in a nutshell though. Put your friends in office so you can force your will upon the country.

Reds and Blues both do it. Greens and every other political party nobody really cares about would do the same if anyone voted them in.

I'm shocked Biden hasn't done the same yet. But he will. Or the next Blue rep will.

My question is would you complain if the cabinet, senate, house, etc was so was so left heavy you all got your way? Or would that be acceptable in your eyes and you're only angry because it's not YOUR will that's being forced?

It's a shite system regardless of who's doing it. But it's what we are currently stuck with.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

DoctorBagPhD said:


> I love how any suggestion to improve things in the USA is automatically painted as communism by mercury drinking inbreeds. Sorry, Republicans. I meant to type Republicans.




Medicare for all? _no that's communism_
Stopping lobbying and gerymandering _communism_
Helping the student loan debt crisis _muh communism_
Helping the ultra rich? yeaaaa! not communism


----------



## mituzora (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Medicare for all? _no that's communism_
> Stopping lobbying and gerymandering _communism_
> Helping the student loan debt crisis _muh communism_
> Helping the ultra rich? yeaaaa! not communism


firefighters?  socialist
Police Force? socialist
Medical Services? socialist
Public Roads? socialist

So many things that follow communistc/socialistic rules in this country, yet everyone says it's the root of all evils.

I know Communism is bad, let me be clear, but we practice socialist programs all the time and don't bat an eyelid.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

Elodain said:


> My question is would you complain if the cabinet, senate, house, etc was so was so left heavy you all got your way? Or would that be acceptable in your eyes and you're only angry because it's not YOUR will that's being forced?


Let me ask you a question, would you be angry of the majority of people said you were wrong?
Because how I would respond is No, I wouldn't be.
 Republicans are a minority party, ruling the majority. If "the left" was unpopular with the majority, and they made a minority ruling over the majority. I would be mad, it is not democratic. What the republican party did, flies in the face of the word "democracy" Since they did exactly that. enforcing minority rule over a majority.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

snipped due to bug


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Let me ask you a question, would you be angry of the majority of people said you were wrong?
> Because that's how I'd respond. Republicans are a minority party, ruling the majority. If "the left" was unpopular with the majority, and they made a minority ruling over a majority. I would be mad, it is not democratic. What the republican party did, flies in the face of the word "democracy"


You deflected my question. But okay, I'll play ball.

No, I would not be angry. I may disagree and be willing to debate/argue for a while. But I wouldn't lose sleep over it.  You're opinion is your opinion. Unlike the left I am willing to agree to disagree after I've had my fill of argumentative time wasting without taking to TikTok to try and cancel people and discredit them as people.

You say the Republicans are a minority ruling a majority. Yet a majority voted Democrat and put the man you WANTED to be your savior into office. The only power the Reds currently have is the power that was given to them when the Reds were in control of the oval office during the Trump era.

If the majority wants to remove this minority from power all the have to do is vote the minority out come voting season, just like they did with Trump, kicking him out in favor of Biden. Unless you want to insinuate that the elections are/will be rigged, which is funny because the Reds did/are doing the same thing right now so you'd really just be pulling an old "Pot calling the Kettle Black" move, and that gets us nowhere.

Now please, don't dodge my question anymore. Will it be acceptable if the Blue put their friends in office and force their desires upon our country JUST because you agree with them? Or will that be equally unacceptable?


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

Elodain said:


> If the majority wants to remove this minority from power all the have to do is vote the minority out come voting season, just like they did with Trump, kicking him out in favor of Biden.


Except we already discussed this, Gerrymandering, which heavily is in favor of republicans, both parties do it, but republicans rely on it more heavily


Elodain said:


> You deflected my question. But okay, I'll play ball.


I didn't, maybe it wasn't clear, but my position is basically "democracy"

if left leaning people were all in office, and everyone actually voted for it. Fine by me. If they weren't, and say, used a fuck ton of gerrymandering to get their seats and unfairly represent people. Then no, I wouldn't be okay with it.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> both parties do it,


Exactly. That's politics. Funny that you say republicans to it more, they're saying the same thing about Democrats. That's the problem. It's all a bunch of baseless finger pointing typically done out of spite. The reality is everyone that does politics as a career is corrupt, regardless of their side. Nobody wans to belive their side would stoop that low, but they all do because they have the power to do so when placed in office, and  of course they're going to take the path of least resistance to take control of everything. "Why leave it to the unpredicable masses when we can just ignore what they want in favor of doing as we please?" I would imagine is the rationale.



Nothereed said:


> Then no, I wouldn't be okay with it.


Fair enough. I can respect that.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Exactly. That's politics. Funny that you say republicans to it more, they're saying the same thing about Democrats.


Except it's very obvious that Republicans rely on it more, because they haven't won the popular vote in 20 years. But have won three times in the electoral collage. So it's not funny


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> But have won three times in the electoral collage


Nothing stopped them from making it four. They clearly didn't do it this time around, so CLEARLY they don;t always side with the reds. And what happens when all those people die? You think the Democrats WONT try to put their friends in place? and if they do, you think said people WONT do the exact same thing three or four times before they die?

I wish I was as confident in the political system as you were...


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 25, 2022)

Lacius said:


> A fetus is not a person, but even if it were, that doesn't mean a woman's right to bodily autonomy should be violated. You wouldn't want the state to be able to force you to give me one of your kidneys, even if I would die without it.


A fetus is a developing person. Because it's alive and developing, it's life should be considered separate from a woman's body autonomy in the conscious sense although the fetus is inside the womb, after all it acts on its own the mother doesn't make it act so it's alive and developing.

Which basically means the fetus is alive, is a developing person and, as result, should not be killed.

I don't see the point with your scenario, no I wouldn't want the state to force me to give you a kidney but the government hasn't forced women to become pregnant.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 25, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> A fetus is a developing person. Because it's alive and developing, it's life should be considered separate from a woman's body autonomy in the conscious sense although the fetus is inside the womb, after all it acts on its own the mother doesn't make it act so it's alive and developing.
> 
> Which basically means the fetus is alive, is a developing person and, as result, should not be killed.


Okay, so live with a tapeworm then.  it's living and developing.  it should be considered separate of your own body autonomy because it's alive and has rights.  Let it eat you dry because your body can't handle it in this case, and inevitably kill you because it's literally destroying your body.


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 25, 2022)

mituzora said:


> Okay, so live with a tapeworm then.  it's living and developing.  it should be considered separate of your own body autonomy because it's alive and has rights.  Let it eat you dry because your body can't handle it in this case, and inevitably kill you because it's literally destroying your body.


Has there ever been a law to protect tapeworms? I said fetuses should be protected. I don't think tapeworms should be protected.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 25, 2022)

Elodain said:


> I mean I get what you're saying but snipping off a boy's foreskin is hardly the same as ending a child to be's existence.
> 
> I would have liked to keep mine until I was old enough to chose for myself, but I personally am not losing any sleep over the fact that my father chose to have it done when I was a baby.


Quit gender defining that child that got snipped. Apparently a penis does not mean male.... fuckin science got that wrong.


----------



## Jayro (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> That sounds pretty insurrection-y to me just because you don't agree with their decision.


Well it sounds like you forgot that they work for US, the people, not the other way around. So when they fuck up like this, it's a major problem.


----------



## Jayro (Jun 25, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> Has there ever been a law to protect tapeworms? I said fetuses should be protected. I don't think tapeworms should be protected.


They're both parasites until you expel them.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

I like when my states can make there own laws and a bunch robed oligarchs don't decide what we can and cannot make policy on.


----------



## mituzora (Jun 25, 2022)

Jayro said:


> They're both parasites until you expel them.


Thank you for clarifying my point!


----------



## Costello (Jun 25, 2022)

@Elodain @BitMasterPlus @Dark_Ansem @mrdude 
in no particular order

I have removed a bunch of posts in this thread and I would appreciate if you could keep it civil. I havent handed off warnings yet but I encourage you to read the rules.

You are entitled to your opinion, left or right. But as per our rules I am asking you to refrain from insulting each other. Let's keep it civil people.


----------



## regnad (Jun 25, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It is, but contraception is not 100% effective, and the same people who are against abortion have also reduced access to contraception and safe sex education.



Many of the states that have automatic abortion bans have no exception for rape or incest. Just FYI.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

DoctorBagPhD said:


> Because I live in the first-world I already speak with a mental health expert to help manage depression and anxiety. I'm pleased to say that I can guarantee I'm not a paranoid schizophrenic. Your posts here, on the other hand, are treading a fine line between "hateful cunt" and "crazy homeless person" and it's genuinely difficult to tell which of those you are.


Therapists can lie, you know, and I'm pretty sure they and you are far from realizng what real mental illness looks like if you haven't actually seen it by now with the people on this site for example.


Nothereed said:


> No, calling someone stupid and leaving it be? that's just a insult. Calling you homophobic after
> 
> this? And clearly explaining why
> 
> ...


Ok groomer.


Jayro said:


> Well it sounds like you forgot that they work for US, the people, not the other way around. So when they fuck up like this, it's a major problem.


And the majority of people do support this. Yeah, there are some who don't, but the majority, the actual majority, not the psycho's about to riot now, support this, so yes, this is working for the people.


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 25, 2022)

Jayro said:


> mituzora said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for clarifying my point!
> ...


Your point is of no consequence as it doesn't refute the argument.

I will say again that a fetus is a developing human being that should not be killed for that reason do you or do you not agree?


----------



## mituzora (Jun 25, 2022)

SonicFrisbee said:


> Your point is of no consequence as it doesn't refute the argument.
> 
> I will say again that a fetus is a developing human being that should not be killed for that reason do you or do you not agree?


No,  I do not agree.  It was 20+ pages of posts ago, so I not blame you for going back, but I have stated this earlier.

Essentially, a fetus takes a metric ton of resources from the host.  Some peoples' bodies cannot handle this.  There are legitimate reasons to abort a pregnancy.  I remember my wife having to be in the hospital multiple times with my 2nd child.  Thankfully, even that was mild compared to what some people have to go though, and it can be fatal for a person to carry a fetus to term.  So I apologize if you don't like me using the word 'parasite' but a fetus is, by definition a parasitic symbiotic relationship to the host, and to ignore that fact is ignoring the health and safety of the individual, who now does not have a federally protected right to protect their body from.  

These fetuses don't feel anything, they don't remember anything, and honestly, they're none the wiser when they are aborted, whereas the host could have a well-established life where many people would miss them.

It's a really sad fact of life, but it is indeed a fact.  The tapeworm reference was used as an extreme mind you, but it shares similar properties to a human fetus in this case.


----------



## ZeroFX (Jun 25, 2022)

Man, this dumpster fire of a thread is of great entertainment to watch.


----------



## Viri (Jun 25, 2022)

ZeroFX said:


> Man, this dumpster fire of a thread is of great entertainment to watch.


Just wait until the forced gay marriage bill is killed. That'll be a fun thread to view.


----------



## Korozin (Jun 25, 2022)

mituzora said:


> No,  I do not agree.  It was 20+ pages of posts ago, so I not blame you for going back, but I have stated this earlier.
> 
> Essentially, a fetus takes a metric ton of resources from the host.  Some peoples' bodies cannot handle this.  There are legitimate reasons to abort a pregnancy.  I remember my wife having to be in the hospital multiple times with my 2nd child.  Thankfully, even that was mild compared to what some people have to go though, and it can be fatal for a person to carry a fetus to term.  So I apologize if you don't like me using the word 'parasite' but a fetus is, by definition a parasitic symbiotic relationship to the host, and to ignore that fact is ignoring the health and safety of the individual, who now does not have a federally protected right to protect their body from.
> 
> ...


Another thing people should keep in mind is that a fetus, or rather an embryo technically isn't it's own living being, rather a coagulation of resource hogging tissue until about 8 or so weeks into the pregnancy. Before that point the brain, much less the entire bodily structure hasn't been fully formed and not to even mention the actual brain synapses don't start firing until around that point as well. So as much as people may hate it to be said, before that point in pregnancy the fetus is a glorified parasite and technically shouldn't be considered alive, much less a person with full sentience. It's basically the same thing as saying bacteria has a right to life so we shouldn't use antibiotics, although the tapeworm analogy was a much better example.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

According to that definition, an 8.5 month old fetus would be a parasite too.   Even after birth it would still technically be a parasite if it is "living in, on, or *with* another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply". Some groups or classes of adult humans, like those living with their parents or dependent on welfare, may also technically meet the definition of parasite.


----------



## Viri (Jun 25, 2022)

I wonder how RBG would feel about this. Do you think she'd like the way her replacement is voting?


----------



## Jayro (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> And the majority of people do support this. Yeah, there are some who don't, but the majority, the actual majority, not the psycho's about to riot now, support this, so yes, this is working for the people.


The majority of the U.S. is not conservative, and do NOT support this, hate to tell ya. The red states are the psycho ones, as they believe in a magical sky daddy. Always a mouth full of scripture, with a heart full of hate. Ironic as fuck. Hypocrites too.


----------



## Viri (Jun 25, 2022)

Imo, the person who leaked this months ago probably made things much worse for them. I think some of the Conservative judges would have voted against removing roe v wade.

But protesting outside their house probably made them want to remove it even more, just to show they cannot be intimidated. The leaker put the judges in the "hot seat" and made them not want to look like cowards. lol

So yea, "pro-lifers" should thank the leaker for putting the judges in the "hot seat".


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> the psycho's about to riot now



Looks like they're about to do an "insurrection"



I'm not usually one for Schadenfreude, but I have to wonder how many of them are pro-mandate and just now getting a taste of their own medicine -- what it's like to be on the receiving end of having your bodily autonomy taken away.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 25, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Looks like they're about to do an "insurrection"
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not usually one for Schadenfreude, but I have to wonder how many of them are pro-mandate and just now getting a taste of their own medicine -- what it's like to be on the receiving end of having your bodily autonomy taken away.



Called it, not a single Republican in sight despite the fact that this is the first time since 9/11 our rights are actually being stripped away.  Exactly the type of scenario the constitution tells us might require overthrowing government.  Fucking cowards will cheer the end of democracy from their recliners, a lot of good stocking up on guns did them.


----------



## Jayro (Jun 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Called it, not a single Republican in sight despite the fact that this is the first time since 9/11 our rights are actually being stripped away.  Exactly the type of scenario the constitution tells us might require overthrowing government.  Fucking cowards will cheer the end of democracy from their recliners, a lot of good stocking up on guns did them.


The gun stockpiling is just a flashy intimidation tactic. Very few of them are stupid enough to actually try using them without being turned into swiss cheese by trained S.W.A.T. and police. My parents are very "christian" conservative trash with guns, and if it came down to the wire, they'd be too pussy to use the guns if home-by-home gun raids ever became a thing.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

Elodain said:


> Are you insinuating it would be bad if I were gay?


Not at all, minus habens.


Purple_Shyguy said:


> What are all the "my body my choice" people's thoughts on circumcision?


What are you talking about? Obviously against it, that was an easy question.
in no particular order

@Costello 
One of these you mentioned is not like the others, and you know it.
This forum has a 2021 rule against misinformation you're failing to enforce. It's not a mere matter of "opinions".


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Called it, not a single Republican in sight despite the fact that this is the first time since 9/11 our rights are actually being stripped away.  Exactly the type of scenario the constitution tells us might require overthrowing government.  Fucking cowards will cheer the end of democracy from their recliners, a lot of good stocking up on guns did them.



Are the Dems any better tho?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Are the Dems any better tho?



Much better. Incomparably better, if only due to the distinct lack of terrorists.


----------



## Digital_Cheese (Jun 25, 2022)

I don't have a problem with Roe v Wade being overturned. You have pretty much the same choice as before but instead of having to make that choice before you abort the child, you make the choice before you have sex (unless rape, but even then there are alternatives if you don't want to take care of the child such as adoption). Blue states won't ban abortion unless they all of the sudden have a complete 180 of what they believe. Red states will probably heavily restrict or ban all induced abortions. If the red states are just _*so *_bad, then why wouldn't you just move? If you can't move, don't have sex. If you have sex, there is a chance at creating a child and that is also conveniently the consent part. I presume basically everyone arguing here knows how babies are made so unless you are raped (which has alternatives such as adoption as I mentioned before), there isn't gonna be much else of a reason. Even then, rape can be reduced further with the 2nd amendment which I will explain below.

A lot of people are complaining about how 2A isn't going to get repealed, but use your brains here. The 2nd amendment also allows women to have guns. Shocking I know. Also, it's not like you are gonna take millions of them away even if you tried. They already tried that with alcohol. They couldn't do it just for alcohol which is no where near as loved as guns so how do you think it's gonna happen for guns? There is no way to arrest that many people and even with money incentives to just give them up, people like hunters will still keep their guns or people will keep guns for self defense. Also, guns pretty much are the reason women have defense against dipshits like rapists. I'd much rather have a firearm I can use to shoot a person trying to kill or rape me instead of having no firearm over BS.

If I had to take a guess, here is what would happen due to RoeVsWade being overturned. I'd say 24-26 states won't change it much or even give you more time to do so. The other states will likely still have it, but with severe limitations. Only a small hand few will probably do something like banning it entirely. Even then, medical emergencies probably will still be allowed in all states. However if this is otherwise the main argument, then just give exceptions for when the woman's life is in danger.

Miscarriages will not be outlawed in the USA. That seems so far-fetched that it doesn't ever seem possible. It wouldn't make any logical sense to do that and I doubt they would be able to even do fines. Also, due to giving the power back to the states instead of straight up banning it, it basically means that you'd have to figure out the laws for each individual state, figure out the time, and more. Also once you account for the fact that people usually don't think "miscarriage? nah must be illegal abortion", it lowers the odds even more and likely to the point of not being there at all. Do you really think they are gonna check that? No of course not.

Ectopic pregnancies will not be banned from getting actual treatment. Simple as that. Any attempts will likely be very quickly shut down by people and even if the laws do pass, they would remove any part banning ectopic pregnancy treatment from getting banned. Also, even if they were trying to ban it, most people wouldn't support at all (even pro-lifers like myself). Pretty much anyone with a few seconds of time to google it will be able to at least get the idea of what it is and know they are not going to get banned.

Some people may say that I am hypocritical because I haven't adopted any kids (and don't have kids at all anyways). I don't adopt kids because I am smart enough to know I wouldn't at all be able to provide for a kid. Same reason I don't have sex. Responsibility falls on both the mother and the father. The father should either not have sex, get a vasectomy, or use condoms. The mother should be on birth control and Plan B or don't have sex. Now for people who want to take up such a responsibility, you can adopt a child. I consider it a very heroic thing to do as you are providing someone who would have otherwise possibly had many issues in their life be able to have a good life now.

I actually think banning abortion could bring some positives too. For one, foster care might finally get fixed. The system is broken and shitty people just use the kids for horrible things so it should be reformed. Also, it's fair that the father pays the mother child support assuming they aren't married and the mother isn't mentally deranged. There are all these options here and yet somehow most people ignore it or don't know they are here.

Some final things: Gay marriage won't be outlawed and women will not lose their right to stuff like voting. Gay marriage seems pointless to ban and it makes them money. Women definitely won't lose rights like for voting because it has been for like over a century now. There isn't anyone in the Supreme court or anywhere else that would support it. Hell, there have been women in higher places of power like the Supreme court so odds are, it's not gonna happen. I am kinda wondering what the outrage would be if I called every single person who thought this conspiracy theorist.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

Digital_Cheese said:


> Some final things: Gay marriage won't be outlawed and women will not lose their right to stuff like voting. Gay marriage seems pointless to ban and it makes them money. Women definitely won't lose rights like for voting because it has been for like over a century now. There isn't anyone in the Supreme court or anywhere else that would support it. Hell, there have been women in higher places of power like the Supreme court so odds are, it's not gonna happen. I am kinda wondering what the outrage would be if I called every single person who thought this conspiracy theorist.


Kinda like you called conspiracy theorists those who said Roe v Wade would be overturned and you were part of the bad faith naysayers?


Digital_Cheese said:


> Miscarriages will not be outlawed in the USA. That seems so far-fetched that it doesn't ever seem possible. It wouldn't make any logical sense to do that and I doubt they would be able to even do fines. Also, due to giving the power back to the states instead of straight up banning it, it basically means that you'd have to figure out the laws for each individual state, figure out the time, and more. Also once you account for the fact that people usually don't think "miscarriage? nah must be illegal abortion", it lowers the odds even more and likely to the point of not being there at all. Do you really think they are gonna check that? No of course no


No one has talked about outlawing miscarriages. Contraception is the next on the block, which makes your first paragraphs a whole load of trite nonsense.


Digital_Cheese said:


> I actually think banning abortion could bring some positives too. For one, foster care might finally get fixed. The system is broken and shitty people just use the kids for horrible things so it should be reformed. Also, it's fair that the father pays the mother child support assuming they aren't married and the mother isn't mentally deranged. There are all these options here and yet somehow most people ignore it or don't know they are here.


None of this required an overturning of Roe v Wade to happen. In fact, it is gonna make them worse.


----------



## Digital_Cheese (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Kinda like you called conspiracy theorists those who said Roe v Wade would be overturned and you were part of the bad faith naysayers?


what? Idk what the problem is here. I never did lmao.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 25, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Are the Dems any better tho?



Liberal democrats have the exact opposite problem: they don't buy guns at all, even with impending theocratic fascism biting at their ankles.  And while I can respect that stance and their bravery in going to protests unarmed, it also means they get taken a lot less seriously by the powers that be.  They hold too much faith in our institutions to protect us, even as those very institutions crumble to ashes.  There's only one option left for non-violent recourse, and that's a general strike; very unlikely to succeed without support from some conservatives.  Every individual needs to be prepared to defend their own rights, by force if necessary, as it's the only language fascists understand.


----------



## Digital_Cheese (Jun 25, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Kinda like you called conspiracy theorists those who said Roe v Wade would be overturned and you were part of the bad faith naysayers?
> 
> No one has talked about outlawing miscarriages. Contraception is the next on the block, which makes your first paragraphs a whole load of trite nonsense.
> 
> None of this required an overturning of Roe v Wade to happen. In fact, it is gonna make them worse.


1. Never did that. Hell I barely did anything with politics until a bit more recently and even then still not much.

2. I mean hey look I am just also covering the entire base in case there is someone who attempts to try to argue that. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried just for a desperate attempt to defend anyways. Contraception I doubt is gonna be banned. What would that do? Condoms for example, don't kill a preborn child and they probably make money. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

3. Did they require it? Maybe not, but they had much less of a reason to do so. Foster care could actually be given a reason to improve since once again, more people might end up there. It may be possible to also enforce the child support thing sooner too. In places that will restrict to extremely short times, it will basically be the moment they find out they are pregnant unless they find out before a time like 6 weeks. If it takes longer, then it might still not be possible but would be better then not at all. Odds are, people are also going to want it now and they may at least consider it so still a better attempt then nothing.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2022)

Digital_Cheese said:


> 2. I mean hey look I am just also covering the entire base in case there is someone who attempts to try to argue that. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried just for a desperate attempt to defend anyways. Contraception I doubt is gonna be banned. What would that do? Condoms for example, don't kill a preborn child and they probably make money. I could go on, but I think you get the point.


Yes it's not like these "judges" have lied about Roe v Wade, it's perfectly safe. NOPE.


Digital_Cheese said:


> 3. Did they require it? Maybe not, but they had much less of a reason to do so. Foster care could actually be given a reason to improve since once again, more people might end up there. It may be possible to also enforce the child support thing sooner too. In places that will restrict to extremely short times, it will basically be the moment they find out they are pregnant unless they find out before a time like 6 weeks. If it takes longer, then it might still not be possible but would be better then not at all. Odds are, people are also going to want it now and they may at least consider it so still a better attempt then nothing.


Again, talking nonsense. You're saying this as if losing one hand will force the other one to become more dextrous. The truth is, if they are now the ONLY option in some states, they'll have no incentive to improve at all as it's either them or nothing.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

Jayro said:


> The majority of the U.S. is not conservative, and do NOT support this, hate to tell ya. The red states are the psycho ones, as they believe in a magical sky daddy. Always a mouth full of scripture, with a heart full of hate. Ironic as fuck. Hypocrites too.


If that were the case, Roe v. Wade would still be up now, wouldn't it? Get ready for half the country burning again, and not because of conservatives. Only someone full of true hate would riot and burn down their own country because of this, aka not us but you. Also, isn't it hypocritical to want to stand up for women's rights yet at the same time forcing people to take experimental injections and having men compete in women's sports who have a clear advantage despite taking hormone blockers which do nothing and threatening to ruin women's lives and career's if they dare say anything? And also supporting abortion, which also can destroy a women's body overtime if they do too much of it constantly? Guess not in your eyes, but reality stings.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Liberal democrats have the exact opposite problem: they don't buy guns at all, even with impending theocratic fascism biting at their ankles.  And while I can respect that stance and their bravery in going to protests unarmed, it also means they get taken a lot less seriously by the powers that be.  They hold too much faith in our institutions to protect us, even as those very institutions crumble to ashes.  There's only one option left for non-violent recourse, and that's a general strike; very unlikely to succeed without support from some conservatives.  Every individual needs to be prepared to defend their own rights, by force if necessary, as it's the only language fascists understand.


Strike...seriously their only job is picketing and rioting wtf are they going to do go home and sit on the couch none of these protesters have jobs (except the formentioned protesting) thats crazy ass talk.


----------



## DbGt (Jun 25, 2022)

Abortion was never a constitutional right, Roe vs Wade was wrong.


----------



## g00s3y (Jun 25, 2022)




----------



## Xzi (Jun 25, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Strike...seriously their only job is picketing and rioting wtf are they going to do go home and sit on the couch none of these protesters have jobs (except the formentioned protesting) thats crazy ass talk.


You act like midwest states aren't some of the poorest and most unemployed in the nation.  Capitalism eats away at all our lives, conservatives just misplace the blame for that because it's easier to punch down than actually do something meaningful about it.


----------



## seany1990 (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> If that were the case, Roe v. Wade would still be up now, wouldn't it?


It's called minority rule. 4 of those 6 judges were put there by presidents who lost the popular vote


----------



## Xzi (Jun 25, 2022)

The Onion isn't even satire any more, they're just spitting straight facts.



​


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

DbGt said:


> Abortion was never a constitutional right, Roe vs Wade was wrong.


Imagine thinking that a list of rules written hundreds of years ago by old white slave owners was some kind of eternal truth.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

And they see the stuff you post and lose more trust in you every time.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 25, 2022)

democrats mobs doing insurrections now funny i was in the idea those were bad


----------



## DbGt (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Imagine thinking that a list of rules written hundreds of years ago by old white slave owners was some kind of eternal truth.


lol, the constitution can be changed, can be amended, and has been amended multiple times.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 25, 2022)

Dementia Biden and his good keep saying is a constitutional right yet is not. very sneaky


----------



## regnad (Jun 25, 2022)

Holy crap this thread.

Tempers are so nice and helpful when it comes to modding and CFW help, but as soon as politics comes up, it’s bunch of awful assholes belittling each other.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)




----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

regnad said:


> Tempers are so nice and helpful when it comes to modding and CFW help, but as soon as politics comes up, it’s bunch of awful assholes belittling each other.



Opinions are like assholes -- everybody's got one.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

Personally I’m glad that the decision was overturned - it was unconstitutional from day one. Now individual states should move to enshrine it in law, either in the state’s constitution like Florida or via other legislation. Naturally some states will choose to ban the practice, but that can’t be helped. The people will vote accordingly during election season if it’s an important issue for them.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> I like when my states can make there own laws and a bunch robed oligarchs don't decide what we can and cannot make policy on.



Don't rest on your laurels because you live in a blue state.  In regards of abortion, you'll have autonomy for now until it's a federal law which will usurp any and all state laws which have granted the right.

As I said previously, it's "states rights" until the GQP says that they want to force everyone (which they have)


----------



## SonicFrisbee (Jun 25, 2022)

mituzora said:


> No,  I do not agree.  It was 20+ pages of posts ago, so I not blame you for going back, but I have stated this earlier.
> 
> Essentially, a fetus takes a metric ton of resources from the host.  Some peoples' bodies cannot handle this.  There are legitimate reasons to abort a pregnancy.  I remember my wife having to be in the hospital multiple times with my 2nd child.  Thankfully, even that was mild compared to what some people have to go though, and it can be fatal for a person to carry a fetus to term.  So I apologize if you don't like me using the word 'parasite' but a fetus is, by definition a parasitic symbiotic relationship to the host, and to ignore that fact is ignoring the health and safety of the individual, who now does not have a federally protected right to protect their body from.
> 
> ...


I think we all agree that an abortion to save the life of the mother should be allowed, but I don't think it should be allowed under any other circumstance because again it's a developing human being that could have a future to end that future and that development shouldn't typically be allowed, that's what the law is saying about murder, that you can't just end a persons future this same ideal should apply to people who aren't fully developed as well.

Additionally, if a woman isn't ready to become pregnant, apart from rape, most women in the US have the choice to not become pregnant.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jun 25, 2022)

Ah the never ending debate of abortion. Never ending due to the sheer amount of idiocy, stupidity and savage views coming from both sides.

On the right you have dumbasses talking about religion every time they need to justify their injustifiable and totalitarian point of view that treats women as mere incubators. F*ck off, I'm a Christian but I don't want religion in my politics, I want my future and my laws to be based on facts, not beliefs.

On the left you have a complete disregard for human life, both of the unborn and the mother. People celebrating abortion as if it was the best thing ever and partying hard. Never have in my entire life heard a leftie talk about the risk of abortion: many women go infertile, many can even die, it increases chances of tumor.
They also love to cite rape victims, which is hipocritical since the whole ordeal of an abortion due to rape is one of the most mentally damaging things a woman can go to, nothing to celebrate, nothing to "thank god for abortions", but everything to feel sad and sorrow about.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 25, 2022)

seany1990 said:


> It's called minority rule. 4 of those 6 judges were put there by presidents who lost the popular vote


No, it's not. Just because you don't get your way all the time doesn't mean the system suddenly doesn't work for you.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 25, 2022)

I wonder what the next virtue signaling chip implanted into these NPC SJW's will be programmed with -

*




*

We've recently had Ukraine, Men pretending to be women getting banned from womens swimming, gun control, Abortion - what's in store for next week?


----------



## DbGt (Jun 25, 2022)

Acid_Snake said:


> On the right you have dumbasses talking about religion every time they need to justify their injustifiable and totalitarian point of view that treats women as mere incubators. F*ck off, I'm a Christian but I don't want religion in my politics, I want my future and my laws to be based on facts, not beliefs.


Havent seen anyone talking about religion. You dont need to be religious to be pro life


----------



## SG854 (Jun 25, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> It's not particularly concerning to me on an individual level and indeed I would prefer that such people don't spawn, but of course it's a tough sell to normalize industrialized child sacrifice sold as retroactive birth control.


This is U.S. not Aztec culture. You're looking at the wrong time period.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

DbGt said:


> Havent seen anyone talking about religion. You dont need to be religious to be pro life



I find your statement factual and accurate, and I happen to be such person.

  But I'm not sure I'd necessarily call myself "pro life" as I still think early term abortions can be justified in certain scenarios, eg. if contraception & emergency contraception both failed, or in the case of rape.  And late term abortions could be justified if the fetus/baby threatens the mother's life ("self-defence").

Guess I'm one of those annoying centrists or something.   My ideology is rationalism, and I'm not afraid to change my mind if I encounter some new argument or evidence.   Who knows, maybe I'll come across some pro-choice argument and change my mind to a more pro-choice alignment.    Anything is possible if you stop worshipping your feelings and start obeying logic.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)




----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Called it, not a single Republican in sight despite the fact that this is the first time since 9/11 our rights are actually being stripped away.  Exactly the type of scenario the constitution tells us might require overthrowing government.  Fucking cowards will cheer the end of democracy from their recliners, a lot of good stocking up on guns did them.



The Constitution does not provide for a right to have an abortion. The Court in 1973 was wrong to make it up, yesterday's decision corrected that. And that's all it did. 

But Biden signed a bill into law yesterday that actually does strip rights. The "Red Flag" laws being incentivized by the Democrats' gun control bill violate Due Process. That actually is in the Constitution.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> The Constitution does not provide for a right to have an abortion. The Court in 1973 was wrong to make it up, yesterday's decision corrected that. And that's all it did.
> 
> But Biden signed a bill into law yesterday that actually does strip rights. The "Red Flag" laws being incentivized by the Democrats' gun control bill violate Due Process. That actually is in the Constitution.


Say you care more about guns than people without saying you care more about guns than people


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)




----------



## Dakitten (Jun 25, 2022)

Acid_Snake said:


> Ah the never ending debate of abortion. Never ending due to the sheer amount of idiocy, stupidity and savage views coming from both sides.
> 
> On the right you have dumbasses talking about religion every time they need to justify their injustifiable and totalitarian point of view that treats women as mere incubators. F*ck off, I'm a Christian but I don't want religion in my politics, I want my future and my laws to be based on facts, not beliefs.
> 
> ...


Wow... um... you know, women are people too, and most women are leftists to boot! And fun fact, women WANT the right to an abortion because NO SHIT ABORTIONS SUCK BUT THE ALTERNATIVES CAN BE WORSE! Bringing a life into the world is a huge deal, and particularly in a country that is sliding further and further into financial oblivion for the majority. I might have wanted another child if it wasn't for the fact that it might be too big a financial strain, and I work in IT for the government! You don't often get much more middle-class financial stability in the USA!

Please try asking somebody about their experience before mouthing off like you KNOW something is hypocritical. Also learn how to write. Also if you want somebody to believe women are more than just incubators, listen to them and then politely stand to the side while they tell you they want access to abortions even knowing and maybe even having experienced the pain and mental anguish of one and still not regretting it. Kthx.



Hanafuda said:


> The Constitution does not provide for a right to have an abortion. The Court in 1973 was wrong to make it up, yesterday's decision corrected that. And that's all it did.
> 
> But Biden signed a bill into law yesterday that actually does strip rights. The "Red Flag" laws being incentivized by the Democrats' gun control bill violate Due Process. That actually is in the Constitution.


The constitution provides a right for a well regulated militia to bare arms... in reference to before the United States had a standing military. Congratulations, you are wrong again. Please do better.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Say you care more about guns than people without saying you care more about guns than people



No Dave, it's not even about that. The Supreme Court's job is to apply the US Constitution to real life, and part of that is acknowledging when the Constitution is silent on an issue. It is silent on abortion. It is not an issue that is within the Federal government's Constitutional authority. The purpose of the Constitution is to grant only LIMITED powers to the Federal government. The rest belongs to the States. That's the deal.

Whether for better or worse, the Constitution does guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, and it's in the Bill of RIghts right after the 1st amendment right to free speech, religion, and free press. That's also the deal, like it or not. If it does its job correctly, the Court cannot ignore that anymore than it can make up rights out of thin air.




Dakitten said:


> The constitution provides a right for a well regulated militia to bare arms... in reference to before the United States had a standing military. Congratulations, you are wrong again. Please do better.



No, the 2nd amendment contains a prefatory clause, and an operative clause. The prefatory clause is merely an introduction, i.e. because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state .... then the operative clause says what the amendment actually guarantees, i.e. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You could toss the prefatory clause in the garbage, and the operative clause would still be there as the actual thing the amendment says. The right belongs to "the people," not a militia.

Also "well regulated" in 1770's usage does not mean "subject to lots of regulations." It means in good working order, or properly equipped. A "well regulated" watch or clock was one that was tuned properly to keep good time. A "well regulated militia" is one that doesn't need weapons provided to it when people of a community unite to defend themselves in a time of emergency. That could be the British are coming, or an Indian raid on the frontier, or when a natural disaster such as a hurricane occurs, or if there is looting and rioting. Some of those possibilities are quite unlikely in modern times, but not all. That's why the US Code still identitifies all able-bodied males between 17 and 45 as members of the militia. That's why the "Rooftop Koreans" were able to defend themselves and their families, when LAPD abandoned them in the midst of the Rodney King riots.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> No Dave, it's not even about that. The Supreme Court's job is to apply the US Constitution to real life, and part of that is acknowledging when the Constitution is silent on an issue. It is silent on abortion. It is not an issue that is within the Federal government's Constitutional authority. The purpose of the Constitution is to grant only LIMITED powers to the Federal government. The rest belongs to the States. That's the deal.
> 
> Whether for better or worse, the Constitution does guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, and it's in the Bill of RIghts right after the 1st amendment right to free speech, religion, and free press. That's also the deal, like it or not. If it does its job correctly, the Court cannot ignore that anymore than it can make up rights out of thin air.
> 
> ...


Yeah, you love guns, we get it.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Yeah, you love guns, we get it.




The Constitution says what it says. It doesn't say what you feel.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> The Constitution says what it says. It doesn't say what you feel.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


"Gunz gUnz guNz I have secks with gunZ" ok I hear you loud and clear buddy.


----------



## m_babble (Jun 25, 2022)

File under: THINGS NOT TO DISCUSS ON A GAMING SITE


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

m_babble said:


> File under: THINGS NOT TO DISCUSS ON A GAMING SITE


A lot of members of this site just had their bodily autonomy taken away. I guarantee you that no fetuses are members of this site, so the only effect on site members has been negative.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 25, 2022)

Very serious issue and fearful of rights being taken away


----------



## mrdude (Jun 25, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> Very serious issue and fearful of rights being taken away



I don't know why fat munters like in that video would want to advertise their blubber like that - anyone that isn't half blind, into fatties, or is a japanese whale fisherman wouldn't touch any of them. One things for sure - none of them need to worry about an abortion as they'll never have sex with a real living man (uneless the man has been drugged or hypnotised). If I had been walking past that spectacle, I would have gouged my eyes out with a spoon and washed the sockets out with eye bleach.

I'm also sure all the kings horses and all the kings men would have needed to be on standby for that event.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> No Dave, it's not even about that. The Supreme Court's job is to apply the US Constitution to real life, and part of that is acknowledging when the Constitution is silent on an issue. It is silent on abortion. It is not an issue that is within the Federal government's Constitutional authority. The purpose of the Constitution is to grant only LIMITED powers to the Federal government. The rest belongs to the States. That's the deal.
> 
> Whether for better or worse, the Constitution does guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, and it's in the Bill of RIghts right after the 1st amendment right to free speech, religion, and free press. That's also the deal, like it or not. If it does its job correctly, the Court cannot ignore that anymore than it can make up rights out of thin air.
> 
> ...


This is the only correct reading of the 2nd amendment.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> This is the only correct reading of the 2nd amendment.


Congrats. The correct reading of the 2nd amendment is responsible for countless deaths, including children you lot supposedly care so fucking much about. Maybe the issue isn't how to read it correctly, but how to change it so there aren't regularly more school shootings than there are days.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> No Dave, it's not even about that. The Supreme Court's job is to apply the US Constitution to real life, and part of that is acknowledging when the Constitution is silent on an issue. It is silent on abortion. It is not an issue that is within the Federal government's Constitutional authority. The purpose of the Constitution is to grant only LIMITED powers to the Federal government. The rest belongs to the States. That's the deal.
> 
> Whether for better or worse, the Constitution does guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, and it's in the Bill of RIghts right after the 1st amendment right to free speech, religion, and free press. That's also the deal, like it or not. If it does its job correctly, the Court cannot ignore that anymore than it can make up rights out of thin air.
> 
> ...



This is absolutely right. If they want a right to abortion, pass a constitutional amendment. But they won't, because they know they'd never get the votes for it. Roe V Wade is and always has been a sham decision that usurps power to oligarchs that bypass the legislature. 

Even if the left was to rig the system and expand the court so it becomes a weapon to wield federal power, noone in their right mind would ever listen to what they have to say again lol.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Congrats. The correct reading of the 2nd amendment is responsible for countless deaths, including children you lot supposedly care so fucking much about. Maybe the issue isn't how to read it correctly, but how to change it so there aren't more school shootings than there are days.




By all means. Pass a constitutional amendment. But until then, the citizenry has the right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> By all means. Pass a constitutional amendment. But until then, the citizenry has the right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.


We get it, you care more about guns than people.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Abortion debate: waaah right to life!
Gun debate: lol jk


----------



## Dakitten (Jun 25, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> No, it's not. Just because you don't get your way all the time doesn't mean the system suddenly doesn't work for you.


Ironic that the right used to cry about "activist judges" until they were blue in the face, cried about not rushing in Supreme Court Justice nominations in election years, and how both sides need to find compromise while they were in the minority... only to ignore that rhetoric completely when they got a chance to one-side their unpopular agenda. Fascists love lying~



Hanafuda said:


> No Dave, it's not even about that. The Supreme Court's job is to apply the US Constitution to real life, and part of that is acknowledging when the Constitution is silent on an issue. It is silent on abortion. It is not an issue that is within the Federal government's Constitutional authority. The purpose of the Constitution is to grant only LIMITED powers to the Federal government. The rest belongs to the States. That's the deal.
> 
> Whether for better or worse, the Constitution does guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, and it's in the Bill of RIghts right after the 1st amendment right to free speech, religion, and free press. That's also the deal, like it or not. If it does its job correctly, the Court cannot ignore that anymore than it can make up rights out of thin air.


You... do know all laws were made up out of "thin air" as it were, right? The constitution isn't a tablet passed down from a divine being from a mountain top after smoking some bush. Folks make them up, sometimes by the will of a consensus! In this instance, its the will of a small group of corrupt theocratic fascists representing the dumbest fraction of the populous of a country as well as exploitative wealthy elites who profit on the ignorance of the dumbest fraction of said country in a very un-democratic move.


Hanafuda said:


> No, the 2nd amendment contains a prefatory clause, and an operative clause. The prefatory clause is merely an introduction, i.e. because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state .... then the operative clause says what the amendment actually guarantees, i.e. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You could toss the prefatory clause in the garbage, and the operative clause would still be there as the actual thing the amendment says. The right belongs to "the people," not a militia.
> 
> Also "well regulated" in 1770's usage does not mean "subject to lots of regulations." It means in good working order, or properly equipped. A "well regulated" watch or clock was one that was tuned properly to keep good time. A "well regulated militia" is one that doesn't need weapons provided to it when people of a community unite to defend themselves in a time of emergency. That could be the British are coming, or an Indian raid on the frontier, or when a natural disaster such as a hurricane occurs, or if there is looting and rioting. Some of those possibilities are quite unlikely in modern times, but not all. That's why the US Code still identitifies all able-bodied males between 17 and 45 as members of the militia. That's why the "Rooftop Koreans" were able to defend themselves and their families, when LAPD abandoned them in the midst of the Rodney King riots.


That is some impressive mental gymnastics there, comrade! Let's bring up the second amendment now and see how this applies! Bare with me here, I know it is long winded and all, but...



> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



The structure of the singular sentence is a bit awkward nowaday, and the terminology is a bit archaic, but the meaning is quite clear. A Militia is stated as necessary to the security of a free state according to this. A Militia is a group of citizens acting as an ARMY in the place of an actual standing military. It can be made up of anybody, and thusly anybody (who was recognized as a full citizen, sorry women and minorities) can join and they should have the ability to be armed UPON ENTERING INTO A MILITIA AND NOT BEFORE. Following so far? Cool.

Even when this concept was being practiced, militias were wildly insufficient and the first President was quite frustrated with the concept. Militia men were undisciplined, not fit enough to perform military duties adequately, and took too long to rally against an external threat. This lead to all kinds of issues, and by the late 1700s, it fell to the states to "regulate" their militias as their active military force.

Flash forward to 1812 and militias getting rocked lead to the forming of a standing federal ARMY. Militias were phased out and the only government recognized militias became things like the National Guard. The militia act of 1903 does add the option for State Defense Forces, but our absolutely staggering national defense budget for our standing military tells the tale of what the country thinks of militias pretty well at this point.

Where does this all lead to regarding the right to bare arms? Simple... WE ARE NO LONGER ARMING CITIZENS TO PERFORM FEDERAL OR EVEN STATE DUTIES AND DEFENSE AT THE DROP OF A HAT! We have a standing military now, and if you want to join the military in order to secure your right to a firearm, join the club! Us vets LOVE well trained men and women who serve their country! Want a firearm but want to stay in your community? Go and SERVE with the guard, or local law enforcement. What do they all have in common? They are REGULATED in the sense that everyone gets what they realistically need in materials and training for their tasks in service to their country. You don't get all the ammo you can eat, you don't get whatever firearms you want just because you want them, and you're evaluated to see if you're viable to have a firearm and then trained in their use and maintenance and safety.

Jesus, it shouldn't be this hard to understand... if folks in the military and law enforcement have to go through long winded processes to procure their firearms and wield them, why should the second amendment mean anything less for civilians who aren't in a militia or similar service capacity? Also, selective service does not mean you've served nor that you're part of a militia. You're just accepting that you can be tapped to become active.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Congrats. The correct reading of the 2nd amendment is responsible for countless deaths, including children you lot supposedly care so fucking much about. Maybe the issue isn't how to read it correctly, but how to change it so there aren't regularly more school shootings than there are days.


is not


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> We get it, you care more about guns than people.



Your strawman responses aren't convincing anyone.

99% of  us legal gun owners aren't using them to aimlessly murder people, they use them to protect themselves and others that they love. Whether it be from criminals that wish to do harm or a federal government that wishes to infringe on their rights, the people have the right to fend off against evil.


----------



## Noctosphere (Jun 25, 2022)

Let's switch places guys and girls
Most people who are against abortion are men, am i right?
So, instead of illegalising abortion, lets make mandatory that if the woman doesn't want baby, the man goes chop chop


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 25, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> No Dave, it's not even about that. The Supreme Court's job is to apply the US Constitution to real life, and part of that is acknowledging when the Constitution is silent on an issue. It is silent on abortion. It is not an issue that is within the Federal government's Constitutional authority. The purpose of the Constitution is to grant only LIMITED powers to the Federal government. The rest belongs to the States. That's the deal.
> 
> Whether for better or worse, the Constitution does guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, and it's in the Bill of RIghts right after the 1st amendment right to free speech, religion, and free press. That's also the deal, like it or not. If it does its job correctly, the Court cannot ignore that anymore than it can make up rights out of thin air.
> 
> ...


this is beautifully written it does not get more clear than this


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> 99% of  us legal gun owners aren't using them to aimlessly murder people, they use them to protect themselves and others that they love. Whether it be from criminals that wish to do harm or a federal government that wishes to infringe on their rights, the people have the right to fend off against evil.


Great, that excuses all the murdered children then right?

It's just embarrassing for the right wing shitheads when abortion and gun debates are mixed in the same thread, because it's suddnely screamingly obvious how hypocritical the "pro life" bullshit is.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> is not


is not what? Responsible for the deaths? Because the deaths don't happen anywhere else that doesn't have your precious gun amendment. We had one (1) school shooting in this country ever, and people decided it was pretty obvious the guns needed to go. Becuase lives are more important than your precious bang bang sticks.


----------



## Noctosphere (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Your strawman responses aren't convincing anyone.
> 
> 99% of  us legal gun owners aren't using them to aimlessly murder people, they use them to protect themselves and others that they love. Whether it be from criminals that wish to do harm or a federal government that wishes to infringe on their rights, the people have the right to fend off against evil.


you don't seem to understand that they already infriged the rights of women, do you think they'll stay at that step?


----------



## Dakitten (Jun 25, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> Let's switch places guys and girls
> Most people who are against abortion are men, am i right?
> So, instead of illegalising abortion, lets make mandatory that if the woman doesn't want baby, the man goes chop chop


I like this notion, but let us be generous. Vasectomy procedures are reversible, have more benign and less serious side effects than an abortion or even most forms of birth control, and are even covered to a huge degree by most insurance plans! They're comparatively inexpensive to boot~

Pony up, fellas. If you aren't having a family any time soon and want to argue abortions are bad, get a snip and then pretend like you're taking this seriously


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> you don't seem to understand that they already infriged the rights of women, do you think they'll stay at that step?






"they" being the justice(s) who made the leaked statement. Their objectives are clear.

If you gun nuts don't use your guns to prevent these rights being taken away, you are 100% full of shit and may not speak on the subject again.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Great, that excuses all the murdered children then right?
> 
> It's just embarrassing for the right wing shitheads when abortion and gun debates are mixed in the same thread, because it's suddnely screamingly obvious how hypocritical the "pro life" bullshit is.




I'm sorry you are being so disingenuous. Everybody and there mother recognizes how tragic the uvalde school shooting was. But it's pretty damn telling from the way the left reacts to these tragedies just where their heads are. If they wanted to they could easily have drafted up a bill that renovates each and every school to single point of entry, multiple exit facilities like airports, upped security, etc and it would have bipartisan support. The government can protect federal buildings and airports, and can send billions to fund some stupid war across the ocean, but can't invest in protecting our students from bad guys. Instead their solutions always go to how can we take rights away from legal, responsible gun owners. Then when they don't get their way, they decide to not do anything and wait for the next school shooting so they can spark more outrage. 

No, being pro life and being pro 2nd amendment aren't mutually exclusive. I can hate children being murdered whilst also recognizing that I have the right to protect my loved ones from harm.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> I'm sorry you are being so disingenuous. Everybody and there mother recognizes how tragic the uvalde school shooting was. But it's pretty damn telling from the way the left reacts to these tragedies just where their heads are. If they wanted to they could easily have drafted up a bill that renovates each and every school to single point of entry, multiple exit facilities like airports, upped security, etc and it would have bipartisan support. The government can protect federal buildings and airports, and can send billions to fund some stupid war across the ocean, but can't invest in protecting our students from bad guys. Instead their solutions always go to how can we take rights away from legal, responsible gun owners. Then when they don't get their way, they decide to not do anything and wait for the next school shooting so they can spark more outrage.
> 
> No, being pro life and being pro 2nd amendment aren't mutually exclusive. I can hate children being murdered whilst also recognizing that I have the right to protect my loved ones from harm.


Eagerly awaiting your response to my above post.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 25, 2022)

Time Zones are crazy

In Australia it's 03.17am

In Japan its 02.17 am

In America its 1942 where minorities and women are still controlled by old white men.


----------



## Noctosphere (Jun 25, 2022)

AmandaRose said:


> Time Zones are crazy
> 
> In Australia it's 03.17am
> 
> ...


who would have though that canadians had a better mentality than muricans... wait... i totally did for years


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Congrats. The correct reading of the 2nd amendment is responsible for countless deaths, including children you lot supposedly care so fucking much about. Maybe the issue isn't how to read it correctly, but how to change it so there aren't regularly more school shootings than there are days.


Rights are not contingent on other people following the law in their exercise of said rights.


----------



## Noctosphere (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Rights are not contingent on other people following the law in their exercise of said rights.


what you guys don't understand in most peoples opinion is that we aren't against the gun wearing right. We are against the very easy acces to guns


----------



## Lodad (Jun 25, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It's pretty selfish to only care about things that affect you. I'm sorry if that's how you navigate the world.
> The overturning of Roe is bad, regardless of whether or not it affects you personally.
> A court that can take away one group's civil rights can take away your civil rights.
> Roe itself has been used as specific precedent for other cases, including but not limited to cases pertaining to contraception, many sex acts, and same-sex marriage. Thomas himself says in his concurring opinion striking down Roe that these cases should be reexamined.
> ...


Regarding #1 and #3: People don't ever realize that eventually, once the guys at the top run out of other people to shit on, they'll be next.


----------



## Dakitten (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> I'm sorry you are being so disingenuous. Everybody and there mother recognizes how tragic the uvalde school shooting was. But it's pretty damn telling from the way the left reacts to these tragedies just where their heads are. If they wanted to they could easily have drafted up a bill that renovates each and every school to single point of entry, multiple exit facilities like airports, upped security, etc and it would have bipartisan support. The government can protect federal buildings and airports, and can send billions to fund some stupid war across the ocean, but can't invest in protecting our students from bad guys. Instead their solutions always go to how can we take rights away from legal, responsible gun owners. Then when they don't get their way, they decide to not do anything and wait for the next school shooting so they can spark more outrage.
> 
> No, being pro life and being pro 2nd amendment aren't mutually exclusive. I can hate children being murdered whilst also recognizing that I have the right to protect my loved ones from harm.



A gun should always be a privilege, not a right. If you have to take a test to drive a car, you should need one to wield a murder tool. Hell, if you really think it is a right, then everyone should be given a firearm paid for by tax dollars upon reaching whatever nonsense age threshold the right believes is viable.

But its pretty damn telling from the way the right reacts to these tragedies just where their heads are. If they wanted to they could easily have drafted up a bill that looks at the most realistic factor in these shootings, an abundance of firearms and a lack of regulations on them that allows the mentally unsound and disgruntled to obtain as much ammo and hardware as they can afford, but instead they come up with insane solutions like single entry access points and armed guards like a prison.

Sorry, but being anti choice and anti gun regulation does mean you value your own status quo over the lives of children and women... Some sources might even call this viewpoint selfish and evil! Jesus, maybe! Probably should look into that.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

The





Lodad said:


> Regarding #1 and #3: People don't ever realize that eventually, once the guys at the top run out of other people to shit on, they'll be next.


The whole point of this decision is that they're taking away power from the top and giving it to states lmfao. Y'all are whack


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Right? And I like how their solution seems to be to take away take away guns and 2a rights from the citizenry. Then what? They realize that deaths from guns are done with pistols nearl
> 
> 
> The
> The whole point of this decision is that they're taking away power from the top and giving it to states lmfao. Y'all are whack


Ah shit you forgot to reply to my other comment and confirm that you will indeed be using your gun to prevent people's other fundamental rights being taken away. That was pretty careless of you but I'll let it go if you do it now.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

@Noctosphere Changed the thread title in line with the section rules - repealing Roe v. Wade did not “make abortion illegal” in the United States, it simply relegated the matter of legislating abortion to individual states. The original title was misleading.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> A gun should always be a privilege, not a right. If you have to take a test to drive a car, you should need one to wield a murder tool. Hell, if you really think it is a right, then everyone should be given a firearm paid for by tax dollars upon reaching whatever nonsense age threshold the right believes is viable.
> 
> But its pretty damn telling from the way the right reacts to these tragedies just where their heads are. If they wanted to they could easily have drafted up a bill that looks at the most realistic factor in these shootings, an abundance of firearms and a lack of regulations on them that allows the mentally unsound and disgruntled to obtain as much ammo and hardware as they can afford, but instead they come up with insane solutions like single entry access points and armed guards like a prison.
> 
> Sorry, but being anti choice and anti gun regulation does mean you value your own status quo over the lives of children and women... which some might in fact call selfish and evil! Jesus, maybe. Probably should look into that!


Or maybe the common factor here is that... They're mentally unsound? Lmao

Since the 90s we've seen a dramatic increase in the amount of guns in distribution and owned by the citizenry, but also a sharp decrease in crime. The problem isn't that safe gun owners, which is the vast vast majority who got their guns pretty easily, it's that we don't focus on these creeps with obvious mental problems


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> A gun should always be a privilege, not a right. If you have to take a test to drive a car, you should need one to wield a murder tool. Hell, if you really think it is a right, then everyone should be given a firearm paid for by tax dollars upon reaching whatever nonsense age threshold the right believes is viable.
> 
> But its pretty damn telling from the way the right reacts to these tragedies just where their heads are. If they wanted to they could easily have drafted up a bill that looks at the most realistic factor in these shootings, an abundance of firearms and a lack of regulations on them that allows the mentally unsound and disgruntled to obtain as much ammo and hardware as they can afford, but instead they come up with insane solutions like single entry access points and armed guards like a prison.
> 
> Sorry, but being anti choice and anti gun regulation does mean you value your own status quo over the lives of children and women... Some sources might even call this viewpoint selfish and evil! Jesus, maybe! Probably should look into that.


You should have a de facto right to arm yourself for whatever purpose you find appropriate unless there are pre-existing circumstances which prevent you from exercising that right. In the same way you are entitled to purchase a vehicle, you do not require a driver’s license to buy one. You need a license to participate in traffic, which is a different matter entirely.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Or maybe the common factor here is that... They're mentally unsound? Lmao
> 
> Since the 90s we've seen a dramatic increase in the amount of guns in distribution and owned by the citizenry, but also a sharp decrease in crime. The problem isn't that safe gun owners, which is the vast vast majority who got their guns pretty easily, it's that we don't focus on these creeps with obvious mental problems


So you agree more gun control legislation is needed.


----------



## pustal (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Personally I’m glad that the decision was overturned - it was unconstitutional from day one. Now individual states should move to enshrine it in law, either in the state’s constitution like Florida or via other legislation. Naturally some states will choose to ban the practice, but that can’t be helped. The people will vote accordingly during election season if it’s an important issue for them.


Would you say the same for slavery? After all, that was what was the US civil war all about: the 'right' for individual states to legislate on limitations on basic basic civil right.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

It's interesting to see how many gun rights activists are against having their rights stripped away but when any talk of bodily autonomy in any form gets brought up it's deflection after deflection. "Abortion is bad!" "Personal responsibility!" "It's not in the Constitution!" but God forbid someone wants to regulate gun control, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It's almost like these people value property over basic human values just because some dead guys who thought they were above anyone that wasn't a white man made some rules on paper. 

The right is about control, first and foremost, and they hide under the guise of less government, but then lick the boots of any politician that radicalizes them for votes. 

The Democrats might be crap, but when's the last time they thought dehumanizing people was the way to go? Back when they had slaves 200 years ago? What a bunch of whiny hypocrites.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

My question is how can Democrats not see the hypocrisy of allowing illegals to pour through our southern border, where drug trafficking has become a really big fucking problem and has fueled an illegal industry of narcotics, but not see how banning guns would just give the cartels one more industry to profit from, gun running. So we can let our criminals be armed, but god forbid a law abiding citizen get to exercise his or her constitutional right


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> My question is how can Democrats not see the hypocrisy of allowing illegals to pour through our southern border, where drug trafficking has become a really big fucking problem and has fueled an illegal industry of narcotics, but not see how banning guns would just give the cartels one more industry to profit from, gun running. So we can let our criminals be armed, but god forbid a law abiding citizen get to exercise his or her constitutional right


I'm more concerned about your hypocrisy claiming you've got to have guns to prevent the government from taking rights away, but won't use yours to do so. You're full of shit and anything you have to say on the subject is irrelevant.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

pustal said:


> Would you say the same for slavery. After all, that was what was the US civil war all about: the 'right' for individual states to legislate on limitations on basic basic civil right.



14th amendment explicitly bans slavery lmao.

There's no amendment making abortion a right however.

See the difference? One is in the constitution, the other isn't


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> I'm more concerned about your hypocrisy claiming you've got to have guns to prevent the government from taking rights away, but won't use yours to do so. You're full of shit and anything you have to say on the subject is irrelevant.


What rights is this decision taking away? None. It simply relegates the power to the states under the 10th amendment lmao. So if anything, we have more control over how our government runs after this decision then before


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

pustal said:


> Would you say the same for slavery. After all, that was what was the US civil war all about: the 'right' for individual states to legislate on limitations on basic basic civil right.


Slavery was always at odds with the Constitution which clearly states that all men are created equal. The Founders, including the ones who owned slaves, have always held the opinion that it was abhorrent, but it had to be permitted at the time in order to reach a consensus that would allow states to unify against a common enemy. It was rightfully abolished, thus fulfilling the promise of the Constitution for all. We know this from their personal correspondence and many of the papers they wrote. Some quotes:

“There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." - George Washington

“Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States (…) I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in abhorrence." - John Adams

“Slavery is (…) an atrocious debasement of human nature." - Benjamin Franklin

"We have seen the mere distinction of colour made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." - James Madison

The Constitution was always designed with the intention of the eventual abolition of slavery, from day one.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> What rights is this decision taking away? None. It simply relegates the power to the states under the 10th amendment lmao. So if anything, we have more control over how our government runs after this decision then before


Bodiliy autonomy, thanks for asking. But my post you're ignoring listed the other rights they are actively planning to take away next.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Bodiliy autonomy, thanks for asking. But my post you're ignoring listed the other rights they are actively planning to take away next.



What amendment says you have the right to bodily autonomy? I must've missed that. And anyways, you can do whatever the hell you want with your body, just not a babies body. A human being with its own DNA



And also, regarding contraception, gay marriage, and sodomy. I must've missed those rights being in the constitution too....

Not that I don't think that women should have access to contraceptives or gay folks should or shouldn't be able to get married. Its just.. either pass a federal law doing so or add an amendment lmao. Because as it stands. These rights were entirely made up by oligarchs in robes.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 25, 2022)

if you really think about it 
SCOTUS has ruled that the federal government has no authority over women's bodies


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> What amendment says you have the right to bodily autonomy? I must've missed that. And anyways, you can do whatever the hell you want with your body, just not a babies body. A human being with its own DNA
> 
> And also, regarding contraception, gay marriage, and sodomy. I must've missed those rights being in the constitution too....
> 
> Not that I don't think that women should have access to contraceptives or gay folks should or shouldn't be able to get married. Its just.. either pass a federal law doing so or add an amendment lmao. Because as it stands now, none of those things are "rights" by any measure


Imagine unironically believing that actual fundamental human rights are genuinely defined by some shitty document. Also try again on the "sodomy" one, it's actually any person's right to have sex for any other reason than procreation within marriage. It might even affect you, if you were more interested in having sex with other humans than you are in fucking your guns.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Imagine unironically believing that actual fundamental human rights are genuinely defined by some shitty document. Also try again on the "sodomy" one, it's actually any person's right to have sex for any other reason than procreation within marriage. It might even affect you, if you were more interested in having sex with other humans than you are in fucking your guns.



Question: what are they defined by then? 

If not by a god and not protected by the constitution, where do you come up with what is and isn't a human right?

Godless people cant point to anything. Because our concepts are morality fundamentally are rooted in religion. And without such rules, you can change the meaning of what is and isn't a right to what you see fit


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> What amendment says you have the right to bodily autonomy? I must've missed that. And anyways, you can do whatever the hell you want with your body, just not a babies body. A human being with its own DNA
> 
> And also, regarding contraception, gay marriage, and sodomy. I must've missed those rights being in the constitution too....
> 
> Not that I don't think that women should have access to contraceptives or gay folks should or shouldn't be able to get married. Its just.. either pass a federal law doing so or add an amendment lmao. Because as it stands now, none of those things are "rights" by any measure


Technically speaking, bodily autonomy is covered by the 4th Amendment which states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons (…) shall not be violated". The Constitution guarantees that a citizen of the United States will not be subject to any procedures that concern their body if they do not consent to them because they have a right to be secure in their persons. You cannot be forced to undergo any medical procedure or ingest any substance just because the state is telling you to, it’s a constitutionally protected right. The bodily autonomy argument flips this upside down - the claim is that bodily autonomy *entitles* one to receive certain kinds of healthcare services, which it does not.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Question: what are they defined by then?
> 
> If not by a god and not protected by the constitution, where do you come up with what is and isn't a human right?


Thankfully I don't live in the same country as your best buddy the constitution, neither do most people, so I guess it must be irrelevant to fundamentals affecting humanity after all.


----------



## Dakitten (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Right? And I like how their solution seems to be to take away take away guns and 2a rights from the citizenry. Then what? They realize that deaths from guns are done with pistols nearl
> 
> 
> The
> The whole point of this decision is that they're taking away power from the top and giving it to states lmfao. Y'all are whack


Here is a thought experiment for you... We have record gun deaths in a country with the most guns per capita in the world. The second amendment was written a couple hundred years ago and some change. Maybe, hear me out here, maybe even if your INTERPRETATION of the 2nd amendment was correct (it isn't btw) it still seems to contribute to the death of innocents and is a health hazard that should be overwritten.

Also, giving the issue of rights to the states means that states can take them away. It is still an issue of depriving a fraction of the population a federal right to bodily autonomy based on the desires of a small minority of the population. There is NOTHING about roe being repealed that should be celebrated unless you're a part of that small, uninformed, often religious, largely male and thus unaffected group. States should govern and manage their territories based on local needs and federal laws, not be concerned with how their citizenry needs EXTRA laws to dictate how their lives should be lived. Y'all are whack.



MariArch said:


> Or maybe the common factor here is that... They're mentally unsound? Lmao
> 
> Since the 90s we've seen a dramatic increase in the amount of guns in distribution and owned by the citizenry, but also a sharp decrease in crime. The problem isn't that safe gun owners, which is the vast vast majority who got their guns pretty easily, it's that we don't focus on these creeps with obvious mental problems


Hey, if you want to preach for public healthcare, I'm right there with you, comrade!

However, even if you want to cite crime statistics ON THE WHOLE declining instead of gun violence statistics (which, spoilers, has been climbing ever since the assault weapon ban repeal, you probably disingenuous cherry picker you~), you should ask yourself "What has been causing so many people to suddenly become more mentally unsound?"

Spoilers: Radicalization of the right and a decline in public health and assistance programs. Desperation and rage breeds mental instability. All for treating the symptoms, but treating the cause is important too.



Foxi4 said:


> You should have a de facto right to arm yourself for whatever purpose you find appropriate unless there are pre-existing circumstances which prevent you from exercising that right. In the same way you are entitled to purchase a vehicle, you do not require a driver’s license to buy one. You need a license to participate in traffic, which is a different matter entirely.


Ahh, Foxi 101: If an analogy doesn't perfectly encapsulate an issue, it isn't valid!

I really don't miss your misleading rhetoric. It is true, you can buy a car and not drive it yourself and that is legal. Woo. It still involves more paperwork and time investment than procuring a firearm, and ease of firearm acquisition and number of weapons still correlates with the number of gun deaths in the USA being absurdly high.



Foxi4 said:


> Slavery was always at odds with the Constitution which clearly states that all men are created equal. The Founders, including the ones who owned slaves, have always held the opinion that it was abhorrent, but it had to be permitted at the time


Hashtag Foxivalues. Nobody who legally enabled slavery liked it, but they HAD to! All men were created equal obviously included them eventually! Totes didn't need a civil war to stop states from claiming their state-based right to perpetuate slavery as popular consensus shifted.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Technically speaking, bodily autonomy is covered by the 4th Amendment which states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons (…) shall not be violated". The Constitution guarantees that a citizen of the United States will not be subject to any procedures that concern their body if they do not consent to them because they have a right to be secure in their persons. You cannot be forced to undergo any medical procedure or ingest any substance just because the state is telling you to, it’s a constitutionally protected right. The bodily autonomy argument flips this upside down - the claim is that bodily autonomy *entitles* one to receive certain kinds of healthcare services, which it does not.


Even still. My point is that this argument of "bodily autonomy means I can have an abortion" makes no sense... Because it's a different damn body lmao


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Here is a thought experiment for you... We have record gun deaths in a country with the most guns per capita in the world. The second amendment was written a couple hundred years ago and some change. Maybe, hear me out here, maybe even if your INTERPRETATION of the 2nd amendment was correct (it isn't btw) it still seems to contribute to the death of innocents and is a health hazard that should be overwritten.
> 
> Also, giving the issue of rights to the states means that states can take them away. It is still an issue of depriving a fraction of the population a federal right to bodily autonomy based on the desires of a small minority of the population. There is NOTHING about roe being repealed that should be celebrated unless you're a part of that small, uninformed, often religious, largely male and thus unaffected group. States should govern and manage their territories based on local needs and federal laws, not be concerned with how their citizenry needs EXTRA laws to dictate how their lives should be lived. Y'all are whack.
> 
> ...


Here's an idea. Move to a state where they agree with all the bullcrap other people don't .

Tbh this brings up the bigger question of why we don't just split up the nation into like 4 different countries. We obviously all think so differently on a wide variety of topics. Idk why I should be forced to live in a country where people that live hundreds of miles away and have a completely different lifestyle can legislate how me and my community lives


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Ahh, Foxi 101: If an analogy doesn't perfectly encapsulate an issue, it isn't valid!
> 
> I really don't miss your misleading rhetoric. It is true, you can buy a car and not drive it yourself and that is legal. Woo. It still involves more paperwork and time investment than procuring a firearm, and ease of firearm acquisition and number of weapons still correlates with the number of gun deaths in the USA being absurdly high.


It’s a bad analogy. Even if it was perfectly aligned, it still wouldn’t apply because there is no constitutionally protected right to travel using an automobile. I would argue that it falls under freedom of movement as the automobile is the de facto modern mode of transportation, but there’s two problems with that - firstly it would invalidate driver’s licenses and secondly it’s not enumerated as such, whereas arms are.


Dakitten said:


> Hashtag Foxivalues. Nobody who legally enabled slavery liked it, but they HAD to! All men were created equal obviously included them eventually! Totes didn't need a civil war to stop states from claiming their state-based right to perpetuate slavery as popular consensus shifted.


It’s called a temporary compromise, with full intention of revisiting the matter at a more opportune time, which is precisely what happened historically. The seeds of abolishing slavery nationwide were in the Constitution before it was even ratified.



MariArch said:


> Even still. My point is that this argument of "bodily autonomy means I can have an abortion" makes no sense... Because it's a different damn body lmao


It does indeed neglect to account for that. Depending on the stage of pregnancy, we may or may not be talking about one or multiple persons. The reason why repealing Roe v. Wade is good is because we can now have a conversation about when that is and let the people decide, as opposed to kicking the can down the road by inventing a right out of whole cloth. Abortion was never part of the Constitution, the decision was erroneous and it’s a good thing that it was repealed - the SCOTUS should deliberate on what is and is not in the Constitution, not engage in activism. There are established systems by which the document can be amended and there’s a legislative branch responsible for passing laws. That’s the correct path of tackling the matter, and that’s the path that should’ve been taken in the first place.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 25, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> ... God forbid someone wants to regulate gun control, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment.



This is where I would use a "wut?" meme.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Thankfully I don't live in the same country as your best buddy the constitution, neither do most people, so I guess it must be irrelevant to fundamentals affecting humanity after all.



In what countries is having an abortion a right? Not just legal, but actually a guaranteed right?


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> In what countries is having an abortion a right? Not just legal, but actually a guaranteed right?


I'm not gonna go through every country's laws, have at it if you like, but Amnesty International consider it a right under international human rights laws. I feel like they've probably got better experts who've researched it better than you, so I'm gonna listen to them.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

We should also factor in the autonomy of the baby, eg. foreskin removal would seem to be an autonomy issue.

Now imagine instead of shootings we had car attacks and in response to all these car attacks the gov't wanted to pass a law that restricts car ownership to only those who need it, eg. you could only buy a car if there is no public transport available in your area.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> I'm not gonna go through every country's laws, have at it if you like, but Amnesty International consider it a right under international human rights laws. I feel like they've probably got better experts who've researched it better than you, so I'm gonna listen to them.


"Experts have done their homework and researched. They have finally discovered the secret of.. what is a human right "

Lmao. Modern day bureaucratic boards of unelected officials that wish to have top down international control are just the stupidest motherfuckers 

Newsflash: international law is a complete joke and you're naive to listen to it.

No, i will not be listening to international law where governments from China, Venezuela, North Korea, Russia, the UK, Israel, France, or any country for that matter gets to decide how we run our government


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Lmao. Modern day bureaucratic boards of unelected officials


Imagine such a thing (supreme court)


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Newsflash: international law is a complete joke and you're naive to listen to it.


Much like religion then.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Imagine such a thing (supreme court)


Except the supreme court doesn't make law (or shouldn't), it cross analyzes the text of the constitution with laws passed to make sure that our rights listed aren't being infringed.

The supreme court isn't supposed to be fluid and swayed by the court of public opinion, hence the lifetime appointment. it's supposed to ensure that our rights arent being trampled on from the top down as listed in the constitution. Where amendments that were past with a vast majority of the house and Senate were voted on and enshrined.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> "Experts have done their homework and researched. They have finally discovered the secret of.. "


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Except the supreme court doesn't make law (or shouldn't), it cross analyzes the text of the constitution with laws passed to make sure that our rights listed aren't being infringed.


Sure, and it does so completely neutrally with no personal bias, it's the perfect system.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> The supreme court isn't supposed to be fluid and swayed by the court of public opinion, it's supposed to ensure that our rights arent being trampled on from the top down.


So it shouldn't disagree with its own previous decisions, got it.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> I'm not gonna go through every country's laws, have at it if you like, but Amnesty International consider it a right under international human rights laws. I feel like they've probably got better experts who've researched it better than you, so I'm gonna listen to them.



I'm not asking whether you or I or Amnesty International (IDGAF) _thinks_ it is a right. And I'm not asking about other country's laws ... legislatures can make something legal, or make it illegal. The US Congress can do the same. A right guaranteed explicitly in a nation's Constitution is a different matter. And I would be surprised if any country has that wrt: abortion. But maybe there is one? ... that's why I asked.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Jun 25, 2022)

What always puzzle me with Americans talking about their Constitution is how they talk about it as if everything was set in stone.
The Constitution was written in a very different era with people of very different principles. By itself, it's a piece of paper, by itself, it can and should be challenged when it stops being relevant. Saying "but the Constitution said" by itself is a weak argument.
Also getting your rights taken away by people you have not elected is a big no no, it's never okay. Wake up USA.

Meanwhile none of the urgent issues like healthcare, infrastructure or education are addressed by either side, what a fantasy.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm not asking whether you or I or Amnesty International (IDGAF) _thinks_ it is a right. And I'm not asking about other country's laws ... legislatures can make something legal, or make it illegal. The US Congress can do the same. A right guaranteed explicitly in a nation's Constitution is a different matter. And I would be surprised if any country has that wrt: abortion. But maybe there is one? ... that's why I asked.


I don't honestly know if any other countries have the same unhealthy batshit obsession with the precious Constitution as the be-all and end-all, sorry.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Sure, and it does so completely neutrally with no personal bias, it's the perfect system.


Question: if the supreme court truly didn't rule in direct accordance with constitution, why didn't they just say "a baby in the womb has a complete right to life and so abortion is to be banned nationwide"?


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 25, 2022)

deinonychus71 said:


> What always puzzle me with Americans talking about their Constitution is how they talk about it as if everything was set in stone.
> The Constitution was written in a very different era with people of very different principles. By itself, it's a piece of paper, by itself, it can and should be challenged when it stops being relevant. Saying "but the Constitution said" by itself is a weak argument.
> Also getting your rights taken away by people you have not elected is a big no no, it's never okay. Wake up USA.
> 
> Meanwhile none of the urgent issues like healthcare, infrastructure or education are not addressed by either side, what a fantasy.



The US Constitution can be amended. We've done it 27 times.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Say you care more about guns than people without saying you care more about guns than people


You do realize guns dont kill people but abortions do...I mean thats just 100% fact right there.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Question: if the supreme court truly didn't rule in direct accordance with constitution


If they truly did, how was it a different answer than last time?


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

wartutor said:


> You do realize guns dont kill people but abortions do...I mean thats just 100% fact right there.


You're right, it's not the guns, it's the bullets passing through the kids' flesh that probably killed them. Guns are fine then, just ban bullets.

In other news, a clump of cells is not a person.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jun 25, 2022)

So much for the american freedom or whatever it is


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> You're right, it's not the guns, it's the bullets passing through the kids' flesh that probably killed them. Guns are fine then, just ban bullets.
> 
> In other news, a clump of cells is not a person.


Emotional appeal is never a good argument in a debate. Many things “kill children” all the time, but we don’t restrict them because their utility outweighs the cost. The correct way to approach the problem is to minimise fatalities without sacrificing the citizen’s ability to exercise their freedoms.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> If they truly did, how was it a different answer than last time?


Because last time they came up with shit lmao! As we've been saying. Precedence doesn't make something right or true. If it did a lot of racist shit would still be protected


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Many things “kill children” all the time, but we don’t restrict them because their utility outweighs the cost.


Agreed.
That does absolutely not apply to automatic weapons in the hands of the public.


----------



## Dakitten (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Here's an idea. Move to a state where they agree with all the bullcrap other people don't .
> 
> Tbh this brings up the bigger question of why we don't just split up the nation into like 4 different countries. We obviously all think so differently on a wide variety of topics. Idk why I should be forced to live in a country where people that live hundreds of miles away and have a completely different lifestyle can legislate how me and my community lives


This worked so well with slavery back before the civil war. States having individual control over rights is a terrible idea that leads to pockets of oppression. As for dividing the country up... while I don't think it is the worst idea ever, we're all people in a society that works towards a common good, dependent on the trade and well being of our neighbors. Dividing up the USA would destabilize things on a global level, be extremely messy, and in all probability excessively bloody for all sides.



NoobletCheese said:


> We should also factor in the autonomy of the baby, eg. foreskin removal would seem to be an autonomy issue.
> 
> Now imagine instead of shootings we had car attacks and in response to all these car attacks the gov't wanted to pass a law that restricts car ownership to only those who need it, eg. you could only buy a car if there is no public transport available in your area.


Hey, if you want to take this to no more circumcision and better regulate cars and public transportation in return for regulating guns, welcome to the movement, comrade! Please don't threaten us with a good time! 




Foxi4 said:


> It’s a bad analogy. Even if it was perfectly aligned, it still wouldn’t apply because there is no constitutionally protected right to travel using an automobile. I would argue that it falls under freedom of movement as the automobile is the de facto modern mode of transportation, but there’s two problems with that - firstly it would invalidate driver’s licenses and secondly it’s not enumerated as such, whereas arms are.


It applies due to the level of regulation on a travel vehicle being more involved and thorough as opposed to... well, killing tools. Firearms are only the de facto item for shooting things and or people, a non-essential thing in anybody's life, whereas vehicular transportation may well be the only feasible way to make enough money to earn a living to survive on depending on your area.



Foxi4 said:


> It’s called a temporary compromise, with full intention of revisiting the matter at a more opportune time, which is precisely what happened historically. The seeds of abolishing slavery nationwide were in the Constitution before it was even ratified.


A temporary compromise to enslave other human beings that would end at some point unspecified that was universally agreed on by all parties involved? I believe this still qualifies as immoral, didn't work out historically until treason was committed and people were murdered, and then persecution persisted until... well it is still going on. Honestly, your defense of this is kinda alarming and off-putting. Maybe re-evaluate your position on owning other human beings.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Because last time they came up with shit lmao! As we've been saying. Precedence doesn't make something right or true. If it did a lot of racist shit would still be protected


So you're saying the supreme court is not a perfect neutral/objective system but a bunch of fallible biased humans, got it.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

Ywabinde





hippy dave said:


> So you're saying the supreme court is not a perfect neutral/objective system but a bunch of fallible biased humans, got it.


Yes indeed. They could come up with stuff that's simply not written down and call it a right. When they do do that, it's wrong. The supreme court has set the record straight and has decided to follow what is written down


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> The supreme court has set the record straight and has decided to follow what is written down


In your fallible biased opinion.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Great, that excuses all the murdered children then right?
> 
> It's just embarrassing for the right wing shitheads when abortion and gun debates are mixed in the same thread, because it's suddnely screamingly obvious how hypocritical the "pro life" bullshit is.


Whats the rate 1 million abortions to 1 child mass shooting death? 2 million to 1 even hell i bet its more than that. You are stretching to compare apples to oranges.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> So you're saying the supreme court is not a perfect neutral/objective system but a bunch of fallible biased humans, got it.



I'd agree with that. Not sure how any government that has ever existed isn't that, exactly. But flawed and biased in 2022, or in 1973? Or both? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Roll Tootsie Pop?


----------



## Creamu (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> In your fallible biased opinion.


@MariArch Just for context:


hippy dave said:


> [Thread title Poll: 73% of Trump Voters Think Democrats Are Trying to ‘Replace White Americans With Immigrants And People Of Color’]
> 
> I didn't read the thread, just the title, but it sounds like a plan, let's do it.





hippy dave said:


> White people will become a minority. Here's hoping. You fucking racist piece of shit.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Whats the rate 1 million abortions to 1 child mass shooting death? 2 million to 1 even hell i bet its more than that. You are stretching to compare apples to oranges.


Living breathing people having their active lives taken from them and being mourned by their families is more of an issue to me than clumps of cells not becoming people. I'm comparing tragedies to clump removals.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> It applies due to the level of regulation on a travel vehicle being more involved and thorough as opposed to... well, killing tools. Firearms are only the de facto item for shooting things and or people, a non-essential thing in anybody's life, whereas vehicular transportation may well be the only feasible way to make enough money to earn a living to survive on depending on your area.


I mean, you can think that if you want - I’m not going to have a weird argument with you about what is and is not essential to a given person because it’s a highly individual matter. I certainly never needed to drive anywhere, and I don’t.


Dakitten said:


> A temporary compromise to enslave other human beings that would end at some point unspecified that was universally agreed on by all parties involved? I believe this still qualifies as immoral, didn't work out historically until treason was committed and people were murdered, and then persecution persisted until... well it is still going on. Honestly, your defense of this is kinda alarming and off-putting. Maybe re-evaluate your position on owning other human beings.


It’s what happened. The Constitution was ratified in the immediate aftermath of the Independence War, the country was still threatened by invasion of foreign powers and a consensus needed to be reached. It was a bitter sweet compromise, rights for most were better than rights for none. It’s a good thing that the original promise of the Constitution was fulfilled and slavery was abolished - I’d argue that you cannot read the original document and get the impression that slavery was permissible, so the situation today is not too dissimilar to what happened back then - a constitutional wrong was corrected.


hippy dave said:


> Agreed.
> That does absolutely not apply to automatic weapons in the hands of the public.


You cannot buy automatic weapons in the United States except for a few select pieces that are considered collectible antiques (manufactured pre-1986). Automatic weapons are NFA-registered items and the government reserves the right to deny any transfer of ownership of such firearms, nationwide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

Where are these automatic weapons in the hands of the public? Whoever has one can consider themselves exceedingly lucky to own an increasingly rare piece of history.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You cannot buy automatic weapons in the United States except for a few select pieces that are considered collectible antiques (manufactured pre-1986). Automatic weapons are NFA-registered items and the government reserves the right to deny any transfer of ownership of such firearms, nationwide.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act


Alright my brain churned out the wrong word. Semi-automatic, assault weapons etc, take your pick. Guns designed for mowing down swathes of people.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You cannot buy automatic weapons in the United States except for a few select pieces that are considered collectible antiques (manufactured pre-1986). Automatic weapons are NFA-registered items and the government reserves the right to deny any transfer of ownership of such firearms, nationwide.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
> 
> Where are these automatic weapons in the hands of the public? Whoever has one can consider themselves exceedingly lucky to own an increasingly rare piece of history.


Looking at the requirements to get one it's really not that hard other than the time it takes. 

https://www.silencercentral.com/blog/can-you-own-a-fully-automatic-weapon-legally/


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Alright my brain churned out the wrong word. Semi-automatic, assault weapons etc, take your pick. Guns designed for mowing down swathes of people.


Well, I can’t take my pick because it’s a silly distinction. All firearms are made for killing things. I also disagree that they should be restricted in any way.



AmandaRose said:


> Looking at the requirements to get one it's really not that hard other than the time it takes.
> 
> https://www.silencercentral.com/blog/can-you-own-a-fully-automatic-weapon-legally/


I know what it takes to own one, thank you. Nobody open carries fully automatic retro firearms, and they *are* difficult to obtain.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Living breathing people having their active lives taken from them and being mourned by their families is more of an issue to me than clumps of cells not becoming people. I'm comparing tragedies to clump removals.


A populus without guns can be even more deadly, like the 66.000.000 that were genocided under the bolshevik regime out of ethnic hatred according to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.



> “I thought about something just now: The decision to nationalize this library was made by the first Soviet government, whose composition was 80-85 percent Jewish,” Putin said June 13 during a visit to Moscow’s Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center.


https://www.timesofisrael.com/putin-first-soviet-government-was-mostly-jewish/


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Guns designed for mowing down swathes of people.


That's basically every gun after muzzle loading muskets.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You cannot buy automatic weapons in the United States except for a few select pieces that are considered collectible antiques (manufactured pre-1986). Automatic weapons are NFA-registered items and the government reserves the right to deny any transfer of ownership of such firearms, nationwide.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
> 
> Where are these automatic weapons in the hands of the public? Whoever has one can consider themselves exceedingly lucky to own an increasingly rare piece of history.



 @ 6:45 is the notorious vote where he didn't even bring the vote to a count. But you've probably already seen this.

 Technically banning automatic weapons is probably unconstitutional and has just never been challenged nor will be challenged. It's sad because idk a gun enthusiast who wouldn't want to own a Glock 18 or Glock 17 fun switch or something cool. Still transferable, but only rich people can afford them. But y'know, "fuck them poor people".


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 25, 2022)

PRIDE month has officially turned into LIFE month!


----------



## wartutor (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Living breathing people having their active lives taken from them and being mourned by their families is more of an issue to me than clumps of cells not becoming people. I'm comparing tragedies to clump removals.


Well technically we are all just clumps and age is just a number humans made up therefore i guess murder should be legal rendering this hole gun topic and abortion debate null.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Elodain said:


> That's basically every gun after muzzle loading muskets.


I'm not up on my technical terms. There's a clear distinction between a pistol you keep in your home (in a locked safe ffs) for protection, and an AK-47. It's a lot easier to kill more school kids before being stopped with one than the other. My point was that the benefit of people having the latter type of gun does not even remotely outweigh the cost to society.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Alright my brain churned out the wrong word. Semi-automatic, assault weapons etc, take your pick. Guns designed for mowing down swathes of people.


Don't fall for this talking point. As I pointed out earlier, tons and tons more people are killed by handguns in comparison to semi automatic rifles. This is a slippery slope to what the obvious next talking point is: "we banned rifles, but now its time to go after the real menace, pistols."


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> PRIDE month has officially turned into LIFE month!


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Well technically we are all just clumps and age is just a number humans made up therefore i guess murder should be legal rendering this hole gun topic and abortion debate null.


I don't believe you can't tell the difference between something that leaves families mourning and communities in shock, and people going to a clinic for a procedure, but well done for trivialising it all to make your point.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 25, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> PRIDE month has officially turned into LIFE month!


I like it. Let's celebrate life for a change.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> @ 6:45 is the notorious vote where he didn't even bring the vote to a count. But you've probably already seen this.
> 
> Technically banning automatic weapons is probably unconstitutional and has just never been challenged nor will be challenged. It's sad because idk a gun enthusiast who wouldn't want to own a Glock 18 or Glock 17 fun switch or something cool. Still transferable, but only rich people can afford them. But y'know, "fuck them poor people".



All weapons bans and restrictions are unconstitutional, if the original phrasing of the Constitution is read as-is. Some concessions were made over the years for the sake of “public safety”, but the originalist perspective is very simple - shall not be infringed.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> I don't believe you can't tell the difference between something that leaves families mourning and communities in shock, and people going to a clinic for a procedure, but well done for trivialising it all to make your point.



If a pregnant woman is shot in the belly that also leaves families in mourning and communities in shock.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I know what it takes to own one, thank you. Nobody open carries fully automatic retro firearms, and they *are* difficult to obtain.


5000 sold by one company called  Midwest Tactical Inc., they have many more in stock right now. Not that hard to get if you have the money. They even have a frigging AK-47 for sale. 

If its that hard to fine them how come it took me less than a minute?


----------



## Creamu (Jun 25, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> If a pregnant woman is shot in the belly that also leaves families in mourning and communities in shock.


----------



## pustal (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> 14th amendment explicitly bans slavery lmao.
> 
> There's no amendment making abortion a right however.
> 
> See the difference? One is in the constitution, the other isn't





Foxi4 said:


> Slavery was always at odds with the Constitution which clearly states that all men are created equal. The Founders, including the ones who owned slaves, have always held the opinion that it was abhorrent, but it had to be permitted at the time in order to reach a consensus that would allow states to unify against a common enemy. It was rightfully abolished, thus fulfilling the promise of the Constitution for all. We know this from their personal correspondence and many of the papers they wrote. Some quotes:
> 
> “There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." - George Washington
> 
> ...



You are both running away from the question, which is quite simple: would if be better if states could legislate on slavery individually? Forget the current federal law or constitution.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> I don't believe you can't tell the difference between something that leaves families mourning and communities in shock, and people going to a clinic for a procedure, but well done for trivialising it all to make your point.


Noone mourns for that "clump" as you like to call it because some heartless animal ripped it away from its only source of nurtition when it needed it the most then scrambled it like an egg before vacuuming it out of existance. Hell who knows maybe that save the world by killing the next hitler before it was born and the way i think is wrong. I have been around and owned guns my whole life and surprise but not one time has that gun tried to kill me or anyone around me...has gotten me some good dear meat a time or two....guess thats one plus to having it. The other is the fact that if needed (god forbid...and i am not a god person just no better way to put it) i can have a chance at aborting a life with it if threated by someone your democratic leaders think shouldnt be locked away from society even though they keep repeating the same habits.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> If a pregnant woman is shot in the belly that also leaves families in mourning and communities in shock.


Wow, you really believed you came up with a good point


----------



## wartutor (Jun 25, 2022)

AmandaRose said:


> 5000 sold by one company called  Midwest Tactical Inc., they have many more in stock right now. Not that hard to get if you have the money. They even have a frigging AK-47 for sale.
> 
> If its that hard to fine them how come it took me less than a minute?
> 
> View attachment 315303


Thanks i have been lookin for one of those. Now to do some light shopping.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Living breathing people having their active lives taken from them and being mourned by their families is more of an issue to me than clumps of cells not becoming people. I'm comparing tragedies to clump removals.



Yes, it turns out if you can convince the public that abortions are merely "clump removal", then people will not think much of it.

You can literally see pictures of these children's corpses after an abortion and see that they are living, growing humans. Our society shrouding it and mystery and using euphemisms to downplay systemic infanticide is merely testament to the evil of today's society.


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 25, 2022)




----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Thanks i have been lookin for one of those. Now to do some light shopping.


If you're in the market for a firearm, I recommend Family Firearms. They sell a wide variety of stock for very small margins. I only shop from them and it's really easy to get the gun shipped over to your local FFL.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

pustal said:


> You are both running away from the question, which is quite simple: would if be better if states could legislate on slavery individually? Forget the current federal law or constitution.


Why would I forget the key legal document of the U.S. Government and the foundation upon which the rest of the union rests? I see what you’re doing - you’re arguing backwards. In your mind, access to abortion is good, therefore Roe v. Wade should’ve been preserved as the legal precedent. My argument is that it’s the job of the SCOTUS to decide whether things are or are not featured in the Constitution, and that’s it. Abortion is ostensibly not covered by the Constitution, therefore Roe v. Wade was an erroneous decision that had to be overturned, any other outcome would make the court usurp the function of the legislature. If you think it should be constitutionally protected, there’s an existing mechanism for adding new rights to the Constitution - pass an amendment. As it stands today, it is not a constitutionally protected right, so there is *no* alternative to passing it on to the states *unless* federal law governing the issue is passed. I’m not “dodging” the question, the question is a weird hypothetical that doesn’t function in the U.S. legal system. Ask what you mean instead of laying elaborate traps, that won’t work.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Wow, you really believed you came up with a good point



Under your worldview, mothers are wrong to think their own babies have any intrinsic, inherent value: if the mother decided she no longer values her baby, then her baby no longer has any value.  

But what if her husband still values the baby, does it still have value?   Suppose that it does, then who else could value the baby?   Family members only?   Cousins?   Friends?  Members of the public?


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> It's a lot easier to kill more school kids before being stopped with one than the other.


"Seung-Hui Cho, an undergraduate student at the university and a U.S. resident who was from South Korea, killed 32 people and wounded 17 others with two semi-automatic pistols."

Virginia Tech Shooting - Wikipedia

Seems dude had no problem murdering a lot of people with two semi automatic pistols.

He shouldn't have had the guns. He was obviously mentally unstable. That's not the gun's fault. Be it a pistol or an AK-47 (which, according to This information, was in combination with several other weapons, involved in only two shootings (that this source has documented at the least) in around seven years, both of which resulted in far less casualties, and according to this info rifle style weapons tend to be the LESS (Edited to rephrase) used gun in mass shootings in favor of standard handguns) Guns don't do anything unless manipulated by a person (or animal if they somehow manage to figure out the trigger mechanism)

To blame guns for the actions of the mentally ill with unfortunate and unwarranted access to the guns is, quite frankly, asinine. Most gun collectors/owners don't shoot random people because they are unhinged.

Quite frankly, I could care less if gun control was more strict or what kind of guns I'm allowed to have. I'm not super interested in the things. I like to shoot them at targets at the range or a target taped to a tree sometimes, but I'm not gonna die if I cant have whatever gun I want or have one at all. I'm just pointing out that blaming certain kinds of guns/guns period for the actions of those that have them is, yet another strawman argument that is misguided at best and malicious at worst.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Elodain said:


> "Seung-Hui Cho, an undergraduate student at the university and a U.S. resident who was from South Korea, killed 32 people and wounded 17 others with two semi-automatic pistols."
> 
> Virginia Tech Shooting - Wikipedia
> 
> ...


Guy got skills.

Yeah it's the people who are to blame for their actions, but their actions wouldn't be possible if they weren't holding the guns.

I respect your view on gun control changes, it's more honest than the people here who say any increased controls would be a crime against their precious constitution and therefore must be avoided at all costs, but also that it's the dodgy people doing mass shootings who are spoiling it for the nice normal sensible people, therefore the dodgy people are the problem and shouldn't be allowed have guns - but no restrictions!


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Yeah it's the people who are to blame for their actions, but their actions wouldn't be possible if they weren't holding the guns.


We agree on that, actually. The disagreement comes from throwing the baby out with the bath water. You see that some (very few) people abuse access to firearms to commit atrocities, so your first thought is to restrict access for *everybody*. You want to punish the many for the sins of the few, and I have a problem with that. For the record, the most commonly used weapon in mass shootings, by far, is the handgun - rifles are a distant second. You cannot own a handgun in the UK, period, but you can own “an assault rifle”, including semi automatic ones, provided they’re of appropriate calibre and you have a permit (the restriction for semi automatic rifles is .22LR), and the UK is pretty damn restrictive about this stuff. You’re barking up the wrong tree, buddy.


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Guy got skills.


Really, that's all you can say?

What about other mass casualty events like this that happened 8 months ago? No guns were used here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

pustal said:


> You are both running away from the question, which is quite simple: would if be better if states could legislate on slavery individually? Forget the current federal law or constitution.



I think your question presupposes that if states were allowed to legislate on slavery that this carries a risk of slavery becoming legal in some states, when in reality no state would ever vote for slavery, so it's a moot point. 

It might be more risky leaving slavery up to a federal law because if a bad guy gets in power then the whole country could end up with slavery, whereas with state law you could just move to another state if you didn't like the laws in that one.


----------



## pustal (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Personally I’m glad that the decision was overturned - it was unconstitutional from day one. Now individual states should move to enshrine it in law, either in the state’s constitution like Florida or via other legislation. Naturally some states will choose to ban the practice, but that can’t be helped. The people will vote accordingly during election season if it’s an important issue for them.





Foxi4 said:


> Why would I forget the key legal document of the U.S. Government and the foundation upon which the rest of the union rests? I see what you’re doing - you’re arguing backwards. In your mind, access to abortion is good, therefore Roe v. Wade should’ve been preserved as the legal precedent. My argument is that it’s the job of the SCOTUS to decide whether things are or are not featured in the Constitution, and that’s it. Abortion is ostensibly not covered by the Constitution, therefore Roe v. Wade was an erroneous decision that had to be overturned, any other outcome would make the court usurp the function of the legislature. If you think it should be constitutionally protected, there’s an existing mechanism for adding new rights to the Constitution - pass an amendment. As it stands today, it is not a constitutionally protected right, so there is *no* alternative to passing it on to the states *unless* federal law governing the issue is passed. I’m not “dodging” the question, the question is a weird hypothetical that doesn’t function in the U.S. legal system. Ask what you mean instead of laying elaborate traps, that won’t work.



I'm merely following up on you saying you were glad as it gives the opportunity for states to enshirne into law.

Nothing prevented an amendment before, nothing prevented protected legislation before. Giving states the opportunity to legislate it first will accomplish nothing but make it illegal in some states.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> I think your question presupposes that if states were allowed to legislate on slavery that this carries a risk of slavery becoming legal in some states, when in reality no state would every vote for slavery, so it's a moot point.


I don’t know about that. In the absence of a constitution I would enslave all of GBAtemp, with glee and relative ease. “Master” has a nice ring to it.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> We agree on that, actually. The disagreement comes from throwing the baby out with the bath water. You see that some (very few) people abuse access to firearms to commit atrocities, so your first thought is to restrict access for *everybody*. You want to punish the many for the sins of the few, and I have a problem with that.


Depends what you mean by "restrict". Assess people individually for their application for a specific gun for a specific purpose, and you'll hopefully weed out more of the nut jobs. Testing on a par with what's needed to get a driving licence wouldn't stop "the right" people from getting their gun for a valid reason. These are screamingly obvious possibilities that I'm sure have been discussed to death and would solve some of the worst problems, appease some people and not piss off some other people that much, but hard-line "no restrictions under any circumstances" shitheads would rather change nothing and let the problem people keep causing the problems.

For the record, my personal opinion would be full ban apart from exceptional circumstances, but the above would be an easy and obvious step in the right direction that would save countless lives and would take a certain kind of real shithead to object to.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

pustal said:


> I'm merely following up on you saying you were glad as it gives the opportunity for states to enshirne into law.
> 
> Nothing prevented an amendment before, nothing prevented protected legislation before. Giving states the opportunity to legislate it first will accomplish nothing but make it illegal in some states.


It corrects the court’s error and provides impetus for proper legislation to be created regarding the issue. Congress has been napping this entire time, decades, relying on a SCOTUS decision that was always on shaky ground. It’s their fault, if anyone’s, that this situation is taking place.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> Really, that's all you can say?


Sure, that's all I can say. That's why it's the only thing I said, rather than, say, a flippant comment irrelevant to the points I've been making.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> For the record, my personal opinion would be full ban apart from exceptional circumstances, but the above would be an easy and obvious step in the right direction that would save countless lives and would take a certain kind of real shithead to object to.


Then we have a fundamental disagreement regarding the function of firearms as a prerequisite for a free society. Liberty isn’t free, the right to bear arms is fundamental and cannot be infringed as it protects the populace from the whims of a tyrannical government as well as internal and external threats.


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It corrects the court’s error and provides impetus for proper legislation to be created regarding the issue. Congress has been napping this entire time, decades, relying on a SCOTUS decision that was always on shaky ground. It’s their fault, if anyone’s, that this situation is taking place.


Exactly, they had just under 50 years...


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Then there’s a fundamental disagreement regarding the function of firearms as a prerequisite for a free society. Liberty isn’t free, the right to bear arms is fundamental and cannot be infringed as it protects the populace from the whims of a tyrannical government as well as internal and external threats.


Yeah, the delusion that America is a "free society", and even more so than all the other countries that don't have horrendous gun problems.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Yeah, the delusion that America is a "free society", and even more so than all the other countries that don't have horrendous gun problems.


The U.S. has a gun solution, and a gang problem. The gross majority of so-called mass shootings are related to organised crime, not school massacres.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

Nevermind I misread the point of what I responded to with this one


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The U.S. has a gun solution, and a gang problem.


Atta boy, keep those delusions piling up


----------



## Xzi (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Then there’s a fundamental disagreement regarding the function of firearms as a prerequisite for a free society. Liberty isn’t free, the right to bear arms is fundamental and cannot be infringed as it protects the populace from the whims of a tyrannical government as well as internal and external threats.


We're witnessing the second amendment absolutists cheer human rights being stripped away as we speak.  It's at best a vestigial freedom if it's not properly utilized when tyrants decide to drop the mask.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> We're witnessing the second amendment absolutists cheer human rights being stripped away as we speak.  It's at best a vestigial freedom if it's not properly utilized when tyrants decide to drop the mask.


Yup, hypocritical bullshit artists.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> We're witnessing the second amendment absolutists cheer human rights being stripped away as we speak.  It's at best a vestigial freedom if it's not properly utilized when tyrants decide to drop the mask.


A court error is being corrected. It wasn’t a right to begin with, as it’s not covered by the Constitution in any way. The court made a mistake in the past and it’s correcting that mistake now. If you believe that access to abortion should be a right, it needs to be codified accordingly, not fraudulently legislated from the bench.



hippy dave said:


> Atta boy, keep those delusions piling up


You live up to your name, no offense.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You live up to your name, no offense.


Thanks, none taken


----------



## Xzi (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> A court error is being corrected.


Which is just another way of saying a human right was taken away from roughly half the country.  It doesn't matter what bureaucratic language you want to dress it up in, the intent of the decision remains malicious.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Which is just another way of saying a human right was taken away from roughly half the country.  It doesn't matter what bureaucratic language you want to dress it up in, the intent of the decision remains malicious.


The SCOTUS decides what is and is not enshrined in the Constitution. Abortion isn’t. The court is correctly fulfilling its function. You should petition Congress to do things right next time instead of weaponising the SCOTUS to pass otherwise inconvenient legislation.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Then we have a fundamental disagreement regarding the function of firearms as a prerequisite for a free society. Liberty isn’t free, the right to bear arms is fundamental and cannot be infringed as it protects the populace from the whims of a tyrannical government as well as internal and external threats.



This actually isn't my core reasoning for being against civilian disarmament.  My reasoning is that the burden is on the gov't to prove I'm a threat to others, and they have failed to do so.  Just like they failed to prove I'm a Covid threat to others, so they don't get to revoke my bodily autonomy wrt drugs, so why would they get to revoke it wrt guns.    To any confused vax zealots reading this: the gov't's failure to prove I'm a Covid threat to others stems from the fact that others can protect themselves from me with three vaccines, PPE, social distancing, me getting tested, me being asymptomatic, me having natural vaccine from prior infection, me being not significantly more likely to transmit covid than a vaccinated person, me being part of a small cohort which they have a lower chance of encountering in the wild, and probably more things I can't think of right now.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Which is just another way of saying a human right was taken away from roughly half the country


That's something you have top take up with your state. Not the Supreme Court.

SC Didn't take anything away from anybody. If you live in a conservative state, yeah, you'll lose the ability to have abortions, that's to be expected.  Same as how the expected outcome in Liberal states is for abortion to continue to be allowed. That's the states fault if they take the right from you, not the Supreme Court. You're blaming the Supreme Court for doing it's job and leaving things that aren't covered by the federal constitution/law to the individual states.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Yeah, the delusion that America is a "free society", and even more so than all the other countries that don't have horrendous gun problems.



USA ranks around 10th worldwide in terms of mass shootings on average per capita.   To get a more favourable figure you'd have to use median instead of average, but I don't know if morality scales like that -- 1 big mass shooting every 10 years (eg. Norway) isn't necessarily any "better" than lots of small ones over 10 years.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Elodain said:


> That's something you have top take up with your state. Not the Supreme Court.
> 
> SC Didn't take anything away from anybody. If you live in a conservative state, yeah, you'll lose the ability to have abortions, that's to be expected. That's the states fault, not the Supreme Court. You're blaming the Supreme Court for doing it's job and leaving things that aren't covered by the federal constitution/law to the individual states.


The structure of the American legal system would be entirely hilarious if it weren't constantly causing nightmarish problems for innocent people.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

Everything I like = human right


I find it funny when the left says that now that they don't like this decision, it's time to change the rules and expand the supreme court. As if any conservative states would listen to the supreme court ever again once they rig the system and impose top down. Control lol. Spoiler alert. If they ever did that. Every conservative state would become a sanctuary state for the second amendment, prolifers, etc. And it wouldn't surprise me if a national split occurs and or if there's a civil war.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> The structure of the American legal system would be entirely hilarious if it weren't constantly causing nightmarish problems for innocent people.


To be honest I don't know if there would even BE structure in that case.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 25, 2022)

Elodain said:


> To be honest I don't know if there would even BE structure in that case.


In what case?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> This actually isn't my core reasoning for being against civilian disarmament.  My reasoning is that the burden is on the gov't to prove I'm a threat to others, and they have failed to do so.


I mentioned that in a later post - the few shouldn’t be punished for the sins of the many. I didn’t do anything wrong, there’s no justification to penalise me.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The SCOTUS decides what is and is not enshrined in the Constitution.


Obviously that's become secondary to overturning settled law for this activist conservative court, their interpretation of the constitution will simply become more and more creatively fascist without any checks or balances on their power.



Elodain said:


> That's something you have top take up with your state. Not the Supreme Court.


It remains a federal issue, especially now that we'll have people who must cross state lines to access abortion services.



Elodain said:


> SC Didn't take anything away from anybody. If you live in a conservative state, yeah, you'll lose the ability to have abortions, that's to be expected. Same as how the expected outcome in Liberal states is for abortion to continue to be allowed. That's the states fault if they take the right from you, not the Supreme Court. You're blaming the Supreme Court for doing it's job and leaving things that aren't covered by the federal constitution/law to the individual states.


Yeah it doesn't work that way, SCOTUS still gets the blame for giving authoritarians the opportunity to oppress women, because they're fully aware that opportunity will be seized upon.  It's still fascism no matter how much they try to pass the buck.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Obviously that's become secondary to overturning settled law for this activist conservative court, their interpretation of the constitution will simply become more and more creatively fascist without any checks or balances on their power.
> 
> 
> It remains a federal issue, especially now that we'll have people who must cross state lines to access abortion services.
> ...









Lol. The word fascism literally has no meaning anymore. grats guys.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


>


"Everything I know about politics and civil/human rights I learned from memes, which is why I'll forever be a bootlicking NPC."


----------



## pustal (Jun 25, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It corrects the court’s error and provides impetus for proper legislation to be created regarding the issue. Congress has been napping this entire time, decades, relying on a SCOTUS decision that was always on shaky ground. It’s their fault, if anyone’s, that this situation is taking place.



Of course, but you think now that'll change?


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> It's still fascism no matter how much they try to pass the buck.



It's only fascism if the moral status of the fetus is trivial.   

If the fetus has a soul, then we would both agree it would be wrong to kill it. In that case it would be an empirical dispute about whether the fetus has a soul, which is not a moral dispute, and so we don't have to be at eachother's throats.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 25, 2022)

Incredibly disappointing. The majority opinion stated they're going after other rights next. specifically, trying to get rid of lgbtq+ individuals' proper human rights, and get rid of the right to contraceptives. Expect also the right to privacy to be attacked. The descent of the US into religious tyranny continues unabated.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> Incredibly disappointing. The majority opinion stated they're going after other rights next. specifically, trying to get rid of lgbtq+ individuals' proper human rights, and get rid of the right to contraceptives. Expect also the right to privacy to be attacked. The descent of the US into religious tyranny continues unabated.


Literally the opposite of tyranny but ok


----------



## Xzi (Jun 25, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> It's only fascism if the moral status of the fetus is trivial.
> 
> If the fetus has a soul, then we would both agree it would be wrong to kill it. In that case it would be an empirical dispute about whether the fetus has a soul, which is not a moral dispute, and so we don't have to be at eachother's throats.


Frankly it's not even worth consideration when separation of church and state is still supposed to be a thing.  Your religious beliefs do not get to dictate how an atheist chooses to live their life, and vice versa.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> Expect also the right to privacy to be attacked.


We already don't have a true right to privacy. The government spies on all all the time. To take away our "right" is to simply admit they want to spy on us, which doesn't mean much anymore because we know they do and have CAUGHT them doing it.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Literally the opposite of tyranny but ok


then you should probably google how tyranny works and its implication. using religious dogma in opposition to logic and human rights as basis for determining the law for the entire country is pretty dang tyrannical in my book.



Elodain said:


> We already don't have a true right to privacy. The government spies on all all the time. To take away our "right" is to simply admit they want to spy on us, which doesn't mean much anymore because we know they do and have CAUGHT them doing it.


Yes, can't argue there. but ostensibly we should have that right. Those rights have been eroded, and they plan to erode it even more. Going in the wrong direction, full-steam ahead.


----------



## DbGt (Jun 25, 2022)

Right to life > everything else


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> Incredibly disappointing. The majority opinion stated they're going after other rights next. specifically, trying to get rid of lgbtq+ individuals' proper human rights, and get rid of the right to contraceptives. Expect also the right to privacy to be attacked. The descent of the US into religious tyranny continues unabated.



If by "going after" you mean  "letting states decide".    

The constitution doesn't say anything about gay marriage and LGBT stuff, and the whole identity of the US is that you have all these different states to choose from if you don't like the laws in one you have the awesome option of going to another one instead of having some stupid fascist in charge dictating for the whole country.   That's what makes US great, you have lots of options.

And for the record I of course voted yes for marriage equality because I saw no reason why the gov't should interfere if two people want to sign a contract between eachother and they failed to prove that doing so was a threat or harm to anyone else, just like they failed to prove me having a gun poses a threat to anyone.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> then you should probably google how tyranny works and its implication. using religious dogma in opposition to logic and human rights as basis for determining the law for the entire country is pretty dang tyrannical in my book.


Did they do that? no. If they were going off of religious dogma, the supreme court would've declared that life starts at conception and so we have to ban plan b and abortions nationwide. But they didn't do that. They simply said if it aint in the constitution, it aint a right. And so states can make laws on it. noone can deny that.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 25, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> If by "going after" you mean  "letting states decide".
> 
> The constitution doesn't say anything about gay marriage and LGBT stuff, and the whole identity of the US is that you have all these different states to choose from if you don't like the laws in one you have the awesome option of going to another one instead of having some stupid fascist in charge dictating for the whole country.   That's what makes US great, you have lots of options.
> 
> And for the record I of course voted yes for marriage equality because I saw no reason why the gov't should interfere if two people want to sign a contract between eachother and they failed to prove that doing so was a threat or harm to anyone else, just like they failed to prove me having a gun poses a threat to anyone.


They're aware of the current state laws. They can't claim ignorance, they are very much aware of the effect their ruling will have. The majority opinion illustrates their desired outcome, it's not just a matter of "we wish this wasn't the case, but our hands are tied", but more of "we want it to be illegal and the best way to accomplish this is to let the states decide"

The constitution doesn't say much of anything about anything. And that is definitely NOT the whole identity of the US. Human rights aren't "options". They are non-negotiable in an ethical state.



MariArch said:


> Did they do that? no. If they were going off of religious dogma, the supreme court would've declared that life starts at conception and so we have to ban plan b and abortions nationwide. But they didn't do that. They simply said if it aint in the constitution, it aint a right. And so states can make laws on it. noone can deny that.


you're splitting hairs. And yes, most people deny that.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Frankly it's not even worth consideration when separation of church and state is still supposed to be a thing.  Your religious beliefs do not get to dictate how an atheist chooses to live their life, and vice versa.



I'm not religious and I didn't say you have to believe anything about souls.   It was just to show the difference between empirical dispute and moral dispute.   You could swap "soul" for anything else like "mind" or "thing which gives humans moral value".   Also watch the video might change your whole perspective on shit & Yale is politically on your side


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> Yes, can't argue there. but ostensibly we should have that right. Those rights have been eroded, and they plan to erode it even more. Going in the wrong direction, full-steam ahead.


I'd sign onto an amendment that protects a Citizens right to privacy, if in addition it also protects a fetuses right to live


----------



## Korozin (Jun 25, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> If by "going after" you mean  "letting states decide".
> 
> The constitution doesn't say anything about gay marriage and LGBT stuff, and the whole identity of the US is that you have all these different states to choose from if you don't like the laws in one you have the awesome option of going to another one instead of having some stupid fascist in charge dictating for the whole country.   That's what makes US great, you have lots of options.
> 
> And for the record I of course voted yes for marriage equality because I saw no reason why the gov't should interfere if two people want to sign a contract between eachother and they failed to prove that doing so was a threat or harm to anyone else, just like they failed to prove me having a gun poses a threat to anyone.


You may be right in some aspects of this, while many people do have the option to just "move to a different state" a lot of others are unable to do this because of financial instability, not to mention most people would have to quit their jobs to be able to do this - and speaking from family experience when you take that choice it isn't always easy to recover from. 

So yes it's great to have options and I'm not trying to contradict or prove you wrong in any way as you are technically right; but the point still stands that many people will be forced to stay stagnant in their place of residence unless they take extreme options such as taking out a massive loan, as sometimes even selling your house isn't nearly enough. But then again, situations are always extremely diverse which is why as I've said the one size fits all attitude doesn't always work, as some people may be able to do what you suggested perfectly fine - others may not.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

osaka35 said:


> They're aware of the current state laws. They can't claim ignorance, they are very much aware of the effect their ruling will have. The majority opinion illustrates their desired outcome, it's not just a matter of "we wish this wasn't the case, but our hands are tied", but more of "we want it to be illegal and the best way to accomplish this is to let the states decide"



So by the same logic would you abandon democracy if you knew the people were going to vote the wrong way?


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

Korozin said:


> You may be right in some aspects of this, while many people do have the option to just "move to a different state" a lot of others are unable to do this because of financial instability, not to mention most people would have to quit their jobs to be able to do this - and speaking from family experience when you take that choice it isn't always easy to recover from.
> 
> So yes it's great to have options and I'm not trying to contradict or prove you wrong in any way as you are technically right; but the point still stands that many people will be forced to stay stagnant in their place of residence unless they take extreme options such as taking out a massive loan, as sometimes even selling your house isn't nearly enough. But then again, situations are always extremely diverse which is why as I've said the one size fits all attitude doesn't always work, as some people may be able to do what you suggested perfectly fine - others may not.


You say this as if the citizenry is stupid and doesn't know how to function.

if you don't have the money for a condom, you shouldn't be having sex
if you don't have the money for an iud, you shouldn't be having sex
if you can't afford a plan b, you shouldn't be having sex
if you don't have the money to travel to an abortion mill state, you shouldn't be having sex
if you can't afford a kid, you shouldn't be having sex.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jun 25, 2022)

Korozin said:


> You may be right in some aspects of this, while many people do have the option to just "move to a different state" a lot of others are unable to do this because of financial instability, not to mention most people would have to quit their jobs to be able to do this - and speaking from family experience when you take that choice it isn't always easy to recover from.
> 
> So yes it's great to have options and I'm not trying to contradict or prove you wrong in any way as you are technically right; but the point still stands that many people will be forced to stay stagnant in their place of residence unless they take extreme options such as taking out a massive loan, as sometimes even selling your house isn't nearly enough. But then again, situations are always extremely diverse which is why as I've said the one size fits all attitude doesn't always work, as some people may be able to do what you suggested perfectly fine - others may not.



Fair points and I'd add just having the option to leave can sometimes be immensely psychologically beneficial.   I can't afford to leave my state either, and I couldn't because I'm vaccine free, but it's still incredibly important that I have the option to leave.   People who want euthanasia often don't even end up using it they just find it incredibly important to have the option.   Just something to consider, not really a refutal of your point.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 25, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> I'm not religious and I didn't say you have to believe anything about souls.   It was just to show the difference between empirical dispute and moral dispute.   You could swap "soul" for anything else like "mind" or "thing which gives humans moral value".   Also watch the video might change your whole perspective on shit & Yale is politically on your side


There's nothing that can change my perspective on this, because I know the truth of the matter.  Banning abortion is entirely financially motivated, the elites are trying to create an artificial baby boom to feed more warm bodies to wage slavery and the military-industrial complex.  Only desperate workers are willing to accept the suppressed wages that keeps capitalism's unlimited growth model afloat, and workers aren't desperate enough for them following the pandemic.  That's despite the fact that their profiteering on essential goods is also out of control at the moment, which makes $15/hr feel more like $7.50/hr used to.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 25, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> So by the same logic would you abandon democracy if you knew the people were going to vote the wrong way?


You're suggesting i'm saying the process is no good if the results are no good? Not quite. I'm suggesting they are not even hiding their corrupt intent, merely using their poor interpretation of the process to justify it. I'm suggesting they are both at fault in their intent and in how they are justifying it.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> You say this as if the citizenry is stupid and doesn't know how to function.
> 
> if you don't have the money for a condom, you shouldn't be having sex
> if you don't have the money for an iud, you shouldn't be having sex
> ...


In my state Birth control was covered by government health care (Medicaid). I don't know if it is any more, but It was at one point. There were also places that would give it to girls that were the Age of Consent or older without parent permission.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> There's nothing that can change my perspective on this, because I know the truth of the matter.  Banning abortion is entirely financially motivated, the elites are trying to create an artificial baby boom to feed more warm bodies to wage slavery and the military-industrial complex.  Only desperate workers are willing to accept the suppressed wages that keeps capitalism's unlimited growth model afloat, and workers aren't desperate enough for them following the pandemic.  That's despite the fact that their profiteering on essential goods is also out of control at the moment, which makes $15/hr feel more like $7.50/hr used to.


Sir. Take your pills. 

Many many companies, including Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are literally about to fund their idiot workers expenses to travel to an abortion mill state.


----------



## Korozin (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> You say this as if the citizenry is stupid and doesn't know how to function.
> 
> if you don't have the money for a condom, you shouldn't be having sex
> if you don't have the money for an iud, you shouldn't be having sex
> ...


Wasn't referring to it entirely in an abortion sense, just saying in general that degree of travel can be expensive regardless of someone's mental fortitude. Like I said I wasn't trying to prove anyone wrong - just stating a point that is valid. Also while it may seem like common sense to abide by what you listed, many people don't think that far ahead; that's just a fact at this point. The vast majority of people might show some common sense and avoid an unfavorable situation, but many people just see an opportunity to have sex and don't even think about what it entails or brings after the fact. But back to what I was actually saying, this applies to general moving scenarios as well, not just ones where people cross state lines to get abortion access.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

Korozin said:


> Wasn't referring to it entirely in an abortion sense, just saying in general that degree of travel can be expensive regardless of someone's mental fortitude. Like I said I wasn't trying to prove anyone wrong - just stating a point that is valid. Also while it may seem like common sense to abide by what you listed, many people don't think that far ahead; that's just a fact at this point. The vast majority of people might show some common sense and avoid an unfavorable situation, but many people just see an opportunity to have sex and don't even think about what it entails or brings after the fact. But back to what I was actually saying, this applies to general moving scenarios as well, not just ones where people cross state lines to get abortion access.


Alright, but even still. Even somehow didn't exhaust all their options, They can still put the kid up for adoption. And before anyone says it: no. Being dead is not better than being in the foster care system. That's called eugenics.


----------



## Korozin (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Alright, but even still. Even somehow didn't exhaust all their options, They can still put the kid up for adoption.


That is indeed a valid option, but that also strings along a whole new barrel of issues - like how to foster care system is royally screwed and nothings' been done to fix it in years. Not trying to say it's a bad option, and people most certainly are able to get better lives with their adoptive parents - but there will always be some instances where the opposite happens, that's unavoidable with any institution. But I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

Korozin said:


> That is indeed a valid option, but that also strings along a whole new barrel of issues - like how to foster care system is royally screwed and nothings' been done to fix it in years. Not trying to say it's a bad option, and people most certainly are able to get better lives with their adoptive parents - but there will always be some instances where the opposite happens, that's unavoidable with any institution. But I'll just leave it at that.


I'm fine with a total revamp of our foster care system. Kids deserve a good place to live and thrive. Luckily many many families adopt children every day in this country. So much so that I believe there is a shortage of babies up for adoption last time I checked


----------



## Xzi (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Sir. Take your pills.
> 
> Many many companies, including Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are literally about to fund their idiot workers expenses to travel to an abortion mill state.


If by "many many," you mean like 5% of the working class, sure.  Damn near 70% of American jobs are in the service industry, they aren't paying nearly well enough for that or offering those kinds of benefits.  The republican mentality is "fuck you I got mine" from the top down, so I sure as hell hope poor people who support them can win the lottery, because otherwise they're all SOL for life.  Especially if they're a woman who was raped or would be put out onto the streets to afford a baby.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> The whole point of this decision is that they're taking away power from the top and giving it to states lmfao. Y'all are whack


No the whole point was for a minority party to make a decision the majority did not want to go with, in which that same minority party is over represented in their own states through gerrymandering.
Republicans banned abortions in their states. Didn't go into effect until Republicans overturned Roe v Wade. And because that case got reversed. Now the other cases for contraceptives, such as condoms and birth control, same sex marriage is at risk.
This isn't making states more powerful. This is making it so it's okay to take rights away from the people who are in those states. This effects poor people the most. Who cannot move to get out of those states. This is straight up again, minority ruling over the majority of people.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> No the whole point was for a minority party to make a decision the majority did not want to go with, in which that same minority party is over represented in their own states through gerrymandering.
> Republicans banned abortions in their states. Didn't go into effect until Republicans overturned Roe v Wade. And because that case got reversed. Now the other cases for contraceptives, such as condoms and birth control, same sex marriage is at risk.
> This isn't making states more powerful. This is making it so it's okay to take rights away from the people who are in those states. This effects poor people the most. Who cannot move to get out of those states. This is straight up again, minority ruling over the majority of people.


Let me dumb this down for you:

People in a state like California, which has a very large population, will be able to pass laws protecting abortion in their state legislators, which they elect and makes up a majority in their house and senate.

People in a state like Utah, which will elect conservative state legislators and will make up a majority of their house and senate, will be able to make their own laws on the subject and pass laws that the majority of people in _their _state support.

If a state does or doesn't want to see a law pass, they'll elect different state legislators.

People in California shouldn't be able to tell people in a completely different state what they can or cannot make laws about.


It's called federalism


----------



## wartutor (Jun 25, 2022)

The real question to ask your democratic representitives is why did they not immediately draw up and start to pass an amendment to the constitution to add abortion when the leak happened instead of waiting for it to be overturned. I can tell you its because if they did they would have nothing to scream about (other than inflation and ever rising gas prices) for the next 4 months to try and get you to vote for them. They would rather put it off to get a few extra votes than jump ahead of the ruling and prevent any of this from happening. (and why havent we found out who leaked these documents and have them in gitmo right now getting water boarded. They should be sittin in a cell in dirty underwear covered in their own shit waiting for a trial that takes years to see a court room.)


----------



## wartutor (Jun 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> If by "many many," you mean like 5% of the working class, sure.  Damn near 70% of American jobs are in the service industry, they aren't paying nearly well enough for that or offering those kinds of benefits.  The republican mentality is "fuck you I got mine" from the top down, so I sure as hell hope poor people who support them can win the lottery, because otherwise they're all SOL for life.  Especially if they're a woman who was raped or would be put out onto the streets to afford a baby.


If that woman was trained and carried a gun maybe she wouldnt of gotten raped....or you know moved out of the democratic run, crime infested city.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

wartutor said:


> If that woman was trained and carried a gun maybe she wouldnt of gotten raped....or you know moved out of the democratic run, crime infested city.


No No NO! The woman shouldn't have a gun to defend themselves with! Guns are evil and kill people! They should have to just take it and get an abortion later!

(/s if.. you know.. you're stupid)


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

wartutor said:


> If that woman was trained and carried a gun maybe she wouldnt of gotten raped


I dunno about all that, chief. I mean MAYBE.

But in the moment that shit kind locks a person up. Hard to say if she would have been thinking clearly enough to use it or even try to, or if it would have mattered to the aggressor. It could have just pissed him off and emboldened him to to do more or just outright kill her just to be spiteful.

Not saying she shouldn't have been allowed to have one, but that we don't know if it would have solved anything.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 25, 2022)

wartutor said:


> If that woman was trained and carried a gun maybe she wouldnt of gotten raped....or you know moved out of the democratic run, crime infested city.


Ah so it's women's fault they can't safely walk the streets without fear of rape. I get ya. Totally not the fault of the actual rapists.

Victim blaming at its finest right there.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

AmandaRose said:


> Ah so it's women's fault they can't safely walk the streets without fear of rape. I get ya. Totally not the fault of the actual rapists.
> 
> Victim blaming at its finest right there.


Em.. you may want to reread that.
He's suggesting that evil people do evil things. And To stop said evil person from doing an evil thing, you can carry a gun to protect yourself.

He never said it was the woman's fault. he just said guns keep you safe lol.


----------



## Elodain (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> He never said it was the woman's fault.


Well. The words suggest it, but that could just be poor choice of words.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Let me dumb this down for you:
> 
> People in a state like California, which has a very large population, will be able to pass laws protecting abortion in their state legislators, which they elect and makes up a majority in their house and senate.
> 
> ...


This DOES not change that 60 percent of people wanted to keep roe v Wade. I don't give three flying fucks if this "federalism" because your blantely ingoting the fact that the Republican party is over represented through extreme amounts gerrymanding. the same kind of gerrymandering the voted no to fix. This isn't federalism. This is a plutocracy.  With Republicans abusing the system and getting in power when they don't win the popular vote. Trump didn't win the popular voted but him and his party speed ran appointing supreme court justices. They would of got 2. At max. But when a Democrat was in power for his last 9 months. They stalled indefinitely on his appointment claiming it for "let the people vote" and when trump won the ectoral collage lost the popular vote. He got to make that appointment. And when one of the supreme court justices died 3months before the end of trump's presidency.they rushed on through it as shortly as two weeks.
The blantely misuse of power for their own minority agenda, and removing what over 55 percent of people considered a right. Has and will continue to cause outrage of the highest degree. That many are considering a possible revolution.  A government is meant to servre it's people. not the select few, not the select rich. And definitely not a unpopular party ruling ontop of the majority


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> This DOES not change that 60 percent of people wanted to keep roe v Wade. I don't give three flying fucks if this "federalism" because your blantely ingoting the fact that the Republican party is over represented through extreme amounts gerrymanding. the same kind of gerrymandering the voted no to fix. This isn't federalism. This is a plutocracy.  With Republicans abusing the system and getting in power when they don't win the popular vote. Trump didn't win the popular voted but him and his party speed ran appointing supreme court justices. They would of got 2. At max. But when a Democrat was in power for his last 9 months. They stalled indefinitely on his appointment claiming it for "let the people vote" and when trump won the ectoral collage lost the popular vote. He got to make that appointment. And when one of the supreme court justices died 3months before the end of trump's presidency.they rushed on through it as shortly as two weeks.
> The blantely misuse of power for their own minority agenda, and removing what over 50 of people considered a right. Has and will continue to cause outrage of the highest degree. That many are considering a possible revolution.  A government is meant to servre it's people. not the select few, not the select rich. And definitely not a unpopular party ruling ontop of the majority


Maybe blame the democrats and their nuclear option lol. If democrats never got rid of the judicial filibuster in 2013, then conservatives wouldn't have had the votes needed to appoint the scotus members. That's what happens when you nuke the filibuster lol. You pass things by a slim majority.

And we live in a constitutional republic where each state has very different people. We sign onto a constitution that gives states equal representation in the senate so that the mob of people living in a single state can't trample on the rights of people in Missouri, for instance, to legislate their own damn state.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> This is where I would use a "wut?" meme.



Where are guns specifically mentioned in the Constitution?


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Em.. you may want to reread that.
> He's suggesting that evil people do evil things. And To stop said evil person from doing an evil thing, you can carry a gun to protect yourself.
> 
> He never said it was the woman's fault. he just said guns keep you safe lol.


Its 100% victim blaming it falls under the why did she just not fight back.

https://www.sace.ca/learn/victim-blaming/


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> if you really think about it
> SCOTUS has ruled that the federal government has no authority over women's bodies



But offers no protection of, either. Drawing straws, yes, but shouldn't a citizen feel protected under their own government?


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Where are guns specifically mentioned in the Constitution?



Arms = armaments

Armaments = "military weapons and equipment"

Military weapons and equipment = guns

Just semantics. Quit it


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> We sign onto a constitution that gives states equal representation in the senate so that the mob of people living in a single state can't trample on the rights of people in Missouri, for instance, to legislate their own damn state.


Except you fail to realize the created power dynamic by that. Using your own example, Missouri now gets to legislate *everyone*
It doesn't create equal power from majority to somehow in-between. It takes power of the majority and puts in the hand of the minority.  And you know what is a minority of people in other places?
Kings, Queens.
I didn't sign that constitution. The majority of  people, didn't sign onto having a right wrongfully being taken away from them. That right? That states could never legislate body atomony.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 25, 2022)

AmandaRose said:


> Ah so it's women's fault they can't safely walk the streets without fear of rape. I get ya. Totally not the fault of the actual rapists.
> 
> Victim blaming at its finest right there.


I did not one time blame the woman quit being rediculous i said she could of prevented it by shooting the rapest how the fuck you got that from what i said is the problem with liberals they read/hear what they want instead of what was wrote/said.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Except you fail to realize the created power dynamic by that. Using your own example, Missouri now gets to legislate *everyone*
> It doesn't create equal power from majority to somehow in-between. It takes power of the majority and puts in the hand of the minority.  And you know what is a minority of people in other places?
> Kings, Queens.
> I didn't sign that constitution. The majority of  people, didn't sign onto having a right wrongfully being taken away from them. That right? That states could never legislate body atomony.


What constitutes right and wrong? Many peoples idea of right are wrong are different.

Want a solution? Make state constitutions supercede the Federal constitution. Let states make there own rules. 

But of course, that'll never happen. Because Democrats want top down control


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Arms = armaments
> 
> Armaments = "military weapons and equipment"
> 
> ...



Embryo=Fetus

Fetus=Baby

No, I don't think I will. You people are incredulous. You want to infer your own rights from a piece of paper that doesn't specify because you're all too materialistic to care about anything else except the money you wasted on buying guns to prepare for a government that's doing exactly what you people fear right now: stripping away rights and dehumanizing selected groups of people. You want to abide by the Constitution like it's law, but don't seem to realize that at any point the government could declare guns illegal and technically, they haven't gone against the Constitution. It's there to remind people they have the right to rise up and fight a tyrannical government through carrying arms and, guess what? A bag of rocks is still arming yourself. 

Bodily autonomy was left out of the Constitution because the founding fathers still treated women like non people (in addition to every other non white male), and you all take that fact to the heart when it comes to your constitutional rights. Too bad the Constitution was made with the intent that "all men were created equal" but I have yet to see the limitations on any make body in any fashion.

How does that constitutional level of inequality fit into your small scope of morals?


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 25, 2022)

wartutor said:


> I did not one time blame the woman quit being rediculous i said she could of prevented it by shooting the rapest how the fuck you got that from what i said is the problem with liberals they read/hear what they want instead of what was wrote/said.


Read the link I posted one page back what you did is clasic victim blaming. Even if not intended by you it is still victim blaming.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 25, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Where are guns specifically mentioned in the Constitution?



Youre trying to make an argument that even no gun control advocates have ever seriously pursued. Partly because they're not dense and know it's a loser, but also because it would very likely backfire. "Arms" means guns ... and more!!! Cannons, swords, grenades maybe. But i know what youre thinking .... nuclear weapons? No, sorry. Because nuclear weapons are not ordinary equipment issued to soldiers in wartime. US v Miller, decided in 1939, says the 2nd amendment covers the "ordinary military equipment" of the typical infantry soldier. That phrase, "ordinary military equipment," implies that the arms available to "the people" under the 2nd amendment are of the same type and capability that the military issues to grunt soldiers. So not just AR-15's, but even select fire M4's and full-auto M-16's.

Should we litigate this issue further???


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Embryo=Fetus
> 
> Fetus=Baby
> 
> ...


Actually no. The government can't say that guns are illegal. because the supreme court has settled this semantic argument a long time ago. Arms = guns, this is a fact. If the house passed a law making guns illegal, it'd be struck down. Because it goes against the constitution.

As someone pointed out. Bodily autonomy is in the constitution under the 4th amendments. The bill of rights was reaffirmed under the 14th amendment. However. Bodily autonomy doesn't mean that you have the right to determine life or death of another body, that being the baby. Not even the court that decided roe v wade suggested this.

Men and Women are inherently different because of.. biology. The fact that women can give birth doesn't mean that they have the right to kill their child.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


> Youre trying to make an argument that even no gun control advocates have ever seriously pursued. Partly because they're not dense and know it's a loser, but also because it would very likely backfire. "Arms" means guns ... and more!!! Cannons, swords, grenades maybe. But i know what youre thinking .... nuclear weapons? No, sorry. Because nuclear weapons are not ordinary equipment issued to soldiers in wartime. US v Miller, decided in 1939, says the 2nd amendment covers the "ordinary military equipment" of the typical infantry soldier. That phrase, "ordinary military equipment," implies that the arms available to "the people" under the 2nd amendment are of the same type and capability that the military issues to grunt soldiers. So not just AR-15's, but even select fire M4's and full-auto M-16's.
> 
> Should we litigate this issue further???


TLDR. Weapons that match the power of what troops have. 

I want my select fire galil and I want it now!


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> But of course, that'll never happen. Because Democrats want top down control


Really? How about the party that voted no against stopping gerrymandering which would cause equal power. Who is the party that decided that people should never be able to transition? Who was the party that just now, voted that a state can control another person's atonomy. Who was the party that supported a coup, and wanted to kill their political leaders. Who is the party who is closely aligned with the proud boys "proud boys stand back and stand by"
Who was the party that invaded the capital on January 6th.
The Republican party did all those things. They want more control than any Democrat could desire.
Edit:
The republican party doesn't support unions too.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 25, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Actually no. The government can't say that guns are illegal. because the supreme court has settled this semantic argument a long time ago. Arms = guns, this is a fact. If the house passed a law making guns illegal, it'd be struck down. Because it goes against the constitution.
> 
> As someone pointed out. Bodily autonomy is in the constitution under the 4th amendments. The bill of rights was reaffirmed under the 14th amendment. However. Bodily autonomy doesn't mean that you have the right to determine life or death of another body, that being the baby. Not even the court that decided roe v wade suggested this.
> 
> Men and Women are inherently different because of.. biology. The fact that women can give birth doesn't mean that they have the right to kill their child.


Why are you "caring" about the baby when your obviously don't care about the baby. 

Come back to me when you volunteer to adopt some of these babies from single parent mothers that can't afford to raise a child but forced due to rights of abortion being stripped away. Show me that you really care.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 25, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Why are you "caring" about the baby when your obviously don't care about the baby.
> 
> Come back to me when you volunteer to adopt some of these babies from single parent mothers that can't afford to raise a child but forced due to rights of abortion being stripped away. Show me that you really care.





MariArch said:


> I'm fine with a total revamp of our foster care system. Kids deserve a good place to live and thrive. Luckily many many families adopt children every day in this country. So much so that I believe there is a shortage of babies up for adoption last time I checked


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 25, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Obviously that's become secondary to overturning settled law for this activist conservative court, their interpretation of the constitution will simply become more and more creatively fascist without any checks or balances on their power.


It’s the opposite of an activist court, they’re reversing an activist decision on the basis of interpreting text as it is written, which is the only interpretation that should ever be used when it comes to law.


pustal said:


> Of course, but you think now that'll change?


It doesn’t matter what I think, what matters is the rule of law. We can’t approve of the government overstepping its boundaries just because we like the results. The Constitution functions as a check on the federal government, the SCOTUS shouldn’t be “reinterpreting” the document to mean what they want it to mean at any given time to cover for the incompetence of Congress. If the Constitution says whatever it needs to say to justify the whims of those in power then it means nothing. Legislating is not the court’s function, and the fact that it’s been corrupted to serve such a function in the past does not justify ignoring the issue today. It was a bad decision founded upon a false premise and repealing it corrects that past wrong. What happens going forward is up to Congress, and with some luck, this will serve as a warning to those who wish to usurp the court in the future.


Hanafuda said:


> Youre trying to make an argument that even no gun control advocates have ever seriously pursued. Partly because they're not dense and know it's a loser, but also because it would very likely backfire. "Arms" means guns ... and more!!! Cannons, swords, grenades maybe. But i know what youre thinking .... nuclear weapons? No, sorry. Because nuclear weapons are not ordinary equipment issued to soldiers in wartime. US v Miller, decided in 1939, says the 2nd amendment covers the "ordinary military equipment" of the typical infantry soldier. That phrase, "ordinary military equipment," implies that the arms available to "the people" under the 2nd amendment are of the same type and capability that the military issues to grunt soldiers. So not just AR-15's, but even select fire M4's and full-auto M-16's.
> 
> Should we litigate this issue further???


I am in favour of privately-owned tanks, you keep that “grunt talk” to yourself. 



MariArch said:


> TLDR. Weapons that match the power of what troops have.
> 
> I want my select fire galil and I want it now!


If the second amendment is supposed to function as a check against government tyranny and as a safety measure in the event of an invasion, it must cover the same weapons the government has access to, by definition. This was the belief the founders held when writing it and that’s what it means. Also, Galil is out, Sig Spear is in - get some modern stuff up in here.



AmandaRose said:


> 5000 sold by one company called  Midwest Tactical Inc., they have many more in stock right now. Not that hard to get if you have the money. They even have a frigging AK-47 for sale.
> 
> If its that hard to fine them how come it took me less than a minute?
> 
> View attachment 315303


An AK-47 is a Class 3 weapon, it’s heavily restricted. In order to be permitted purchase, you have to be a Class 3 FFL (Federal Firearms License, intended for firearms dealers), ideally an SOT (Special Occupation Taxpayer). If you’re comfortable with annual testing, shelling out $37K for the weapon and then subsequently paying an additional $500-$1000 in tax every year (flat annual rate, by the virtue of SOT status), go nuts. You don’t even have “a premise for conducting business” - an FFL, even a home-based one, requires you to have a business intent. Are you planning to become a gunsmith? Do you even know what that entails? For the record, holding an FFL license also means ATF inspections of your “place of business”, just so you know. Have fun with those guys, especially during the in-person interview:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/apply-license

My bet’s on “you’re not qualified to purchase this weapon”. The gross majority of citizens do not fulfil the requirements for purchasing an automatic weapon, they *are* rare, and those who can buy, sell or otherwise transfer them are exceedingly well-qualified, usually involved in the firearms business themselves, or they have another lawful use case. They’re not “off the shelf” items, you can’t walk into a gun store and leave with an automatic rifle, or any other NFA item, period. Most importantly, even if you are qualified, it’s not a *new* item, it’s from the 80’s - a collectible piece that’s older than most people reading this exchange. There’s a reason why “crazies” don’t run around with AK-47’s, even if you *can* find one for sale - actually buying one is a different matter entirely, and requires a slew of background checks on top of what’s normally required.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 26, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s the opposite of an activist court, they’re reversing an activist decision on the basis of interpreting text as it is written, which is the only interpretation that should ever be used when it comes to law.
> 
> It doesn’t matter what I think, what matters is the rule of law. We can’t approve of the government overstepping its boundaries just because we like the results. The Constitution functions as a check on the federal government, the SCOTUS shouldn’t be “reinterpreting” the document to mean what they want it to mean at any given time to cover for the incompetence of Congress. If the Constitution says whatever it needs to say to justify the whims of those in power then it means nothing. Legislating is not the court’s function, and the fact that it’s been corrupted to serve such a function in the past does not justify ignoring the issue today. It was a bad decision founded upon a false premise and repealing it corrects that past wrong. What happens going forward is up to Congress, and with some luck, this will serve as a warning to those who wish to usurp the court in the future.
> 
> ...


Whilst I don't agree with the majority of what you post I will give you respect for this reply because you took time and went and got all the relevant data to reply to me.

I will though never be convinced that guns should be legal. In my country they are not unless needed for work. And we as a result have very low gun crimes and zero school shootings in the last 35 years which funnily enough is when guns were banned.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 26, 2022)

AmandaRose said:


> Whilst I don't agree with the majority of what you post I will give you respect for this reply because you took time and went and got all the relevant data to reply to me.
> 
> I will though never be convinced that guns should be legal. In my country they are not unless needed for work. And we as a result have very low gun crimes and zero school shootings in the last 35 years which funnily enough is when guns were banned.


If guns magically evaporated, there would be no school shootings - nobody will argue in earnest that this is not the case. The argument goes well beyond that, and I disagree that the right to bear arms is “not needed” - the opposite is true, it is a pre-requisite for the proper functioning of a truly free society that can self-determine. I think the fact that people in Europe were, for the most part, stripped of this essential right is an absolute travesty. I can only hope that this will one day be corrected, but that’s unlikely to happen in my lifetime. Thankfully, with some perseverance and dedication, you can still obtain a legal firearm on the isles, and I hope that never changes.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 26, 2022)

AmandaRose said:


> Whilst I don't agree with the majority of what you post I will give you respect for this reply because you took time and went and got all the relevant data to reply to me.
> 
> I will though never be convinced that guns should be legal. In my country they are not unless needed for work. And we as a result have very low gun crimes and zero school shootings in the last 35 years which funnily enough is when guns were banned.


Glasgow is one of the worst crime ridden citys in scotland. Maybe if law abiding citizans could protect themselves and their property with guns that number could drop.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jun 26, 2022)

why do you need a projectile weapon only useful as a killing implement
inb4 the answer "i can want whatever i like that's freedom"
you don't have the freedom to get grenade launchers, either
you don't need guns any more than you need a grenade launcher

americans, why are you always like this
everyone else has universal healthcare, a living wage, restrictions on gun ownership and significant assistance in receiving tertiary education at the absolute worst

we laugh at you when you say you're the best country in the world
you are laughable
the butt of the joke


----------



## Dakitten (Jun 26, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> If guns magically evaporated, there would be no school shootings - nobody will argue in earnest that this is not the case. The argument goes well beyond that, and I disagree that the right to bear arms is “not needed” - the opposite is true, it is a pre-requisite for the proper functioning of a truly free society that can self-determine. I think the fact that people in Europe were, for the most part, stripped of this essential right is an absolute travesty. I can only help that it will one day be corrected, but that’s unlikely to happen in my lifetime. Thankfully, with some perseverance and dedication, you can still obtain a legal firearm on the isles, and I hope that never changes.


Are you proposing that the UK is less free than the USA in the same thread as folks defending gun rights here by making schools single-entry point fire hazards guarded by federal agents? Deep irony and baseless condescension here... your viewpoints are an absolute travesty and I can only help that it will one day be corrected, but that's unlikely to happen in your lifetime.


wartutor said:


> Glasgow is one of the worst crime ridden citys in scotland. Maybe if law abiding citizans could protect themselves and their property with guns that number could drop.


And yet their homicide per capita rate is still less than it is in the USA. Maybe if man-children stopped talking down to every woman they saw, they'd have more time to self reflect?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 26, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Are you proposing that the UK is less free…


Yes. You can stop there, the answer is “yes”. The rest was just projection and an imaginary scenario, proposed by you, not me.


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 26, 2022)

Darth Meteos said:


> why do you need a projectile weapon only useful as a killing implement
> inb4 the answer "i can want whatever i like that's freedom"
> you don't have the freedom to get grenade launchers, either
> you don't need guns any more than you need a grenade launcher


In the US, sure you can. If it is not a black powder weapon, it must be registered with the BATFE, and a $200 transfer tax paid on the “Destructive Device”. Each round of ammo with an explosive warhead must also be registered, and tax paid.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 26, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Are you proposing that the UK is less free than the USA in the same thread as folks defending gun rights here by making schools single-entry point fire hazards guarded by federal agents? Deep irony and baseless condescension here... your viewpoints are an absolute travesty and I can only help that it will one day be corrected, but that's unlikely to happen in your lifetime.
> 
> And yet their homicide per capita rate is still less than it is in the USA. Maybe if man-children stopped talking down to every woman they saw, they'd have more time to self reflect?


I dont know about other towns but where i live muder rate is almost 0. Of course i live in a respectable, law abiding, red state. Not one of those democratically ran, criminals have more rights than victims, blue city's.

Edit. America's problem isnt guns its the lack of convicting people for breaking laws. More profitable to let them keep breaking them and slapping them on the wrist.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 26, 2022)

Darth Meteos said:


> why do you need a projectile weapon only useful as a killing implement
> inb4 the answer "i can want whatever i like that's freedom"
> you don't have the freedom to get grenade launchers, either
> you don't need guns any more than you need a grenade launcher
> ...


Actually we can own grenade launchers lol


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 26, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Glasgow is one of the worst crime ridden citys in scotland. Maybe if law abiding citizans could protect themselves and their property with guns that number could drop.


Shall we just ignore the fact that Glasgow has the highest population of anywhere in Scotland so kinda stands to reason crime rates would be higher. Also the highest reported crime was for fraud so not sure how a gun stops someone hacking your bank account. 

Or also the fact that crime is the lowest in Scotland that it has been since 1973.

Also a nice little read for anyone interested.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...167e68-6e02-4795-92f8-adb1020b7434_story.html


----------



## Dakitten (Jun 26, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Yes. You can stop there, the answer is “yes”. The rest was just projection and an imaginary scenario, proposed by you, not me.


Says the guy who views slavery as "needed, but they totally only did it for a while while they cursed their own misfortunes and it got fixed eventually so its fine" earlier. Your values are twisted up a bit there, good sir, and I do not believe



SScorpio said:


> In the US, sure you can. If it is not a black powder weapon, it must be registered with the BATFE, and a $200 transfer tax paid on the “Destructive Device”. Each round of ammo with an explosive warhead must also be registered, and tax paid.


And American Values on display continues~



wartutor said:


> I dont know about other towns but where i live muder rate is almost 0. Of course i live in a respectable, law abiding, red state. Not one of those democratically ran, criminals have more rights than victims, blue city's.


Actually, if you adjust per capita, most violent gun crimes are committed in blue cities like Springfield Missouri or Anniston Alabama. This gets even worse if you go by state, at which point Alaska starts pulling ahead while New York and California are near the bottom of the list. Thanks for playing, please try again.


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 26, 2022)

AmandaRose said:


> Also a nice little read for anyone interested.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...167e68-6e02-4795-92f8-adb1020b7434_story.html


FYI since you aren't from the US. The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos (Amazon) and is considered a joke and not really better than the UK's Daily Mail in reputation.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 26, 2022)

AmandaRose said:


> Shall we just ignore the fact that Glasgow has the highest population of anywhere in Scotland so kinda stands to reason crime rates would be higher. Also the highest reported crime was for fraud so not sure how a gun stops someone hacking your bank account.
> 
> Or also the fact that crime is the lowest in Scotland that it has been since 1973.
> 
> ...


Well good. America could use a little of that tough love on their criminals. Our justice system is a joke. Got a guy that works with me. Had an ankle bracelet on for multiple felonies that should of had him in jail already. He is now awaiting trail on 7 different accounts of drug use, violence, and breaking parole. They cut his monitoring device off and is currently awaiting trial that will probably take years as he keeps doing the same thing. Some people should be put down for the good of the country and he is one of those. Sometimes you just have to let the horse drown


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 26, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> FYI since you aren't from the US. The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos (Amazon) and is considered a joke and not really better than the UK's Daily Mail in reputation.


Perhaps but in the report that i linked to all they have done is explain VRU and how it has massively reduced crime rates in my home town. Facts that are easily found elsewhere on the net.



wartutor said:


> Well good. America could use a little of that tough love on their criminals. Our justice system is a joke. Got a guy that works with me. Had an ankle bracelet on for multiple felonies that should of had him in jail already. He is now awaiting trail on 7 different accounts of drug use, violence, and breaking parole. They cut his monitoring device off and is currently awaiting trial that will probably take years as he keeps doing the same thing. Some people should be put down for the good of the country and he is one of those. Sometimes you just have to let the horse drown


100% agree other countries should have their own version of VRU because it works.


----------



## Dakitten (Jun 26, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> FYI since you aren't from the US. The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos (Amazon) and is considered a joke and not really better than the UK's Daily Mail in reputation.


Correction, it was a company purchased by Jeff Bezos and remains mostly autonomous from his direct reach... unless it directly hurts his interests, perhaps, but for articles like that, it is perfectly valid. Do you have some reason to automatically disregard the article? Some facts to the contrary, perhaps?

Also, for your pleasure.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/739442/washington-post-credibility-usa/



wartutor said:


> Well good. America could use a little of that tough love on their criminals. Our justice system is a joke. Got a guy that works with me. Had an ankle bracelet on for multiple felonies that should of had him in jail already. He is now awaiting trail on 7 different accounts of drug use, violence, and breaking parole. They cut his monitoring device off and is currently awaiting trial that will probably take years as he keeps doing the same thing. Some people should be put down for the good of the country and he is one of those. Sometimes you just have to let the horse drown


Or, hear me out, maybe... maybe we could look into ways to not euthanize people you don't like.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 26, 2022)

AmandaRose said:


> Perhaps but in the report that i linked too all they have done is explain VRU and how it has massively reduced crime rates in my home town. Facts that are easily found elsewhere on the net.
> 
> 
> 100% agree other countries should have their own version of VRU because it works.


That was a good read even if it was from the washington post. Facts are facts and some people cant accept them just cause of where they come from...hint hint @SScorpio


----------



## wartutor (Jun 26, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Or, hear me out, maybe... maybe we could look into ways to not euthanize people you don't like.


Wait wait wait....just caught this part isnt this whole thread about being legally allowed to euthanize people (in this case future people) you dont like or want.


----------



## Dakitten (Jun 26, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Wait wait wait....just caught this part isnt this whole thread about being legally allowed to euthanize people (in this case future people) you dont like or want.


That is clever! Wait, no... fetuses aren't people, but the women who have been killed in the past and will die going forward are a tragedy and you're a monster, my bad. Got confused for a second.


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 26, 2022)

wartutor said:


> That was a good read even if it was from the washington post. Facts are facts and some people cant accept them just cause of where they come from...hint hint @SScorpio


It was a puff piece about a criminal that was rehabilitated and is now working in a food truck. In the US I to have been served food by people with prison tattoos. But I haven't read any articles about those success stories.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 26, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> That is clever! Wait, no... fetuses aren't people, but the women who have been killed in the past and will die going forward are a tragedy and you're a monster, my bad. Got confused for a second.


I'll save ya'll the trouble of arguing:

we go into this whole argument about when life begins and you say you know and he says he know and you say we should be able to kill it and he says we should protect it and yada yada. we circle around in another argument that sways noone.

The end.


----------



## Dakitten (Jun 26, 2022)

MariArch said:


> I'll save ya'll the trouble of arguing:
> 
> we go into this whole argument about when life begins and you say you know and he says he know and you say we should be able to kill it and he says we should protect it and yada yada. we circle around in another argument that sways noone.
> 
> The end.


Y'know, you aren't wrong. About the argument, that is, not when life begins nor the value of the life of the woman who has to weigh out the values and consequences of an abortion on their body. Now with added regional legal penalties as perscribed by an old theocratic white male majority!

IMO this kind of thing makes a very convincing case for switching partner preferences. At least if two women get married, they don't have to worry about family planning being an issu-oh wait, the supreme court is looking at reevaluating gay marriage, too?


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 26, 2022)

Republican senator asking for segregation to come back.
Fucking horrible people.


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 26, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Republican senator asking for segregation to come back.
> Fucking horrible people.


Corbyn is making a point. But don't worry he won't get re-elected in 2026 after signing on too the gun control bill while being a senator from Texas.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 26, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Republican senator asking for segregation to come back.
> Fucking horrible people.



I don't like Cornryn, but to be fair that wasn't his point. He was trying to show that just because the Supreme Court "reversed nearly 50 years of precedent" doesn't mean they were wrong to do so. Plessy v. Ferguson, from 1896, upheld segregation laws. Brown v. Board of Education from 1954 ended racial segregation in US public schools.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 26, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> Corbyn is making a point. But don't worry he won't get re-elected in 2026 after signing on too the gun control bill while being a senator from Texas.


This. Corbyn has long been a softie on giving his consituents rights away, specifically guns. The fact that him and his colleaugues decided to give Biden a foot in the door to chip away at our rights should be damning enough to primary that joker and all his buddies next election cycle


----------



## wartutor (Jun 26, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> That is clever! Wait, no... fetuses aren't people, but the women who have been killed in the past and will die going forward are a tragedy and you're a monster, my bad. Got confused for a second.


Wait wait you got the wrong idea of me. 

1. Fetuses turn into people we can all agree on that.

2. I 100% believe a womans body is her choice. 

3. I think the democrats wanted/needed this in order to drum up votes due to their rediculous handling of inflation and gas prices (lets not forget the out of control crime rate in their cities). If they didnt they had ample time to introduce a bill to ratifying the constitution to make abortion a protected right when the decision was leaked months ago. Instead they waited to use it to get votes. They 100% sat there and waited instead of trying to prevent it.

4. The supreme court is not there to say what should be in the constitution but to enforce the right already writen within it. No matter how you look at it this FACT will always remain true. It is why they are there. Not to make laws and radifications to the constitution but to judge on what is written.

Democrats want you to think the supreme court took away your right but they wont explain why they didnt immediately try and amended the constitution instead of using an obvious overreached judgement made decades ago. Plenty of time to actually add it into law.


----------



## Dakitten (Jun 26, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Wait wait you got the wrong idea of me.
> 
> 1. Fetuses turn into people we can all agree on that.
> 
> ...


1. Fetuses TURN INTO PEOPLE, sure, but they aren't there yet.

2. It is, but this always makes it sound a bit misleading. It isn't like women get abortions because of some kind of pride or political motive, it is an EXTREMELY taxing decision with very potent consequences either way. Just like to keep this point clear whenever possible, since some people act like abortions are lazy lady birth control for some reason...

3. All things considered, I don't blame democrats for gas companies exploiting demand without repercussions. That has been going on since as long as any of us have been alive, and is more a fault on capitalism than anything. That being said, you aren't completely wrong about their dropping the ball on this particular issue, they are not stalwart allies in this endeavor... but they also didn't play any hand in making this occurrence a reality. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, as a result.

4. The supreme court is made up of people who selectively interprit law and set down precident as per their own biases... or in this case, overturn it despite leading people to believe they wouldn't. Specifically on this point. When asked repeatedly. While being broadcast to the population of the country they're supposed to represent. Making an amendment usually requires wars and/or riots and mass protest, like with women's voting rights and the end of slavery, so Dems get a pinch of leeway there (and only a pinch).

Don't gaslight me, comrade, this is an attack from the right. Even if the Dems didn't defend the people's rights as well as they should have, they also didn't throw out the betrayal to begin with.


----------



## XDel (Jun 26, 2022)




----------



## Fighter92 (Jun 26, 2022)

55 pages of replies since yesterday...


----------



## ZeroT21 (Jun 26, 2022)

HalfScoper said:


> Just take it in the butt (goes for both sides) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Soon, they'll take that away too


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 26, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Actually no. The government can't say that guns are illegal. because the supreme court has settled this semantic argument a long time ago. Arms = guns, this is a fact. If the house passed a law making guns illegal, it'd be struck down. Because it goes against the constitution.
> 
> As someone pointed out. Bodily autonomy is in the constitution under the 4th amendments. The bill of rights was reaffirmed under the 14th amendment. However. Bodily autonomy doesn't mean that you have the right to determine life or death of another body, that being the baby. Not even the court that decided roe v wade suggested this.
> 
> Men and Women are inherently different because of.. biology. The fact that women can give birth doesn't mean that they have the right to kill their child.



And, as we've seen as recently before with the recent bill regarding laws being passed through one level already, it seems that if you enact one little law or mandate here or there, eventually it will turn into quite the big issue later down the line. Funny how that also works in terms of stripping away a person's right to what goes on in there own body. 

Both of those reasonings stem deeply from an overarching religious point of view. If in the eyes of the Constitution people should have their right to bear arms regardless of emotional attachment, y'know, because it's in the Constitution, then it seems odd that the double standard regarding the reasonings behind valuing the potential of life stem beyond the same emotionless base we've set for operating under. 



Hanafuda said:


> Youre trying to make an argument that even no gun control advocates have ever seriously pursued. Partly because they're not dense and know it's a loser, but also because it would very likely backfire. "Arms" means guns ... and more!!! Cannons, swords, grenades maybe. But i know what youre thinking .... nuclear weapons? No, sorry. Because nuclear weapons are not ordinary equipment issued to soldiers in wartime. US v Miller, decided in 1939, says the 2nd amendment covers the "ordinary military equipment" of the typical infantry soldier. That phrase, "ordinary military equipment," implies that the arms available to "the people" under the 2nd amendment are of the same type and capability that the military issues to grunt soldiers. So not just AR-15's, but even select fire M4's and full-auto M-16's.
> 
> Should we litigate this issue further???



Actually, my thought process was more akin to the multiple, repentant opportunities taken to cover something with so many different labels that it causes you to stray from the logical aspect. I didn't intend to discuss 2A rights in an abortion thread.

Funny how manipulation works, doesn't it? How we continue to have all these convenient bastardizations of the sense of the term to get to where we are now. Of course I'm not going to argue about nuclear weapons, that's absurd. But so is the idea of thinking that it's the same way of thinking when it comes to abortions. 

You people attach concepts and feelings and interpretations where you see fit, and it all stems from control. At the very base, an abortion is always guaranteed to be a survival technique, regardless of species, because of the high rate of complications, much less the procedure itself, that can cause death in the host. If the host chooses to abort for any reason, it's basic survival instinct. Taking away a person's right to even have basic control over it's own survival shouldn't have to be in the constitution, it's a basic right to life.


----------



## HalfScoper (Jun 26, 2022)

ZeroT21 said:


> Soon, they'll take that away too


Gonna be a lot _harder_ though to track who got it in their butt than who got an abortion, idk what you want to say with that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Elodain (Jun 26, 2022)

ZeroT21 said:


> Soon, they'll take that away too


Meh. It was illegal before and people still did it, weather they cared to admit it or not.

Even if they did ban I doubt that anybody that are already actively doing it are going to think twice about continuing to do it. Those that haven't are a different story, they might be more hesitant. But I can't imagine too many people just saying who have been doing it for years just saying "Welp it's illegal so it's time to stop the buttseks."

I mean it didn't work well with alcohol prohibition so since most people value sex more than alcohol you can imagine it will be even less effective.


----------



## ZeroT21 (Jun 26, 2022)

HalfScoper said:


> Gonna be a lot _harder_ though to track who got it in their butt than who got an abortion, idk what you want to say with that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


You win this argument for the time being


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 26, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> A lot of members of this site just had their bodily autonomy taken away. I guarantee you that no fetuses are members of this site, so the only effect on site members has been negative.


You say that as if the government is going house to house with turkey basters, forcibly impregnating women and forcing them to have babies 9 months later with a gun to their heads. Spoiler alert: That's not what's happening. If you don't want a baby, then a. practice safe sex, or b. go drive to a blue state where abortion is still available.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 26, 2022)

Jesus, the amount of salt here. If it were real, being a Salt miner would make me a billionaire.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 26, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Says the guy who views slavery as "needed, but they totally only did it for a while while they cursed their own misfortunes and it got fixed eventually so its fine" earlier. Your values are twisted up a bit there, good sir, and I do not believe


Oh man, I wish Roe was still the precedent so that you could abort this failed argument instead of walking into the same river twice. The Constitution was the pride and joy of the Americans and the envy of Europe at the time, it set the trajectory for the introduction of democracy, rule of law and equality across the globe and led to the proliferation of human rights. It was, in historical context, extremely progressive, granting inalienable rights to a formerly persecuted population, even *if* it failed to fully live up to its premise until some time later. This concept shouldn’t be alien to you, considering you (if I recall correctly), worship the Communist Manifesto, a piece of writing that you believe in which didn’t fully live up to its stated goals either. The only difference is that the Constitution was *eventually* fulfilled with the abolition of slavery whereas the Communist Manifesto only succeeded in spreading misery. You are the last person here who can afford moral grandstanding - my sweetheart document created the land of the free, yours created the U.S.S.R., China and North Korea. As far as spreading liberty is concerned, the Constitution was a far more effective tool than anything your idols have ever put on paper or into practice. Now, if you have something to say about abortion, stick to that rather than slavery, considering the fact slavery is still alive and well in China - there’s a whole lot of Muslims who would’ve much preferred to be in America over a Chinese work camp. Before you say “that’s not real communism though”, you can stop right there because we’ve had this conversation before and it’s intensely dull. It’s the *only* communism that exists, nobody’s interested in brain farts that are not applicable to reality.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 26, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> 1. Fetuses TURN INTO PEOPLE, sure, but they aren't there yet.
> 
> 2. It is, but this always makes it sound a bit misleading. It isn't like women get abortions because of some kind of pride or political motive, it is an EXTREMELY taxing decision with very potent consequences either way. Just like to keep this point clear whenever possible, since some people act like abortions are lazy lady birth control for some reason...
> 
> ...


I agrea with you and you still dont get it and accuse me of gas lighting. Tell me one thing a democrat has tried to do about this legal wise cause all i have seen is them screaming into cameras and deviding people trying to scrap up votes. Get into the office and start doing your fuckin job and get the ball rolling because no matter what anyone thinks this decision really shouldnt of been left to the court to decide. Start filing shit that you should of started a month or two ago when u was still screaming in the camera and trying to devide people for votes. Truthfully both sides are guilty of it and thats why nothing ever actually gets done in our government.


----------



## Viri (Jun 26, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Jesus, the amount of salt here. If it were real, being a Salt miner would make me a billionaire.


Nah, too much salt. The price of salt wouldn't be worth it. It's like having your planet made of diamonds.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jun 26, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Wow... um... you know, women are people too, and most women are leftists to boot! And fun fact, women WANT the right to an abortion because NO SHIT ABORTIONS SUCK BUT THE ALTERNATIVES CAN BE WORSE! Bringing a life into the world is a huge deal, and particularly in a country that is sliding further and further into financial oblivion for the majority. I might have wanted another child if it wasn't for the fact that it might be too big a financial strain, and I work in IT for the government! You don't often get much more middle-class financial stability in the USA!
> 
> Please try asking somebody about their experience before mouthing off like you KNOW something is hypocritical. Also learn how to write. Also if you want somebody to believe women are more than just incubators, listen to them and then politely stand to the side while they tell you they want access to abortions even knowing and maybe even having experienced the pain and mental anguish of one and still not regretting it. Kthx.
> 
> ...


When have I said that women are not people? Is English not your native language? I literally criticized this idea in my post.
You leftists are brain dead and unable to read.
In any case, let me remind you (in case you didn't know or you ignore it), the overwellming mayority of pro-lifers are women.
And it makes sense, it's women who should decide if they wanna be pro-abortion or pro-life, the rest of us can only sit back and shut the fuck up (or make an opinion but not force it).


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jun 26, 2022)

DbGt said:


> Havent seen anyone talking about religion. You dont need to be religious to be pro life


Show me a single pro-life post that uses sound and reasoning instead of quoting some religious morals?
You can't, mainly because you can't be pro-life without being a totalitarian feudalist.
There is no way in hell that a sane and resonable person would ever forbid women from having an abortion with all the safety and health guarantees that is required for this complex procedure to minimize risks.
Only a religious zealot would not see how this goes against individual freedom.
I do not want the government to decide over women's body, neither left nor right.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 26, 2022)

Acid_Snake said:


> Show me a single pro-life post that uses sound and reasoning instead of quoting some religious morals?
> You can't, mainly because you can't be pro-life without being a totalitarian feudalist.
> There is no way in hell that a sane and resonable person would ever forbid women from having an abortion with all the safety and health guarantees that is required for this complex procedure to minimize risks.
> Only a religious zealot would not see how this goes against individual freedom.
> I do not want the government to decide over women's body, neither left nor right.


Im not religious at all. I think abortion is only acceptable in cases of rape, incest and if the womans health is in serious threat. Which as you probably know makes up <1% of all abortions.

For the other 99% I feel like killing a human being because its inconvenient for you is wrong. You shouldnt be allowed to decapitate an unborn child because you dont want to take responsibility for your actions. And if you do want to then go to some other country that allows it.

Explain how im a religious zealot.


----------



## Jokey_Carrot (Jun 26, 2022)

Honestly, my takeaway from this is that if you're a woman/minority in America you really ought to arm yourself.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Don't think I'm gonna dive back into this shitshow today, but as a parting gift, here's one for the religionists


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 26, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Don't think I'm gonna dive back into this shitshow today, but as a parting gift, here's one for the religionists
> View attachment 315398


Maybe YOU should read those scriptures because none of that is what they mean at all. Just yet another example of a person who isnt religious twisting religious texts completely out of context to push their own narrative.

Genesis refers to first breath for the FIRST MAN created. Not every single life.
Numbers does not in any way give instructions on how to perform an abortion its simply a symbolic ceremony regarding a woman sinning from committing adultery.

Exodus literally says a man should be punished if he causes the death of an unborn child. Its actually shocking how you could even take this one so wildly out of context. But then again people who have a rabid animalistic blood lust to kill the unborn will see what they want to see in anything.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Maybe YOU should read those scriptures because none of that is what they mean at all. Just yet another example of a person who isnt religious twisting religious texts completely out of context to push their own narrative.
> 
> Genesis refers to first breath for the FIRST MAN created. Not every single life.
> Numbers does not in any way give instructions on how to perform an abortion its simply a symbolic ceremony regarding a woman sinning by from committing adultery.
> ...


I'm glad that my rabid animalistic blood lust is finally getting some recognition, so at least something positive has come out of this thread.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 26, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> I'm glad that my rabid animalistic blood lust is finally getting some recognition, so at least something positive has come out of this thread.


I wasnt referring to you, I was referring to the woman that can take a sentence about a woman losing her child and someone she conceptualizes it in her head that it means that fetuses arent human.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> I wasnt referring to you, I was referring to the woman that can take a sentence about a woman losing her child and someone she conceptualizes it in her head that it means that fetuses arent human.


Aw. Ok then nothing good has come out of this thread.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 26, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Aw. Ok then nothing good has come out of this thread.


I mean, you're welcome to post something good then instead of shitty twitter screenshots of crazy women posting fake interpretations of bible verses as 'gotchas'.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> I mean, you're welcome to post something good then instead of shitty twitter screenshots of crazy women posting fake interpretations of bible verses as 'gotchas'.


"Fake interpretations"
I know from English lessons interpreting Shakespeare (pulp theatre written to entertain drunk people) as containing multiple profound statements in every sentence that there's always endless ways to interpret any given text, choosing the one that suits you doesn't make it the correct one, unless you've got a personal line to god you haven't mentioned? And we don't need to go into the fact that the bible contradicts itself over and over again on endless subjects because it was written, and rewritten, and translated, and retranslated, over and over by countless fallible humans.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jun 26, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Im not religious at all. I think abortion is only acceptable in cases of rape, incest and if the womans health is in serious threat. Which as you probably know makes up <1% of all abortions.
> 
> For the other 99% I feel like killing a human being because its inconvenient for you is wrong. You shouldnt be allowed to decapitate an unborn child because you dont want to take responsibility for your actions. And if you do want to then go to some other country that allows it.
> 
> Explain how im a religious zealot.


Where do you get your statistics from? All abortions are caused by either rape, improper (or nonexistent) condom use, assholes who trick women into thinking they have it on or affairs. I don't remember a single woman that has talked about abortion without a tear in her eyes, and I've met a lot of them since my mother's a gynecologist. In an idea world you don't want women to go through this horrible experience, but we don't live in an ideal world, so we must make sure women are protected when they need to go through this process, and not just medical protection, psychological protection needed too but always overseen since people in the left view abortion as something beautiful, so they leave women to suffer in silence with no help at all.

The way to get rid of abortions is not banning abortions, that's only going to make things worse, and it goes against any libertarian or liberal ideals. If you love freedom you don't forbid women from having abortions, it's plain and simple.
The only way to get rid of abortions is to get rid of the causes of abortions: get rid of rapists (stronger punishment for those who rape), better education for teens and adults to to use condoms and have condoms more easily and cheaply available, educate women and men to always use condoms, and educate people to not go on affairs and educated women to be more protective of their bodies.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Just for fun


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 26, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> "Fake interpretations"
> I know from English lessons interpreting Shakespeare (pulp theatre written to entertain drunk people) as containing multiple profound statements in every sentence that there's always endless ways to interpret any given text, choosing the one that suits you doesn't make it the correct one, unless you've got a personal line to god you haven't mentioned? And we don't need to go into the fact that the bible contradicts itself over and over again on endless subjects because it was written, and rewritten, and translated, and retranslated, over and over by countless fallible humans.


I dont for one second believe that THAT woman believes the interpretations she gave on those verses.
I absolutely believe she is twisting them to flaunt them as ammo against religious types. Shes pro abortion and anti religious so its clear shes operating in bad faith.

Do YOU actually think she believes thats what they mean rather than just using it to rub in peoples faces
And have you read them and do YOU think her interpretations are fair and honest?

P.S i do have a personal line to god we play rocket league on xbox all the time


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> I dont for one second believe that THAT woman believes the interpretations she gave on those verses.
> I absolutely believe she is twisting them to flaunt them as ammo against religious types. Shes pro abortion and anti religious so its clear shes operating in bad faith.
> 
> Do YOU actually think she believes thats what they mean rather than just using it to rub in peoples faces
> ...


Xbox? I should have known you weren't worth debating with 

I think her interpretations are as fair and honest and unbiased as those of the people using the Bible to push an opposite agenda. Not very.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 26, 2022)

Acid_Snake said:


> The way to get rid of abortions is not banning abortions, that's only going to make things worse, and it goes against any libertarian or liberal ideals. If you love freedom you don't forbid women from having abortions, it's plain and simple.
> The only way to get rid of abortions is to get rid of the causes of abortions: get rid of rapists (stronger punishment for those who rape), better education for teens and adults to to use condoms and have condoms more easily and cheaply available, educate women and men to always use condoms, and educate people to not go on affairs and educated women to be more protective of their bodies.


I agree with every single thing you said here. 

Wheres the feminsts fighting for this though? Instead we get crazy people telling women to just embrace being a slut and use abortion as birth control.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> I agree with every single thing you said here.
> 
> Wheres the feminsts fighting for this though? Instead we get crazy people telling women to just embrace being a slut and use abortion as birth control.


Feminists are normal people doing normal things and fighting for normal rights. If you view only the extreme versions as feminists, that's on you.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Keeping it biblical one more time for the giggles, God sees as life as sacred obviously


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 26, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Feminists are normal people doing normal things and fighting for normal rights. If you view only the extreme versions as feminists, that's on you.


Its INCREDIBLY hard not to. Pull up literally any footage of women at the capitol over the past 24 hours and you'll see exactly what I mean. Absolutely unhinged screaming harpies with dyed hair.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Its INCREDIBLY hard not to. Pull up literally any footage of women at the capitol over the past 24 hours and you'll see exactly what I mean. Absolutely unhinged screaming harpies with dyed hair.


Your misogyny is showing, but ok sure, let's follow your example and say all conservatives are like the dudes in animal skins climbing the capitol.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 26, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Keeping it biblical one more time for the giggles, God sees as life as sacred obviously
> View attachment 315405


Old Testament isnt canon.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Old Testament isnt canon.


Convenient


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 26, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Your misogyny is showing, but ok sure, let's follow your example and say all conservatives are like the dudes in animal skins climbing the capitol.


You wont see a viking horn fur wearing live streamer attention whore grifter at every conservative protest.

But you WILL see unhinged screaming dyed hair women at every single feminst protest.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> You wont see a viking horn fur wearing live streamer attention whore grifter at every conservative protest.
> 
> But you WILL see unhinged screaming dyed hair women at every single feminst protest.


Ok, you're a shitty misogynist, we get it.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 26, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Ok, you're a shitty misogynist, we get it.


So you WONT see those people there?


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> So you WONT see those people there?


I haven't seen "every feminist protest", but even the ones you're judging this on, does that misogynistic description apply to every woman there, or just the ones fox news chose to film?


----------



## emigre (Jun 26, 2022)

So how many guys here are going to get a vasectomy?

Seems like the most reasonable thing to do in the the current circumstances.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

emigre said:


> So how many guys here are going to get a vasectomy?
> 
> Seems like the most reasonable thing to do in the the current circumstances.


Me. Would have had it already, but my wife had a panic attack on the day about me having (even such minor) surgery.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 26, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Me. Would have had it already, but my wife had a panic attack on the day about me having (even such minor) surgery.


was your wife boyfriend ok with it?


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> was your wife boyfriend ok with it?


Yeah he said he'd buy me a Switch when it's done


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Jun 26, 2022)

How can I be a misogynist when I love naked women? Checkmate.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> How can I be a misogynist when I love naked women? Checkmate.


Oh well at least you're not a gun-fucker like half these posters


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 26, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> How can I be a misogynist when I love naked women? Checkmate.


Be a hedonist, not a misogynist.


----------



## HalfScoper (Jun 26, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Keeping it biblical one more time for the giggles, God sees as life as sacred obviously
> View attachment 315405


based, I personally liked "kill them with death" most. Your revelation though that you not only blur your unwanted opinion here, but also on an atheism facebook page, was just cringe.


----------



## DKAngel (Jun 26, 2022)

so much for being the land of the free, fucken americans with thier fucked up laws and guns lol


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

HalfScoper said:


> Your revelation though that you not only blur your unwanted opinion here, but also on an atheism facebook page, was just cringe.


I have no idea what this means. Fwiw I see stuff shared from all over the place, but I'm not on any atheism pages. People who make atheism their identity are as boring as people who make religion their identity.


----------



## Korozin (Jun 26, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> "Fake interpretations"
> I know from English lessons interpreting Shakespeare (pulp theatre written to entertain drunk people) as containing multiple profound statements in every sentence that there's always endless ways to interpret any given text, choosing the one that suits you doesn't make it the correct one, unless you've got a personal line to god you haven't mentioned? And we don't need to go into the fact that the bible contradicts itself over and over again on endless subjects because it was written, and rewritten, and translated, and retranslated, over and over by countless fallible humans.


Probably a mistake to comment on religion buttt here we goooo, anyways the bible shouldn't even be taken as factual evidence of anything at this point. It was mainly written as a moral compass / guide for people to live their lives as.. yknow - decent people. But that doesn't mean people should look at the book and act like it's a scripture of infallible knowledge; as the majority of the bible is basically a metaphor - and once again not a book of absolute facts. Lol


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 26, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Feminists are normal people doing normal things and fighting for normal rights. If you view only the extreme versions as feminists, that's on you.


Mmmm nah, all feminism is evil, plain and simple.



emigre said:


> So how many guys here are going to get a vasectomy?
> 
> Seems like the most reasonable thing to do in the the current circumstances.


You wanna first? I'll do it after I had a few kids if necessary. But


hippy dave said:


> Oh well at least you're not a gun-fucker like half these posters


Guns have holes like women, and I fuck 'em lol



DKAngel said:


> so much for being the land of the free, fucken americans with thier fucked up laws and guns lol


Fuck around and find out biatch! Guns are used for protection against psychos and criminals who want to do harm, plain and simple. The places with the most gun control have the most gun violence because surprisingly, criminals don't follow the law. Who would've thought?


----------



## Korozin (Jun 26, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Mmmm nah, all feminism is evil, plain and simple.


Actual feminism is about equal rights for literally everyone - not just women. You're thinking about Rad-Fems which literally want to make women the superior demographic, which I think we can all agree is a bit insane. It's no different than religious extremists, you mainly hear about those types because they're the ones crazy enough to do shit that lands them in the headlines. So saying that is basically saying that if a Christian killed someone, then all Christians are murderers; which is obviously false.

(Ik it was prolly a joke, but saying this anyways lol)


----------



## lokomelo (Jun 26, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Guns have holes like women, and I fuck 'em lol


Now I know for who all those enlargement ads are target to.


----------



## emigre (Jun 26, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Fuck around and find out biatch! Guns are used for protection against psychos and criminals who want to do harm, plain and simple. The places with the most gun control have the most gun violence because surprisingly, criminals don't follow the law. Who would've thought?



I'm British and we don't have schools getting shot up so often we need the kids to do drills on it. We had one instance of that happening and had strict gun control introduced.

We also have readily available abortions because we aren't completely overrun by right wing extremism.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 26, 2022)

emigre said:


> I'm British and we don't have schools getting shot up so often we need the kids to do drills on it. We had one instance of that happening and had strict gun control introduced.
> 
> We also have readily available abortions because we aren't completely overrun by right wing extremism.


Yep exactly what I said a few pages back. 1 school shooting 35 years ago and that was done by a guy in his 40s.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jun 26, 2022)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> I agree with every single thing you said here.
> 
> Wheres the feminsts fighting for this though? Instead we get crazy people telling women to just embrace being a slut and use abortion as birth control.


I don't know what you're talking about, I've met radical feminists and they agree with me, abortion is a necessity but also a last resort and not something to celebrate.
All of my ideas about abortion are built from what women have told me, it's mostly men on the left and right pushing for radical views with no solutions on sight, which I prefer to ignore.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 26, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> . The places with the most gun control have the most gun violence because surprisingly, criminals don't follow the law. Who would've thought?


Actually the places with the least gun control has the highest rate of death by guns. Who would have thought


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jun 26, 2022)

emigre said:


> I'm British and we don't have schools getting shot up so often we need the kids to do drills on it. We had one instance of that happening and had strict gun control introduced.
> 
> We also have readily available abortions because we aren't completely overrun by right wing extremism.


I hope you do know that abortion in the UK or Europe is far more restrictive than in the US before spitting such nonsense.
Keep fighting your imaginary "extreme right wing" dragons while real extremists have already taken over your house and you've applauded them all the way.
Also please explain to me why Switzerland has more guns per capita than the US but not as much gun violence.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 26, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> Now I know for who all those enlargement ads are target to.


Something tells me it's you who takes those and somehow your penis gets smaller because of it.


emigre said:


> I'm British and we don't have schools getting shot up so often we need the kids to do drills on it. We had one instance of that happening and had strict gun control introduced.
> 
> We also have readily available abortions because we aren't completely overrun by right wing extremism.


Isn't that the same place where stabbings are out of control? Why haven't you banned knifes yet? We're not talking about your shit country anyways, we're talking about how that even when a place in America has strict gun laws gun violence is still out of control. And it's a good thing your country has readily available abortions. Need the easiest access to sacrifice babies to the devil, you know.



AmandaRose said:


> Actually the places with the least gun control has the highest rate of death by guns. Who would have thought
> 
> View attachment 315450


That's a vague and non-specific pic that's made to look like to prove your point. How about a video to more accurately show guns deaths in other countries?


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 26, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Need the easiest access to sacrifice babies to the devil, you know.


Claims this is not a religious argument for being anti abortion.
_brings up the devil_
I think there is a applicable meme here


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 26, 2022)

Korozin said:


> Actual feminism is about equal rights for literally everyone - not just women. You're thinking about Rad-Fems which literally want to make women the superior demographic, which I think we can all agree is a bit insane. It's no different than religious extremists, you mainly hear about those types because they're the ones crazy enough to do shit that lands them in the headlines. So saying that is basically saying that if a Christian killed someone, then all Christians are murderers; which is obviously false.
> 
> (Ik it was prolly a joke, but saying this anyways lol)


You can advocate for equal rights for everyone without being a feminist. From my perspective, feminism isn't about making women equal to men in terms of rights, but to make women superior to men by constantly putting them down and making men feel worthless, like what they say men do to them. I won't deny some women who identify as feminists genuinely want equal rights as men (which, nowadays, it pretty much is) without all the vitriol, but down at the core of it, it is evil and the core beliefs are to just put men down.

I'm not against equal rights for everyone, but feminism is a big no from me.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 26, 2022)

Here's a video showing how tolerant the left is when it comes to not getting their way! I'm gonna hide this in spoilers and put a warning that there is some choice language these lefties use, namely the "you-know-what" word you're not supposed to call black people. 



Spoiler


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 26, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Here's a video showing how tolerant the left is when it comes to not getting their way! I'm gonna hide this in spoilers and put a warning that there is some choice language these lefties use, namely the "you-know-what" word you're not supposed to call black people.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler






And here's a video where a Republican senator is advocating hunting other Republicans that aren't "really" Republican. Sounds like you can find scum on both sides of the political spectrum. Too bad it's currently the Republican party dehumanizing people in the name of control, backed by outdated draconian mentalities.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 26, 2022)

A new CBS poll drop and it seems The majority of people don't give a crap about abortion and it is in 6th place.  there are more important issues like inflation and the economy

1. Inflation - 82%
2. Economy - 80%
3. Crime - 58%
4. Gun policy - 57%
5. Immigration - 45%
6. Abortion - 42%
7. Russia/Ukraine - 38%
8. Climate Change - 38%
9. Covid - 37%
10. Investigating Jan 6, 2021 - 33%


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 26, 2022)

I encourage anyone who has foolishly believed the "states' rights" nonsense to read up on the history of the arguments against the Civil Rights Act, and what specifically Goldwater had to say. You'll find the verbatim same rhetoric being used against something as innocuous as _*equal liberties for African Americans.*_

If you are supportive of the repealing of this ruling, you are uninformed.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 26, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> A new CBS poll drop and it seems The majority of people don't give a crap about abortion and it is in 6th place.  there are more important issues like inflation and the economy
> 
> 1. Inflation - 82%
> 2. Economy - 80%
> ...



"We have more important things to worry about than bodily autonomy"

There are those of us mature and intelligent enough to worry about more than one thing at a time.

Cute that you posted this statistic. Seems like it is important in showing that the only reason this got repealed is because Republicans, as a higher class in the political system, want to control the lower class. After all, if it's important to note that a majority of Americans don't care about abortion, then it also seems important to note that they didn't go out and vote against it. And if the government is making these choices against the voice of the greater public, well then that sounds kinda dictatorship-esque, don't you think?


----------



## seany1990 (Jun 26, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> No, it's not. Just because you don't get your way all the time doesn't mean the system suddenly doesn't work for you.


Just because you can't understand an extremely simple concept doesn't mean I am wrong


----------



## Korozin (Jun 26, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> You can advocate for equal rights for everyone without being a feminist. From my perspective, feminism isn't about making women equal to men in terms of rights, but to make women superior to men by constantly putting them down and making men feel worthless, like what they say men do to them. I won't deny some women who identify as feminists genuinely want equal rights as men (which, nowadays, it pretty much is) without all the vitriol, but down at the core of it, it is evil and the core beliefs are to just put men down.
> 
> I'm not against equal rights for everyone, but feminism is a big no from me.


You're not completely wrong, there are a lot of feminists who believe men should be put down - but that ideal is incredibly hypocritical because if you're fighting for equal rights, then why try to demean the other side? So I do agree with you there; it's why I choose to associate with equal rights in general and not with feminism specifically. There's also a huge stigma around the association, and people seem to automatically associate anyone involved with the Rad-Fems, which like I said is over-generalizing. There's going to be bad parts of every community, that's a given since there is no place on earth where everyone does the right thing; there's always going to be the few that ruin everything for the rest. While I don't think feminism in itself is inherently evil, there are definitely some bad people associated with it that - like you said want to put people down rather than get equal rights.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 26, 2022)

Korozin said:


> You're not completely wrong, there are a lot of feminists who believe men should be put down - but that ideal is incredibly hypocritical because if you're fighting for equal rights, then why try to demean the other side? So I do agree with you there; it's why I choose to associate with equal rights in general and not with feminism specifically. There's also a huge stigma around the association, and people seem to automatically associate anyone involved with the Rad-Fems, which like I said is over-generalizing. There's going to be bad parts of every community, that's a given since there is no place on earth where everyone does the right thing; there's always going to be the few that ruin everything for the rest. While I don't think feminism in itself is inherently evil, there are definitely some bad people associated with it that - like you said want to put people down rather than get equal rights.



Are the feminists who you are mad about in the room with us right now?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 26, 2022)

emigre said:


> I'm British and we don't have schools getting shot up so often we need the kids to do drills on it. We had one instance of that happening and had strict gun control introduced.
> 
> We also have readily available abortions because we aren't completely overrun by right wing extremism.


Well, yes and no - I wouldn’t necessarily state they’re “readily available”. Yes, abortions in the UK are legal, but there are some stipulations:

They must take place within the first 24 weeks (exceptions made when the health of the mother is threatened or there’s severe foetal abnormality present)
They require approval from two doctors
Those two separate doctors must agree that childbirth would carry a higher risk to physical and mental health than termination in the specific case they’re deliberating
Northern Ireland is the exception to the rules above. In NI you can only get an abortion if the woman’s life is at risk or there’s foetal abnormality present
This is more restrictive than in many U.S. states - in California abortion is elective and available up until foetal viability (24-28 weeks) with an option for late term abortion in some exceptional circumstances. You don’t need anyone’s approval.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 26, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> A new CBS poll drop and it seems The majority of people don't give a crap about abortion and it is in 6th place.  there are more important issues like inflation and the economy
> 
> 1. Inflation - 82%
> 2. Economy - 80%
> ...


Oh no, people are talking about current events! This isn't evidence of anything other than the nature of how popular events are talked about.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, yes and no - I wouldn’t necessarily state they’re “readily available”. Yes, abortions in the UK are legal, but there are some stipulations:
> 
> Those two separate doctors must agree that childbirth would carry a higher risk to physical and mental health than termination in the specific case they’re deliberating


If this is an actual legal restriction in the UK, then I was completely unaware of it and have never heard it mentioned before by people with experience and childfree communities that regularly discuss the topic of access to abortion. From this I conclude that it's a technical formality that doesn't have any effect on people's actual access to abortion in typical/most cases. Either it's only actively applied (as opposed to ticked off as a formality) in specific situations where mental health is relevant, or it's just one of those old laws that's still on the books but isn't given more than lip service in the modern world.


----------



## Korozin (Jun 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Are the feminists who you are mad about in the room with us right now?


I wasn't saying I was mad about any - rather what I was saying is that there are definitely bad parts of the feminist community. But like I said in my post earlier the same goes for literally any group of people, it doesn't matter your race, religion, orientation; or anything. There will always be the extremes of any community and that's what most people come to associate with them since it's so in your face that that's all they remember. I'm not trying to actively say anything against or even be "mad" at anyone associated. Just saying a simple statement.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 26, 2022)

Korozin said:


> I wasn't saying I was mad about any - rather what I was saying is that there are definitely bad parts of the feminist community. But like I said in my post earlier the same goes for literally any group of people, it doesn't matter your race, religion, orientation; or anything. There will always be the extremes of any community and that's what most people come to associate with them since it's so in your face that that's all they remember. I'm not trying to actively say anything against or even be "mad" at anyone associated. Just saying a simple statement.


I think it's a little ridiculous to shy away from calling yourself a feminist because people would be upset to hear it, knowing that any ideas you spout that aren't as monogamous and heterosexual as possible will get pushback either way.

Like, shit, I'm a feminist and I own that shit. If someone thinks all feminists = radfems, then they're either stupid, or not worth debating the idea with because they get all their info from psychotic youtubers. The number of radfems is astronomically low in comparison to actual feminists that I think even acknowledging them beyond "they exist by law of numbers" is overstating them.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 26, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> A new CBS poll drop and it seems The majority of people don't give a crap about abortion and it is in 6th place.  there are more important issues like inflation and the economy
> 
> 1. Inflation - 82%
> 2. Economy - 80%
> ...


That's not how you Interpret that poll


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 26, 2022)

SG854 said:


> That's not how you Interpret that poll


Ssssh, don't interfere with their virtue signalling.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 26, 2022)

Pretty sure people will be voting based off the imminent recession lol. Not because women can't kill there babies


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 26, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Pretty sure people will be voting based off the imminent recession lol. Not because women can't kill there babies


I feel bad for anyone stupid enough to vote for Republicans thinking they can fix a global economic disaster in just one country lmao


----------



## MariArch (Jun 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I feel bad for anyone stupid enough to vote for Republicans thinking they can fix a global economic disaster in just one country lmao


Gas prices are the main driver of inflation
Energy companies won't invest in an energy sector the administration literally said they're trying to undermine on the campaign trail.
We have the capability to be energy independent if we were to back off from fucking with the energy sector.
The president insists on Spending money on stupid shit when the last thing we need be doing is spending
Yeah, I'm pretty sure kneecapping this god awful administration may be a good solution.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 26, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Gas prices are the main driver of inflation
> Energy companies won't invest in an energy sector the administration literally said they're trying to undermine on the campaign trail.
> The president insists on Spending money on stupid shit when the last thing we need be doing is spending
> Yeah, I'm pretty sure kneecapping this god awful administration may be a good solution.


Oh god lol where do you people come up with this nonsense??
When he stopped the doomed-to-fail Keystone project in 2021, gas prices hardly fluctuated. They're not going up because we aren't making enough, they're going up because gas companies felt like they can charge people extra just to save their bottom line in global turmoil. When gas prices were this high under Bush, I don't remember hearing any of you weirdo rightoids saying anything about it being his fault. Strange. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil-trump-saudi-specialreport-idUSKBN22C1V4
lmao btw


----------



## MariArch (Jun 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Oh god lol where do you people come up with this nonsense??
> When he stopped the doomed-to-fail Keystone project in 2021, gas prices hardly fluctuated. They're not going up because we aren't making enough, they're going up because gas companies felt like they can charge people extra just to save their bottom line in global turmoil. When gas prices were this high under Bush, I don't remember hearing any of you weirdo rightoids saying anything about it being his fault. Strange.
> 
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil-trump-saudi-specialreport-idUSKBN22C1V4
> lmao btw


Sir, Gas is more that double last year. Even before February and the apparent "Putin Price Hike" gas prices were still about a dollar more that it was last year. Perhaps not immediate, but gradual. And lmao, yeah I bet the gas companies just decided that they should jump on the greed train right now. Question: why wouldn't they have em.. idk.. always overcharged for gas. Gas prices today are set by speculation on supply at a later date, not because the gas companies are out to get people lol.

Also idk what that reuters article has to do with anything lmao. If you can remember back to when that was happening, it's because Russia and SA was having some oil war or whatever, so it was crashing our domestic energy sector. Completely unrelated.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 26, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> If this is an actual legal restriction in the UK, then I was completely unaware of it and have never heard it mentioned before by people with experience and childfree communities that regularly discuss the topic of access to abortion. From this I conclude that it's a technical formality that doesn't have any effect on people's actual access to abortion in typical/most cases. Either it's only actively applied (as opposed to ticked off as a formality) in specific situations where mental health is relevant, or it's just one of those old laws that's still on the books but isn't given more than lip service in the modern world.


It’s the law. Whether doctors adhere to the law or not is a different matter. Kind of how informed consent is required in many states, which translates to giving the patient a pamphlet to read in the waiting room. In fact, technically speaking abortion in the UK is illegal under the Offendes Against the Person Act of 1861 and carries the penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment *except* in the specific circumstances described in the Abortion Act of 1967.

https://www.bpas.org/get-involved/campaigns/briefings/abortion-law/

It’s not an elective procedure you’re allowed upon request - in the law’s eyes it’s the doctors who decide. It’s significantly more restrictive than in many U.S. states, at least on paper. Of course doctors understand the value of discretion and usually they go along with what the patient wants, but the circumstances of the patient must warrant the procedure in some way.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 26, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Sir, Gas is more that double last year. Even before February and the apparent "Putin Price Hike" gas prices were still about a dollar more that it was last year. Perhaps not immediate, but gradual. And lmao, yeah I bet the gas companies just decided that they should jump on the greed train right now. Question: why wouldn't they have em.. idk.. always overcharged for gas. Gas prices today are set by speculation on supply at a later date, not because the gas companies are out to get people lol.
> 
> Also idk what that reuters article has to do with anything lmao. If you can remember back to when that was happening, it's because Russia and SA was having some oil war or whatever, so it was crashing our domestic energy sector. Completely unrelated.


Because they're getting in trouble for it??? There's literally lawsuits ramping up now against them for doing so. Companies have *always* used global turmoil as an excuse to start overcharging for things. Uber and DoorDash for example famously got in trouble for raising prices for themselves and not paying their drivers. I genuinely do not think your basic youtuber-fed understanding of economics is doing the absolute clusterfuck that is global economics justice.

Got bad news for you on the "sir" part, lmfao.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Because they're getting in trouble for it??? There's literally lawsuits ramping up now against them for doing so. Companies have *always* used global turmoil as an excuse to start overcharging for things. Uber and DoorDash for example famously got in trouble for raising prices for themselves and not paying their drivers. I genuinely do not think your basic youtuber-fed understanding of economics is doing the absolute clusterfuck that is global economics justice.
> 
> Got bad news for you on the "sir" part, lmfao.


https://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_industry_responds_to_biden_letter-16-jun-2022-169360-article/


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 26, 2022)

MariArch said:


> https://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_industry_responds_to_biden_letter-16-jun-2022-169360-article/


hmm i wonder if a website dedicated to the oil industry would have even the slightest tinge of bias...........


----------



## MariArch (Jun 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> hmm i wonder if a website dedicated to the oil industry would have even the slightest tinge of bias...........


Em.. It's just quoting the letter sent by the API and exxon mobile in response to Biden lol. If you want me to send the letters, I'd be more than happy to do so


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 26, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Em.. It's just quoting the letter sent by the API and exxon mobile in response to Biden lol. If you want me to send the letters, I'd be more than happy to do so


Idk what you expected with this, of _*course*_ oil companies are going to let out crocodile tears over not being able to ravage our environment for their benefit. Doesn't mean it should happen.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Idk what you expected with this, of _*course*_ oil companies are going to let out crocodile tears over not being able to ravage our environment for their benefit. Doesn't mean it should happen.


Ok. Then instead we should just outsource our oil to other countries so they can ravage their environment? lol. This is what I don't understand about your guys' thinking. Why would we not try to help our domestic energy sector when we are just buying foreign oil. Sounds like a much better solution then fucking with the middle east or em:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/17/venezuela-oil-sanctions-chevron/
Outsourcing oil extraction/production is a national security threat. buying from another country isn't making the environment better, it's just going against our best interests.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 26, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Ok. Then instead we should just outsource our oil to other countries so they can ravage their environment? lol. This is what I don't understand about your guys' thinking. Why would we not try to help our domestic energy sector when we are just buying foreign oil. Sounds like a much better solution then fucking with the middle east or em:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/17/venezuela-oil-sanctions-chevron/
> Outsource oil production is a national security threat. buying from another country isn't making the environment better, it's just going against our best interests.









They think the socialist wants an oil industry, oh no no no


----------



## MariArch (Jun 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> They think the socialist wants an oil industry, oh no no no


https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-shifts-focus-to-venezuelan-oil-but-output-is-low-11646694776

"Years of mismanagement, corruption and nationalization of oil ventures caused Venezuela's oil industry—which in the 1990s produced 3.2 million barrels a day—to *crash by 2020*, when output fell to just one-tenth of what it had been."


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 26, 2022)

MariArch said:


> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-shifts-focus-to-venezuelan-oil-but-output-is-low-11646694776
> 
> "Years of mismanagement, corruption and nationalization of oil ventures caused Venezuela's oil industry—which in the 1990s produced 3.2 million barrels a day—to *crash by 2020*, when output fell to just one-tenth of what it had been."


Yeah, because the US and China were fighting over Venezuela for years, and then both left the country out to dry. So now you have leaders in Venezuela who are chasing that Chinese money while the US has done fuck all to help the country, knowing full well we easily could have, and if anything have actively deprived them of assistance. 

This isn't changing the fact that the oil industry as a whole is a literal plague on humanity and we should be focusing on public transportation and renewable energy asap.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s the law. Whether doctors adhere to the law or not is a different matter. Kind of how informed consent is required in many states, which translates to giving the patient a pamphlet to read in the waiting room. In fact, technically speaking abortion in the UK is illegal under the Offendes Against the Person Act of 1861 and carries the penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment *except* in the specific circumstances described in the Abortion Act of 1967.
> 
> https://www.bpas.org/get-involved/campaigns/briefings/abortion-law/
> 
> It’s not an elective procedure you’re allowed upon request - in the law’s eyes it’s the doctors who decide. It’s significantly more restrictive than in many U.S. states, at least on paper. Of course doctors understand the value of discretion and usually they go along with what the patient wants, but the circumstances of the patient must warrant the procedure in some way.


Yes the process involves being "assessed" by a doctor and getting their ok for it, but I haven't heard of it being denied. It's routine questions rather than a difficult battle to convince the doc of the mental health benefits. It's still certainly an indignity that a lot of people in a difficult situation could do without, but the reality is indeed not as strict and old-fashioned as the written law suggests (tho still very strict and old fashioned).


----------



## MariArch (Jun 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Yeah, because the US and China were fighting over Venezuela for years, and then both left the country out to dry. So now you have leaders in Venezuela who are chasing that Chinese money while the US has done fuck all to help the country, knowing full well we easily could have, and if anything have actively deprived them of assistance.
> 
> This isn't changing the fact that the oil industry as a whole is a literal plague on humanity and we should be focusing on public transportation and renewable energy asap.


Lol ok. And it's that exact thinking and excuses making that will cost Biden the midterms.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 26, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Lol ok. And it's that exact thinking and excuses making that will cost Biden the midterms.


I think it's funny you assume I like Biden just because I think you're misinformed. Quit living on rhetoric.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 26, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Yes the process involves speaking to a doctor and getting their ok for it, but I haven't heard of it being denied. It's routine questions rather than a difficult battle to convince the doc of the mental health benefits. It's still certainly an indignity that a lot of people in a difficult situation could do without, but the reality is indeed not as strict and old-fashioned as the written law suggests.


Abortion in the UK can be denied by the GP’s, there is no legally protected right to choose. That was my point and that’s what the law says. People who say otherwise about abortion in Britain are either uninformed (if they’re unaware of the specifics) or lying (if they have an agenda).


----------



## MariArch (Jun 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I think it's funny you assume I like Biden just because I think you're misinformed. Quit living on rhetoric.


Never said you liked Biden. I assume you like Crazy Bernie or Pocahontas. My point is that Biden's administration talks exactly like this:

"Sir, families are feeling the cost at the pump"

"Well they wouldn't feel that if they went electric, now would they!?"

It's being that out of touch that will cost em big time


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Abortion in the UK can be denied by the GP’s, there is no legally protected right to choose. That was my point and that’s what the law says. People who say otherwise about abortion in Britain are either uninformed (if they’re unaware of the specifics) or lying (if they have an agenda).


Ok? Law as it is actively enforced rather than law as it stands on paper is what actually matters. Don't make me start pulling out all those lists of ridiculous old laws that are still technically in force in the various parts of the US.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 26, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Never said you liked Biden. I assume you like Crazy Bernie or Pocahontas. My point is that Biden's administration talks exactly like this:
> 
> "Sir, families are feeling the cost at the pump"
> 
> ...


Does it bother you at all that your only method of engaging against my position is entirely through the strawmanning of someone who isn't even here?? lmao

genuinely fucking embarrassing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 26, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Ok? Law as it is actively enforced rather than law as it stands on paper is what actually matters. Don't make me start pulling out all those lists of ridiculous old laws that are still technically in force in the various parts of the US.


Well, we have to argue about reality, not hypotheticals. The law is what it is. If we’re comparing the law in the U.S. states and in the UK, we have to go by what the law says, not by how people want it to say.

*Snip!*


----------



## MariArch (Jun 26, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, we have to argue about reality, not hypotheticals. The law is what it is. If we’re comparing the law in the U.S. states and in the UK, we have to go by what the law says, not by how people want it to say.
> 
> *Snip!*


Should've gone to Iceland. Where they actively perform eugenics on children with down syndrome


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 26, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, we have to argue about reality, not hypotheticals.


I'm literally talking about the reality. What actually happens. That's more real than words on paper. (I think it's called "living law", maybe it's a part of the civilised world that hasn't made it to your neck of the woods)
Some of you in this thread have made it very clear that you base your existence around deep-throating the all-important Constitution, but the rest of us find actual reality more important than crumbly old documents.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 26, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Should've gone to Iceland. Where they actively perform eugenics on children with down syndrome.


I misread the case, actually - abortions in those cases are permissible, the woman was arguing the opposite, so that’s my bad. I’ve edited my post to remove that reference, for the sake of clarity. That’s not to say that abortions are never denied, see link below.


hippy dave said:


> I'm literally talking about the reality. What actually happens. That's more real than words on paper. (I think it's called "living law", maybe it's a part of the civilised world that hasn't made it to your neck of the woods)
> Some of you in this thread have made it very clear that you base your existence around deep-throating the all-important Constitution, but the rest of us find actual reality more important than crumbly old documents.


Yeah, I like to operate within the confines of what doesn’t land me in jail for 14 years, namely the law.  We have to compare like to like - in many U.S. states you can simply walk in to a clinic and request an abortion, chat with a doctor once, job done. That is not the case in the UK, and that’s a fact.

Here’s an article with the specifics on abortions being denied or postponed past the legal cut-off limit (which is effectively a denial) in the UK:

https://www.bpas.org/about-our-char...-continue-pregnancies-that-risk-their-health/

We can’t pretend that it doesn’t happen when there are documented cases that prove otherwise.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I feel bad for anyone stupid enough to vote for Republicans thinking they can fix a global economic disaster in just one country lmao


Grrrrrrrrr Trump, I bet that's what you say every day, or maybe you blame Putin.

The reality is that the Dems are wrecking your country, in less than 2 years in power they have managed to run it into the ground. I wonder what it will be like in another 2 years?


----------



## mrdude (Jun 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> hmm i wonder if a website dedicated to the oil industry would have even the slightest tinge of bias...........


I was thinking the same thing about the politicains that have shares in pharmaceutical companies and arms companies, and when you have scientists and the media sponsored by companies such as pfizer.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 26, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Grrrrrrrrr Trump, I bet that's what you say every day, or maybe you blame Putin.
> 
> The relaity is that the Dems are wrecking your country, in less than 2 years in power they have managed to run it into the ground. I wonder what it will be like in another 2 years?


Dude. Come on. "Relaity?" Don't bother insulting me if you can't spell a seven letter word.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Dude. Come on. "Relaity?" Don't bother insulting me if you can't spell a seven letter word.


Grrrrrrrrrr, it's Trumps Putins fault.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 26, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Grrrrrrrrrr, it's Trumps Putins fault.


Get new material, NPC. You're boring.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 26, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Get new material, NPC. You're boring.


Grrrrrrrrrrr


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 26, 2022)

Is funny really the hypocrisy of Europe


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 27, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Grrrrrrrrrr, it's Trumps Putins fault.


Just because you're as smart as a dog doesn't mean you should growl like one.


----------



## DKAngel (Jun 27, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Mmmm nah, all feminism is evil, plain and simple.
> 
> 
> You wanna first? I'll do it after I had a few kids if necessary. But
> ...


guns used for protection.....well where i live i don't have crazy people shooting up schools and i don't feel unsafe enough that i have to carry a gun on the streets where i live. Americans cant even follow their own laws lol guns for protections...not killing innocent kids


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 27, 2022)

DKAngel said:


> guns used for protection.....well where i live i don't have crazy people shooting up schools and i don't feel unsafe enough that i have to carry a gun on the streets where i live. Americans cant even follow their own laws lol guns for protections...not killing innocent kids


I like firearms and I believe that with openly fascist rhetoric and ramping up genocidal policies against trans people, I should own a firearm to protect myself against an increasingly hostile state and their followers.

And I *still* think we need to increase security and control on firearms because it's clear that too many bad people are getting them.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s the opposite of an activist court, they’re reversing an activist decision on the basis of interpreting text as it is written, which is the only interpretation that should ever be used when it comes to law.


A court that makes rulings based on dogma has outlived both its usefulness and its integrity.  I say burn the motherfucker down before it strips us of all our other individual liberties.  They've already signaled that's the plan.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> A court that makes rulings based on dogma has outlived both its usefulness and its integrity.  I say burn the motherfucker down before it strips us of all our other individual liberties.  They've already signaled that's the plan.


Precisely. I think it's funny that people claim this court is just "reversing an activist decision" given that one of the members was EXPLICITLY CHOSEN because he is as anti-abortion as a SCOTUS judge comes.

Give me a break, does anyone actually believe shit like this when they say it??


----------



## MariArch (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> A court that makes rulings based on dogma has outlived both its usefulness and its integrity.  I say burn the motherfucker down before it strips us of all our other individual liberties.  They've already signaled that's the plan.


Yes, dogma. As in the constitution. They follow the constitution. 
There's no right to non-traditional marriage or a right to sodomy or a right to contraceptives laid out in the constitution.
Thus they're not actual rights, or at least shouldn't be under the current constitution.
If you wanted them as  rights, you pass an amendment, not rely on "a court that makes rulings based on dogma" to make it a right. That's exactly how any of those became rights in the first place, because the left wing activist court made up shit thats wasnt on the constitution, nor is on the constitution today.
If we had a court that did their job, they'd overturn all these phony rulings not in the constitution and tell our legislators to pass them as amendments if they really want them.

But we can go with your idea of "burning it down" If you want. We can quicken the national divorce and not delay the inevitable


----------



## Xzi (Jun 27, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Yes, dogma. As in the constitution. They follow the constitution.


As in the bible.  The decision cites ACB's cult-like religious beliefs multiple times throughout.  Meaning the decision is invalid as far as I'm concerned.



MariArch said:


> Thus they're not actual rights, or at least shouldn't be under the current constitution.


As long as the court is willing to wipe their asses with the constitution, we have no actual rights.  Or rather, the only individual rights and freedoms we'll have from now on are those that we can defend ourselves.  Nothing is guaranteed with the tide of fascism on the rise.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> As in the bible.  The decision cites ACB's cult-like religious beliefs multiple times throughout.  Meaning the decision is invalid as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> 
> As long as the court is willing to wipe their asses with the constitution, we have no actual rights.  Or rather, the only individual rights and freedoms we'll have from now on are those that we can defend ourselves.  Nothing is guaranteed with the tide of fascism on the rise.


1. No, no it doesn't lol. Coney Barrett didn't write the decision nor did she write a concurrence. Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. And if you actually read it, youd know that a  fuck ton of it was tearing apart bad law that just doesn't make any fucking sense.

2. The court just reaffirmed an actual right in the constitution the day before. That being the right to bear arms lol. As far as I'm concerned, the left seeks to pack the courts with their activists so they can continue a long legacy of making up shit that's not in the constitution. And I'll be happy when they do, because once that happens, conservative states will just ignore the corrupt courts and go by the actual constitution.

The funny part is that this recent overturning and any of the other ones you mention doesnt require left wing states to do anything, it just allows right wing states to do what they want to do lol.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> A court that makes rulings based on dogma has outlived both its usefulness and its integrity.  I say burn the motherfucker down before it strips us of all our other individual liberties.  They've already signaled that's the plan.


What makes you think that the decision is based on dogma? The justification for the repeal is perfectly adequate, the constitutionality of Roe was always questionable, and hotly debated for decades. The reasoning is very simple. Right to Privacy is not enumerated. Even if it was enumerated, or otherwise justified via substantive due process, it would have no consequence on whether or not a patient can get access to a procedure - that has nothing to do with privacy. Either a treatment is restricted or it isn’t - privacy concerns only arise when a patient’s information is publicly disseminated. Doctor-patient confidentiality does not enable prescribing otherwise restricted treatments. How is all that “based on dogma”? It’s based on the Constitution, or more specifically on the way the 14th Amendment was misinterpreted in the Roe case.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 27, 2022)

MariArch said:


> 1. No, no it doesn't lol. Coney Barrett didn't write the decision nor did she write a concurrence. Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. And if you actually read it, youd know that know that fuck ton of it was tearing apart bad law that just doesn't make any fucking sense.


I'm worried that if I read the whole thing it'll give me a brain tumor, shit is a fucking dumpster fire like conservative justification for authoritarianism always is.



MariArch said:


> 2. The court just reaffirmed an actual right in the constitution the day before. That being the right to bear arms lol.


Guns > human beings, amirite?  Too bad Ford wasn't packing heat the night Kavanaugh got all handsy.


----------



## Korozin (Jun 27, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I think it's a little ridiculous to shy away from calling yourself a feminist because people would be upset to hear it, knowing that any ideas you spout that aren't as monogamous and heterosexual as possible will get pushback either way.
> 
> Like, shit, I'm a feminist and I own that shit. If someone thinks all feminists = radfems, then they're either stupid, or not worth debating the idea with because they get all their info from psychotic youtubers. The number of radfems is astronomically low in comparison to actual feminists that I think even acknowledging them beyond "they exist by law of numbers" is overstating them.


Sorry for late the response, but you are correct. The number of radfems is the minority of the actual group, such as the extremists of any group are usually the minority; like from my example before - if someone in a group of people murders another person, that doesn't make every single person in the group a murderer thus that's not what people should associate the original group with.

Also yes I can see how it'd be ridiculous to shy away from something because it upsets other people - which is true for most people but I guess it's just a me thing. I hate upsetting people even if they're blatantly in the wrong; however it's something I've been trying to work past with it being an anxiety problem and such, but anyways that wasn't really the topic, furthering the original topic; I fully support actual feminists and people pushing for equal rights.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Guns > human beings, amirite?  Too bad Ford wasn't packing heat the night Kavanaugh got all handsy.


Slander. Ford had 40 years to contact the police.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I'm worried that if I read the whole thing it'll give me a brain tumor, shit is a fucking dumpster fire like conservative justification for authoritarianism always is.
> 
> 
> Guns > human beings, amirite?  Too bad Ford wasn't packing heat the night Kavanaugh got all handsy.


I urge you to read it and tell me what's not following the constitution lol.

It wouldn't have mattered if she was packing heat because she'd have noone to shoot because theres no evidence that happened lol. But please keep going off on your schizo witch-hunts like the left does.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Slander. Ford had 40 years to contact the police.


And many women never do, for any number of reasons.  That's beside the point though, I'd highly recommend they all arm up now.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: force is the only language fascists understand, and they won't settle for abortion being banned in only half the country.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> And many women never do, for any number of reasons.  That's beside the point though, I'd highly recommend they all arm up now.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: force is the only language fascists understand, and they won't settle for abortion being banned in only half the country.


 Why stop at women? I can get behind a national firearm ownership mandate for all lawful citizens.

Now you're speaking my language


----------



## Xzi (Jun 27, 2022)

MariArch said:


> Why stop at women? I can get behind a national firearm ownership mandate for all lawful citizens.
> 
> Now you're speaking my language


Everybody would rather kill than be killed, but if that's all the law boils down to in this country, it's still a sign of total collapse.  C'est la vie.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> And many women never do, for any number of reasons.  That's beside the point though, I'd highly recommend they all arm up now.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: force is the only language fascists understand, and they won't settle for abortion being banned in only half the country.


I encourage all sexual assault victims to go to the police immediately while evidence is easy to find. If I hear tall tales several decades later, those are extraordinary claims that I expect to be backed up by extraordinary evidence, especially when there’s a political agenda involved. Saying that Kavanaugh is a rapist is no different than saying Biden is a rapist - he got accused too, with no evidence to back the claim up.

I disagree with your reasoning, but I absolutely support women getting armed to protect themselves. Everybody has a second amendment right to bear arms, they should take advantage of it before the authoritarians try to take it away.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 27, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> And here's a video where a Republican senator is advocating hunting other Republicans that aren't "really" Republican. Sounds like you can find scum on both sides of the political spectrum. Too bad it's currently the Republican party dehumanizing people in the name of control, backed by outdated draconian mentalities.



Maybe both are. I gave up on both parties some time ago, but Democrats are still much, much worse.


seany1990 said:


> Just because you can't understand an extremely simple concept doesn't mean I am wrong


No, you're wrong because it's YOU who doesn't understand.


DKAngel said:


> guns used for protection.....well where i live i don't have crazy people shooting up schools and i don't feel unsafe enough that i have to carry a gun on the streets where i live. Americans cant even follow their own laws lol guns for protections...not killing innocent kids


And if you saw someone shooting innocent civilians, you blow them away first or as soon as possible, like this brave woman.


----------



## DKAngel (Jun 27, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Maybe both are. I gave up on both parties some time ago, but Democrats are still much, much worse.
> 
> No, you're wrong because it's YOU who doesn't understand.
> 
> And if you saw someone shooting innocent civilians, you blow them away first or as soon as possible, like this brave woman.


yeah nah because funny enough our gun laws over here have stopped most mass shootings we have had what 3 since our last major one over 20 years ago we changed the gun laws and well its been pretty good since then, there doesnt seem to be not even a month we hear over here another shooting in america. the rest of the world see's you as whackos, and not the abortion ruling, well


----------



## KidIce (Jun 27, 2022)

I don't usually get involved in this sort of thing on GBAtemp. I come here for gaming news and device hacking news/tutorials. I'd really actually prefer it if this conversation was taken elsewhere. I'd like politics to stay out of my hacking/gaming info/forum.

That being said, the job of SCOTUS is to interpret the US constitution and decide if laws that have been made are legal if under the constitution... The constitution being held as the ultimate law of the land.

Their job/duty is not to decide whether the constitution is moral, right or "in the best interest" of the people. If they are doing their job properly they assume (whether they agree or not) that the US constitution is the ultimate law in the USA. Through their interpretations of the constitution they are bound to enforce its declarations of rights.

Abortion is never mentioned in the US constitution. No matter who or what tells you other wise, it was NEVER a constitutional right.  Row vs Wade was garbage law from the get go. It never should have come to SCOTUS and they should have just kicked it out. No mater what side you are on, even w/o a law degree... If you read the constitution and understand SCOTUS' job (and you're honest about your findings) RvW law should have never been a thing.

I do not want to make abortion illegal. I am not a "day of conception/christian" fundamentalist. I will be honest, I want abortion to be safe, legal and rare.

And again that being said, I decided to post because from what I have read in this thread there is SOOOOOO much ignorance about how the US government is supposed to work. What SCOTUS is supposed to do. ANNND Sooo on...


----------



## Xzi (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I encourage all sexual assault victims to go to the police immediately while evidence is easy to find.


Why bother?  The police are useless for anything other than showing up two hours after a crime has already been committed, then shooting your dog.  They don't take thefts, rapes, or most crimes seriously, either.  Easier to double-tap a would-be rapist and justify it to a court later.  Especially in cases where that would-be rapist is a cop himself.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 27, 2022)

DKAngel said:


> yeah nah because funny enough our gun laws over here have stopped most mass shootings we have had what 3 since our last major one over 20 years ago we changed the gun laws and well its been pretty good since then, there doesnt seem to be not even a month we hear over here another shooting in america. the rest of the world see's you as whackos, and not the abortion ruling, well


If people had more guns and less of the stupid and ineffective gun laws criminals would think twice and have more fear from doing what they do. I don't know what country your in or how it works, and quite frankly, I really do not give two shits because I live in America and I solve problems in my own country. The rest of the world can go screw themselves with whatever backwards laws they put in for all I care.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Why bother?  The police are useless for anything other than showing up two hours after a crime has already been committed, then shooting your dog.  They don't take thefts, rapes, or most crimes seriously, either.  Easier to double-tap a would-be rapist and justify it to a court later.  Especially in cases where that would-be rapist is a cop himself.


Always shoot rapists, I can get behind that (better than in front, I don’t want to get shot).

Having testified as a witness in a rape case I can attest to the relative uselessness of the legal system (they didn’t even provide me basic protection, the guy who did it was right there, I didn’t want him to see my face or know my name, but oh well), it took forever and by the time I was on the stand I simply forgot many of the details, but in the end he got sent straight to prison, so big W all things considered.

In any case, getting a doctor’s exam early allows law enforcement to collect valuable evidence like DNA samples, not to mention that a rape can cause internal damage to the body that should get looked at immediately. They should always go to the police as quickly as possible and do things right.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Always shoot rapists, I can get behind that (better than in front, I don’t want to get shot).
> 
> Having testified as a witness in a rape case I can attest to the relative uselessness of the legal system (they didn’t even provide me basic protection, the guy who did it was right there, I didn’t want him to see my face or know my name, but oh well), it took forever and by the time I was on the stand I simply forgot many of the details, but in the end he got sent straight to jail, so big W all things considered.
> 
> In any case, getting a doctor’s exam early allows law enforcement to collect valuable evidence like DNA samples, not to mention that a rape can cause internal damage to a woman’s body that should get looked at immediately. They should always go to the police as quickly as possible and do things right.


A lot depends on the quality of the police in your specific area, though, and in the states where abortion is now/will now be banned, I doubt they've been historically good about handling these issues.  Let alone how much worse they'll get going forward with the new laws to embolden them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> A lot depends on the quality of the police in your specific area, though, and in the states where abortion is now/will now be banned, I doubt they've been historically good about handling these issues.  Let alone how much worse they'll get going forward with the new laws to embolden them.


I still lean towards some evidence over no evidence at all. Even if law enforcement is incompetent at any given time, the statute of limitations on rape is pretty long and cases can be reopened. A semen or blood sample can *eventually* lead to justice being served, testimony alone ain’t worth shit. An allegation is just an allegation - words are cheap. We have law, we should follow it. If you just wave your hand because “the police won’t do anything about it”, you have nobody to blame but yourself. I could’ve ignored that chick screaming behind the dumpsters too and not call the police, but I chose to call them, put my heavy boots on (in case I needed to kick the shit out of someone - I wasn’t armed) and went downstairs anyway. The cops showed up surprisingly quickly - by the time I was out of the building they were already there with guns at the ready, I just needed to show them the way. They caught the guy balls deep, so there really was no “arguing his way” out of that.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Jun 27, 2022)

I can't believe that in at least one state, the punishment for an abortion is worse than the punishment for a rapist.

I am a Christian, but I also think outside the "box" plenty of times. My religion, while generally opposed to abortion, does feel that there are exceptions. Rape, incest, and danger to the mother are all instances of that. One thing they also understand is that they don't side with any groups about the scenario. Their belief on the matter is for themselves, not for those outside of it. I just hate that there are religious groups that are really pushing for the ban when it really doesn't concern them at all.

My own thoughts on abortion go beyond what my religion sets. A couple could be having a baby, all prepared for it, but what if something happens during the pregnancy that prevents them from being able to support the child? Or people who do all they can to not get pregnant (condoms, morning after pill, etc) but the slim odds beat all that? And what about these stupid kids that go about having unprotected sex? Someone really want to tell these irresponsible kids that they have to carry this baby to terms? What about after? Do they really think a child born to such "parents" is going to be ok? Is this supposed to be some life lesson?

Such people are so pro-life for the unborn child, but the moment they are born, they either turn their backs on them, or condemn the mothers for requesting support. Bad enough that America's healthcare system is broken, where even giving birth is so outrageously expensive compared to other countries where they not only allow abortion, but their healthcare systems are far better too.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I still lean towards some evidence over no evidence at all. Even if law enforcement is incompetent at any given time, the statute of limitations on rape is pretty long and cases can be reopened. A semen or blood sample can *eventually* lead to justice being served, testimony alone ain’t worth shit. An allegation is just an allegation - words are cheap. We have law, we should follow it. If you just wave your hand because “the police won’t do anything about it”, you have nobody to blame but yourself. I could’ve ignored that chick screaming behind the dumpsters too and not call the police, but I chose to call them, put my heavy boots on (in case I needed to kick the shit out of someone - I wasn’t armed) and went downstairs anyway. The cops showed up surprisingly quickly - by the time I was out of the building they were already there with guns at the ready, I just needed to show them the way. They caught the guy balls deep, so there really was no “arguing his way” out of that.


I don't doubt your story, but again it's anecdotal to the county you live in.  I'd recommend getting a medical exam on record anywhere in the country, sure, but you don't necessarily need to get the police involved for that.  Just depends on how wary your community is of police, because where they are, there's good reason for it.  Anecdotally, there have even been cases where rape victims were raped again by police while in custody.  I'd say they should only communicate with cops through a lawyer instead, but that advice is not helpful to people who live paycheck to paycheck.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I don't doubt your story, but again it's anecdotal to the county you live in.  I'd recommend getting a medical exam on record anywhere in the country, sure, but you don't necessarily need to get the police involved for that.  Just depends on how wary your community is of police, because where they are, there's good reason for it.  Anecdotally, there have even been cases where rape victims were raped again by police while in custody.  I'd say they should only communicate with cops through a lawyer instead, but that advice is not helpful to people who live paycheck to paycheck.


Okay, now *that’s* an anecdote. When did that happen in custody, in the 1920’s, in Asshole County? What’s the likelyhood of that happening to any random woman today? One in a million? Let’s be real here - your odds of getting justice are better when you go to the police. In fact, that’s pretty much your only option after the fact. I don’t understand why you’d disincentivise that, even if you “hate cops”. I’m not a big fan of the state either, I don’t think the police is competent, but at the very least you have a paper trail and a potential investigation versus… what? Crying in the shower? Stop being so cynical, this is not useful advice.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Okay, now *that’s* an anecdote. When did that happen in custody, in the 1920’s, in Asshole County?


Last one I can find is from 2010, I guess a more recent one I was seeing was about police in India.  There are plenty of very recent stories about American police raping women in custody in general, though, not solely rape victims.



Foxi4 said:


> I don’t understand why you’d disincentivise that, even if you “hate cops”. I’m not a big fan of the state either, I don’t think the police is competent, but at the very least you have a paper trail and a potential investigation versus… what? Crying in the shower? Stop being so cynical, this is not useful advice.


"Potential" investigation is correct, in many cases the cops will do nothing and victims will be left with no recourse other than crying in the shower anyway.  My recommendation was to shoot would-be rapists beforehand, but that's not always going to be a realistic option either.  There is no perfect solution, but I propose we start by treating rape as a more serious crime than aborting a rapist's baby.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Stop being so cynical, this is not useful advice


Oh boy the irony of this statement from you.


Foxi4 said:


> The cops showed up surprisingly quickly - by the time I was out of the building they were already there with guns at the ready, I just needed to show them the way. They caught the guy balls deep, so there really was no “arguing his way” out of that.


Catching certain crimes "in the act" is largely impossible, This episode of yours is rarer than a lucky break.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Last one I can find is from 2010, I guess a more recent one I was seeing was about police in India.  There are plenty of very recent stories about American police raping women in custody in general, though, not solely rape victims. "Potential" investigation is correct, in many cases the cops will do nothing and victims will be left with no recourse other than crying in the shower anyway.  My recommendation was to shoot would-be rapists beforehand, but that's not always going to be a realistic option either.  There is no perfect solution, but I propose we start by treating rape as a more serious crime than aborting a rapist's baby.


The notion that women shouldn’t report getting raped because “they might get raped by the police” is absolutely ridiculous - you can’t seriously think that. What else shouldn’t women do? Call in a plumber during a leak because they might get raped? I had a look into this, and you know what? Between 2005 and 2013 there were 405 raped committed by police officers - not in custody, not on duty, just in general. This is by no means a comprehensive number since data on occupation of rapists is scarce, but it is “a number”, at least. By comparison, there were 139,815 rapes committed in the U.S…. in 2019 alone. Drop in the bucket, buddy - people who are victims of crimes should report them to the cops, period. I totally get that you expect police officers to meet a higher moral standard than the rest of us, but there are black sheep in every profession.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Oh boy the irony of this statement from you. Catching certain crimes "in the act" is largely impossible, This episode of yours is rarer than a lucky break.


It’s what happened, I don’t know what to tell you. Perhaps they were on patrol anyway.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s what happened, I don’t know what to tell you. Perhaps they were on patrol anyway.


That includes you witnessing it and the guy still doing it when the cops arrived.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Between 2005 and 2013 there were 405 raped committed by police officers - not in custody, not on duty, just in general.


I wouldn't say that's an impressively low number, even if it were true.  Logically a high percentage of rapes by pigs would go unreported because you can't expect a woman to report it to their fucking gang pals.



Foxi4 said:


> By comparison, there were 139,815 rapes committed in the U.S…. in 2019 alone. Drop in the bucket, buddy - people who are victims of crimes should report them to the cops, period. I totally get that you expect police officers to meet a higher moral standard than the rest of us, but there are black sheep in every profession.


And those are just the ones we know about.  Many aren't reported, and that's sure as shit not because of anything I've said or done, it's due to police misconduct; particularly when it comes to dealing with poor and/or non-white victims.  They know the best they can hope for is nothing at all.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I wouldn't say that's an impressively low number, even if it were true.  Logically a high percentage of rapes by pigs would go unreported because you can't expect a woman to report it to their fucking gang pals.
> 
> And those are just the ones we know about.  Many aren't reported, and that's sure as shit not because of anything I've said or done, it's due to police misconduct; particularly when it comes to dealing with poor and/or non-white victims.  They know the best they can hope for is nothing at all.


I hope you realise that your brilliant piece of advice would result in more women getting raped, not less, and more rapists getting away with it. It’s foolish and I expected better from you since your posts are otherwise intelligent and worth discussing. This isn’t - I can’t believe you’re saying it in earnest. Newsflash - anyone can get raped at any time by anybody else, regardless of sex and profession. That doesn’t mean that we should live in constant fear and stop participating in civilised society.


Dark_Ansem said:


> That includes you witnessing it and the guy still doing it when the cops arrived.


I don’t really care if you believe me or not, so you can keep the snark. I feel good about how things turned out, my only regret is that I couldn’t stop it from happening altogether, but that was sadly beyond my control.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 27, 2022)

DiscostewSM said:


> I am a Christian, but I also think outside the "box" plenty of times. My religion, while generally opposed to abortion, does feel that there are exceptions. Rape, incest, and danger to the mother are all instances of that.


I keep seeing and hearing people say this phrase on tv and the internet and the one thing i have to ask is WTf do you think u need to add incest as one of the reason....is it really running that rampent in your area that it is a huge problem....where im from that shits kind of frowned apon.


----------



## Nezha (Jun 27, 2022)

While I think abortion should be a right, it was a poor choice to tie it to the constitution as they have nothing to do with that. It's the same as saying that we need to preserve the ecosystem lest alien bears come and gun us down. Yes. We should preserve the ecosystem, but the reason why is rather schizophrenic, so you're unlikely to gain favor among those who may disagree for different reasons.

Also I envy anyone who truly believed there are rights that are inviolable. I'm not native to the US, so maybe I have a different perspective, but it takes some naivete and lofty view of the government if you ever thought rights granted by it could never be taken away.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

wartutor said:


> I keep seeing and hearing people say this phrase on tv and the internet and the one thing i have to ask is WTf do you think u need to add incest as one of the reason....is it really running that rampent in your area that it is a huge problem....where im from that shits kind of frowned apon.


If USA Today is anything to go by, abortions due to incest account for around 0.5% of the total, so 1 in 200. It’s rare.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I hope you realise that your brilliant piece of advice would result in more women getting raped, not less, and more rapists getting away with it.


Communicating with police exclusively through a lawyer is great advice under any circumstances.  Short of that, my only advice is to know the type of police that you have in your area, and act accordingly.  The legal precedent that police are under no obligation to protect or serve is well documented.  In _some_ communities they do help to mitigate threats, while in others they _are_ the threat.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Communicating with police exclusively through a lawyer is great advice under any circumstances.  Short of that, my only advice is to know the type of police that you have in your area, and act accordingly.  The legal precedent that police are under no obligation to protect or serve is well documented.  In _some_ communities they do help to mitigate threats, while in others they _are_ the threat.


The impression I got from what you said so far was that women should arm themselves for their own protection (good) and shouldn’t contact the police if they do get raped (stupid), opting instead for getting a doctor’s exam and calling it a day because “the police won’t do anything”, or worse. If that’s not what you’re suggesting then that’s fine, I don’t really care if they use a representative or not, it doesn’t make a difference as long as the crime is reported to the authorities. You’re correct in saying that they’re not legally obligated to protect any specific individual (this was discussed extensively in a separate thread, it’s the result of a landmark court case), but they’re still expected to do their job, as in investigate. The idea that the police is “the threat” is hyperbolic to the extreme and I really don’t feel like engaging you about it, you have a hate boner for cops and I get it, we don’t need to delve into it.


----------



## Nezha (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The impression I got from what you said so far was that women should arm themselves for their own protection (good) and shouldn’t contact the police if they do get raped (stupid), opting instead for getting a doctor’s exam and calling it a day because “the police won’t do anything”, or worse. If that’s not what you’re suggesting then that’s fine, I don’t really care if they use a representative or not, it doesn’t make a difference as long as the crime is reported to the authorities. You’re correct in saying that they’re not legally obligated to protect any specific individual (this was discussed extensively in a separate thread, it’s the result of a landmark court case), but they’re still expected to do their job, as in investigate. The idea that the police is “the threat” is hyperbolic to the extreme and I really don’t feel like engaging you about it, you have a hate boner for cops and I get it, we don’t need to delve into it.


I got the same impression, though I hesitated to actually comment on it. I'll piggyback on this to say that there's often outrage, rightfully so, over a lot of unreported cases that let criminals do ever more as they please in some areas and they need to be addressed. However, using scare tactics to reduce confidence in the police isn't exactly what I'd call an efficient way of bringing those people to justice or making a record of said unreported cases.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> If that’s not what you’re suggesting then that’s fine


From the beginning my argument was based on the quality of police in a given state/city/county.  Minneapolis police, for example, have not stopped killing (black) people or even slowed down much since the Chauvin verdict.  Therefore I very much doubt that community trusts them to pursue justice for rape, let alone any lesser crime.  That's not going to change if I scream "BACK THE BLUE" at them, and I of course wouldn't be caught dead saying something so braindead anyway.

Regardless, this whole conversation spun from a one-off comment I made about some states seeking extreme jail sentences (ninety years or even life) for providing abortion services, while only requiring a three year mandatory minimum for convicted rapists.  I'd hope you'd agree that the disparity there is beyond ridiculous.


----------



## Nezha (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> From the beginning my argument was based on the quality of police in a given state/city/county.  Minneapolis police, for example, have not stopped killing (black) people or even slowed down much since the Chauvin verdict.  Therefore I very much doubt that community trusts them to pursue justice for rape, let alone any lesser crime.  That's not going to change if I scream "BACK THE BLUE" at them, and I of course wouldn't be caught dead saying something so braindead anyway.
> 
> Regardless, this whole conversation spun from a one-off comment I made about some states seeking extreme jail sentences (ninety years or even life) for providing abortion services, while only requiring a three year mandatory minimum for convicted rapists.  I'd hope you'd agree that the disparity there is beyond ridiculous.


I believe that's the mandatory minimum set by federal law. This varies greatly otherwise by state and you need a damn good lawyer to get the minimum penalty in an aggravated sexual assault charge. Though true. This is a tangent.

EDIT: It's 6AM and I haven't slept. I just realized that's what you already said. Though I think it's also unfair to compare the minimum extreme to the maximum that hasn't even come to pass from what we know. Especially since you're comparing the *Federal Minimum *which is devoid of state action while comparing it to *Potential State Action.* This is fairly disingenuous.

Anyways, I'll refrain from posting despite my interest in the topic. I'm clearly too fried.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> From the beginning my argument was based on the quality of police in a given state/city/county.  Minneapolis police, for example, have not stopped killing (black) people or even slowed down much since the Chauvin verdict.  Therefore I very much doubt that community trusts them to pursue justice for rape, let alone any lesser crime.  That's not going to change if I scream "BACK THE BLUE" at them, and I of course wouldn't be caught dead saying something so braindead anyway.
> 
> Regardless, this whole conversation spun from a one-off comment I made about some states seeking extreme jail sentences (ninety years or even life) for providing abortion services, while only requiring a three year mandatory minimum for convicted rapists. I'd hope you'd agree that the disparity there is beyond ridiculous.


Rape should be severely punished, yes. I’m not interested in what kinds of trust issues exist in which communities - it’s off-topic and a dead horse - you already know what I think on that matter. I was interested in your stance on reporting heinous crimes to the police at all. Now that you’ve clarified that they should be reported to the police, and if someone feels particularly threatened by cops, they can do so via a representative, we’re good. That is your stance, yes? I like when things are clear.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> That is your stance, yes? I like when things are clear.


More or less, yes.  Police will ignore many of these reports, but it's still worth filing just to have on record if nothing else.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> More or less, yes.  Police will ignore many of these reports, but it's still worth filing just to have on record if nothing else.


Pessimistic, but fair.

Now let’s get back to the “shooting rapists” part, I liked that. What are we talkin’ about here?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Pessimistic, but fair.
> 
> Now let’s get back to the “shooting rapists” part, I liked that. What are we talkin’ about here?


Unfortunately Thomas' and Kavanaugh's houses are heavily guarded.  Bazinga.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> From the beginning my argument was based on the quality of police in a given state/city/county.  Minneapolis police, for example, have not stopped killing (black) people or even slowed down much since the Chauvin verdict.


Don't you mean to say - Stopped Killing Criminals that tried to kill them first? Or are you just race bating because you yourself are an anti white racist with a deep seated hatred for the police - especially the white ones?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Unfortunately Thomas' and Kavanaugh's houses are heavily guarded.  Bazinga.


I hope Biden gets off the hook, I don’t think dementia patients go to the big house, they put them in some nicer accommodation. Boom, kill shot. :V


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 27, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Don't you mean to say - Stopped Killing Criminals that tried to kill them first?


Breonna Taylor was truly trying to kill cops, sleeping in her own goddamn house.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t really care if you believe me or not, so you can keep the snark. I feel good about how things turned out, my only regret is that I couldn’t stop it from happening altogether, but that was sadly beyond my control.


I wasn't being snarky and I have no reason to not trust you, even taking into account your need to be in the center of the attention.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I wasn't being snarky and I have no reason to not trust you, even taking into account your need to be in the center of the attention.


I don’t like to brag, but yes - I am a hero, thank you for noticing my brilliance.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 27, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Breonna Taylor was truly trying to kill cops, sleeping in her own goddamn house.





> Shortly after midnight on March 13, Louisville police officers executing a search warrant used a battering ram to enter the apartment of Ms. Taylor, a 26-year-old emergency room technician.
> 
> The police had been investigating two men who they believed were selling drugs out of a house that was far from Ms. Taylor’s home. But a judge had also signed a warrant allowing the police to search Ms. Taylor’s residence because the police said they believed that one of the men had used her apartment to receive packages. Ms. Taylor had been dating that man on and off for several years but had recently severed ties with him, according to her family’s lawyer.



If you play with fire, you sometimes get burned. The moral of the story is don't hang around with criminals, don't be a criminal and if you are a non law abiding person - be prepared to face the consequences of your own actions. Also accidents sometime happen....


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 27, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Also accidents sometime happen...


And those who cause accidents should pay for it. Not get scott-free. Also, 


mrdude said:


> The moral of the story is don't hang around with criminals, don't be a criminal and if you are a non law abiding person - be prepared to face the consequences of your own actions.


She didn't break any laws. And somehow you think it's fine for her to be a collateral?


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I hope Biden gets off the hook, I don’t think dementia patients go to the big house, they put them in some nicer accommodation. Boom, kill shot. :V



This is the sort of comments we get from mods...


----------



## Maximumbeans (Jun 27, 2022)

I feel for the people who will die and suffer because of choices being taken away from them. That's it really.

I don't think this is something anybody should celebrate regardless of how you feel about abortion itself.


----------



## lokomelo (Jun 27, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> This is the sort of comments we get from mods...


mods are supposed to moderate, but this dude always aggravate every single post he takes part in.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> This is the sort of comments we get from mods...


Grow a sense of humour, maybe. Or at least read the whole exchange, maybe then you’ll pick up that it’s a pretty obvious joke.


lokomelo said:


> mods are supposed to moderate, but this dude always aggravate every single post he takes part in.


I just post what I think - it’s not my fault people are oversensitive.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Grow a sense of humour, maybe. Or at least read the whole exchange, maybe then you’ll pick up that it’s a pretty obvious joke.



You, Foxi4, like to sexually take little children from the back, but we should go easy on you because you are mentally incapacitated and have no idea about what you say or do.

Does it sound like a joke?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> You, Foxi4, like to sexually take little children from the back, but we should go easy on you because you are mentally incapacitated and have no idea about what you say or do.
> 
> Does it sound like a joke?


It sounds like a fun Friday.

Is that what you wanted to hear?


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jun 27, 2022)

I want mods to keep a good and inclusive level of discourse in the forum, not allow anything and get as low or worsen the level of idiotic comments. It doesn't sound like a joke to me.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 27, 2022)

mrdude said:


> If you play with fire, you sometimes get burned. The moral of the story is don't hang around with criminals, don't be a criminal and if you are a non law abiding person - be prepared to face the consequences of your own actions. Also accidents sometime happen....


You are now defending guilt by association.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> I want mods to keep a good and inclusive level of discourse in the forum, not allow anything and get as low or worsen the level of idiotic comments. It doesn't sound like a joke to me.


@Xzi made a joke about Kavanaugh and Clarence. I made a joke about Biden as a rebuttal. You came in, out of nowhere, and started clutching pearls over something that is obviously said in jest. I don’t know what to tell you, lighten up? Nobody is seriously accusing anybody of any crimes, and you would know that if you followed the conversation. I don’t care about this enough to have a discussion about it with you.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t know what to tell you



You don't know what to tell me because you know I'm right, and you don't want to admit it.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 27, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> You are now defending guilt by association.


I was quite clear in that if you hang about with criminals and are suspected of being part of their criminal exploits - don't start crying when you face the consequences (intended or otherwise). I have zero sympathy for those people. The law is too soft on them, luckily I am not in charge becuase I'd make Hitler look like a boy scout, if the justice system was in my control there would be no criminals to commit crimes as they would all be shot or used for slave labour until they had paid back what they owed to society. I am not an eye for an eye type bloke - more of a two eyes for an eye. One for revenge and one for the one that you thought it would be ok to take from someone else. Also I don't care what colour the criminal is - I'd treat them equally as harsh.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> You don't know what to tell me because you know I'm right, and you don't want to admit it.


Whatever makes you feel better, buddy. Do you have something to add to the thread?


----------



## DiscostewSM (Jun 27, 2022)

wartutor said:


> I keep seeing and hearing people say this phrase on tv and the internet and the one thing i have to ask is WTf do you think u need to add incest as one of the reason....is it really running that rampent in your area that it is a huge problem....where im from that shits kind of frowned apon.


Examples are examples. Doesn't have to happen a lot to be a problem, especially in cases like this.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 27, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> -



The difference is vaccines are to help prevent viruses from spreading and mutating, if administered properly. Vaccines have been an integral part of human development in every country that gets them, and had been a staple of American schools and military for decades, at least. If you're sick and you don't get a vaccine, you risk spreading a virus that gets stronger every person it jumps to. Aborting a fetus only impacts the select few people involved, and one person getting pregnant or an abortion is not going to cause that situation to spread.

The problem with arguing things like "bodily autonomy" with pro lifers is that they're all hypocrites. They cried bodily autonomy over public health issues but then want control over what other people do in their private life. They whine about saving lives but have no problem ignoring scientific facts and walking around in public mask and vaccine free infecting everyone they cough around. Pro lifers don't care about babies or their mothers; they care about control and jealousy.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 27, 2022)

mrdude said:


> I was quite clear in that if you hang about with criminals and are suspected of being part of their criminal exploits - don't start crying when you face the consequences (intended or otherwise). I have zero sympathy for those people. The law is too soft on them


This
is
guilt
by
association


----------



## Korozin (Jun 27, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> -


To be fair I never agreed with the mandated vaccines, as they weren't true "vaccines" to begin with. They were mRNA sequenced injections meant to reduce the risk of hospitalization - not to decrease infection. While you do have a point; it isn't as much of a "gotcha" as you would think, because most people here can agree that forcing someone to take a vaccine, especially when it doesn't reduce infection risks isn't the way to go, as it should still be a choice to take it.

Then again I'm a shut-in so I don't have to worry about infecting anyone anyways lolz


----------



## AlexMCS (Jun 27, 2022)

Korozin said:


> because most people here can agree that forcing someone to take a vaccine, especially when it doesn't reduce infection risks isn't the way to go



You're in for a rude awakening.


----------



## Korozin (Jun 27, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> You're in for a rude awakening.


I'm welcome to be proved wrong, as I never stated I was right - there is a vast difference between abortions and vaccines as like another user said; they're meant to prevent the spread of viruses which can impact thousands of people, if not entire nations. It's more acceptable to have a vaccine be given to you to decrease that, than to have abortions revoked because that only impacts the select few involved - as @SyphenFreht stated.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 27, 2022)

"bEcAuSe It'S nOt ThE sAmE tHiNg ObViOuSlY!"


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 27, 2022)

Vaccines are a funny topic because people opposed to vaccine mandates have to invent hypocrisy in their heads and then spend years angry about it.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 27, 2022)

I'm going to keep repeating this, the majority of people did not want Roe v Wade over turned. The Republican party, are acting like tyrants. The Republican party is a minority party, who could only one through undemocratic means, such as never wining the popular vote for the last 20 years, but instead heavily gerrymandering to over represent themselves. Abused the senate to create a super majority within the supreme court.
There is no "your in for a rude awakening" because now _no one_ has faith in this system anymore because of this.
We lost faith in our legislators years ago. Many of us lost faith in the police. And now, the highest court in the land, the part that is higher than the president, senate and house, just overturned a fundamental right.
I do not see this going well for longevity of the States.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 27, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> I'm going to keep repeating this, the majority of people did not want Roe v Wade over turned. The Republican party, are acting like tyrants. The Republican party is a minority party, who could only one through undemocratic means, such as never wining the popular vote for the last 20 years, but instead heavily gerrymandering to over represent themselves. Abused the senate to create a super majority within the supreme court.
> There is no "your in for a rude awakening" because now _no one_ has faith in this system anymore because of this.
> We lost faith in our legislators years ago. Many of us lost faith in the police. And now, the highest court in the land, the part that is higher than the president, senate and house, just overturned a fundamental right.
> I do not see this going well for longevity of the States.


All of this is correct. Daily reminder that once voter suppression was alleviated we saw historic voter turnout, to the point Texas almost went blue this election. Not that I like either party, mind you, but the Republicans are objectively and metaphysically evil in literally every possible way.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 27, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> I'm going to keep repeating this,


Good - hopefully this wil be your last post on the matter. Now go away and try not to get into a position where you can get some girl preggers and then try to coerce her into killing her unborn child.

PS - Back street it back if you ignore my advice :-)


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 27, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Now go away and try not to get into a position where you can get some girl preggers


Sounds like projection, you should get that checked. Or better yet, know that most of my generation, don't plan on having children.
Granted, your probably pissed about that too, so that's why your in support of the removal of roe v wade.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 27, 2022)

Conservatives aren't pro life, they're anti-choice, because god forbid a cis woman or trans man get to have bodily autonomy.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 27, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Sounds like projection, you should get that checked. Or better yet, know that most of my generation, don't plan on having children.
> Granted, your probably pissed about that too, so that's why your in support of the removal of roe v wade.


I don't speak woke, so when I read the first part of your post my eyes glazed over. The secone part where you say that people in you generation don't plan on having kids - I take it you mean people in your circle of friends. Because people in Africa, Asia and everywhere else that have not been infected by wokeness will be having kids. Still it will be no loss to the gene pool if you and your friends don't reproduce - in fact you should probably get yourself steralised/snipped just incase you "accidentaly" get yourself or some poor girl preggers.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 27, 2022)

mrdude said:


> *There's only 2 biological sexes, trans man (woke words) is just a woman pretending to be a man*, it's still a chick though. I would recommend that these people don't have children as they arleady have their own mental issues and shouldn't subject a child to their mental problems.


Sorry, but science doesn't work like that. Unless your telling me you identify everyone by their crotch with a thorough investigation of their pants.
No there's two "sexs" which is what is in your pants. And then you have gender, how you act, sound, and put yourself out as. If you looked at one of my partners, you would call them a women, people have randomly whistled at her. She looks completely feminine. However, none of them do that by looking at what's in her pants. They do it by how she dresses, her posture, the way she carries herself, and sounds.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 27, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Sorry, but science doesn't work like that. Unless your telling me you identify everyone by their crotch with a thorough investigation of their pants.


You're confusing science with feelings. I can dress up as a clown and wear big shoes, a red wig and paint my face white and kids would point at me and say - "look mummy a clown". When I took the makeup off, the wig off and had a shower, I would not look like a clown anymore, infact I would just look like a random dude. It's the same thing with anyone pretending to be something they are not.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 27, 2022)

mrdudemanbroguy


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 27, 2022)

mrdude said:


> You're confusing science with feelings.


Nah I think you are here
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
go cry harder.
we don't have a binary system in our genome. we have a four letter system in our DNA. It cannot simply be "Just man, just women"
both from a mathematical level and scientific one, the binary system cannot work here.
Sorry to hurt your feelings.
Edit:
Then you also have development, which also influences things as well. it's possible to have a male brain, in a female body. The answer isn't to just say "well that's a mental illness, their broken" (or some bs reason essentially shitting on them and claiming them as lesser) 
the answer is just help them with whatever we can, when they ask for it. Course, granted, your also against hormone therapy to any degree because _it's woke_


----------



## Korozin (Jun 27, 2022)

mrdude said:


> You're confusing science with feelings.


Science does actually back trans people as there have been numerous studies on brain chemistry of trans people. If you put a cis woman and a trans woman (a born man who identifies as a woman) their brain structure is almost exactly alike. This is further backed by the fact that men and women on the base level have distinctly different brain structures, so for a trans woman's brain to be identical to a cis woman just shows that it isn't always as people like to say a "mental illness".


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> I'm going to keep repeating this, the majority of people did not want Roe v Wade over turned. (…)


What does that have to do with whether Roe was constitutional or not? Pleasing people is not the SCOTUS’ job, their job is to determine constitutionality.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 27, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Nah I think you are here
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
> go cry harder.
> we don't have a binary system in our genome. we have a four letter system in our DNA. It cannot simply be "Just man, just women"
> ...


My feelings aren't hurt, I could not care less if you identify as a sausage or a tin or beans or whatever you want. I won't ever hang about with anyone that has these mental issues and will avoid them and not converse with them If I saw them when I was out and about. I won't be gaslighted by the MSM or any political agenda either - I call a spade a spade and don't pander to the woke.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> leasing people is not the SCOTUS’ job, their job is to determine constitutionality.


It was previously constitutional, until we had a minority party pack the courts into their favor. So no it's not their job to please people, but at the same time, as a document that has to be you know _interpreted,_suddenly just revoking a right made 50 years ago. And there is now a precedent to repeal constitutional rights. Gay marriage, contraceptives, and EPA regulations. Are all things they are itching to undo. Those rights (contraceptives in particular) go even further into history.

This is not protecting the citizens right to privacy. This is enabling states to control people's autonomy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> It was previously constitutional, until we had a minority party pack the courts into their favor. So no it's not their job to please people, but at the same time, as a document that has to be you know _interpreted,_suddenly just revoking a right made 50 years ago. And there is now a precedent to repeal constitutional rights. Gay marriage, contraceptives, and EPA regulations. Are all things they are itching to undo. Those rights (contraceptives in particular) go even further into history.
> 
> This is not protecting the citizens right to privacy. This is enabling states to control people's autonomy.


It was never constitutional, the previous decision was erroneous. That’s what repeal means. You can’t say “it was constitutional” on the basis of a decision that was incorrect.  Upon further examination the justification was inadequate and the decision was overturned.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It was never constitutional, the previous decision was erroneous. That’s what repeal means.


Yeah by a minority party that does not represent the majority. If the majority of people interprets the constitution in one particular way, then the court should reflect that. You can say "well it's not in the constitution" but nor does the modern right to arms is represented in the second amendment. That came from interpretation.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Yeah by a minority party that does not represent the majority. If the majority of people interprets the constitution in one particular way, then the court should reflect that. You can say "well it's not in the constitution" but nor does the modern right to arms is represented in the second amendment. That came from interpretation.


The second amendment is perfectly consistent with modern arms.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The second amendment is perfectly consistent with modern arms.


You just side step the entire fact this is a minority party. That's like if the dems packed the courts, and made some ruling that made it impossible for *most *people to get arms because they pulled some ancient ruling from the 1900's out of their ass and overturned it. Sure the right to bear arms is still there, but now the scope of it is heavily limited. No one would be on board with it and would de-legitimize the court.. Apply this exact thinking but with Roe v Wade. Yeah sure you can say "it got overturned, it was a wrong ruling" but that's nonsense and we both know it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> You just side step the entire fact this is a minority party. That's like if the dems packed the courts, and made some ruling that made it impossible for *most *people to get arms because they pulled some ancient ruling from the 1900's out of their ass and overturned it. Sure the right to bear arms is still there, but now the scope of it is heavily limited. No one would be on board with it and would de-legitimize the court.. Apply this exact thinking but with Roe v Wade. Yeah sure you can say "it got overturned, it was a wrong ruling" but that's nonsense and we both know it.


The political affiliation of the judges has no impact on whether something is constitutional or not.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The political affiliation of the judges has no impact on whether something is constitutional or not.


Just continues to side step the fact the entire point of the argument.  In a perfect world, where there is no political gaming of the system, then sure. But that's not what happened. Those three justices Trump appointed all said they wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade. And look where we are now. So no, this was a political move, and the affiliation matters, and it would be stupid to call it anything other than that.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jun 27, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The second amendment is perfectly consistent with modern arms.


the second amendment also guarontees US citizens to form a well armed army of citizens incase a autocrat assumes power unchecked basicly discharging any treason charge that may happen so if trump became (or becomes in 2024) a dictator we could fight without fear of getting the needle


----------



## chrisrlink (Jun 27, 2022)

and as you know some soilders doin't fight with gun i might just brush up on my cyber security in case they need me


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

chrisrlink said:


> the second amendment also guarontees US citizens to form a well armed army of citizens incase a autocrat assumes power unchecked basicly discharging any treason charge that may happen so if trump became (or becomes in 2024) a dictator we could fight without fear of getting the needle


Yes, the second amendment clearly states that militias are necessary for the security of a free state. You’re welcome to partake in one. I disagree with your take on Trump, but it is your right.





Nothereed said:


> Just continues to side step the fact the entire point of the argument.  In a perfect world, where there is no political gaming of the system, then sure. But that's not what happened. Those three justices Trump appointed all said they wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade. And look where we are now. So no, this was a political move, and the affiliation matters, and it would be stupid to call it anything other than that.


Roe was always controversial and invented out of whole cloth. It’s been cited as an example of legislating from the bench for decades, everybody and their dog knew that it was bad law from day 1. Nobody’s surprised that it was overturned - it was always at risk of being challenged. Congress had 50 years to address this problem accordingly, and it had failed to do so.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jun 27, 2022)

because if trump reassumes power we all lose


----------



## chrisrlink (Jun 27, 2022)

uh let me guess foxi your one of those "the jan 6th attack was staged"  people that was a clear indicator of how far trump would go


----------



## mrdude (Jun 27, 2022)

chrisrlink said:


> because if trump reassumes power we all lose


You lose - the majority win.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 27, 2022)

chrisrlink said:


> uh let me guess foxi your one of those "the jan 6th attack was staged"  people that was a clear indicator of how far trump would go


If personal attacks, scrying and mind reading are the only things you have to offer as a rebuttal then  I’m not interested in your opinion.


----------



## linuxares (Jun 27, 2022)

mrdude said:


> You lose - the majority win.


Thats not how the US system works


----------



## Lacius (Jun 27, 2022)

mrdude said:


> You lose - the majority win.





linuxares said:


> Thats not how the US system works


Trump didn't win the majority of votes in either election. He's a loser.


----------



## ChaoticCinnabon (Jun 27, 2022)

This place is a wasteland, as expected...

Anyways, my stance on the matter is that Roe-V-Wade being appealed is a slippery slope to even more rights of minorities being taken away; this time it was abortion, next time it could very well be Gay Marriage and that's horrifying.

That's all i have to say and i will NOT be revisiting this thread because i'll likely just be called a slur or something at this rate.


----------



## alt_Human (Jun 27, 2022)

In the United States, guns now have more rights and freedoms than women do. Fuck the SCOTUS!


----------



## Lacius (Jun 27, 2022)

mrdude said:


> A billionare, President, TV personality, that's created thousands of jobs and employs thousands of people. Has had books written about him, starred in movies etc.....
> 
> What have you done that compares? - and if you deem him a loser, how do you see yourself, what have you ever done that can compare to any of his achievements?
> 
> ...


I've never run for president and lost the popular vote, let alone twice.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 27, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I've never run for president and lost the popular vote, let alone twice.


I didn't ask what you've not done, I asked what you had done - but I assume you've not really done anything of note and that's why you never said. Let's face it Trump is better than you and will achieve more in 1 year of his life than you will achieve in your entire lifetime. I bet if when you get to the end of your life and compare your life to his - you would be classed as the loser. Go figure.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 27, 2022)

Trump is definitely not my optimal pick. I'd rather want my governor in the white house and will be voting for him in the primary if he runs.

That doesn't mean that Trump doesn't deserve credit. His supreme court nominees will be remembered as being consequential in preventing systemic infanticide as best as we can (as of right now) in the textbooks.

setting aside personality, from a policy point of view, Trump is definitely the best president to have held office since I've been alive and it ain't even close.

If Hillary took office in 2016, I don't even want to know where we would've been.


----------



## Issac (Jun 27, 2022)

Reminder to keep it on topic.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 27, 2022)

mrdude said:


> I didn't ask what you've not done, I asked what you had done - but I assume you've not really done anything of note and that's why you never said. Let's face it Trump is better than you and will achieve more in 1 year of his life than you will achieve in your entire lifetime. I bet if when you get to the end of your life and compare your life to his - you would be classed as the loser. Go figure.


I don't think there's anything that's going to happen to me in my life that could come close to two national election popular vote losses.

My initial point was that a Trump win, by definition, cannot be a win for the majority. He lost the popular vote twice and is a loser.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 27, 2022)

This site is truly on it's way to self destruction if you can't even say straight common sense facts without it being "bigoted".


----------



## elBenyo (Jun 27, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> This site is truly on it's way to self destruction if you can't even say straight common sense facts without it being "bigoted".


I come here for kicks before I head to 4chan.


----------



## Stealphie (Jun 28, 2022)

this has got to be a new record. 1K replies in less than a week.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 28, 2022)

Stealphie said:


> this has got to be a new record. 1K replies in less than a week.


I couldn't keep up. I made a reply in the morning. 6 hours later it's 15 pages later. Too much to read all the replies that happened since my response.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> You lose - the majority win.



Trump never won the popular vote, he specifically campaigned electoral colleges to swing the vote his way by technicality. Smart move, yes, not much better than Hilary, maybe, but still not the majority. You seem to confuse "majority" with "echo chamber".

Also, it's not a "you lose, majority win" situation. Trump campaigned mostly on empty threats and promises and standard mudslinging. He accomplished nothing his campaign was based on, spent two years repealing Obama era laws and blaming COVID on China while setting up tariffs and golfing. What down time he had he spent crying about voter fraud (during his presidency, mind you) and staffing as much of the Supreme Court and cabinet related positions with people that pandered to him rather than people who generally sought to make things better for "Every"one. 

But, I digress. When any already established life is extinguished, or bound to restriction, to pave way for new life, that's human tragedy, not a win for anyone.



Lacius said:


> I've never run for president and lost the popular vote, let alone twice.



Much less get impeached twice in one presidency.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 28, 2022)

MariArch said:


> If Hillary took office in 2016, I don't even want to know where we would've been.



Compared to Trump? Probably a lot more bodily autonomy and a lot less overt racism. Luckily orange bad man followed his words and put her in jail.

Waitaminnit...


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 28, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Also, it's not a "you lose, majority win" situation. Trump campaigned mostly on empty threats and promises and standard mudslinging. He accomplished nothing his campaign was based on, spent two years repealing Obama era laws and blaming COVID on China while setting up tariffs and golfing. What down time he had he spent crying about voter fraud (during his presidency, mind you) and staffing as much of the Supreme Court and cabinet related positions with people that pandered to him rather than people who generally sought to make things better for "Every"one.


So he didn't get major tax reforms passed that ended the "marriage tax", simplified the vast majority of tax filings by making most people eligible for the standard deduction, and get people to pay their "fair share" rather than allowing states first dibs?


----------



## Apistogramma (Jun 28, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It's pretty selfish to only care about things that affect you. I'm sorry if that's how you navigate the world



Just a week ago, as a man, I was told by a lot of women that I was not entitled to an opinion.
Now its "selfish" for me to not care?

pick a lane.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 28, 2022)

Apistogramma said:


> Just a week ago, as a man, I was told by a lot of women that I was not entitled to an opinion.
> Now its "selfish" for me to not care?
> 
> pick a lane.


"Uh I was told something different by someone else, so now it's selfish according to you, a different person, to say something different from them???"
Please don't post anything this bad faith again, it's embarrassing.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 28, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> So he didn't get major tax reforms passed that ended the "marriage tax", simplified the vast majority of tax filings by making most people eligible for the standard deduction, and get people to pay their "fair share" rather than allowing states first dibs?



Yes he did, and those are some pretty good accomplishments. Out of 4 years in office, did he accomplish anything else his campaign was based on?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 28, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Yes he did, and those are some pretty good accomplishments. Out of 4 years in office, did he accomplish anything else his campaign was based on?


It says a lot when a guy campaigns on wild shit like "I am gonna build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it, and deport all the illegals, and stop sanctuary cities!!"

And all his fucking cultists have to say is "Uhhh, well, uhhhhh, he like, did a tax break or something." Like, look at how much they're trying to hype it up. Big fucking deal, he had a tax break. He didn't address the systemic and economic issues that resulted in the want for said tax breaks, he just slashed tax rates for people. So yes, that is still *bad.* It's a bandage on a huge issue, but god forbid a fucking Trumper has the IQ to parse systemic issues.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 28, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> It says a lot when a guy campaigns on wild shit like "I am gonna build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it, and deport all the illegals, and stop sanctuary cities!!"
> 
> And all his fucking cultists have to say is "Uhhh, well, uhhhhh, he like, did a tax break or something." Like, look at how much they're trying to hype it up. Big fucking deal, he had a tax break. He didn't address the systemic and economic issues that resulted in the want for said tax breaks, he just slashed tax rates for people. So yes, that is still *bad.* It's a bandage on a huge issue, but god forbid a fucking Trumper has the IQ to parse systemic issues.



Not to mention most of those tax breaks went to people much higher up on the economic class than the majority of Americans. I think it was something stupid like $100k+, but my exact numbers could be a little off.

But you're right. Most of his followers don't understand that he did very little to nothing for any fan of his that doesn't own a profitable business. He didn't turn the economy around, he didn't fix any immigration besides the tariffs he put on China (of which immigration was a by product and not even the right country according to his campaign), and pretty much blundered his way through COVID, which wasn't entirely his fault and would've been a miserable experience for any president, and left office with the country in worse position than when he inherited it.

And to this day, all the people that defended his "grab em by the p*$$y" statement now get to gloat about how they can get away with demeaning women and no one can do anything about it because Roe v Wade got overturned (which wasn't directly his fault besides fielding judges that pandered to him). 

It must be fun to be blissfully ignorant to the human condition. There's so many people on this board alone that revel in it.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 28, 2022)

I have always said that people on the right have no morals and their posts in this thread are why.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jun 28, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> It says a lot when a guy campaigns on wild shit like "I am gonna build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it, and deport all the illegals, and stop sanctuary cities!!"
> 
> And all his fucking cultists have to say is "Uhhh, well, uhhhhh, he like, did a tax break or something." Like, look at how much they're trying to hype it up. Big fucking deal, he had a tax break. He didn't address the systemic and economic issues that resulted in the want for said tax breaks, he just slashed tax rates for people. So yes, that is still *bad.* It's a bandage on a huge issue, but god forbid a fucking Trumper has the IQ to parse systemic issues.



Tax break for the rich... didn't he keep or raise taxes for the common people?


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 28, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Roe was always controversial and invented out of whole cloth. It’s been cited as an example of legislating from the bench for decades, everybody and their dog knew that it was bad law from day 1. Nobody’s surprised that it was overturned - it was always at risk of being challenged. Congress had 50 years to address this problem accordingly, and it had failed to do so.


No it wasn't always at risk of being challanged, because of the 3 supreme court justices trump appointed, all of them said they support roe v wade. So no none of the public was informed that they were going to overturn it. Everyone could only speculate that they could be lying.

So this causes a condrum foxi4.
those same justices say they wouldn't overturn roe v wade under oath. Which means they believed it was constitutional.  Why suddenly overturn it?
Either it was constitutional, and the justices LIED to get onto the court to subvert the people. Or it was unconstitutional, which would of meant they again, lied under oath, not admitting their main goal.
At the end of the day, what we have is a ruling that 60% of people consider a illegitimate ruling.


----------



## Kurt91 (Jun 28, 2022)

Don't take this as me taking a side either way, I simply want to ask a question.

So, each time one of these Supreme Court Justices were appointed, they were each asked about whether they supported Roe V. Wade. Wouldn't that mean that this entire time Congress and everybody knew that RvW was on shaky grounds and could be repealed any time, only reliant on picking Justices who agreed that they wouldn't?

Wouldn't this imply that the entire time, Congress knew that they needed to formally pass a law to cement RvW as law? Not a full-out Constitutional Amendment, just pass a single bill? As far as I'm aware, there isn't anything in the Constitution that specifically allows abortion, but there's nothing there that specifically denies it. That would be the explanation as to why the Supreme Court overturned it, right? It's not the Supreme Court's place to create laws, their job is to simply strike down laws that go against the Constitution. So, at any point, Congress could have just passed a typical bill into law to cement abortions being legal, and there would be nothing for the Supreme Court to do even if they wanted to strike it down.

Just wanted to make sure I understood this correctly, because throughout the entire thread people have been saying that it needed a full-blown Constitutional Amendment, which is hard as balls to do, when just a normal passed bill into law would have sufficed, which is MUCH easier and could have been done damn near effortlessly in comparison.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 28, 2022)

Kurt91 said:


> Don't take this as me taking a side either way, I simply want to ask a question.
> 
> So, each time one of these Supreme Court Justices were appointed, they were each asked about whether they supported Roe V. Wade. Wouldn't that mean that this entire time Congress and everybody knew that RvW was on shaky grounds and could be repealed any time, only reliant on picking Justices who agreed that they wouldn't?
> 
> ...


A bill passed by the house cementing roe v wade would be immediately struck down by the court on the grounds that this is a 10th amendment issue lol. They're not going to be able to stop people from making their own laws in their states. Federalism wins.


----------



## Nothereed (Jun 28, 2022)

Kurt91 said:


> So, each time one of these Supreme Court Justices were appointed, they were each asked about whether they supported Roe V. Wade.


Which all of the recent 3 republican leaning justices did say they supported it... to only then go back on their word.


MariArch said:


> . They're not going to be able to stop people from making their own laws in their states. Federalism wins.


Yeah, and your group is going to experience something called "consent to the governed" You can't just go repealing shit that 60% of people consider as a right. I mean you can, but not without completely de-legitimizing the supreme court. Which is exactly what's happening.


----------



## Chary (Jun 28, 2022)

When I said Texas ought to get rid of the cringey $10,000 abortion bounty tattle tale law, I didn't mean like this lol


----------



## Maximumbeans (Jun 28, 2022)

SG854 said:


> I couldn't keep up. I made a reply in the morning. 6 hours later it's 15 pages later. Too much to read all the replies that happened since my response.


Honestly I don’t think you want to keep up. It’s probably for the best.


----------



## zxr750j (Jun 28, 2022)

I regret to inform you all: the USA has dropped a couple of places in my "Countries to visit"...
It could be worse: Turkey is a no go place for me with the current regime.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Jun 28, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I have always said that people on the right have no morals and their posts in this thread are why.


If you compare it to most countries in the western world democrats are also on the right, and not just a little.
They don't give two shits about fixing the healthcare system, even in their own state.
They completely abandoned the concept of class warfare, but they sure as hell will remind you that you, little Walmart worker that you are, are full of privileges. It's easier to control people when they're busy fighting each other in their own bubbles rather than their elites.

I disagree with most of what republicans represent, forcing religion on people, the repeal of absorption laws, lack of gun control, lack of government intervention in the economy, no healthcare consideration, paranoia over immigration, no understanding of the concept of equality of chances (that often gets misrepresented for equality of outcome), there's a lot of things wrong.

But the democrats are barely better, they do put a good show in defense of diversity, but that's it.
So long as people entertain this circus of blue versus red, left versus right, people will always lose. The US are dealing with a right versus far right politics, with some left & far left being loud on social media but having no real representation. That's it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 28, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> No it wasn't always at risk of being challanged, because of the 3 supreme court justices trump appointed, all of them said they support roe v wade. So no none of the public was informed that they were going to overturn it. Everyone could only speculate that they could be lying.
> 
> So this causes a condrum foxi4.
> those same justices say they wouldn't overturn roe v wade under oath. Which means they believed it was constitutional.  Why suddenly overturn it?
> ...


That’s not what they said. They said that it’s precedent. Precedents can be overturned if they turn out to be incorrect upon further examination. This restores the legitimacy of the court, not damage it. Their one and only job is to determine constitutionality, not to generate pseudo-legislation that pleases the electorate, they’re not a replacement for the legislature. Legislating is the job of Congress. Petition Congress to do its job and legislate accordingly, don’t blame the SCOTUS for doing precisely what it’s supposed to do.


Dark_Phoras said:


> Tax break for the rich... didn't he keep or raise taxes for the common people?


All tax brackets saw reduced tax liability under TCJA. Percentage-wise the tax cut benefitted low and middle income households the most - filers with annual incomes between $50-100K saved anywhere between 15-17%. Households with incomes between $15-$50K saved 16%. By comparison, households with incomes between $500k-$1m saved around 9% and those above $1m only saved 6%. People get uppity about those figures because they look at total dollar amounts which is inherently misleading. The “1%” obviously saved more in dollars because they have significantly higher incomes in general, their savings as a fraction of income were lower. The target group for cuts was always the middle class, and that’s who saw the biggest benefits in context.

https://www.heartland.org/publicati...ax-cuts-and-jobs-act-on-personal-income-taxes


Kurt91 said:


> So, each time one of these Supreme Court Justices were appointed, they were each asked about whether they supported Roe V. Wade. Wouldn't that mean that this entire time Congress and everybody knew that RvW was on shaky grounds and could be repealed any time, only reliant on picking Justices who agreed that they wouldn't?


**Ding Ding Ding!** We have a winner! Good job, you figured the con out. The whole process is not designed to select judges that are well-versed in constitutional law, it’s designed to pick judges that will be subservient pazzis for Congress. That is not how the system is supposed to work - the SCOTUS is supposed to be a check on Congress. Their only job should be to examine constitutionality, these kinds of questions are designed to eliminate judges that refuse to jeopardise their integrity on behalf of an impotent legislature.

Roe v. Wade was always bad law, it was always criticised as an instance of judicial activism and it was always under threat of being repealed because it was ruled on a shaky foundation. The reason why the justices were asked this question is because everybody and their dog in DC knows this for a fact. The decision only existed for this long because Congress refused to properly legislate the issue - now they’re forced to act, and that’s a good thing. About damn time for Congress to do its job and do something for the people, either via federal law or via a constitutional amendment - the proper way rights are introduced.

We cannot ignore bad law solely on the premise that we like its results. If Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional, the only legitimate decision the court should make is to overturn it. If the people want abortion rights to be enshrined in the Constitution, they must necessarily be added to the Constitution, and there’s an established process on how that’s done. Corrupting the court and abusing its function isn’t it. A single abortion bill would suffice though - the reason why that’s not preferable to an amendment is that bills can be rolled back by future administrations, causing a tug of war. That’s inconsequential though - the law is the law. If even our lawmakers don’t follow it, what is the justification for pushing it onto the citizenry? They have certain confines they need to work in - now they have a pickle, and they need to figure it out, it’s what they’re paid for.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I have always said that people on the right have no morals and their posts in this thread are why.


And yet they are mostly the ones in this thread that are against murdering unborn babies. I think they have a much better moral compass than those that want to kill an innocent life. I don't expect you to understand that as your NPC programming won't be able to compute that much data.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> And yet they are mostly the ones in this thread that are against murdering unborn babies. I think they have a much better moral compass than those that want to kill an innocent life. I don't expect you to understand that as your NPC programming won't be able to compute that much data.


LOL the minus habens again with the lies. Claiming to protect the babies only to have them die in school shootouts after a life in poverty and misery. You aren't protecting anything - you just feel entitled to women's bodies, you incels.


Foxi4 said:


> **Ding Ding Ding!** We have a winner! Good job, you figured the con out. The whole process is not designed to select judges that are well-versed in constitutional law, it’s designed to pick judges that will be subservient pazzis for Congress. That is not how the system is supposed to work - the SCOTUS is supposed to be a check on Congress. Their only job should be to examine constitutionality, these kinds of questions are designed to eliminate judges that refuse to jeopardise their integrity on behalf of an impotent legislature.
> 
> Roe v. Wade was always bad law, it was always criticised as an instance of judicial activism and it was always under threat of being repealed because it was ruled on a shaky foundation. The reason why the justices were asked this question is because everybody and their dog in DC knows this for a fact. The decision only existed for this long because Congress refused to properly legislate the issue - now they’re forced to act, and that’s a good thing. About damn time for Congress to do its job and do something for the people, either via federal law or via a constitutional amendment - the proper way rights are introduced.


All very nice and dandy, except that precedent and stare decisis ARE part of the constitutional order and, in general, a staple of common law countries. I've said time and again that common law is absolutely shit and barbaric (in a metaphorical sense), and this proves it.

While it is true that the legislator should not have been lazy about it, it is also true that you know, after almost half a century of good precedent, and hearings, it should not have been needed. Fact is this SCOTUS is a partisan shitshow with no pretence of the rule of law. As you said, the picks are usually of subservient stooges with ridiculous curricula, of which clarence thomas is a perfect example, a man who made no contributions at all to legal doctrine and scholarship before being put in a position of power.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jun 28, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> All tax brackets saw reduced tax liability under TCJA. Percentage-wise the tax cut benefitted low and middle income households the most - filers with annual incomes between $50-100K saved anywhere between 15-17%. Households with incomes between $15-$50K saved 16%. By comparison, households with incomes between $500k-$1m saved around 9% and those above $1m only saved 6%. People get uppity about those figures because they look at total dollar amounts which is inherently misleading. The “1%” obviously saved more in dollars because they have significantly higher incomes in general, their savings as a fraction of income were lower. The target group for cuts was always the middle class, and that’s who saw the biggest benefits in context.
> 
> https://www.heartland.org/publicati...ax-cuts-and-jobs-act-on-personal-income-taxes



I'd never ask you... and you base yourself on a clearly partisan institution that doesn't even disguise it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 28, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> All very nice and dandy, except that precedent and stare decisis ARE part of the constitutional order and, in general, a staple of common law countries. I've said time and again that common law is absolutely shit and barbaric (in a metaphorical sense), and this proves it.
> 
> While it is true that the legislator should not have been lazy about it, it is also true that you know, after almost half a century of good precedent, and hearings, it should not have been needed. Fact is this SCOTUS is a partisan shitshow with no pretence of the rule of law. As you said, the picks are usually of subservient stooges with ridiculous curricula, of which clarence thomas is a perfect example, a man who made no contributions at all to legal doctrine and scholarship before being put in a position of power.


”Precedent” that is wrong is no precedent at all and must be overturned. You can’t base future decisions on a previous incorrect decision if you intend on those decisions to be just. If we treated precedent as a holy cow, segregation would still be in place under the separate but equal doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson - that was precedent between 1896 and 1954 - 58 years. Who says what’s good precedent and what isn’t? You’re only saying it’s “good” because you like the consequences of said precedent. That’s not how the court works - either the precedent is consistent with the law of the land or it isn’t. This chestnut is on Congress - they had *decades* to cement abortion into law. Now they can still do it, but they’re forced to double-time it, because people aren’t happy. Mid-terms are coming too, so the fight is on now, no more napping in the seats.


Dark_Phoras said:


> I'd never ask you... and you base yourself on a clearly partisan institution that doesn't even disguise it.


The figures are directly from the IRS - you just don’t like what the figures say. That’s not my concern.

EDIT: If you don’t like the source, here’s another showing that deductions shifted the tax burden from the middle class onto high earners:

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/tax...its-tax-expenditures-higher-income-households

Here’s a direct link to IRS data - if you’re picky about sources, just ask the tax man directly. It’s very simple, this is public data. Compare figures and see for yourself, that way you avoid any possible “spin zone”. People overwhelmingly saved more on their taxes.

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-historic-table-2

Here’s an analysis of the data above, from another source you won’t like:

https://www.atr.org/irs-data-middle...ignificant-tax-reduction-from-trump-tax-cuts/


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2022)

Maybe if Clarence Thomas hadn't married Shrek, he wouldn't hate everybody who has more sexual freedom than him so much.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> LOL the minus habens again with the lies. Claiming to protect the babies only to have them die in school shootouts after a life in poverty and misery. You aren't protecting anything - you just feel entitled to women's bodies, you incels.


When you live in a large country with over 329 million people, it's hardly surprising that there's a few nutters that live in it. If you want to talk about violence and gun crimes, you'll find that most of this is done by young black males killing each other, most murder victims are white. This of course has nothing to do with abortion - but being as you are a lefty, it's in your NPC programming to twist the facts to suit your narrative.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Maybe if Clarence Thomas hadn't married Shrek, he wouldn't hate everybody who has more sexual freedom than him so much.


Beauty is only skin deep, that woman might have an amazing personality and be very kind and funny, that's maybe what makes her attractive to her husband who no doubt loves her very much. You logic is silly and when you're only arguement because you don't like the way someone voted or thinks is to call them names and insult their wife, you have issues.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Beauty is only skin deep, that woman might have an amazing personality and be very kind and funny, that's maybe what makes her attractive to her husband who no doubt loves her very much. You logic is silly and when you're only arguement because you don't like the way someone voted or thinks is to call them names and insult their wife, you have issues.


Yep the beauty of a terrorist!


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Beauty is only skin deep, that woman might have an amazing personality and be very kind and funny


Both of them have the personality of a toxic waste dump, all they do is spew Fox News and alt-reich talking points.  Even calling her Shrek is giving her way too much credit TBH.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jun 28, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The figures are directly from the IRS - you just don’t like what the figures say. That’s not my concern.



If I want to know about it, I'll search for it myself. I wanted to know her opinion. You distort facts to fit your opinions and you're dishonest in discussions.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Both of them have the personality of a toxic waste dump, all they do is spew Fox News and alt-reich talking points.  Even calling her Shrek is giving her way too much credit TBH.


This is the kind of reply which makes people not take the left seriously. You are too immature to care for a child and no doubt that;s why you want people to kill babies, you are most likely selfish and a narcissist as well. These are basic lefty NPC traits.
When I am at the shops sometimes and I see those screaming kids that lie on the floor and punch it when they don't get their own way - this is how I imagine you were when you were younger, and when these kids grow up they are no doubt lefties.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 28, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> ”Precedent” that is wrong is no precedent at all and must be overturned. You can’t base future decisions on a previous incorrect decision if you intend on those decisions to be just. If we treated precedent as a holy cow, segregation would still be in place under the separate but equal doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson - that was precedent between 1896 and 1954 - 58 years. Who says what’s good precedent and what isn’t? You’re only saying it’s “good” because you like the consequences of said precedent. That’s not how the court works - either the precedent is consistent with the law of the land or it isn’t. This chestnut is on Congress - they had *decades* to cement abortion into law. Now they can still do it, but they’re forced to double-time it, because people aren’t happy. Mid-terms are coming too, so the fight is on now, no more napping in the seats.


I'm sorry, your armchair jurist "argument" is not convincing. As you said, not all precedent is "holy cow", and yet hearings were set up specifically to discuss this. Not even taking into account Roe V Wade was originally judged also by Republican SCOTUS justices, making it a super partes decision, not "activism"... The current scotus is packed with bigoted activists who couldn't hold a candle to any respectable legal scholar. Then again, Trump (your hero) picks, so not surprised.


----------



## smf (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> that;s why you want people to kill babies,


Nobody wants to kill babies. This reply is why I don't take the right seriously.



mrdude said:


> that woman might have an amazing personality and be very kind and funny,


She was involved in the January 6th Insurrection, she is just awful. That might float your boat.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> This is the kind of reply which makes people not take the left seriously. You are too immature to care for a child and no doubt that;s why you want people to kill babies, you are most likely selfish and a narcissist as well. These are basic lefty NPC traits.


"You're too immature to have a child."  So your solution is to force me to have a kid if I accidentally impregnate a woman?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 28, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm sorry, your armchair jurist "argument" is not convincing. As you said, not all precedent is "holy cow", and yet hearings were set up specifically to discuss this. Not even taking into account Roe V Wade was originally judged also by Republican SCOTUS justices, making it a super partes decision, not "activism"... The current scotus is packed with bigoted activists who couldn't hold a candle to any respectable legal scholar. Then again, Trump (your hero) picks, so not surprised.


The political alignment of justices should be inconsequential - they’re not running for Congress, they’re nominated for the court. They’re not campaigning for the approval of a particular electorate, they’re demonstrating competence in constitutional law when picked. The one and only thing that matters is whether or not they’re well-versed in it - they’re supposed to make judgements based on the law.


Dark_Phoras said:


> If I want to know about it, I'll search for it myself. I wanted to know her opinion. You distort facts to fit your opinions and you're dishonest in discussions.


Lower and middle-class households saved the most on their taxes as a percentage of their income. It’s not a partisan opinion, it’s math. I’m sure you’ll find opinions that say the opposite, and I know precisely why - because of the difference dollar-to-dollar in savings which I already addressed and which is inconsequential. A middle class household was never under threat of earning in excess of a million dollars a year even if you lowered their income tax bracket to 0% (which I approve of, actually - they shouldn’t pay any income tax), they simply don’t make that much money. The only thing that matters is how much they saved compared to what they used to pay, and that difference is expressed as a percentage value.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

smf said:


> January 6th Insurrection


There was no "insurrection" - this is just a political phrase programmed into you by your lefty overlords to try and sow division and hate. This kind of thing is straight from the lefty play book. They also tried to start a race war. Funny how they were all for the riots and burning during the BLM riots and didn't say a peep about those Antifa terrorists.....
As for these sham Jan 6 hearings, that's nothing but a clown circus - you'll find out in November just how much people aren't buying into the whole left wing narrative.
I hope you are concerned about high gas prices, high food prices, bare shelves, high inflation, devalue of your currency, abandoning your Allies, Arming the Taliban etc, because if you were you'd realise that the people you have running your country just now are the ones that have caused this.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The political alignment of justices should be inconsequential


"Should be," but we all know it isn't at the moment.  Thomas has read off basically the exact same wish list as Trump in terms of the rights and freedoms he wants to strip away from the American people.  They're not even pretending to give a fuck about the oaths they took any more.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

Xzi said:


> "You're too immature to have a child."  So your solution is to force me to have a kid if I accidentally impregnate a woman?


How can you accidentaly impresgate a woman? would you be walking about naked with a boner (and a premature ejaculation problem), trip up and accidently land on a womans vagina and accidently impregnate her.

There's nothing accidental about it, but leftys don't like to take responsibility for their own actions and they never like to deal with the consequences when they don't go the way they want.

I don't think you should ever have a child with that mentality because with you as a parent there's no doubt the state would remove the kid for it's own safety. If somehow you managed to slip through the net - the world would just end up with another selfish nut job in it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 28, 2022)

Xzi said:


> "Should be," but we all know it isn't at the moment.  Thomas has read off basically the exact same wish list as Trump in terms of the rights and freedoms he wants to strip away from the American people.  They're not even pretending to give a fuck about the oaths they took any more.


Perhaps those decisions should also be cemented into federal law or the Constitution instead of being crammed through the back door? Who knows? Thomas is only one of the justices, and he can have an opinion. That’s not an indication of any future proceedings. If you sense “looming danger”, I call that “forward warning” - now Congress knows the SCOTUS isn’t messing around, so they’d better move.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> How can you accidentaly impresgate a woman? would you be walking about naked with a boner (and a premaute ejaculation problem), trip up and accidently land on a womans vagina and accidently impregnate her.


Spoken like a dude who has never had sex before.  Condoms are sometimes defective, and women can sometimes forget to take their birth control pills.  Shit happens, just ask all the Republican congressmen who have paid to get their mistresses abortions.



mrdude said:


> I don't think you should ever have a child with that mentality because with you as a parent there's no doubt the state would remove the kid for it's own safety. If somehow you managed to slip through the net - the world would just end up with another selfish nut job in it.


Holy shit you're millimeters away from grasping the point.  There are lots of people who shouldn't have kids and lots more who just plain don't want them.  Forcing a baby on any of those people can only possibly lead to more suffering.  I suppose that's the point though, isn't it?  Some sort of creepy fucking puritanism born of sexual frustration and/or repression.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 28, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The political alignment of justices should be inconsequential - they’re not running for Congress, they’re nominated for the court. They’re not campaigning for the approval of a particular electorate, they’re demonstrating competence in constitutional law when picked. The one and only thing that matters is whether or not they’re well-versed in it - they’re supposed to make judgements based on the law.


Well, they're neither competent nor super partes. So, yeah. Sadly this is what happens when you mix judicial oversight with politics.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Perhaps those decisions should also be cemented into federal law or the Constitution instead of being crammed through the back door? Who knows? Thomas is only one of the justices, and he can have an opinion. That’s not an indication of any future proceedings.


Thomas only opens his fat mouth when he's sure of himself, and right now he's sure he has enough insane fundamentalist justices on the court to send America back to the 17th century.



Foxi4 said:


> If you sense “looming danger”, I call that “forward warning” - now Congress knows the SCOTUS isn’t messing around, so they’d better move.


Congress is deadlocked.  That doesn't mean the American people should allow unelected tyrants to shit all over our democracy without repercussion.  Short of a general strike or drastic executive action from Biden (unlikely), the only option people have left is direct action.  The purpose of fascism of course being to leave people too hopeless, afraid, and tired to attempt that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 28, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Well, they're neither competent nor super partes. So, yeah. Sadly this is what happens when you mix judicial oversight with politics.


What’s your justification for that statement? They all have extensive experience in the legal system.



Xzi said:


> Thomas only opens his fat mouth when he's sure of himself, and right now he's sure he has enough insane fundamentalist justices on the court to send America back to the 17th century.
> 
> Congress is deadlocked.  That doesn't mean the American people should allow unelected tyrants to shit all over our democracy without repercussion.  Short of a general strike or drastic executive action from Biden (unlikely), the only option people have left is direct action.  The purpose of fascism of course being to leave people too hopeless, afraid, and tired to attempt that.


Mid-terms are coming up.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Mid-terms are coming up.


And there aren't enough seats up for election to impeach SCOTUS justices even if the Democrats won them all.  To end the filibuster and codify Roe into law?  Maybe.  I don't have a lot of faith given that even the current Democratic POTUS is "pro-life."  Besides, what we're currently witnessing is the corporate world exerting more control over the populace, and that will be an ever-present threat for as long as I'm alive.  Or at least as long as I choose to keep living in the US.


----------



## smf (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> There was no "insurrection" - this is just a political phrase programmed into you by your lefty overlords to try and sow division and hate. This kind of thing is straight from the lefty play book.


Gaslighting is from the right wing play book. So yes there was an attempted insurrection, with death threats if they didn't get their own way. But let's pretend there wasn't because right wing are so butt hurt.

Interesting how you think opposing the KKK, proud boys & racist cops is a race war ;-)

Covid and your Russian friends have caused inflation. Again you lot are the cancer in society, but you are so weak you blame everyone else.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 28, 2022)

Xzi said:


> And there aren't enough seats up for election to impeach SCOTUS justices even if the Democrats won them all.  To end the filibuster and codify Roe into law?  Maybe.  I don't have a lot of faith given that even the current Democratic POTUS is "pro-life."  Besides, what we're currently witnessing is the corporate world exerting more control over the populace, and that will be an ever-present threat for as long as I'm alive.  Or at least as long as I choose to keep living in the US.


Why would your first thought be to impeach SCOTUS justices and *not* to legislate accordingly? This is exactly the problem - you think the SCOTUS should be a sword. The SCOTUS is designed as a shield - a shield against the negative predilections of Congress. You’re angry because a decision with consequences you approve of was overturned, I’m happy because a decision that was incorrect was corrected. This is step one in fixing the court as far as I’m concerned, with me being an originalist who reads the Constitution as it is written. I see the SCOTUS returning to its original function as a good thing, the ends don’t justify the means for me. Reproductive rights are important, but they should be tackled by Congress, or failing that, by the state legislatures. If “Congress is in deadlock”, there’s plenty of local governments that can adequately handle the matter, and if they do it in a way that displeases their electorate, the electorate can vote accordingly at the next available opportunity. The system works, but only if you let it do its job. If you keep bending it in ways it wasn’t designed to be used, it can only break.

EDIT: For the record, Congress being “in deadlock” is an ideal situation to someone like me. The split should almost always be even - that way only legislation with broad bipartisan support can pass. It gives both parties a reason to make concessions. Majority rule is dangerous, deadlock is preferable - they shouldn’t push legislation through non stop without opposition - making fewer, but better laws is the way to go. One party having the ability to steamroll anything through Congress is no different than a dictatorship, when you think about it. In order for opposition to be meaningful, it needs to have teeth.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Why would your first thought be to impeach SCOTUS justices and *not* to legislate accordingly?


Because of their conduct.  Several lied in their confirmation hearings.  One is a guaranteed rapist that the FBI did not investigate properly, if at all.  Another has vowed to rule solely to spite liberals rather than based on his oath.  And yet another has made statements to indicate her rulings will be based on her cult-like religious faith, a violation of separation of church and state.



Foxi4 said:


> This is exactly the problem - you think the SCOTUS should be a sword.


SCOTUS _is_ being used like a sword with this decision, a sword wielded by corporations specifically.  To allow for restriction of previously guaranteed rights or freedoms is contrary to the court's purpose for existing.  To wield it as a shield for the working class majority against creeping fascism again, Biden would have to pack the court, which is something I'm sure you'd hate.

See, this isn't just about abortion.  This ruling declares that the right to privacy is not constitutionally guaranteed.  This is contrary to every libertarian ideal and belief, on the right and the left.  Who gives a fuck about "originalism," the founding fathers didn't have an impending techno-theocratic oligarchy to worry about that might soon rival China's.  The justices of today had to get far more creative (and malicious) with their reading of the constitution to overturn Roe than for the original decision.  Thus I don't recognize their ruling as valid.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

smf said:


> Gaslighting is from the right wing play book. So yes there was an attempted insurrection, with death threats if they didn't get their own way. But let's pretend there wasn't because right wing are so butt hurt.
> 
> Interesting how you think opposing the KKK, proud boys & racist cops is a race war ;-)
> 
> Covid and your Russian friends have caused inflation. Again you lot are the cancer in society, but you are so weak you blame everyone else.


It wasn't the KKK or the proud boys that were setting fire to cities, looting, killing people and fighting with the police - it was Antifa and lefties. Go figure.
Don't blame Russia for inflation, when your Democrats printed TRILLIONS of dollars, it devalued your currency. You are far worse off today than you were 2 years ago, the Dems are in charge and their policies have caused the degradiation of your country and made you look weak on the world stage. The Dems are not respected by anyone outside of left in the USA - they are the laughing stock of the world. If any country has learned any lessons in the last 2 years, it's how to ruin a country - just act like the Dems and implement socialist policies.
You will find out in November how unpopular these policies are, and then your country will be stuck for 2 years as the Dems will be stuck in Limbo, opposed on everything - roll on November :-).


----------



## MariArch (Jun 28, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Which all of the recent 3 republican leaning justices did say they supported it... to only then go back on their word.
> 
> Yeah, and your group is going to experience something called "consent to the governed" You can't just go repealing shit that 60% of people consider as a right. I mean you can, but not without completely de-legitimizing the supreme court. Which is exactly what's happening.


Em... The supreme court isn't supposed to determine rights based on the court of public opinion. In fact they're not supposed to determine rights at all unless they're in the constitution.

And luckily those people can live in a state where the majority can vote to keep it legal, and some can live in a state where the majority vote for some restrictions, and some can live in a state where the majority want it banned.

That's the nice part about federalism junior


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 28, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> What’s your justification for that statement? They all have extensive experience in the legal system.


Experience doesn't mean they're anywhere the level of scholarship required to be on a Supreme Court. As you yourself said. And the judgement itself is kind of flimsy on the legal pov.


----------



## smf (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> It wasn't the KKK or the proud boys that were setting fire to cities, looting, killing people and fighting with the police - it was Antifa and lefties. Go figure.


No, because the KKK and proud boys are happy with black people being murdered by the police.

Why would they fight against it????


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

smf said:


> No, because the KKK and proud boys are happy with black people being murdered by the police.
> 
> Why would they fight against it????


Black people murder black people every day - where's the outrage?

Also if you are on about the criminal George Floyd, the world is a better place without him and I am sure his many victims over the years would agree.

I wouldn't say he was murdered either, personally I think it was more an accidental death than a murder, but the officer had a political trial (witchhunt), and should never have been found guilty of murder.


----------



## Maximumbeans (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Black people murder black people every day - where's the outrage?


That has to be the most desperate, myopic, half-baked, mentally inaccessible whataboutism I've ever seen in my life.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

Maximumbeans said:


> That has to be the most desperate, myopic, half-baked, mentally inaccessible whataboutism I've ever seen in my life.


Probably not. I see this kind of thing from the left every day. It's amazing the mental gymnastics these people can come up with to justify the crap they spout.


----------



## Maximumbeans (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Probably not. I see this kind of thing from the left every day. It's amazing the mental gymnastics these people can come up with to justify the crap they spout.


No, I can assure you it is. I'm not interested in what 'the left' come up with, I'm telling you that what you just said is utterly incomprehensible. You can't go on about about what other people spout when you just said the same kind of thing, you realise that, don't you?


----------



## smf (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Black people murder black people every day - where's the outrage?


Nice false equivalency.

Black people aren't protected from prosecution when they kill black people, unlike police.

 The justice system is there to deal with the punishment. The outrage is when the police aren't punished.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

Maximumbeans said:


> No, I can assure you it is. I'm not interested in what 'the left' come up with, I'm telling you that what you just said is utterly incomprehensible. You can't go on about about what other people spout when you just said the same kind of thing, you realise that, don't you?


I realise that the left are hypocrites. The Dems were the ones that wanted to keep slavery in the past. In the USA there's loads of people trafficking and modern day slavery and they are the ones that are complicit in this with their open borders. The worst crime is where black people live - yet they are the ones calling to defund the police. I could go on and on. If you think the Dems give a hoot about black people you are mistaken, all they care about is votes and staying in power so they can syphon your tax dollars away into their own accounts.
The left don't care about people, if they did they would stop all the drugs killing your youth, they would clamp down on modern day slavery and instead of going soft on crime and putting these scummy criminals in prison they would increase the amount of police, and sentences.

Here's another 50 humans that are dead today because of the Biden government policies:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61961871


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> You logic is silly and when you're only arguement because you don't like the way someone voted or thinks is to call them names and insult...



Sound observation coming from someone who has consistently called people in this thread "baby killers", "narcissistic", and "immature".

The right would be more amicable if they weren't so hypocritical. They complain about bodily autonomy only when it suits their needs (masks, vaccines). They complain about riots and protests and then whine at their own insurrection. They complain when gun laws are too restricting but then have no problem voting to dehumanize women. They promotor Christian values in a country that's supposed to operate under separation of church and state but then pull the 1st Amendment card every time they get called it. It's incredulous.

Show me one Republican that minds their own business.



mrdude said:


> I realise that the left are hypocrites. The Dems were the ones that wanted to keep slavery in the past. In the USA there's loads of people trafficking and modern day slavery and they are the ones that are complicit in this with their open borders. The worst crime is where black people live - yet they are the ones calling to defund the police. I could go on and on. If you think the Dems give a hoot about black people you are mistaken, all they care about is votes and staying in power so they can syphon your tax dollars away into their own accounts.
> The left don't care about people, if they did they would stop all the drugs killing your youth, they would clamp down on modern day slavery and instead of going soft on crime and putting these scummy criminals in prison they would increase the amount of police, and sentences.



The Democratic party of that time evolved into the Republican party of today. You wouldn't know that since you deny both history and science.

The Dems are complicit with open borders, but then Trump did nothing to build that wall he whined about for years. 

The police are ticket takers, nothing more. Maybe if we took all the money they put toward tools they don't need to do their job, we could put it back into the community to help cut down on all this "black on black" crime that apparently runs rampant.

"They would stop all the drugs..."?

What. So Trump can't build a wall or run a good economy during COVID and gets a pass, but the Democrats are expected to completely shut down all drugs without the expectation of enacting martial law or overstepping the boundaries of privately owned corporations (the ones feeding the drugs)? Do you even live in America?

"Going soft on crime..."

I wonder what Hilary's been up to.

A lot of whataboutism, yes, but it's for the sake of pointing out hypocrisy.



mrdude said:


> Here's another 50 humans that are dead today because of the Biden government policies:
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61961871



What policies caused them to die?


----------



## Maximumbeans (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> I realise that the left are hypocrites. The Dems were the ones that wanted to keep slavery in the past. In the USA there's loads of people trafficking and modern day slavery and they are the ones that are complicit in this with their open borders. The worst crime is where black people live - yet they are the ones calling to defund the police. I could go on and on. If you think the Dems give a hoot about black people you are mistaken, all they care about is votes and staying in power so they can syphon your tax dollars away into their own accounts.
> The left don't care about people, if they did they would stop all the drugs killing your youth, they would clamp down on modern day slavery and instead of going soft on crime and putting these scummy criminals in prison they would increase the amount of police, and sentences.
> 
> Here's another 50 humans that are dead today because of the Biden government policies:
> ...


That's great but I literally just pulled you up on a foolish whataboutism. Maybe I should stop wasting both our time. Jesus.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Sound observation coming from someone who has consistently called people in this thread "baby killers", "narcissistic", and "immature".
> 
> The right would be more amicable if they weren't so hypocritical. They complain about bodily autonomy only when it suits their needs (masks, vaccines). They complain about riots and protests and then whine at their own insurrection. They complain when gun laws are too restricting but then have no problem voting to dehumanize women. They promotor Christian values in a country that's supposed to operate under separation of church and state but then pull the 1st Amendment card every time they get called it. It's incredulous.
> 
> Show me one Republican that minds their own business.


Baby Killers - people that kill babies (Abortion is killing babies)
Narcissistic - these people think thier lives are more important and have no empathy for others (baby killers for example).
Immature - Not fully mentally developed (many of the people that have abortions).

I don't think you know what hypocrite means as many of the people that call out these things mentioned above would not do them themselves and are mature enough to deal with the consequences for their own actions.

I do have to laugh when I see these people that were trying to force others to get vaccinated, then start whining when someone is telling them what to do with their bodies - this is very hypicritcal of them, but many of them don't realise that.

Not only Chirstians disagree with abortion, many people from other religions do as well and so do many non religious people - so trying to put the blame on Christian values is pretty pathetic. You'd be better blaming people with moral values trying to impose morality on the immoral.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> What policies caused them to die?


I take it you don't watch the news very much, what about Bidens open border policies. Kamala was meant to sort the border out - has she even been to the southern border yet?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> I take it you don't watch the news very much, what about Bidens open border policies. Kamala was meant to sort the border out - has she even been to the southern border yet?



If you can't show me on the doll where the policies hurt you, at what point did the policies do any damage?



mrdude said:


> Baby Killers - people that kill babies (Abortion is killing babies)
> Narcissistic - these people think thier lives are more important and have no empathy for others (baby killers for example).
> Immature - Not fully mentally developed (many of the people that have abortions).



I'm glad you've grasped what definitions are, but that doesn't make your platform less hypocritical. You whine about other users calling people names just to turn around and call them names yourself. That's hypocrisy.



mrdude said:


> I don't think you know what hypocrite means as many of the people that call out these things mentioned above would not do them themselves and are mature enough to deal with the consequences for their own actions.



There's a long history of Republican politicians practicing open hypocrisy. We'll have to open another thread for that.



mrdude said:


> I do have to laugh when I see these people that were trying to force others to get vaccinated, then start whining when someone is telling them what to do with their bodies - this is very hypicritcal of them, but many of them don't realise that.



I didn't advocate for pushing the vaccine either, but at that point it's public health and affects everyone, as opposed to abortion which only affects a couple people.



mrdude said:


> Not only Chirstians disagree with abortion, many people from other religions do as well and so do many non religious people - so trying to put the blame on Christian values is pretty pathetic. You'd be better blaming people with moral values trying to impose morality on the immoral.



Judaism's pretty ok with it, and I believe the Muslim faith okays it as well (but for different reasons). What other religions are completely against it?


----------



## smf (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Baby Killers - people that kill babies (Abortion is killing babies)


Ok, we'll give you that if you accept that you are a nazi racist insurrectionist who wants baby Trump back in power so the police can continue to kill black people with impunity.

Deal? Otherwise abortion does not kill babies by definition of the word baby.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

smf said:


> nazi racist insurrectionist


Three typical default responses from an NPC - don't you have anything original to come up with?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 28, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Maybe if Clarence Thomas hadn't married Shrek, he wouldn't hate everybody who has more sexual freedom than him so much.


Ah yes, the same people who will call you racist and misogynist will they themselves be racist and misogynist when it fits their narrative.

If you can't see the hypocrisy in this, then this is why our country is so divided and broken.


----------



## smf (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Three typical default responses from an NPC - don't you have anything original to come up with?


I see you are arguing that I'm unoriginal, rather than wrong.

Does that mean you took the deal? Or are you going to stop being disingenuous?


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

smf said:


> I see you are arguing that I'm unoriginal, rather than wrong.
> 
> Does that mean you took the deal? Or are you going to stop being disingenuous?


I'm pretty sure you know what I was saying, but maybe it was too complex for you, either way I am not too fussed one way of the other what goes on in your mind.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 28, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Ah yes, the same people who will call you racist and misogynist will they themselves be racist and misogynist when it fits their narrative.
> 
> If you can't see the hypocrisy in this, then this is why our country is so divided and broken.



Where's the racism and misogyny in the post you quoted? All I saw was someone calling someone ugly for comedic effect. You can argue that they might be demeaning, but racist and misogynistic is a bit of a stretch.

Though you people don't seem to know what babies are and keep claiming things that aren't babies are, so I guess I'm not surprised.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Though *you people* don't seem to know what babies are and keep claiming things that aren't babies are, so I guess I'm not surprised.


What's *You People* supposed to mean - it sounds kind of racist to me :-).

We know what babies are, it seems that lefties Don't know what a baby is, in the same way as they can't define what a woman is.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> What's *You People* supposed to mean - it sounds kind of racist to me :-).
> 
> We know what babies are, it seems that lefties Don't know what a baby is, in the same way as they can't define what a woman is.



Well if I knew you were a different ethnicity than me you could be correct, but clearly I'm referring to something else. Good try though.

Who can't define what woman is? They're the ones being dehumanized by conservative Republicans with fake Christian values. 

Republicans also like to deny science, as we've seen with pretty much anything science has presented, definitely within the past few decades. 

Tell me, are you actually here to engage in active discussion or do you have a habit of resorting to name calling and blanket statements when you don't know how to debate arguments coherently presented to you? 

It's ok to take the L on this one; you might have your small victory now, but this behavior by the Supreme Court breeds rebellion, so expect to see a lot of riots and protests the rest of the month, year, etc. 

Funny how Republicans are quick to demonize activists but then when gun control talks happen they kinda just b*tch on social media and peter out like bad fireworks. Trust me, when the people fight back against the martial law you Republicans keep pushing for, it'll be the lefties and the looked over parties fighting for your freedom.

Again.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

This woman nails it...


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> This woman nails it...




Except that never happens. Ever.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> It's ok to take the L on this one; you might have your small victory now, but this behavior by the Supreme Court breeds rebellion, so expect to see a lot of riots and protests the rest of the month, year, etc.


Yeah, whatever - enjoy your time in prison or having a criminal record then when you get caught breaking the law. This will in turn wreck your life, but you know that already and it's only right you should face the consequences for your actions.

The law is the law, and the law has spoken - suck it up buttercup, because that's the way it is. If you live in a state where abortion is illegal or going to be illegal, I suggest you move or don't get anyone pregnant you don't want to have a baby with.

If you don't like how things are - vote for the party you want, that's democracy for you. If you want to live in a dictatorship I suggest you move to China or North Korea or somewhere else.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 28, 2022)

deinonychus71 said:


> If you compare it to most countries in the western world democrats are also on the right, and not just a little.
> They don't give two shits about fixing the healthcare system, even in their own state.
> They completely abandoned the concept of class warfare, but they sure as hell will remind you that you, little Walmart worker that you are, are full of privileges. It's easier to control people when they're busy fighting each other in their own bubbles rather than their elites.
> 
> ...


Well of course, but I already said I hated both parties, so I don't really see any point to this to be honest with you. Democrats are bad, Republicans are also bad, but one party is demonstrably worse in literally every regard because they're trying to push us into fascist theocracy.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Ah yes, the same people who will call you racist and misogynist will they themselves be racist and misogynist when it fits their narrative.
> 
> If you can't see the hypocrisy in this, then this is why our country is so divided and broken.


Bruh I just called her ugly, which is an objective truth.  Our country is so divided and broken because people like you think you have the right to take away my individual liberties and freedoms.


----------



## smf (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> I'm pretty sure you know what I was saying, but maybe it was too complex for you, either way I am not too fussed one way of the other what goes on in your mind.


Your deranged ramblings are too complex for anyone to understand.



mrdude said:


> Yeah, whatever - enjoy your time in prison or having a criminal record then when you get caught breaking the law. This will in turn wreck your life, but you know that already and it's only right you should face the consequences for your actions.


Like the idiots who staged an insurrection and then cried about it.



mrdude said:


> What's *You People* supposed to mean - it sounds kind of racist to me :-).
> 
> We know what babies are, it seems that lefties Don't know what a baby is, in the same way as they can't define what a woman is.


Since when is right wing a race?

You keep proving you don't know what babies are, only what you want them to be. In that regard, you are no different to people who chose their own gender.

You don't understand hypocrisy...


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Yeah, whatever - enjoy your time in prison or having a criminal record then when you get caught breaking the law. This will in turn wreck your life, but you know that already and it's only right you should face the consequences for your actions.
> 
> The law is the law, and the law has spoken - suck it up buttercup, because that's the way it is. If you live in a state where abortion is illegal or going to be illegal, I suggest you move or don't get anyone pregnant you don't want to have a baby with.
> 
> If you don't like how things are - vote for the party you want, that's democracy for you. If you want to live in a dictatorship I suggest you move to China or North Korea or somewhere else.



Here we go. Representative of the party that wants small government licking the boots of big government. Do you read what you type or are you just the mouthpiece of a Republican echo chamber?

If the law is the law, maybe you should give your guns up when they apply more restrictions since the 2nd amendment doesn't cover guns specifically, only the right to arm yourself in response to martial law, which hasn't happened yet. 

I'm curious. You "people", when the government comes to take more rights are you actually going to revolt or are you going to whine about the riots that ensue?


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Here we go. Representative of the party that wants small government licking the boots of big government. Do you read what you type or are you just the mouthpiece of a Republican echo chamber?
> 
> If the law is the law, maybe you should give your guns up when they apply more restrictions since the 2nd amendment doesn't cover guns specifically, only the right to arm yourself in response to martial law, which hasn't happened yet.
> 
> I'm curious. You "people", when the government comes to take more rights are you actually going to revolt or are you going to whine about the riots that ensue?


There seems to be a lot of butt hurt lefties on here.

Nobody has taken any rights from anyone. All the supreme court have done is to let each state make it's own decisions on abortion - which is how it should have been all along.

Why are you going on about rioting, where are these riots? If anyone riots and causes any damage, I hope they face the full might of the courts and are handed sentences befitting of the crimes they commit.

Guns is a different thread, but let me humour you - yes the right to bear Arms is the second amendment to the US constitution. If you are on about the recent case in NY, good the Supreme court got that right as well. Hopefully the next time a criminal gets shot by a law abiding citizen - just before they hit the ground and see the darkness and their life flashes before their eyes, they will feel some remorse and regret and realise this old proverb wasn't made up for nothing: "Live by the sword, Die by the sword".


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 28, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Where's the racism and misogyny in the post you quoted? All I saw was someone calling someone ugly for comedic effect. You can argue that they might be demeaning, but racist and misogynistic is a bit of a stretch.
> 
> Though you people don't seem to know what babies are and keep claiming things that aren't babies are, so I guess I'm not surprised.





Xzi said:


> Bruh I just called her ugly, which is an objective truth.  Our country is so divided and broken because people like you think you have the right to take away my individual liberties and freedoms.


According to your shitty playbooks, you're supposed to respect all women and black people and only whites are the enemies, so calling out him marrying a white women when he's black is technically racist, and calling her ugly, and since she so happens to be a women, is misogynist. I'm not saying I give a damn about all those labels, I'll always call out people for what they are, but I'm calling out your side since you always act so virtuous and pure until you don't get your way then all of a sudden either the rules you made up go out the window or multiple instances of double standards take effect. Without double standards you'd have no standards. Actually, you don't have any standards at all, you just pretend you do until when you don't get your way then you show your true colors. You'll say anything and sink to any disgusting level just so you can have the easiest access to killing babies for your own sick self gratification. Guess what? Roe v. Wade is bye bye, and you bet your ass this is just the beginning. We're coming to take you monsters down and take back actual human decency and civility whether you like it or realize you're on the actual wrong side or not, so bite me for all I care.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 28, 2022)

https://www.theguardian.com/science...apr/30/why-are-women-more-opposed-to-abortion

Old article, but it seems to ring true to this day. Men don't have a say on a women's body yet they advocate for abortion more. Yeesh.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 28, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> According to your shitty playbooks, you're supposed to respect all women and black people and only whites are the enemies, so calling out him marrying a white women when he's black is technically racist, and calling her ugly, and since she so happens to be a women, is misogynist. I'm not saying I give a damn about all those labels, I'll always call out people for what they are, but I'm calling out your side since you always act so virtuous and pure until you don't get your way then all of a sudden either the rules you made up go out the window or multiple instances of double standards take effect. Without double standards you'd have no standards. Actually, you don't have any standards at all, you just pretend you do until when you don't get your way then you show your true colors. You'll say anything and sink to any disgusting level just so you can have the easiest access to killing babies for your own sick self gratification. Guess what? Roe v. Wade is bye bye, and you bet your ass this is just the beginning. We're coming to take you monsters down and take back actual human decency and civility whether you like it or realize you're on the actual wrong side or not, so bite me for all I care.



Except you're conjecturing a lot of supposed mentality over a joke, probably because you don't actually have anything to say. You have to argue intent, and @Xzi doesn't come across as a bigot. You seem to protect a lot for someone who originally comes to these posts to drink liberal tears.

You're not coming to do anything. You're going to sit in a message board letting big government come down on the average civilian so you can whine some more when more rights get taken away. You act like you're a big bad representative of the Republican party but then your troll posts seem to imply that you don't actually have a choice of your own, you just side with whatever position you think is currently winning. But sit tight. Eventually a woman you care about will come under subjugation and either you'll change your view or lose a lot of women in your life you supposedly care about, all because you care only about controlling the birth and not fostering an environment to have said birth grow into something meaningful. 

Question. What defines your sense of morals? 



mrdude said:


> There seems to be a lot of butt hurt lefties on here.
> 
> Nobody has taken any rights from anyone. All the supreme court have done is to let each state make it's own decisions on abortion - which is how it should have been all along.
> 
> ...



Just because the rights aren't specifically constitutional doesn't mean they don't exist. You seem to care more about paperwork than actually having empathy.

Riots are the next course of action to the Supreme court ruling. Are you following the current discussion or cherry picking what you know how to argue against?

Guns specifically are not covered explicitly by the 2nd Amendment. A rock is an arm. You can infer all you want but that opens precedent for others to infer, something Republicans don't like when other people do it.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Riots are the next course of action to the Supreme court ruling. Are you following the current discussion or cherry picking what you know how to argue against?


I've not seen any riots yet, all I've seen is a bunch of fat munters twerking on a hill and a few blue haired crazies screeching something about their non impressive bodies. Plus the odd weird looking fat dude wearing a dress and whining about their non-existant uteruses. I've tried not to laugh much, but to be honest it's just to funny watching the meltdowns.

My advice to women is - keep your legs closed until you want a kid and perhaps buy yourself a vibrator (and some rechargeable batteries)  to tide you over unill you are sufficiently mature enough to deal with having a kid.

Here's some info on getting free condoms for those that can't control themselves:
https://www.heyitsfree.net/free-condoms/


----------



## Xzi (Jun 28, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> According to your shitty playbooks, you're supposed to respect all women and black people and only whites are the enemies, so calling out him marrying a white women when he's black is technically racist, and calling her ugly, and since she so happens to be a women, is misogynist.


Not the way any of this works, you're the one who brought race into this.  And I'll stand by the statement that they're both ugly, inside and out.  Hateful, vile people.  Again having nothing to do with their respective races.  They _choose_ to be that way, just as Americans should have the choice to live as the antithesis of that, a choice those fascist hypocrites would deny them. Fuck 'em.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 28, 2022)

Bodily autonomy is a human right. 
If the state says, "You must have that pregnancy that will kill you," the state is wrong. 
If the state says, "Sure, you were raped, but you have to carry that baby because I say so," the state is wrong. 
If the state says, "Well, I know the baby will die 16 weeks into the pregnancy, but you know what, you have to miscarriage that."
The state. Is. *Wrong.*

These scenarios above are now inevitable in several states because a bunch of morally bankrupt outrage addicts supported authoritarianism. There's a reason why they have to smear everyone who disagrees with them as "an easily offended leftist," because otherwise they would have to argue why someone should be forced to carry a baby against their wishes. If compelled labor is bad, why is compelled labor (by the second definition of labor) good to you?

The right of course, does not have a coherent answer to this, because the positions of the right are incoherent by design. It's not about any real end goal, it's just about falling in line like good puppets.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 28, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Because of their conduct.  Several lied in their confirmation hearings.  One is a guaranteed rapist that the FBI did not investigate properly, if at all.  Another has vowed to rule solely to spite liberals rather than based on his oath.  And yet another has made statements to indicate her rulings will be based on her cult-like religious faith, a violation of separation of church and state.
> 
> SCOTUS _is_ being used like a sword with this decision, a sword wielded by corporations specifically.  To allow for restriction of previously guaranteed rights or freedoms is contrary to the court's purpose for existing.  To wield it as a shield for the working class majority against creeping fascism again, Biden would have to pack the court, which is something I'm sure you'd hate.
> 
> See, this isn't just about abortion.  This ruling declares that the right to privacy is not constitutionally guaranteed.  This is contrary to every libertarian ideal and belief, on the right and the left.  Who gives a fuck about "originalism," the founding fathers didn't have an impending techno-theocratic oligarchy to worry about that might soon rival China's.  The justices of today had to get far more creative (and malicious) with their reading of the constitution to overturn Roe than for the original decision.  Thus I don't recognize their ruling as valid.


The right to privacy isn’t enumerated either, and that’s a problem. As for your other points, Congress can investigate the justices if it so pleases, although I had a look through those supposed “confirmation hearing lies” and, from what I can gather, none of the justices lied. They simply refused to answer the obvious trap question, which is not the same thing. Besides, I have a big problem with how the confirmation process works anyway, I explained why in one of my earlier posts. As for your other allegations, you gotta stop calling people rapists left and right without proof.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> If the state says, "You must have that pregnancy that will kill you," the state is wrong.
> If the state says, "Sure, you were raped, but you have to carry that baby because I say so," the state is wrong.
> If the state says, "Well, I know the baby will die 16 weeks into the pregnancy, but you know what, you have to miscarriage that."
> The state. Is. *Wrong.*


None of this is true - it's not your human right to get an abortion. The other stuff I highlighted is complete rubbish - abortions are allowed in special circumstances as above.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> I've not seen any riots yet, all I've seen is a bunch of fat munters twerking on a hill and a few blue haired crazies screeching something about their non impressive bodies. Plus the odd weird looking fat dude wearing a dress and whining about their non-existant uteruses. I've tried not to laugh much, but too be honest it's just to funny watching the meltdowns.
> 
> My advice to women is - keep your legs closed until you want a kid and perhaps buy yourself a vibrator (and some rechargeable batteries)  to tide you over unill you are sufficiently mature enough to deal with having a kid.
> 
> ...



Your post is so full of active hypocrisy I'm beginning to wonder where education failed you. Yet again, after demonizing other posters for calling people names, here you are doing it again. It must be peaceful to be so blissfully ignorant.

Did a woman touch you against your will when you were younger? Is that why you have so much pent up hatred for them? I'd advise you into dating the same sex but I have a feeling your against gay rights as well. Have you ever had any sex that was consensual? 

I'm glad you're posting websites that offer free contraceptives but your SC Justice is supposedly coming after those next because contraceptives are apparently a crime against God. I guess we'll be seeing a lot more rape cases after that, though rape seems to be nothing more than anti Republican fantasy to you people.



mrdude said:


> None of this is true - it's not your human right to get an abortion. The other stuff I highlighted is complete rubbish - abortions are allowed in special circumstances as above.



Actually it is. No one has an abortion because it feels nice. You would know if you actually had any women in your life that cared about you. If a woman gets an abortion it's survival, and survival is a basic right to life. Try again.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> None of this is true - it's not your human right to get an abortion. The other stuff I highlighted is complete rubbish - abortions are allowed in special circumstances as above.


Bodily autonomy is a human right. There is nothing to negotiate on this. If the state has the power to tell someone to have a child against their will, that is authoritarianism. It's objectively the definition of authoritarianism.

Not that you care, your opinions make it clear you love the state.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 28, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Bodily autonomy is a human right. There is nothing to negotiate on this. If the state has the power to tell someone to have a child against their will, that is authoritarianism. It's objectively the definition of authoritarianism.
> 
> Not that you care, your opinions make it clear you love the state.


Personally I hate statism and I do believe bodily autonomy is paramount, not just in regards to pregnancy, but in all realms involving the human body, including drug use, prostitution or anything else that could be considered body/mind-altering. Where things fall apart for me is the concept that a foetus is just “a clump of cells” and can be freely discarded. I think the nation, if not the world at large, should have a serious sit down and a conversation about the personhood of the foetus.

There *is* a point at which it’s too developed to not be considered a separate entity from the mother that’s only temporarily residing in her body, through no fault of its own. That entity deserves a degree of protection too. There’s no argument that in cases of rape abortion should be swift - the mental toll of carrying the child of the rapist is just too much, and it should be avoided, but in other cases I feel that refusing any degree of liability on the part of the mother is inherently unfair. The glaring question that always comes up is “who put it there”, and we all know the answer, whether it was intentional or accidental seems pretty inconsequential to me. There’s liability there, it’s a consequence of the mother’s choice if it happened willingly. There has to be a consensus that the majority of the population can agree on.

If we agree that a foetus is human (it’s not a dog, or a cat, or any other species) and its brain is already developed, I think it’s a little late to abort. That’s been my stance in the previous thread and it remains my stance in this one. I don’t have as much of an issue with aborting in early pregnancy - sure, we’re still depriving a human of life, but said human is not sentient, on account of lacking a brain. I think that approach strikes a balance for all parties involved.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Bodily autonomy is a human right.


Yes that's correct - and why vaccines should never be coercive or forced on people.
Abortion is not the same thing - where's the rights for the baby that's being killed, your rights shouldn't override theirs.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 28, 2022)




----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Yes that's correct - and why vaccines should never be coercive or forced on people.
> Abortion is not the same thing - where's the rights for the baby that's being killed, your rights shouldn't override theirs.


No one mentioned vaccines, so we'll be ignoring that every subsequent time you bring it up.
Abortion is, in fact, the same thing. The alternative to abortion rights is the state being able to tell you to have a kid you cannot take care of. That's _authoritarianism._ Ergo, that's bad, because authoritarianism is bad.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> No one mentioned vaccines, so we'll be ignoring that every subsequent time you bring it up.
> Abortion is, in fact, the same thing. The alternative to abortion rights is the state being able to tell you to have a kid you cannot take care of. That's _authoritarianism._ Ergo, that's bad, because authoritarianism is bad.


Well that's life, you live by the laws of the land or you move somewhere else.


----------



## Maximumbeans (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Well that's life, you live by the laws of the land or you move somewhere else.


Unless it's mandatory vaccines, right?


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

Maximumbeans said:


> Unless it's mandatory vaccines, right?


That will never be a law that gets passed. As for banned abortions - suck it up.


----------



## Maximumbeans (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> That will never be a law that gets passed.


But if it was you'd have no complaints, because the law of the land is infallible.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

Maximumbeans said:


> But if it was you'd have no complaints, because the law of the land is infallible.


It isn't so I am not arsed.


----------



## smf (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Nobody has taken any rights from anyone.


It seems you don't understand reality. Maybe if it was something you cared about, then you might choose to be more informed about it. Because you don't care about it, you want to misinform yourself and others.


----------



## Maximumbeans (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> It isn't so I am not arsed.


Oh, okay. That's handy!


----------



## smf (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> None of this is true - it's not your human right to get an abortion.


It was before, it is not now.



Maximumbeans said:


> Oh, okay. That's handy!


He is just an arse hole with no empathy and wants to troll on here, it's a right wing trait.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

smf said:


> It seems you don't understand reality. Maybe if it was something you cared about, then you might choose to be more informed about it. Because you don't care about it, you want to misinform yourself and others.


I care about children, so I am happy abortion is banned in some states.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Well that's life, you live by the laws of the land or you move somewhere else.


No. I'm gonna continue to vote and work towards a socialist USA.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> No. I'm gonna continue to vote and work towards a socialist USA.


Good luck, it will never happen in your life though - so probably is would be easier for you to move to a socialist country.

Most people in USA hate the commies - just saying!


----------



## smf (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> I care about children, so I am happy abortion is banned in some states.


Fetus aren't children, if you cared about children you would ban guns.



mrdude said:


> Good luck, it will never happen in your life though - so probably is would be easier for you to move to a socialist country.
> 
> Most people in USA hate the commies - just saying!


Socialism and communism are two different things. Most people in the USA support abortion & gun controls. It's a minority of idiots that is causing this, enjoy the pain you are causing others for now but you should assume this will not go well for you in the long term.


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 28, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Yes he did, and those are some pretty good accomplishments. Out of 4 years in office, did he accomplish anything else his campaign was based on?


Yes, many other things.

Like what this thread topic is about, during the debates against Hillary he was asked if he'd overturn Roe v Wade. He said he'd place 2-3 Supreme Court justices and the court would strike it down.


Facilitated treaties between Israel and two Middle East countries. (Considering those countries previously didn't recognize Israel, this was huge)
Moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.
A U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Deal to replace NAFTA.
An agreement with the E.U. to increase U.S. exports.
He was the first US President to step foot in North Korea, and I was so hoping for a peace deal between the North and South, but sadly it was probably only possible in a second term, and well good luck with that now.
Under him, the US became energy independent.
Encouraged NATO allies to pay what they pledged, with what's happening in Ukraine I'm sure many are happy they upped their defense spending.
Signed Right-To-Try legislation.
He also made health care providers list their price charts.

So, nah he didn't do anything of note like creating a new branch of the military. Oh, wait we have a Space Force now.


----------



## smf (Jun 28, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> So, nah he didn't do anything of note like creating a new branch of the military. Oh, wait we have a Space Force now.


If he wasn't such a corrupt and evil person who was using you to enrich himself, it would be funny.

The US isn't completely full of loons, so there will likely be civil unrest.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Yes that's correct - and why vaccines should never be coercive or forced on people.
> Abortion is not the same thing - where's the rights for the baby that's being killed, your rights shouldn't override theirs.



If babies had rights wouldn't that be in the Constitution? 




mrdude said:


> That will never be a law that gets passed. As for banned abortions - suck it up.



You forgot where schools and the military have vaccine mandates. Again, cherry picking.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

smf said:


> Fetus aren't children, if you cared about children you would ban guns.


Why would I want guns banned? I don't guns are just tools and I like them and have shot many of them over the years. Also I have no qualms on a law abiding citizen shooting a criminal that breaks into their home, or for self defence of themselves or others.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

smf said:


> Enjoy the pain you are causing others for now.


I'm not causing any pain, I am not the one making the laws or the one going around impregnating loads of unsuspecting women. If you can't control your sexual urges and are too lazy to use protection and you get someone pregnant, well that's on you so don't try and blame anyone else, it won't wash and inveitably you'll be the one responsible for your actions.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 28, 2022)

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...ment-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...y-economy-some-states-push-employee-ownership

https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2021/8/31/voters-strongly-support-worker-cooperatives

Bad news for you, champ. Socialism is getting more and more popular now that capitalism has demonstrated itself unable to provide in a global pandemic.

If you are so sure my ideas won't go anywhere, then you shouldn't be so frantically trying to get me to leave.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 28, 2022)

This thread


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...ment-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/
> 
> https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...y-economy-some-states-push-employee-ownership
> 
> ...


Yes OK, I am looking forward to November to see your fantasy come crashing down around you.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Yes OK, I am looking forward to November to see your fantasy come crashing down around you.


It's cute that you're coping with the idea that I'll just magically stop after November. America won't turn socialist in a midterm election, genius.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 28, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> It's cute that you're coping with the idea that I'll just magically stop after November. America won't turn socialist in a midterm election, genius.


It won't turn socialist ever!


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 28, 2022)

mrdude said:


> It won't turn socialist ever!



It's already half way there.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 28, 2022)




----------



## Kameryn (Jun 29, 2022)

HalfScoper said:


> Just take it in the butt (goes for both sides) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Apparently that makes you open to many more STI's and diseases, so got's be extra extra careful.


----------



## MariArch (Jun 29, 2022)

Hanafuda said:


>


Be back by monday morning you whore. The coffee ain't going to brew itself.


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 29, 2022)

smf said:


> If he wasn't such a corrupt and evil person who was using you to enrich himself, it would be funny.
> 
> The US isn't completely full of loons, so there will likely be civil unrest.


Thankfully he was voted out in the biggest landslide of all landslides in the history of any election ever.

Now we have the ethical members of the house and the senate to lead us while they rest in one of their several multi-million dollar mansions they bought on their 180K/yr salary. It's nice having people in power that work for us rather than being corrupt and enriching themselves.


----------



## Fighter92 (Jun 29, 2022)

Wow, this already has 72 pages of responses.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Bad news for you, champ. Socialism is getting more and more popular now that capitalism has demonstrated itself unable to provide in a global pandemic.
> 
> If you are so sure my ideas won't go anywhere, then you shouldn't be so frantically trying to get me to leave.


I’m not sure which part of the pandemic response was “capitalist”, exactly. If anything, the opposite is true. The free market ground to a halt by government mandate, what’d you expect to happen?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 29, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> Like what this thread topic is about, during the debates against Hillary he was asked if he'd overturn Roe v Wade. He said he'd place 2-3 Supreme Court justices and the court would strike it down.



There it is. He specifically undermined the integrity of the Supreme Court bias to strike down legislature that protected women's natural right to bodily autonomy, and all Republican were just like "Ok great" because most of them don't know what the term means, and the rest are so stuck in their Christian ways they didn't care that this religious based decision directly violates separation of church and state.

Wonderful.



SScorpio said:


> [*]Under him, the US became energy independent.



Can you elaborate on this just a little? 



SScorpio said:


> So, nah he didn't do anything of note like creating a new branch of the military. Oh, wait we have a Space Force now.



I have yet to understand the importance of this against today's society.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 29, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> There it is. He specifically undermined the integrity of the Supreme Court bias to strike down legislature that protected women's natural right to bodily autonomy, and all Republican were just like "Ok great" because most of them don't know what the term means, and the rest are so stuck in their Christian ways they didn't care that this religious based decision directly violates separation of church and state.
> 
> Wonderful.
> 
> ...


There isn't a use *whatsoever* for a "space force," he just did it to appeal to jingoistic animals who'd be stupid enough to praise him for anything, even wiping his ass.

Our space force does nothing of value and never will, because anything it might do is already covered by other branches, or by other parts of our government to begin with.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> There isn't a use *whatsoever* for a "space force," he just did it to appeal to jingoistic animals who'd be stupid enough to praise him for anything, even wiping his ass.
> 
> Our space force does nothing of value and never will, because anything it might do is already covered by other branches, or by other parts of our government to begin with.


It’s a forward-thinking, if a little funny move. Canada has just amended its law to include crimes committed on the moon. Needless to say, there’s nobody living on the moon.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 29, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> Thankfully he was voted out in the biggest landslide of all landslides in the history of any election ever.
> 
> Now we have the ethical members of the house and the senate to lead us while they rest in one of their several multi-million dollar mansions they bought on their 180K/yr salary. It's nice having people in power that work for us rather than being corrupt and enriching themselves.


I dont see anyone working for us. They are just shouting at cameras. They could of jumped the gun as soon as the draft leaked and started the ball rolling to radify the constitution but even now they havent...because they want you to be divided not because they care about you or your right cause if they did they would be in an office doing their fucking job. They divide the country and pay people to protest and riot.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 29, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> There isn't a use *whatsoever* for a "space force," he just did it to appeal to jingoistic animals who'd be stupid enough to praise him for anything, even wiping his ass.
> 
> Our space force does nothing of value and never will, because anything it might do is already covered by other branches, or by other parts of our government to begin with.


So you're an expert on biology, the law, politics and the military. What will you be an expert on next week?


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 29, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> SScorpio said:
> [*]Under him, the US became energy independent.
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate on this just a little?



There's not much to say, under his policies the US became a net energy exporter, where we exported more energy and energy products (crude/refined oil, natural gas, etc) than we imported.



SyphenFreht said:


> I have yet to understand the importance of this against today's society.


It's a clear consolidation of space-related things to a single military branch. Both Russia and China already have their own Space Forces.

Historically the US Air Force handled space-related stuff, but this puts a clear separation in place. IMO the better funding for NASA is a big improvement for the Space Force and its formation will lead to much more investment in advanced technologies to keep the US competitive with China and Russia. Just look at the history of NASA the US used to launch people into space, but hasn't in something like over 25 years and we relied on Russia to get astronauts to the ISS.

I just wonder if we'll have the Space Force commanding actual military spacecraft in our lifetimes. And will the first Intergalactic Battle Cruiser be christened the U.S.S. Donald J. Trump?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 29, 2022)

mrdude said:


> So you're an expert on biology, the law, politics and the military. What will you be an expert on next week?


Given how much more I know about a topic than you, it must FEEL like I'm an expert, but I'm actually just average.


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 29, 2022)

wartutor said:


> I dont see anyone working for us. They are just shouting at cameras. They could of jumped the gun as soon as the draft leaked and started the ball rolling to radify the constitution but even now they havent...because they want you to be divided not because they care about you or your right cause if they did they would be in an office doing their fucking job. They divide the country and pay people to protest and riot.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 29, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Given how much more I know about a topic than you, it must FEEL like I'm an expert, but I'm actually just average.


Yes I'm sure you think that you're an expert on knowing what other people know as well.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 29, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Yes I'm sure you think that you're an expert on knowing what other people know as well.


You know that thing I was doing where I was sardonically saying I was only seeming like an expert in comparison to you??? And you misread that as me saying I actually was an expert?


----------



## mrdude (Jun 29, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> You know that thing I was doing where I was sardonically saying I was only seeming like an expert in comparison to you??? And you misread that as me saying I actually was an expert?


Yes I'm sure you probably think that.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 29, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Yes I'm sure you probably think that.


Do...Do you think I was genuinely calling myself an expert on the topic???


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 29, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> You know that thing I was doing where I was sardonically saying I was only seeming like an expert in comparison to you??? And you misread that as me saying I actually was an expert?


Sarcasm is an art. But while some people will try to convince others a monkey throwing feces at a canvas is art, everyone knows it really is just a bunch of smeared shit.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 29, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Do...Do you think I was genuinely calling myself an expert on the topic???


I don't care either way.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 29, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...ment-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/
> 
> https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...y-economy-some-states-push-employee-ownership
> 
> ...



The left, including you, would love if we bought the shit you're selling - specifically that capitalism failed to provide anything. Capitalism hasn't failed and it's working fine. What's failed are people like you who would trade our freedom for some fucked up shit like socialism.


----------



## bootmonster (Jun 29, 2022)

I think this shit show of a thread needs locked


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 29, 2022)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> The left, including you, would love if we bought the shit you're selling - specifically that capitalism failed to provide anything. Capitalism hasn't failed and it's working fine. What's failed are people like you who would trade our freedom for some fucked up shit like socialism.


Why would I care what you think about anything?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 29, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> There's not much to say, under his policies the US became a net energy exporter, where we exported more energy and energy products (crude/refined oil, natural gas, etc) than we imported.



That sounds a little odd considering he pulled troops out of Afghanistan, unless the goal was to move toward better trade with Russia, which would've been quite the debacle now had it went that way.



SScorpio said:


> It's a clear consolidation of space-related things to a single military branch. Both Russia and China already have their own Space Forces.
> 
> Historically the US Air Force handled space-related stuff, but this puts a clear separation in place. IMO the better funding for NASA is a big improvement for the Space Force and its formation will lead to much more investment in advanced technologies to keep the US competitive with China and Russia. Just look at the history of NASA the US used to launch people into space, but hasn't in something like over 25 years and we relied on Russia to get astronauts to the ISS.



I didn't know that, thank you for explaining. This begs a question for another thread: With Trump forming the Space Force and m(b)illionaires funding (partaking?) in space endeavors, what's their end goal? Habitation? Expansion? Resources? Interesting scenario to pick apart.



SScorpio said:


> And will the first Intergalactic Battle Cruiser be christened the U.S.S. Donald J. Trump?



As long as it does better than Trump Air, I can say he deserves it. Although if it failed, that'd kinda be ironic.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> The left, including you, would love if we bought the shit you're selling - specifically that capitalism failed to provide anything. Capitalism hasn't failed and it's working fine. What's failed are people like you who would trade our freedom for some fucked up shit like socialism.



You're right, socialism sucks. That's why I hate things like:
unemployment and disability insurance
subsidies for eligible low-wage workers
subsidies for housing
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program pensions
SSI
and health insurance programs like:
Medicare
Medicaid
The Children's Health Insurance Program.

Man if only everything was controlled by the 1%, then we'd all be happy.


----------



## wartutor (Jun 29, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> View attachment 315744


Should read truth detector. Not one statement in that is sarcastic and its not my fault your side can not think on your own or handle the truth or you would see that also. Tell your representitives to get their ass in gear instead of shouting at cameras and maybe it will actually be a constitutional right instead of an overreach made by the supream court. Hell last i checked democrats have the house, senate, and white house...yet all i see is publicity stunts and cameo's instead of papers being filed and their jobs getting done. The leak was May 2nd... way i see it May 3rd someone should of started filing papers to have the constitution changed before it got to this...your side (if you want to call them that) dropped the ball and it seams to be on purpose probably to stur up votes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Should read truth detector. Not one statement in that is sarcastic and its not my fault your side can not think on your own or handle the truth or you would see that also. Tell your representitives to get their ass in gear instead of shouting at cameras and maybe it will actually be a constitutional right instead of an overreach made by the supream court. Hell last i checked democrats have the house, senate, and white house...yet all i see is publicity stunts and cameo's instead of papers being filed and their jobs getting done. The leak was May 2nd... way i see it May 3rd someone should of started filing papers to have the constitution changed before it got to this...your side (if you want to call them that) dropped the ball and it seams to be on purpose probably to stur up votes.


I said it once, I’ll say it again - mid-terms are coming up. We’ll see just how fast they can draft a bill. My guess is “not before the votes are cast”.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 29, 2022)

Xzi said:


> And I'll stand by the statement that they're both ugly, inside and out.  Hateful, vile people.


Just like you. You claim others are, but you're just as bad or worse.


hippy dave said:


> View attachment 315712


Are the hot one's this bitch talking about the one's here? Including her? Because oh man, all those men are truly missing out then.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 29, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Just like you. You claim others are, but you're just as bad or worse.
> 
> Are the hot one's this bitch talking about the one's here? Including her? Because oh man, all those men are truly missing out then.


All I'll say to the  blue haired fat munters that think men want to get in about them is - Women Know Your Limits!I recommend you watch this video so you learn how to act in civilised company.



And for the easily led women out there - thinking about sex: Look Listen & Take Heed Women Keep Your Virtue.



For the virgins amonst you - this is how we "do it" in England.


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 29, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Should read truth detector....


Re-read what you originally commented on.

_Now we have the ethical members of the house and the senate to lead us while they rest in one of their several multi-million dollar mansions they bought on their 180K/yr salary. It's nice having people in power that work for us rather than being corrupt and enriching themselves._

That's not setting off your sarcasm detector? You might need to get it calibrated.


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 29, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> That sounds a little odd considering he pulled troops out of Afghanistan, unless the goal was to move toward better trade with Russia, which would've been quite the debacle now had it went that way.


I'm not clear on what US troops in Afghanistan have to do with US energy production, could you clarify?

US production wouldn't have included any resources from them, and their country wasn't one we were exporting energy to.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 29, 2022)

What similarities does this thread share to abortion???


----------



## Xzi (Jun 29, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Just like you. You claim others are, but you're just as bad or worse.


I use what small platform I have to advocate for more freedoms and to defend the ones we already have.  You and Thomas choose to use your platforms to wave the confederate flag (if not also the swastika).  I couldn't possibly care less what a pre-teen wehraboo thinks he has to teach me about morality and ethics.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 29, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> I'm not clear on what US troops in Afghanistan have to do with US energy production, could you clarify?
> 
> US production wouldn't have included any resources from them, and their country wasn't one we were exporting energy to.



I was referring to the "oil war" we've been having off and on in the middle east for decades. I'm curious to know if we finally gave up over there or just happened to be on the verge of a better deal on oil trade because of Trump and Putin's friendship.


----------



## Chaosta (Jun 29, 2022)

meh. someone ring me when mens rights regarding children is being talked about. 

maybe then ill care about a females "decision".


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 29, 2022)

Chaosta said:


> meh. someone ring me when mens rights regarding children is being talked about.


Elaborate.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 29, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Just like you. You claim others are, but you're just as bad or worse.
> 
> Are the hot one's this bitch talking about the one's here? Including her? Because oh man, all those men are truly missing out then.





mrdude said:


> All I'll say to the  blue haired fat munters that think men want to get in about them is - Women Know Your Limits!I recommend you watch this video so you learn how to act in civilised company.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, ok, ok, you're misogynistic pieces of shit, we get it, you don't have to keep yelling it at every possible opportunity. It's not as if it weren't already obvious from your support of law changes that are blatantly designed to control those with uteruses.


----------



## smf (Jun 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m not sure which part of the pandemic response was “capitalist”, exactly. If anything, the opposite is true. The free market ground to a halt by government mandate, what’d you expect to happen?



The free market was going to grind to a halt no matter what, all the mandates did was make it controllable and have less of an impact.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 29, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Yes, ok, ok, you're misogynistic pieces of shit, we get it, you don't have to keep yelling it at every possible opportunity.* It's not as if it weren't already obvious from your support of law changes that are blatantly designed to control those with uteruses*.


The abortion law changes were never in the constitiution, the law change only means individual states can make their own laws up, as I am sure you already know. Nobody is controlling anyone - if someone gets pregnant it's down to their own actions. Some states will change the laws to protect the life of the baby, a baby is still a human and should have the same rights as the mother. If you ask me they should also change the law so men get a say in pregnancy, after all it's half their child and they are expected to pay for it as well. It's unfair how it's only the woman that gets to make the choice - sexist against men in fact.

Even in communist China since 2002 men have an equal say as the women and can sue the woman if she has an abortion - it's time the west got with the program instead of being backwards - equal rights for men!


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 29, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I was referring to the "oil war" we've been having off and on in the middle east for decades. I'm curious to know if we finally gave up over there or just happened to be on the verge of a better deal on oil trade because of Trump and Putin's friendship.



My feelings on that is that the US's relationship with multiple Middle Eastern countries was better under Trump 

But that wouldn't affect the US being energy independent. If anything it should scare them as we can show we don't need them.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 29, 2022)

mrdude said:


> The abortion law changes were never in the constitiution, the law change only means individual states can make their own laws up, as I am sure you already know. Nobody is controlling anyone - if someone gets pregnant it's down to their own actions. Some states will change the laws to protect the life of the baby, a baby is still a human and should have the same rights as the mother. If you ask me they should also change the law so men get a say in pregnancy, after all it's half their child and they are expected to pay for it as well. It's unfair how it's only the woman that gets to make the choice - sexist against men in fact.
> 
> Even in communist China since 2002 men have an equal say as the women and can sue the woman if she has an abortion - it's time the west got with the program instead of being backwards - equal rights for men!


Those poor underprivileged men!


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Nobody is controlling anyone.


States are controlling women by taking away their bodily autonomy rights.



mrdude said:


> Some states will change the laws to protect the life of the baby, a baby is still a human and should have the same rights as the mother.


Even if we granted a fetus the same rights as the mother, we would still have to grant it special rights that nobody else has in order to allow it to be able to violate a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

You presumably don't think the state should be able to violate your bodily autonomy rights for the sake of my life, so I don't know why you think the state should be able to violate a woman's bodily autonomy rights for the sake of a fetus's life.



mrdude said:


> If you ask me they should also change the law so men get a say in pregnancy, after all it's half their child and they are expected to pay for it as well. It's unfair how it's only the woman that gets to make the choice - sexist against men in fact.


Men are wholly irrelevant to a woman's bodily autonomy, so the decision to terminate a pregnancy literally has nothing to do with them.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 29, 2022)

Imagine unironically believing that you should get to decide that someone else has to go through an expensive, exhausting, physically and emotionally traumatic nine-month ordeal that permanently changes their body, against their consent, just because you can't find someone who actually _wants_ to reproduce with you. Maybe work on your people skills instead.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 29, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Men are wholly irrelevant to a woman's bodily autonomy, so the decision to terminate a pregnancy literally has nothing to do with them.


They mans genetic material makes up half the child, men have the right in many (quite a few) countries to say what happens to their child.

See here for more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_rights_and_abortion



> In 2011, it was reported that Indonesia, Malawi, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Equatorial Guinea, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Taiwan and Turkey all had laws which required that an abortion first be authorized by the woman's husband. However, in some countries, this stipulation could be bypassed or overridden if there is genuine concern for maternal health.



In 2022, men in the west still don't get a say on whether there kid gets to live or die (before it's born) yet are expected to pay for them, whether they want the child or not. The men should be able to force the woman to have the child and then take if from her once it's born if the woman wants to abort, then the man should be able to force the woman to pay for the upkeep of the child - that would then make men and women equal. But we all know women don't want equal rights - they want special rights.

With the states being able to ban abortions, this is the first step to correct this unjustice upon men, hopefully more laws will be passed in the future to give men an equal footing, but for now men are treated unfairly and almost as second class citizens.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2022)

mrdude said:


> They mans genetic material makes up half the child.


As I said, that has nothing to do with a woman's bodily autonomy, so it's irrelevant.

Edit: the only ones being treated as "second class citizens" are women, as they're the only ones who have been told their bodily autonomy rights don't matter.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 29, 2022)

mrdude said:


> All I'll say to the  blue haired fat munters that think men want to get in about them is - Women Know Your Limits!I recommend you watch this video so you learn how to act in civilised company.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is fucking hilarious simply because.

Harry Enfield is well known to be a supporter of the left.

He along with his family have donated huge amounts of money to the British Labour Party

He has done numerous things in support for workers/women/lgbt rights and everything else you can think of the left support.

He made a number of comedy skits showing the lunacy of the right and their misogynistic view's

And now we have the very type of person he hates trying to use some of his skits for their own purpose without them even realising that Harry made the skits to show how ridiculous their right wing views are.

Definitely a case of


----------



## mrdude (Jun 29, 2022)

Lacius said:


> As I said, that has nothing to do with a woman's bodily autonomy, so it's irrelevant.


What's irrelevant it the views of every single person on this forum and everyone that doesn't make the state laws.

The law is the only thing that's relevant and the law has spoken.

Many women will be screeching for a few days, but when it comes down to it they will abide by the laws of the state or they will need to go somewhere else to get their abortions. That's the only thing that's relevant.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

smf said:


> The free market was going to grind to a halt no matter what, all the mandates did was make it controllable and have less of an impact.


You don’t actually know that without a control. Sweden didn’t have a formal lockdown and their COVID-19-related deaths aren’t excessive compared to the rest of Europe. Everything depends on the country in question, its climate, population density and socio-economic environment. There is no parallel “Earth 2” with no lockdown you can use for comparison, you can only make projections with no real way to determine if they’re accurate with 100% certainty.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 29, 2022)

AmandaRose said:


> This is fucking hilarious simply because.
> 
> Harry Enfield is well known to be a supporter of the left.
> 
> ...


Haha, yes I know - it's funny how you can use the lefts own stuff against them, they are so easy to troll it's unbelievable.

Change the word Labour for Democrats and this sums up the democrat party:


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2022)

mrdude said:


> What's irrelevant it the views of every single person on this forum and everyone that doesn't make the state laws.
> 
> The law is the only thing that's relevant and the law has spoken.


I'm sure you feel this way, since it would mean you wouldn't have to address my points (a task I'm sure you find to be difficult), but if this is how we acted, then nobody would have a conversation about anything.

Also, a lot of the people in this thread are voters, so their views are relevant, and their opinions are valid regardless of whether or not they're voters.

Your comment feels a lot like you're waving a white flag and saying "move along, nothing to see here."



mrdude said:


> Many women will be screeching for a few days, but when it comes down to it they will abide by the laws of the state or they will need to go somewhere else to get their abortions. That's the only thing that's relevant.


There are many more elections, executive actions, administrative actions, and court cases in the future. This isn't over.

You're also a fool if you think abortions won't take place in states where they're illegal.


----------



## worm28 (Jun 29, 2022)

What roe vs wade has been repealed well shit i guess i will have to start buying condoms.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 29, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You're also a fool if you think abortions won't take place in states where they're illegal.


Yes I am sure there will be loads of alchohol and coathangers used in back street rooms. I suppose for some it will just be a hobby kind of like fishing for one of these.







As for your comment about more elections etc, This is the law now so in the meantime suck it up until the laws get changed again.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Yes I am sure there will be loads of alchohol and coathangers used in back street rooms.


This is unfortunately true, but the good news is medicated abortions are safe and easy, and you have to be a fool to believe the pills will be impossible to access in states where abortion is illegal.



mrdude said:


> As for your comment about more elections etc, This is the law now so in the meantime suck it up until the laws get changed again.


I don't respond to injustice by "sucking it up." That isn't an avenue to change.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 29, 2022)

Lacius said:


> This is unfortunately true, but the good news is medicated abortions are safe and easy, and you have to be a fool to believe the pills will be impossible to access in states where abortion is illegal.


Yep, probably it would just be easier in the first place to use contraception or take the morning after pill. Then they won't need to bother taking an abortion pill. Finally they will be forced to act responsibly, whether they want to learn the hard way or the easy way is up to them.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 29, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Yep, probably it would just be easier in the first place to use contraception or take the morning after pill. Then they won't need to bother taking an abortion pill. Finally they will be forced to act responsibly, whether they want to learn the hard way or the easy way is up to them.



Yeah, contraception probably would be easier, and I highly recommend the use of contraception.
Many of the same right-wingers who are anti-choice are also anti-contraception (go figure). They've done a lot to limit access to contraception and limit education about contraception in schools.
Right-wingers are working on making multiple forms of contraception outright illegal.
Contraception is not 100% effective, and a person using it may still need access to abortion services.
Having sex without contraception does not somehow take away a person's right to bodily autonomy. Sex, with or without contraception, is not consent to get pregnant, and consent to get pregnant isn't even consent to stay pregnant.
Some people get pregnant from sex, with or without contraception, when the sex wasn't consensual. But yeah, forcing her to remain pregnant: that'll teach her.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> You don’t actually know that without a control. Sweden didn’t have a formal lockdown and their COVID-19-related deaths aren’t excessive compared to the rest of Europe. Everything depends on the country in question, its climate, population density and socio-economic environment. There is no parallel “Earth 2” with no lockdown you can use for comparison, you can only make projections with no real way to determine if they’re accurate with 100% certainty.


Their fully state-sponsored healthcare is excellent however. Unlike your preferred libertarian Far West of insurances.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Their fully state-sponsored healthcare is excellent however. Unlike your preferred libertarian Far West of insurances.


I should make a scarecrow and start an account for it so that you could have arguments with it instead of me. I am on record saying that I despise the insurance industry, you’re strawmanning hard.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I should make a scarecrow and start an account for it so that you could have arguments against it instead of me. I am on record saying that I despise the insurance industry, you’re strawmanning hard.


Eh but you're also on record spending pages arguing with me about how wasteful public healthcare is and how much better your libertarian ideas were, or did you forget? I'm happy to accept you might have changed your mind and only tend to argue for the sake of arguing, like a troll.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Eh but you're also on record spending pages arguing with me about how wasteful public healthcare is and how much better your libertarian ideas were, or did you forget? I'm happy to accept you might have changed your mind and only tend to argue for the sake of arguing, like a troll.


Oh, it’s definitely wasteful and a private implementation would be far more efficient, but that’s not what you said.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, it’s definitely wasteful and a private implementation would be far more efficient, but that’s not what you said.


I know what I said, and with evidence I highlighted how only public healthcare is the one that works, overall, best. Let's try to make a bit of clarity, shall we? Because you don't like public, you don't like private via insurance, what is it that you like? Fully private without insurance?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I know what I said, and with evidence I highlighted how only public healthcare is the one that works, overall, best. Let's try to make a bit of clarity, shall we? Because you don't like public, you don't like private via insurance, what is it that you like? Fully private without insurance?


Private healthcare and private insurance are two separate industries. They were foolishly intertwined by government mandate, removing them from the free market and eliminating supply and demand from the equation, completely destabilising pricing as a result. We had an extensive argument about this in the past and, evidently, you’ve gathered nothing from it. Since I have no reason to believe that this time you will, I see no reason to waste my time with you in a completely unrelated thread. If you want to know what the libertarian stance on healthcare is, you can research that subject on your own time.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 29, 2022)

worm28 said:


> What roe vs wade has been repealed well shit i guess i will have to start buying condoms.


Get snipped, cheaper and better in the long run.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Private healthcare and private insurance are two separate industries. They were foolishly intertwined by government mandate, removing them from the free market.


So, you're arguing that something isn't how it should be - which is fine, except that IRL this is the situation we're in. You can lament the erroneous mandate, but we also have to deal with reality.


Foxi4 said:


> We had an extensive argument about this in the past and, evidently, you’ve gathered nothing from it.


It's not my fault you're incapable of expressing a thought that isn't filled to the brim with your misplaced condescending attitude and overall ignorance, trying to say everything and the opposite of everything just to appear never flat-footed, while always engaging in your usual gaslighting.


Foxi4 said:


> Since I have no reason to believe that this time you will, I see no reason to waste my time with you in a completely unrelated topic.


It's not unrelated, and your time is worthless anyway since you have no useful contribution to make. The costs of a childbirth in the US, can be exceedingly high. Even "skin to skin" contact is charged. Now, in a public healthcare system, this is taken care of by the state. If you're insured, hopefully the insurance takes care of it. If you're not, you're paying this out of pocket. How much should childbirth cost in your ideal healthcare system?


Foxi4 said:


> If you want to know what the libertarian stance on healthcare is, you can research that subject on your own time.


No thanks, I'd rather to something productive like watching rainfall. Definitely a better occupation than engaging with a trollish reactionary troglodyte such as yourself. Or reading about an obviously failed ideology which cannot function in the real world - even less so on the proposed scale.


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 29, 2022)

Ope...


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> So, you're arguing that something isn't how it should be - which is fine, except that IRL this is the situation we're in. You can lament the erroneous mandate, but we also have to deal with reality.
> 
> It's not my fault you're incapable of expressing a thought that isn't filled to the brim with your misplaced condescending attitude and overall ignorance, trying to say everything and the opposite of everything just to appear never flat-footed, while always engaging in your usual gaslighting.
> 
> ...


>“I don’t want to learn anything new, I’ll just build strawmen and attack others based on what I think they believe, as opposed to what they actually believe.”

See? Saved me a bunch of typing and the result is exactly the same. That’s efficiency.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 29, 2022)

lmao private health care is always gonna be a scam, there is no effective or ethical way to implement one


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> lmao private health care is always gonna be a scam, there is no effective or ethical way to implement one


The Swiss are complaining about their exclusively private healthcare non-stop while they enjoy ranking 1st in the World Index of Healthcare Innovation, 1st in the Euro Health Consumer Index and 3rd in the Legatum Prosperity Index. There’s just no way to do it right. Beating a dead horse though, I don’t know how many times I’ve had this discussion on the forum - boring.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> See? Saved me a bunch of typing and the result is exactly the same. That’s efficiency.


Yep, proves my point about you exactly.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The Swiss are complaining about their exclusively private healthcare non-stop


Actually it's called: universal private health insurance. Also, Legatum index? Don't make me laugh, those people are useless, they don't have enough brain to find their own arse without their hands. And Euro Health consumer index stopped what, 4 years ago?
And the Freopp? Claims to be non-partisan yet staffed almost exclusively by Texan republicans, some of the most rabid reactionary fash folk around.

So it's really nice to throw stats, but maybe they'd be a little less biased, yes?


----------



## hippy dave (Jun 29, 2022)

It's totally about interpreting the Constitution as objectively as possible, and totally not about ideological warfare that will do anything to reach its twisted goals no matter how many people get hurt


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Actually it's called: universal private health insurance.


It’s called universal private healthcare. Health insurance is compulsory for anyone who stays in the country for longer than 3 months - that doesn’t mean a tourist won’t be admitted to hospital if they have an accident. Are you trying to derail again? I’m not having this discussion with you - you’ve demonstrated that you don’t understand the subject matter before and my time is valuable.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Yep, proves my point about you exactly.


What would that point be? Me pointing out that you’re incorrect and you getting flustered isn’t a “point”, I’m not obligated to waste my time answering your inquiries, especially in an unrelated thread.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s called universal private healthcare. Health insurance is compulsory for anyone who stays in the country for longer than 3 months - that doesn’t mean a tourist won’t be admitted to hospital if they have an accident. Are you trying to derail again?


It's called, literally, universal private health insurance, and even wikipedia says that it is universal but through health insurance. Not through some magical non-insurance private healthcare.

Legatum index? Don't make me laugh, those people are useless, they don't have enough brain to find their own arse without their hands. And Euro Health consumer index stopped what, 4 years ago?
And the Freopp? Claims to be non-partisan yet staffed almost exclusively by Texan republicans, some of the most rabid reactionary fash folk around, who basically want to repel Obamacare.

So it's really nice to throw stats, but don't assume we're all easily impressed by your intellectual dishonesty.



Foxi4 said:


> What would that point be? Me pointing out that you’re incorrect and you getting flustered isn’t a “point”, I’m not obligated to waste my time answering your inquiries, especially in an unrelated thread.


Yeah you keep saying that, and you keep being a failure, claiming that I get "flustered" when all I do is highlight your obvious lies. You've not corrected me a single time, you've just thrown tantrums. The point about Swiss healthcare is poignant, with you refusing to accept reality. And your time is worthless, kinda like other things about you.

And the thread is related, unless you're saying that childbirth and abortion are not healthcare-related. Are you advocating practicing those in the house bathroom?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's called, literally, universal private health insurance, and even wikipedia says that it is universal but through health insurance. Not through some magical non-insurance private healthcare.
> 
> Legatum index? Don't make me laugh, those people are useless, they don't have enough brain to find their own arse without their hands. And Euro Health consumer index stopped what, 4 years ago?
> And the Freopp? Claims to be non-partisan yet staffed almost exclusively by Texan republicans, some of the most rabid reactionary fash folk around, who basically want to repel Obamacare.
> ...


The Swiss healthcare system is private and renowned around the world for its excellent health outcomes, quality of care, innovation and fiscal stability, that’s all I have to say. The rest of your post is just bloviating, I have no interest in it.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The Swiss healthcare system is private and renowned around the world for its excellent health outcomes, quality of care, innovation and fiscal stability


And for being insurance-based, despite your imaginary claim of otherwise. Affordable, for sure, not a disaster like america, but still insurance-based. Even in spite of your "sources" (reactionary nonsense-tanks and outdated indexes).

The rest of your post is just your usual gaslighting. I accept you being flustered about being, as usual, corrected, and that's all I have to say. Including your ridiculous stubborn refusal to address how abortion and childbirth are ALSO healthcare matters, not just legal ones.

For those of you interested in a more nuanced dataset not dependent on rightwing reactionary nonsense, here. It's obviously far more complicated as it takes into account several factors.


----------



## Korozin (Jun 29, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> It's totally about interpreting the Constitution as objectively as possible, and totally not about ideological warfare that will do anything to reach its twisted goals no matter how many people get hurt
> View attachment 315825



As I'm someone with parental figures who have Lupus - I find this utterly fucking ridiculous. As Lupus is basically a sentence to life-long agony unless treated properly. Shall we list off a few symptoms it incurs? Hm painful rashes, migraines, oh look RA (Rheumatoid Arthritis, extremely painful as I might also have it myself) also possibly Ostio Arthritis, oh look bone problems are added too! Oh, and also it can lead to organ failure? Imagine having a possible death sentence because the most effective treatment was denied, and don't say the same bullshit "oh, well it's giving the baby a death sentence" first of all - not everyone with Lupus is going to be pregnant during their treatment; therefore said treatment shouldn't be denied in anti-abortion states unless the patient is actively pregnant. (am I appeasing your abortion ideals now?) Secondly many people with Lupus after they learn their condition don't _want _to have children as the disease can be passed down genetically.

Yeah auto-immune disorders fucking _suck_, also may I add again that not everyone with Lupus is going to be pregnant during their time of treatment? Just because the medication has the chance to cause that effect, doesn't mean it should be revoked from others who don't even fall in the same bracket. Also please don't just say "move to another place" because treatment for Lupus is already an extremely expensive and strenuous process. Traveling across state lines only adds to the stress, mentally, physically and financially.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And for being insurance-based, despite your imaginary claim of otherwise. Affordable, for sure, not a disaster like america, but still insurance-based. Even in spite of your "sources" (reactionary nonsense-tanks and outdated indexes).
> 
> The rest of your post is just your usual gaslighting. I accept you being flustered about being, as usual, corrected, and that's all I have to say. Including your ridiculous stubborn refusal to address how abortion and childbirth are ALSO healthcare matters, not just legal ones.
> 
> For those of you interested in a more nuanced dataset not dependent on rightwing reactionary nonsense, here. It's obviously far more complicated as it takes into account several factors.


I’ve indicated from the start that you’re not going to bait me into discussing private vs public healthcare with you *again* in a thread about the Supreme Court and Roe v Wade, and yet you insist on trying to derail. There’s a myriad of differences between how insurance works in the U.S. (basically a government-induced cartel) and how it works in Switzerland, we’ve been over this and I have no interest in going over it again. I’m not sure what you’re getting out of this exchange - I understand that you crave my attention (for some reason), but I just don’t find chatting with you enjoyable. Learn how to handle rejection.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> but I just don’t find chatting with you enjoyable. Learn how to handle rejection.


The feeling is mutual, but your nonsense needs to be challenged. I appreciate you only find echo chambers enjoyable but hey, that's libertarians for you, intellectual dishonesty and usual gaslighting. Besides, cool your jets, there isn't only you in this thread of 70+ pages. Your attention-seeking sense is triggered once again.


Foxi4 said:


> and yet you insist on trying to derail


Actually, no. I'm only adding to the discussion that, in a system like the US, Abortion isn't just a matter of ideology and "pro-birth vs pro-choice". It's also a very real financial matter. One that tends to be ignored.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> The feeling is mutual, but your nonsense needs to be challenged. I appreciate you only find echo chambers enjoyable but hey, that's libertarians for you, intellectual dishonesty and usual gaslighting. Besides, cool your jets, there isn't only you in this thread of 70+ pages. Your attention-seeking sense is triggered once again.
> 
> Actually, no. I'm only adding to the discussion that, in a system like the US, Abortion isn't just a matter of ideology and "pro-birth vs pro-choice". It's also a very real financial matter. One that tends to be ignored.


Oh, I enjoy hearing opposing points of view. Just not from you, since you’re unable to convey them without blowing a gasket.

Speaking of the financial burden of abortion (now that I’ve reeled you back on-topic), do you consider it an elective procedure? That’s the actual relevant question, since it allows us to determine who should be paying for it.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Speaking of the financial burden of abortion (now that I’ve reeled you back on-topic)


I always was on topic, you were just being your usual bad faith self and just needed to throw a few snipes before continuing. That's what titillates you, I get it, it's a bit sad. You should learn how to handle such matters better.


Foxi4 said:


> Oh, I enjoy hearing opposing points of view. Just not from you, since you’re unable to convey them without blowing a gasket.


Said the one who threw three literal tantrums and tried to play it off as an obsession 



Foxi4 said:


> do you consider it an elective procedure? That’s the actual relevant question, since it allows us to determine who should be paying for it


Depends. What is your understanding of "elective"? Merely "scheduled in advance" or "optional"?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Depends. What is your understanding of "elective"? Merely "scheduled in advance" or "optional"?


It’s elective in the sense of being scheduled in advance because it’s not a medical emergency, there’s no urgency (unless the mother is literally dying as a result of the pregnancy, which can happen, although it’s an exceedingly rare exception). I specifically mean whether you think it’s optional or not.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s elective in the sense of being scheduled in advance because it’s not a medical emergency, there’s no urgency (unless the mother is literally dying as a result of the pregnancy, which can happen, although it’s an exceedingly rare exception). I specifically mean whether you think it’s optional or not.


All right. You can say it's "elective" in the sense that (until Roe v Wade) you can "opt" whether to have one or not. I don't think abortion itself is elective. Once you're having one, you can only have one that is appropriate to the pregnancy stage, there's no choice in that. So no, it's not an elective procedure.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> All right. You can say it's "elective" in the sense that (until Roe v Wade) you can "opt" whether to have one or not. I don't think abortion itself is elective. Once you're having one, you can only have one that is appropriate to the pregnancy stage, there's no choice in that. So no, it's not an elective procedure.


I was thinking more along the lines of “you can choose to have it or choose not to”, like cosmetic surgery. I see what you mean though - not exactly what I asked, but it’ll do. I consider it fully elective and optional unless it’s explicitly life-saving (which has to be determined based on mental/physical state), so we might not agree on who the payer should be.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 29, 2022)

Considering RU486 exists, costs shouldn't be exorbitant either way.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Considering RU486 exists, costs shouldn't be exorbitant either way.


In the U.S. it’s not a matter of the figure, it’s a matter of the government paying or not paying for abortions using tax money. It’s an issue that always comes up when Planned Parenthood is being discussed.


----------



## Korozin (Jun 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> In the U.S. it’s not a matter of the figure, it’s a matter of the government paying or not paying for abortions using tax money. It’s an issue that always comes up when Planned Parenthood is being discussed.


Probably not my place to interject in your guy's conversation - but I do see your point. The paying party has always been a highly discussed topic when it comes to the issues of abortions; like people saying should the government pay? Or should it be up to the individual? I can't properly give an answer that would satisfy all ends purely because the varying circumstances can be so diverse that it's hard to cover everything. Personally though - if the person's life is in immediate danger (as you said physically and or mentally) is a circumstance that I see befitting to have applied assistance from a third-party. Whether that be insurance, or government tax - it's no different that going to the hospital and having your cost cut by health insurance rather than just paying the full cost outright. (But even then that can still be hella expensive)

I'll admit I'm not the most informed person when it comes to the aspects of medical care costs involving insurance so don't try to attribute my ramblings to a coherent answer - I'm just trying to state a thought. Although since I've seen this topic in mention to the original thread at hand perhaps I should give more time into researching it more deeply. Perhaps there should be abortion specific insurance plans for people in need of such assistance? (One may already exist but as I said I'm not an expert on the topic, so it could be going either way) Or perhaps even payment plans could be set - not much unlike buying a house. Not many people can do it outright so they have a mortgage and pay over time. This however could be financially stressful to select individuals, so like I said I really don't have a proper answer.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 29, 2022)

hippy dave said:


> Yes, ok, ok, you're misogynistic pieces of shit, we get it, you don't have to keep yelling it at every possible opportunity. It's not as if it weren't already obvious from your support of law changes that are blatantly designed to control those with uteruses.


Go cry a river and drown in it, Roe v. Wade is still bye-bye.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 29, 2022)

If condom's aren't 100% effective, then neither are face masks either then.


----------



## Korozin (Jun 29, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> If condom's aren't 100% effective, then neither are face masks either then.


Technically you're correct, while they aren't 100% effective they certainly do reduce the risk of you spreading your germs to other people. The same can be said for condoms - even if they aren't 100% effective, for the most part they can prevent sperm from impregnating someone. But as we all know nothing is 100% ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

Korozin said:


> Probably not my place to interject in your guy's conversation - but I do see your point. The paying party has always been a highly discussed topic when it comes to the issues of abortions; like people saying should the government pay? Or should it be up to the individual? I can't properly give an answer that would satisfy all ends purely because the varying circumstances can be so diverse that it's hard to cover everything. Personally though - if the person's life is in immediate danger (as you said physically and or mentally) is a circumstance that I see befitting to have applied assistance from a third-party. Whether that be insurance, or government tax - it's no different that going to the hospital and having your cost cut by health insurance rather than just paying the full cost outright. (But even then that can still be hella expensive)
> 
> I'll admit I'm not the most informed person when it comes to the aspects of medical care costs involving insurance so don't try to attribute my ramblings to a coherent answer - I'm just trying to state a thought. Although since I've seen this topic in mention to the original thread at hand perhaps I should give more time into researching it more deeply. Perhaps there should be abortion specific insurance plans for people in need of such assistance? (One may already exist but as I said I'm not an expert on the topic, so it could be going either way) Or perhaps even payment plans could be set - not much unlike buying a house. Not many people can do it outright so they have a mortgage and pay over time. This however could be financially stressful to select individuals, so like I said I really don't have a proper answer.


I like to draw a distinction between procedures that are necessary and life-saving and procedures that are optional and only improve quality of life. If someone has some kind of a growth on their skin, it makes sense to take a sample. If it’s cancerous, the removal of said growth is life-saving and it makes sense for it to be covered by private insurance or a national healthcare service, depending on your place of residence. If it’s just a wart, the removal is purely cosmetic and there’s no justification for putting the burden on anybody else but the patient. Abortion isn’t dissimilar if we’re to believe the “clump of cells” talking point. If a foetus is just like a cancerous growth or a wart then the question of payment depends entirely on whether the procedure is performed out of convenience or to save the mother’s life. Does that make sense?


----------



## Korozin (Jun 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I like to draw a distinction between procedures that are necessary and life-saving and procedures that are optional and only improve quality of life. If someone has some kind of a growth on their skin, it makes sense to take a sample. If it’s cancerous, the removal of said growth is life-saving and it makes sense for it to be covered by private life insurance or a national healthcare service, depending on your place of residence. If it’s just a wart, the removal is purely cosmetic and there’s no justification for putting the burden on anybody else but the patient. Abortion isn’t dissimilar if we’re to believe the “clump of cells” talking point. If a foetus is just like a cancerous growth or a wart then the question of payment depends entirely on whether the procedure is performed out of convenience or to save the mother’s life. Does that make sense?


Yeah actually, it's part of what I was thinking when writing my earlier post. If someone's life is in danger - like I said before it isn't much different than going to the hospital for anything else life threatening; whether it be your example being cancer, or possible even something like kidney failure. But where I think the argument starts to go to shit is there's a lot more on the emotional side when it comes to the topic of abortions - thus clouding the judgement of both sides. I personally don't agree with what some states are going to do, however I've seen many points of why Roe V Wade was overturned, and I can't really say you're wrong. While I disagree with the intentions behind some of the actions, what they did wasn't necessarily _wrong, _While abortion may not be a federally guaranteed right anymore ultimately it's up to the states to decided whether it gets restrictions, stays, or is just outright banned.

While I still don't think states should ban the process people can at least petition to change the state laws, whether they get recognized or not is a different story.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 29, 2022)

"You won't bait me into a private vs public discussion again."
*six posts later*
"So anyways, here's me passively aggressively still arguing about it"


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 29, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> If condom's aren't 100% effective, then neither are face masks either then.


If you shouldn't have to wear a face mask and get a vaccine then women shouldn't be forced to carry. Your right to bodily autonomy does not supercede a woman's just because you think the female species is inferior.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> "You won't bait me into a private vs public discussion again."
> *six posts later*
> "So anyways, here's me passively aggressively still arguing about it"


I like the cut of your jib. 


SyphenFreht said:


> If you shouldn't have to wear a face mask and get a vaccine then women shouldn't be forced to carry. Your right to bodily autonomy does not supercede a woman's just because you think the female species is inferior.


Contrary to popular belief and all appearances, women are in fact the same species as men.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 29, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> If you shouldn't have to wear a face mask and get a vaccine then women shouldn't be forced to carry. Your right to bodily autonomy does not supercede a woman's just because you think the female species is inferior.


Maybe someday the right will be logically consistent.

Just...not today.
Next week don't look great either.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Contrary to popular belief and all appearances, women are in fact the same species as men.



I know. It seems though that with recent political moves and the resulting vitriol spread about by pro-lifers that they see women as a different species, far beneath what a man is perceived as. 



LainaGabranth said:


> Maybe someday the right will be logically consistent.
> 
> Just...not today.
> Next week don't look great either.



Maybe when we're all under the boot of a tyrannical oligarch, but that doesn't seem reasonable either.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 29, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I know. It seems though that with recent political moves and the resulting vitriol spread about by pro-lifers that they see women as a different species, far beneath what a man is perceived as.


I think it’s funnier if we pretend that it’s a recent discovery.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 29, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I think it’s funnier if we pretend that it’s a recent discovery.



I fully believe for a lot of people, it is a recent discovery. Especially some of the ones I've encountered on this forum


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 29, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> If you shouldn't have to wear a face mask and get a vaccine then women shouldn't be forced to carry. Your right to bodily autonomy does not supercede a woman's just because you think the female species is inferior.


Men and women are the same species, dumbass, and I think neither sex is inferior. Different yes, but not inferior.


----------



## mrdude (Jun 30, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Men and women are the same species, dumbass, and I think neither sex is inferior. Different yes, but not inferior.


(Real/Proper) Men and (Real/Proper) Women compliment each other. Men are better at some things than women and vice versa. Together they make a good team and a child brought up in a home with a man and a women will fair better and learn more than a kid brought up in a single sex family.


----------



## Stealphie (Jun 30, 2022)

mrdude said:


> (Real/Proper) Men and (Real/Proper) Women compliment each other. Men are better at some things than women and vice versa. Together they make a good team and a child brought up in a home with a man and a women will fair better and learn more than a kid brought up in a single sex family.


Oh boy, here we go again. Again, with this "this is the CORRECT way to be a man/woman" bullshit. There's no "correct/right/proper" way to be a man, sweetie. Same thing applies to women. You don't get to decide if someone's a "real" man/woman or not based on your close minded definition of it, based on gender roles.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 30, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Yes I do and I don't need some snotty woke twat to try and push their weirdo made up definitions in this matter.


I hate to burst your bubble champ but ALL definitions are made up. There is no objectively correct definition to anything.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 30, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Men and women are the same species, dumbass, and I think neither sex is inferior. Different yes, but not inferior.



You don't understand condescension a whole lot, do you? But of course, it takes a certain lack of mental ability to try and destroy my credibility over what you saw as a miss wording.

You obviously think females are inferior because you think men should have bodily autonomy and not women, the same gender you've gone on record to dehumanize on several of your posts thus far. 

Maybe redirect that female hatred you have to some therapy? Definitely some kind of education. I can tolerate a lot of things, but people who choose to be stupid isn't one of them. 

Remember folks, just because you think it's a baby still doesn't mean it has any constitutional right to life.



mrdude said:


> Yes I do and I don't need some snotty woke twat to try and push their weirdo made up definitions in this matter.



For someone against pushing weirdo definitions you sure like to call people snotty woke twats. 

You realize what hypocrisy is, yes?


----------



## Korozin (Jun 30, 2022)

I'm honestly wondering when this thread is gonna get locked.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 30, 2022)

Stealphie said:


> Oh boy, here we go again. Again, with this "this is the CORRECT way to be a man/woman" bullshit. There's no "correct/right/proper" way to be a man, sweetie. Same thing applies to women. You don't get to decide if someone's a "real" man/woman or not based on your close minded definition of it, based on gender roles.


Millions of years of human evolution would like to have a word with you....



SyphenFreht said:


> You don't understand condescension a whole lot, do you? But of course, it takes a certain lack of mental ability to try and destroy my credibility over what you saw as a miss wording.
> 
> You obviously think females are inferior because you think men should have bodily autonomy and not women, the same gender you've gone on record to dehumanize on several of your posts thus far.
> 
> ...


Blah blah blah, you like hearing yourself talk, don't you?


----------



## Korozin (Jun 30, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Millions of years of human evolution would like to have a word with you....


You would be referring to the physical, biological aspect of it. Physical sex is different than gender and there have been numerous studies backing this.

While yes a trans woman is still technically a "man" biologically, that doesn't mean that they are _socially_. Gender is how people act and present - this also ties into their upbringing. While physical sex determines what you are biologically, gender does not. So a man can act femininely and still be a man, and vice-versa. So no, there isn't a detailed rule book on how to be a "proper man" as what you are thinking of is general society standards which not everyone conforms to. Looking at evolution does not prove this otherwise.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 30, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Blah blah blah, you like hearing yourself talk, don't you?



Yeah actually, I do. I feel I have this good mixture between Clark Gable and Morgan Freeman.

Aren't you the one who proclaimed that they were here to drink liberal tears? 

We're on a gaming website, so I hope you feel the dramatic irony when I say:

Don't play games if you're gonna get mad you find there's people out there better at them than you.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 30, 2022)

Korozin said:


> You would be referring to the physical, biological aspect of it. Physical sex is different than gender and there have been numerous studies backing this.
> 
> While yes a trans woman is still technically a "man" biologically, that doesn't mean that they are _socially_. Gender is how people act and present - this also ties into their upbringing. While physical sex determines what you are biologically, gender does not. So a man can act femininely and still be a man, and vice-versa. So no, there isn't a detailed rule book on how to be a "proper man" as what you are thinking of is general society standards which not everyone conforms to. Looking at evolution does not prove this otherwise.
> 
> View attachment 315877


Usually men are providers and women are care takers. Sure, they can adapt to do the other roles if need be, but it's no good to force change and force reverse roles just to "stick it to the patriarchy". It's something that yes, has been in place for millions of years because of the different attributes of what men and women are suited for, nothing to do with oppression or whatever BS someone else might say. You're free to disagree, but that doesn't make it any less true. Like I said, we can adapt to fit different roles if need be, but that should be temporary in times when needed in emergency and such, but it shouldn't be forced to be permanent by these crazy feminists or whoever else. It comes down to the science that the left constantly likes to preach. Of course, they say follow the science when it's convenient for them, but that's a whole other topic.

As for "gender" and "sex" being different, unless we're talking about it being different when we say gender to classify men or female and sex for, well, fucking, it's not different and it's propaganda that's been spouted for the last few years. All of human history was right until 5 years ago, then all these changed "definitions" and "rules and exceptions" just come out of nowhere from these so called "experts" who I wouldn't even trust to teach preschool kids, considering how they're either mostly wrong all the time or just make the dumbest nonsensical shit up on the spot just to fit the current narrative.


----------



## Korozin (Jun 30, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Usually men are providers and women are care takers. Sure, they can adapt to do the other roles if need be, but it's no good to force change and force reverse roles just to "stick it to the patriarchy". It's something that yes, has been in place for millions of years because of the different attributes of what men and women are suited for, nothing to do with oppression or whatever BS someone else might say. You're free to disagree, but that doesn't make it any less true. Like I said, we can adapt to fit different roles if need be, but that should be temporary in times when needed in emergency and such, but it shouldn't be forced to be permanent by these crazy feminists or whoever else. It comes down to the science that the left constantly likes to preach. Of course, they say follow the science when it's convenient for them, but that's a whole other topic.
> 
> As for "gender" and "sex" being different, unless we're talking about it being different when we say gender to classify men or female and sex for, well, fucking, it's not different and it's propaganda that's been spouted for the last few years. All of human history was right until 5 years ago, then all these changed "definitions" and "rules and exceptions" just come out of nowhere from these so called "experts" who I wouldn't even trust to teach preschool kids, considering how they're either mostly wrong all the time or just make the dumbest nonsensical shit up on the spot just to fit the current narrative.


You're not incorrect in the biological aspect, but as society has progressed these traditional roles have been more or less phased out if not modified to such an extreme degree that it's barely recognizable. The problem is that humans are so diverse that it really doesn't fit everyone no matter what labels you put on it, when it boils down to it; mentally everyone is different. Thus not everyone will be able to conform to the standard societal roles we've made, it just doesn't work that way. And to be perfectly honest? Most people who don't conform to those societal roles aren't doing it to _"stick it to the patriarchy"_ it's mainly because they feel more comfortable expressing themself differently than the role that was originally given to them.

Furthermore I never went on to say that it was because of oppression, and you're right. Humans do adapt to fit different roles, which is actually proving part of my point. As I said not everyone has the same upbringing or mental attitude as you. Because of this diversity not everyone will fall into the same roles, nor the ones assigned to them. It is because of this mental differentiation that not everyone thinks and acts the same way. As I said in my earlier post, someone's upbringing also has a lot to do with it, not to mention the fact that the male and female brain structures have been proven to be shaped, and work in fundamentally different ways. And it is possible for a man to be born with the brain of a woman, this is not because of a mental disease, or as you said "sticking it to the patriarchy" this is a genuine genetic phenomena that occurs.

Also when were feminists ever brought into the conversation? I never even mentioned them in the post above as they aren't relevant to the topic at hand.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 30, 2022)

Uh oh! The western values are being cited as biological essentialism!
Point at them and laugh VVVV


BitMasterPlus said:


> Usually men are providers and women are care takers. Sure, they can adapt to do the other roles if need be, but it's no good to force change and force reverse roles just to "stick it to the patriarchy". It's something that yes, has been in place for millions of years because of the different attributes of what men and women are suited for, nothing to do with oppression or whatever BS someone else might say. You're free to disagree, but that doesn't make it any less true. Like I said, we can adapt to fit different roles if need be, but that should be temporary in times when needed in emergency and such, but it shouldn't be forced to be permanent by these crazy feminists or whoever else. It comes down to the science that the left constantly likes to preach. Of course, they say follow the science when it's convenient for them, but that's a whole other topic.
> 
> As for "gender" and "sex" being different, unless we're talking about it being different when we say gender to classify men or female and sex for, well, fucking, it's not different and it's propaganda that's been spouted for the last few years. All of human history was right until 5 years ago, then all these changed "definitions" and "rules and exceptions" just come out of nowhere from these so called "experts" who I wouldn't even trust to teach preschool kids, considering how they're either mostly wrong all the time or just make the dumbest nonsensical shit up on the spot just to fit the current narrative.


Point at them and laugh ^^^^^


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 30, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Uh oh! The western values are being cited as biological essentialism!
> Point at them and laugh VVVV
> 
> Point at them and laugh ^^^^^


I get the feeling people have pointed and laughed at you in the past. Hell, if I was you and looked in the mirror, I'd point and laugh and cry at how sad my life has become.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 30, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I get the feeling people have pointed and laughed at you in the past. Hell, if I was you and looked in the mirror, I'd point and laugh and cry at how sad my life has become.


This is an interesting cope response given that you are citing western values as if they are biologically intrinsic. The claim of gender being observed as a social construct being relative to five years ago is also incorrect.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Gender:-A-Social-Construction-Greco/a5b9a75fe34da89e5f239d2c554fc6b48c2e6506

Here's a study with multiple references, with some dating over 20 years back. This is not new nor has it ever been. It is, instead, an extensively studied and researched thing that you're just too inept to grasp as a concept, so your kneejerk response is to just cry about it behind a layer of irony.

I would like you to have a response that isn't just coping and projection this time.


----------



## Korozin (Jun 30, 2022)

Honestly while I disagree with a lot of people's ideals here, I don't see why people resort to insulting eachother as it accomplishes nothing and drags away from the points either side is trying to make. I understand that when something you believe is challenged it's easy to get emotional but doesn't getting worked up and attacking the other side just detract from any credibility you might have had? If you insult someone aimlessly just because you disagree with them it makes you seem like the lesser party as you have nothing to create a rebuttal with. A bit off topic but it's something I've genuinely noticed.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 30, 2022)

Korozin said:


> Honestly while I disagree with a lot of people's ideals here, I don't see why people resort to insulting eachother as it accomplishes nothing and drags away from the points either side is trying to make. I understand that when something you believe is challenged it's easy to get emotional but doesn't getting worked up and attacking the other side just detract from any credibility you might have had? If you insult someone aimlessly just because you disagree with them it makes you seem like the lesser party as you have nothing to create a rebuttal with. A bit off topic but it's something I've genuinely noticed.


It's funny.


----------



## Korozin (Jun 30, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> It's funny.
> 
> View attachment 315880


To watch, maybe. But being involved directly in it is kinda stressful imo lol


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 30, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> This is an interesting cope response given that you are citing western values as if they are biologically intrinsic. The claim of gender being observed as a social construct being relative to five years ago is also incorrect.
> 
> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Gender:-A-Social-Construction-Greco/a5b9a75fe34da89e5f239d2c554fc6b48c2e6506
> 
> ...








Here's my response, happy?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 30, 2022)

the
absolute
state
of
transphobes
LMFAO


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 30, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> the
> absolute
> state
> of
> ...



How's that Roe v. Wade workin' out for ya?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 30, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> How's that Roe v. Wade workin' out for ya?


If this is the best shit you can talk, you are sorely disappointing.
I don't care for the ruling, which is why I'm organizing against it lmfao


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 30, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> If this is the best shit you can talk, you are sorely disappointing.
> I don't care for the ruling, which is why I'm organizing against it lmfao


With what, a sex strike? Twerking? Or something else equally retarded and ineffective?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 30, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> With what, a sex strike? Twerking? Or something else equally retarded and ineffective?


LMAO, that's the best you've got? A slur and whining about dancing?? Christ the right is boring.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 30, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> LMAO, that's the best you've got? A slur and whining about dancing?? Christ the right is boring.


Well, that's what's happening right now. The left are freaks. So what've you got that's gonna magically turn the decision back around? Because I can tell you right now it ain't gonna make any difference. Just take the L and be on your merry way already.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jun 30, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Well, that's what's happening right now. So what've you got that's gonna magically turn the decision back around? Because I can tell you right now it ain't gonna make any difference.


You are entitled to your delusion. I don't care what a supreme court says, though. Community support is more important to me than the failures of fascist theocracy.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 30, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> You are entitled to your delusion. I don't care what a supreme court says, though. Community support is more important to me than the failures of fascist theocracy.


So, your answer is insurrection because you don't agree with the ruling now since it's not going your way, gotcha. And if this is such a fascist theocracy, then you are free to go elsewhere to live. Venezuela and China are communist utopia's you're free to go to.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 30, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> So, your answer is insurrection because you don't agree with the ruling now since it's not going your way, gotcha. And if this is such a fascist theocracy, then you are free to go elsewhere to live. Venezuela and China are communist utopia's you're free to go to.



Isn't that what you people did on January 6th and that's what all the hearings are about?



BitMasterPlus said:


> I get the feeling people have pointed and laughed at you in the past. Hell, if I was you and looked in the mirror, I'd point and laugh and cry at how sad my life has become.



Oh. I forgot you're the "I know you are but what am I" guy. Makes sense that you argue hypocritically as if it were an art.

At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not everyone has to put their nose in another's business. If you're ok with big government minding what women do with their bodies, then you must also support authoritarianism, correct? After all, bootlickers be bootlickin', amirite?


----------



## tabzer (Jun 30, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I hate to burst your bubble champ but ALL definitions are made up. There is no objectively correct definition to anything.



So blah blah blah?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 30, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Oh. I forgot you're the "I know you are but what am I" guy. Makes sense that you argue hypocritically as if it were an art.


Yeah putting the imbecile on my ignore list was a great decision.


LainaGabranth said:


> "You won't bait me into a private vs public discussion again."


Look, there was no baiting. The aspects are closely intertwined, and in fact I'd argue that discussing one while completely ignoring the other is somewhat disingenous. Or plainly dishonest, whichever you prefer. Fact is, you can't reduce the issue to a purely ideological or financial one.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 30, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Isn't that what you people did on January 6th and that's what all the hearings are about?


Nope. It's a shameless kangaroo court with no basis in reality. Otherwise, more people would be watching now, wouldn't they? But nobody cares because they see it for the bullshit it is. Even their recent "surprise star witness" blew in their face bigly with the moronic lies she tried to push.


SyphenFreht said:


> Oh. I forgot you're the "I know you are but what am I" guy. Makes sense that you argue hypocritically as if it were an art.
> 
> At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not everyone has to put their nose in another's business. If you're ok with big government minding what women do with their bodies, then you must also support authoritarianism, correct? After all, bootlickers be bootlickin', amirite?


Well then, I guess you deserve this pic as well:


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 30, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I hate to burst your bubble champ but ALL definitions are made up. There is no objectively correct definition to anything.


So then if that's the case, if someone murders somebody in cold blood, I can say that's not murder, that's just humanly relieving somebody of the pain of living, so they don't deserve to go to jail.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 30, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Nope. It's a shameless kangaroo court with no basis in reality. Otherwise, more people would be watching now, wouldn't they? But nobody cares because they see it for the bullshit it is. Even their recent "surprise star witness" blew in their face bigly with the moronic lies she tried to push.



Uh huh. Even though your president himself supported it and cleared them having guns on government property, it's all a sham. 

People are watching it, in fact I've seen it trending. Just because you and your echo chamber aren't means nothing. 

This country isn't going to get better until people learn to respect one another, and the Republican party is far from that. Ever notice how most riots are for someone's rights or equality while Republican riots are because they didn't get the president they wanted?



BitMasterPlus said:


> Well then, I guess you deserve this pic as well:



Oh man, you hurt me. Right in my soul.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Yeah putting the imbecile on my ignore list was a great decision.



Eh, it's kinda entertaining playing with show monkeys.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jun 30, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Uh huh. Even though your president himself supported it and cleared them having guns on government property, it's all a sham.
> 
> People are watching it, in fact I've seen it trending. Just because you and your echo chamber aren't means nothing.
> 
> This country isn't going to get better until people learn to respect one another, and the Republican party is far from that. Ever notice how most riots are for someone's rights or equality while Republican riots are because they didn't get the president they wanted?


No he didn't. He said to peacefully assemble and protest. he did not once say to invade the capital, in which the Capitol police themselves are shown on video to wave people in for some odd reason. Set up anyone? Nobody is watching it or even remotely cares about it, stop watching CNN and get your brainwashed NPC head out your NPC ass please. This country won't get better until we get liberals, Rhinos, and people like you clear out of this country so we can make it sane and civil again. Most riots are started by crazed lefty lunatics, and even if you count the Jan 6th "riot", which I don't, that's still 1 vs. the hundreds Antifa and BLM have done in the past few years.


SyphenFreht said:


> Oh man, you hurt me. Right in my soul.


Here's some soul music to heal you then:


----------



## Lacius (Jun 30, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Nobody is watching it or even remotely cares about it


At Least 20 Million Watched Jan. 6 Hearing​https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/business/media/jan-6-hearing-ratings.html


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 30, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> No he didn't. He said to peacefully assemble and protest. he did not once say to invade the capital, in which the Capitol police themselves are shown on video to wave people in for some odd reason. Set up anyone? Nobody is watching it or even remotely cares about it, stop watching CNN and get your brainwashed NPC head out your NPC ass please. This country won't get better until we get liberals, Rhinos, and people like you clear out of this country so we can make it sane and civil again. Most riots are started by crazed lefty lunatics, and even if you count the Jan 6th "riot", which I don't, that's still 1 vs. the hundreds Antifa and BLM have done in the past few years.



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...lowers-to-capitol-despite-warnings-of-weapons

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...DKAB6BAgSEAE&usg=AOvVaw0VvLJZVBP-dwcbbvNmVTMO

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...BKAB6BAgREAI&usg=AOvVaw2wQDGoFyEdr_lAVDrEnCmG

Funny how the hearings are actually going on, like it's been proven, but I have yet to see any conservative website covering it like it isn't news. If you guys are so sure Trump is going to win because it's a sham, then why not televise it to own the libs and Dems? Seems like a wasted opportunity to me. 

Funny answer you have there. Kinda sounds like:

"This country won't get better until we get rid of everyone that enjoys civil rights and refuse to be controlled by rich, white, evangelical men"

By the way, the soul music you posted was a perfect addition to finding the links in my response. If you're going to list more recommendations like that, maybe you should stick around. 

Gotta admit I'm surprised you chose this though, considering the thumbnail is an ethnic woman.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Here's some soul music to heal you then:




I like that. I'll have to add it to my Spotify. Thanks!


OhWowHolyCrapWhatsThis

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-proven-unfit-for-power-again


----------



## Windsall (Jun 30, 2022)

I find it odd just how polarized people are these days. And also how that can flip depending on what's involved.
If bodily autonomy is important then it should be in all cases.

I guess the difference here is that pro-life people will say that it's killing an unborn baby, while pro-choice either say that it's not alive enough to be a person or that the woman's freedom matters more.

I don't know how the topic devolved but I think there's lots to talk on it if were more civil. It's a morally complicated topic.


Also don't know how the trans topic came into it, but how someone acts or presents is not gender, that's gender expression, and gender roles. Gender is internal, which someone could say is in the brain (or soul, if someone is spiritual enough). The crowd that talks about gender as a social construct is actually hurting the lgbtq community a little (I mean i've seen it around, not just here), just like if someone said homosexuality is a social construct would.

As for politics and votes and all that, there's quite a bit of messed up talking points, it's too bad people don't listen to each other and try to see what's really going on. If someone's watched 2000 mules (or seen summaries), they'd know the republicans had a reason to be upset with the election, but it doesn't mean there wasn't a lot that could've been better, including using better language or focusing on 'investigating' instead of claims that make people rile up.

Both sides (left and right) have trouble giving ground to the other and that makes it hard to find middle grounds or find how to work together.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 30, 2022)

Windsall said:


> Both sides (left and right) have trouble giving ground to the other and that makes it hard to find middle grounds or find how to work together.


Saying "both sides are wrong" is a false equivalency and an unhelpful platitude.



Windsall said:


> If bodily autonomy is important then it should be in all cases.


You are correct.



Windsall said:


> I guess the difference here is that pro-life people will say that it's killing an unborn baby, while pro-choice either say that it's not alive enough to be a person or that the woman's freedom matters more.


I don't think anyone on Earth would want the state to be able to violate their bodily autonomy rights in order to save my life, so I don't know why they think doing the same thing to a pregnant woman is okay. That's all it comes down to.



Windsall said:


> The crowd that talks about gender as a social construct is actually hurting the lgbtq community a little (I mean i've seen it around, not just here)


"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed.  This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender



Windsall said:


> they'd know the republicans had a reason to be upset with the election


Other than not getting the election outcome they wanted, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud and no reason to be upset with the election.


----------



## Windsall (Jun 30, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Saying "both sides are wrong" is a false equivalency and an unhelpful platitude.
> 
> 
> You are correct.
> ...



Bear in mind I'm not a republican (and not even american), but that there was no evidence of voter fraud was a talking point, while there was evidence, and more grew as time went by. At the time it wasn't easy to show that it might be widespread. It 'could' be, especially with everything that came out later, but besides that I agree that at the time saying 'widespread' would've been a bit much, and they should've started with less assumptions. They went further than that and said it was 'stolen'.  I think it was a mistake to do that, but besides that there's plenty to investigate.

I've never said both sides are wrong or equal. Both could do a lot better, yes, and from a more center point of view (even if I consider myself a kind of liberal), there's a lot lacking on both sides, depending on the issue.

I've seen that gender as a social construct has made its way into sites and definitions, but just because it has doesn't mean it's right. Many people in the trans community including me don't agree with it. I would say the social side of gender is a construct, though even then I think it's a bit too much of a broad stroke, and more about a person's inner self would be important to talk about, which some other sites or definitions will have, though I would say still not enough, and it's worth listening to trans people's experience to get more understanding.
Again, it takes away ground because people in the lgbtq have been saying people are born the way they are for a reason. Could say it develops as growing, and social factors affect how someone grows, but if it was only a social construct then in a case where people were free to take on any role or norm and gender didn't matter for that .. there'd be no gender, so no trans gender people, which just isn't true, most of us would still be trans regardless of the social side. There's a lot more to it, but just some thoughts to consider.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 30, 2022)

Windsall said:


> while there was evidence, and more grew as time went by.


Nonsense.


----------



## Windsall (Jun 30, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Nonsense.



There's statistical analysis some did brought up a lot of really big concerns that could be investigated, and then besides just word of mouth stuff around the voting areas, the actual extensive footage of voting muling and other issues is a big one. In some states it's even illegal to gather/cast votes of others, so when you see so much footage of ballots being brought by bulk, by the same person, that kind of does raise bigger issues too.

Though again I would just say it calls for investigating, not claiming one thing or the other.
It's not a subject that's easy to talk about though, and I personally don't have an investment in it, so i don't consider it my role to do much about it. I'd just like for different sides to at least sometimes consider points that are worth looking into more, even if they don't agree or don't want it to be the case.

And same way, I think even with abortion there's a case for both sides to consider more. That includes for pro-life to consider more the rights of the woman/pregnant person. I think the harder issue to talk about might be the 'responsibility' when having sex.

Personally I think it's more an issue when a fetus starts to have consciousness, which they say can develop around the 5th month. Because then you're dealing with something sentient. Still doesn't mean making illegal is the answer. But may be something worth more talk.

Anyway, just dropped by the topic, not sure I'll post back in the thread. will see.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 30, 2022)

Windsall said:


> but that there was no evidence of voter fraud was a talking point, while there was evidence, and more grew as time went by. At the time it wasn't easy to show that it might be widespread. It 'could' be, especially with everything that came out later, but besides that I agree that at the time saying 'widespread' would've been a bit much, and they should've started with less assumptions. They went further than that and said it was 'stolen'.  I think it was a mistake to do that, but besides that there's plenty to investigate.


There's no evidence of any significant amount of voter fraud whatsoever. What was put forward has been shown to be made-up nonsense.



Windsall said:


> I've never said both sides are wrong or equal. Both could do a lot better, yes, and from a more center point of view (even if I consider myself a kind of liberal), there's a lot lacking on both sides, depending on the issue.


There's one side in particular that could do a lot better, and it's probably the side that has decided to reject democracy when things don't go their way and try to overthrow the government.



Windsall said:


> but just because it has doesn't mean it's right.


It's demonstrably right.



Windsall said:


> There's statistical analysis some did brought up a lot of really big concerns that could be investigated, and then besides just word of mouth stuff around the voting areas, the actual extensive footage of voting muling and other issues is a big one. In some states it's even illegal to cast votes for others, so when you see so much footage of ballots being brought by bulk, by the same person, that kind of does raise bigger issues too.
> 
> Though again I would just say it calls for investigating, not claiming one thing or the other.
> It's not a subject that's easy to talk about though, and I personally don't have an investment in it, so i don't consider it my role to do much about it. I'd just like for different sides to at least sometimes consider points that are worth looking into more, even if they don't agree or don't want it to be the case.


These things have been investigated and debunked.



Windsall said:


> And same way, I think even with abortion there's a case for both sides to consider more. That includes for pro-life to consider more the rights of the woman/pregnant person. I think the harder issue to talk about might be the 'responsibility' when having sex.


Sex, responsible or not, is not consent to get pregnant. In addition, consent to become pregnant is not consent to stay pregnant. The right-wing nutjobs also can't really talk about "responsible sex" when they have done everything in their power to limit access to contraception and education about safe sex.

Unless you think your bodily autonomy rights should be violated to save my life, you can't say with any consistency that a pregnant person's bodily autonomy rights should be violated to save the life of a fetus.



Windsall said:


> Personally I think it's more an issue when a fetus starts to have consciousness, which they say can develop around the 5th month. Because then you're dealing with something sentient.


Unless you think your bodily autonomy rights should be violated to save my life, the sentience of a fetus is irrelevant.



Windsall said:


> Still doesn't mean making illegal is the answer.


Then why are you wasting people's time? What's your point?



Windsall said:


> Anyway, just dropped by the topic, not sure I'll post back in the thread. will see.


If all you're going to do is hem and haw about bothsidesism and platitudes, you're probably not contributing much to the thread.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jun 30, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Go cry a river and drown in it, Roe v. Wade is still bye-bye.



https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/poll...YQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2QggXOMlfI3ueA3LZYRcxR

For now. Apparently an overwhelming number of U S. citizens suddenly lack confidence (and support) in the current 6-3. Conservative led Supreme Court, and

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-support-ending-filibuster-protect-abortion-access

Dropped a little Conservy news site for ya too. Even if things don't turn the way we hope, we're still gonna put up a helluva fight. Much better than that insurrection crap on the 6th. But I guess riots only count when they accomplish something subjectively good, right?


----------



## Korozin (Jun 30, 2022)

Windsall said:


> most of us would still be trans regardless of the social side. There's a lot more to it, but just some thoughts to consider.


This is something I was actually going into in some of my earlier posts. I'm well aware that just saying "gender is social" is a very wide stroke - but going into full depth with it in this thread would yield very little results as not everyone is open minded enough to accept the information. As I said it can also boil down to development and upbringing, this is a large part of it. And as I said in one of my earlier posts..



Korozin said:


> As I said not everyone has the same upbringing or mental attitude as you. Because of this diversity not everyone will fall into the same roles, nor the ones assigned to them. It is because of this mental differentiation that not everyone thinks and acts the same way. As I said in my earlier post, someone's upbringing also has a lot to do with it, not to mention the fact that the male and female brain structures have been proven to be shaped, and work in fundamentally different ways. And it is possible for a man to be born with the brain of a woman, this is not because of a mental disease, or as you said "sticking it to the patriarchy" this is a genuine genetic phenomena that occurs.



There is much more involved that just it being a social construct; I am well aware of this. But it is also one of the easiest ways to explain the reasoning behind the prospect. While it may not be a purely social construct, there it definitely a difference between physical, biological sex and gender - they are not one and the same.



Windsall said:


> most of us would still be trans regardless of the social side. There's a lot more to it, but just some thoughts to consider.



Agreed


----------



## lokomelo (Jun 30, 2022)

chrisrlink said:


> the second amendment also guarontees US citizens to form a well armed army of citizens incase a autocrat assumes power unchecked basicly discharging any treason charge that may happen so if trump became (or becomes in 2024) a dictator we could fight without fear of getting the needle


you with your comment made me read the text itself for the first time: 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

People fight over the end of the text (keep and bear arms is a right), but the very first word is much more terrifying. The constitution do textually allows Americans to form private armies. Now I don't know that the courts made out of those words on their decisions over the years, but the text itself is scary.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jun 30, 2022)

i read something that coservitive female justice said basicly fuck the seperation of church and state baked into our constitution the church should run the show isn't that mostly the reason or part of it that we rebelled against england if the first place? (thought the UK is a different place than in the 16-1700's freedom wise


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 30, 2022)

chrisrlink said:


> i read something that coservitive female justice said basicly fuck the seperation of church and state baked into our constitution the church should run the show isn't that mostly the reason or part of it that we rebelled against england if the first place? (thought the UK is a different place than in the 16-1700's freedom wise


Separate of Church and State as most people believe it to be isn't actually in the Constitution nor any of the amendments.

Wikipedia has a well written good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Here's a primary excerpt.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.[40] Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, and support for religion—financial or physical—must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

The First Congress' deliberations show that its understanding of the separation of church and state differed sharply from that of their contemporaries in Europe. As the 19th-century historian Philip Schaff observed:



> The American separation of church and state rests upon respect for the church; the [European anticlerical] separation, on indifference and hatred of the church, and of religion itself... The constitution did not create a nation, nor its religion and institutions. It found them already existing and was framed for the purpose of protecting them under a republican form of government, in a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jun 30, 2022)

Windsall said:


> As for politics and votes and all that, there's quite a bit of messed up talking points, it's too bad people don't listen to each other and try to see what's really going on. If someone's watched 2000 mules (or seen summaries), they'd know the republicans had a reason to be upset with the election, but it doesn't mean there wasn't a lot that could've been better, including using better language or focusing on 'investigating' instead of claims that make people rile up.



The elections were investigated, the conservatives were happy with the conclusions of those investigations that the election was clean. Donald Trump wouldn't shut up that the elections were stolen because that's how he is, he lies and tries everything to get what he wants, without a care for procedure, the law or the consequences. That movie you mentioned has been debunked as well, their source is a partisan organization and the director also doesn't have credibility.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jun 30, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> Separate of Church and State as most people believe it to be isn't actually in the Constitution nor any of the amendments.
> 
> Wikipedia has a well written good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
> 
> ...


heres the only issue with that is they only want white christans to rule the US (not even aethiestcc) the GOP was first showing their racist and sectist selves back in obama admin not only was he black but a muslim and yet he did not impose muslim law imposing Christion beliefs and Vatican Laws is bad cause not all people in the USA are christans


----------



## SScorpio (Jun 30, 2022)

chrisrlink said:


> heres the only issue with that is they only want white christans to rule the US (not even aethiestcc) the GOP was first showing their racist and sectist selves back in obama admin not only was he black but a muslim and yet he did not impose muslim law imposing Christion beliefs and Vatican Laws is bad cause not all people in the USA are christans


We were told multiple times that Obama wasn't Muslim, are you saying he and many others lied about that?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 30, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> you with your comment made me read the text itself for the first time:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> People fight over the end of the text (keep and bear arms is a right), but the very first word is much more terrifying. The constitution do textually allows Americans to form private armies. Now I don't know that the courts made out of those words on their decisions over the years, but the text itself is scary.


What’s scary about it, exactly? Do you think the state should have the monopoly on organising armed militias? What’s a Neighbourhood Watch if not an organised militia that exists for the purposes of protecting a neighbourhood? There are around 200 organised constitutional militias in the United States, it’s not exactly news.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jun 30, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> What’s scary about it, exactly? Do you think the state should have the monopoly on organising armed militias? What’s a Neighbourhood Watch if not an organised militia that exists for the purposes of protecting a neighbourhood? There are around 200 organised constitutional militias in the United States, it’s not exactly news.


i think he meant more like an armed militia people who would shoot first ask questions later


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 1, 2022)

chrisrlink said:


> i think he meant more like an armed militia people who would shoot first ask questions later


There are circumstances in which that approach is perfectly reasonable and justifiable. Whenever this subject comes up I can’t help but think about the 1992 LA Riots and the situation in Koreatown after the police effectively withdrew from the area, leaving the local population to fend for itself. It made perfect sense for them to band together and start defending each other, especially considering their livelihoods were being destroyed. The state failed to protect them, so they had to protect themselves. This kind of situation is exactly why the second amendment exists. The people living in Koreatown had nothing to do with Rodney King’s arrest or the subsequent trial - they just happened to be convenient targets with no representation, no political power and no support from law enforcement. They did have guns though, and they knew how to use them.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/04/28/us/la-riots-korean-americans/index.html


----------



## lokomelo (Jul 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> What’s scary about it, exactly? Do you think the state should have the monopoly on organising armed militias? What’s a Neighbourhood Watch if not an organised militia that exists for the purposes of protecting a neighbourhood? There are around 200 organised constitutional militias in the United States, it’s not exactly news.


The constitution is too old, so I bet that there are jurisdiction accumulated during the years to control the effects that first sentence of the text, else It would be super dangerous.

Just think,  citizen can literally set up a very powerful armed gang, and until it commits the first crime, the law can't do nothing about it.

Or else, a super rich guy or group can LEGALLY form a private army that can match, or even overpower State forces (that presumably are democratic forces)

How that would be fine?


----------



## SScorpio (Jul 1, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> The constitution is too old, so I bet that there are jurisdiction accumulated during the years to control the effects that first sentence of the text, else It would be super dangerous.
> 
> Just think,  citizen can literally set up a very powerful armed gang, and until it commits the first crime, the law can't do nothing about it.
> 
> ...


The people being able to overpower the state is why it's in there in the first place.

Just like our three Federal branches exist as a series of checks and balances on one another, the 2nd amendment is a check and balance against a tyrannical government.

There are several para-military organizations based out of the US that are private armies, and the US government even hires them on as mercenaries.


----------



## lokomelo (Jul 1, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> The people being able to overpower the state is why it's in there in the first place.
> 
> Just like our three Federal branches exist as a series of checks and balances on one another, the 2nd amendment is a check and balance against a tyrannical government.
> 
> There are several para-military organizations based out of the US that are private armies, and the US government even hires them on as mercenaries.


on the text of law there is no mention of limit of force or people. I understand the spirit of this law, but the bare writing may lead to nasty consequences, I'm not referring to the part of the law meant for individuals carry a gun, but the part for individuals raise an army.

Today there is no problem (for internal stability at least), I understand that, USA official troops are unreachable in power, but the law is supposed to be prepared for bad times too, and this law is not good in a situation where private funding can beat the public one.

But as I said already, I doubt that this law is still in full effect. I believe that today there are jurisprudence that forbids a group to legally build an army way too big.

Edit: Quick research here, and indeed there are limitations in effect to the first phrase of second amendment, from wikipedia:


> At his trial, Presser argued that the State of Illinois had violated his Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reaffirmed _Cruikshank_, and also held that the Second Amendment prevented neither the States nor Congress from barring private militias that parade with arms; such a right "cannot be claimed as a right independent of law". This decision upheld the States' authority to regulate the militia and that citizens had no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes





> In essence the court said: "A state cannot prohibit the people therein from keeping and bearing arms to an extent that would deprive the United States of the protection afforded by them as a reserve military force."


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 1, 2022)

lokomelo said:


> The constitution is too old, so I bet that there are jurisdiction accumulated during the years to control the effects that first sentence of the text, else It would be super dangerous.
> 
> Just think,  citizen can literally set up a very powerful armed gang, and until it commits the first crime, the law can't do nothing about it.
> 
> ...


You’re right. Citizens can literally set up a very powerful “gang” and, until they commit a crime, they haven’t done anything wrong. How would that *not* be fine? I love this mode of thinking. Yeah, no kidding - they’re not guilty of a crime unless they commit one, just like everybody else.

As for your other comment, Presser was, for the most part, overturned in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The Due Process clause/Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment make certain constitutional limitations enforceable not just against the federal government, but also the states. This includes the Second Amendment, making the findings from Presser v. Illinois effectively moot. Broadly speaking, states cannot pass unconstitutional laws anymore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

Here’s what concerns me about your approach - you don’t seem to have a problem with people owning firearms, you have a problem specifically with them owning firearms *and* associating with each other, which is odd. What do you even mean by “gang” or “army”? They’re subject to the same laws as anybody else, they can’t run around shooting up the place, and they don’t.

Let’s say, for the sake of an argument, that you can’t run a private army in a given state - what’s stopping you from calling it something else? What’s the difference between “an army” and a security company? Or a militia? It’s not like citizens have access to military-grade weapons anyway, they’re using the same arms as anybody else in the country. It seems like a semantic argument to me.


----------



## wartutor (Jul 1, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...lowers-to-capitol-despite-warnings-of-weapons
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...DKAB6BAgSEAE&usg=AOvVaw0VvLJZVBP-dwcbbvNmVTMO
> 
> ...


All 3 of those 1st quots were the same thing and they are all hear say. I could say he told me to make hot chocolate and ice cream he was headed to my house after his speech...doesnt make it true. This "hearing is conjector and hearsay and its why it will never amount to shit.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 1, 2022)

wartutor said:


> All 3 of those 1st quots were the same thing and they are all hear say. I could say he told me to make hot chocolate and ice cream he was headed to my house after his speech...doesnt make it true. This "hearing is conjector and hearsay and its why it will never amount to shit.



Well of course it's hearsay. Certainly no one is going to put Trump in jail over any of this, but you're literally saying both the aide and his secret service are lying to accomplish... What? What's their end game? Trump most likely will not get reelected as it is, so unless they randomly like treading treason to make up lies about their ex boss for kicks, I don't see what the point will be. 

Luckily that's what the hearings apparently no one is watching (no one literally referring to Fox News watchers) are for, to highlight things like intent, regardless of who supposedly said what. I'm curious to see what ol' Trumpet's got to say if he ever makes it to the stand: is he going to back down in the face of all this corrupted justice and deny everything?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 1, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Well of course it's hearsay. Certainly no one is going to put Trump in jail over any of this, but you're literally saying both the aide and his secret service are lying to accomplish... What? What's their end game? Trump most likely will not get reelected as it is, so unless they randomly like treading treason to make up lies about their ex boss for kicks, I don't see what the point will be.
> 
> Luckily that's what the hearings apparently no one is watching (no one literally referring to Fox News watchers) are for, to highlight things like intent, regardless of who supposedly said what. I'm curious to see what ol' Trumpet's got to say if he ever makes it to the stand: is he going to back down in the face of all this corrupted justice and deny everything?


Considering the fact that QAnon, the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and any other far right terrorist group would want to shoot them just for testifying, they stand to lose everything and gain really nothing from this. In a few months, the left will forget their names but the right will be gunning to make them into burning effigies. It's extremely concerning shit.

Reminder that most people don't know the name of the girl who testified against Kavanaugh, and yet she's spent all of her days since moving to different towns constantly, facing horrific death (and worse!) threats, to the point she's had to exhaust her personal funds for security detail all the time.

(inb4 someone googles her name, proving my point for me)

"BUH BUH BUH IT'S HEARSAY"
yeah well the right can hearsay about me fucking their mom lmao


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 1, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Considering the fact that QAnon, the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and any other far right terrorist group would want to shoot them just for testifying, they stand to lose everything and gain really nothing from this. In a few months, the left will forget their names but the right will be gunning to make them into burning effigies. It's extremely concerning shit.
> 
> Reminder that most people don't know the name of the girl who testified against Kavanaugh, and yet she's spent all of her days since moving to different towns constantly, facing horrific death (and worse!) threats, to the point she's had to exhaust her personal funds for security detail all the time.
> 
> ...



Exactly. It's not even about Trump as a person anymore, his time's come and gone, but these... acolytes of his are really taking this cult thing too far. Proud Boys and QAnon are bad enough as it is, but we've got real elected officials making decisions upon whatever pleases their orange zesty god. It's like the second coming of Jesus to them, if Jesus was a dirty inbred socialite expunged from Chester Cheetah's ass. 

A little off topic, anyone watch American Horror Story: Cult? I thought only The Simpsons predicted the future.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 1, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...lowers-to-capitol-despite-warnings-of-weapons
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jan-6-trump-armed-committee-b2111429.html?amp&ved=2ahUKEwi07ezWrdX4AhXwI0QIHbjkD8UQ0PADKAB6BAgSEAE&usg=AOvVaw0VvLJZVBP-dwcbbvNmVTMO
> 
> https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...BKAB6BAgREAI&usg=AOvVaw2wQDGoFyEdr_lAVDrEnCmG


All bullshit left wing news sites that lie consistently. So whatever they say, I know the opposite is always true.


SyphenFreht said:


> Funny how the hearings are actually going on, like it's been proven, but I have yet to see any conservative website covering it like it isn't news. If you guys are so sure Trump is going to win because it's a sham, then why not televise it to own the libs and Dems? Seems like a wasted opportunity to me.


It has been televised to tv channels like CNN and others, and because of that, their rating tanked to new lows because nobody with a brain gives a shit about the sham hearings. Literally not even shit would be in the same room as the hearings lol


SyphenFreht said:


> Funny answer you have there. Kinda sounds like:
> 
> "This country won't get better until we get rid of everyone that enjoys civil rights and refuse to be controlled by rich, white, evangelical men"


I didn't say that, you did. If that's what you want fine, at least be honest about it. I want civil rights for all, you've just been led and programmed by the corrupt establishment some claim to be against.


SyphenFreht said:


> By the way, the soul music you posted was a perfect addition to finding the links in my response. If you're going to list more recommendations like that, maybe you should stick around.
> 
> Gotta admit I'm surprised you chose this though, considering the thumbnail is an ethnic woman.





SyphenFreht said:


> I like that. I'll have to add it to my Spotify. Thanks!


I don't judge anybody by race, only their character, so if I hear good music and they're a good person, I'll listen.


SyphenFreht said:


> OhWowHolyCrapWhatsThis
> 
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-proven-unfit-for-power-again


Oh lookie, more bullshit propaganda! My favorite! Biden has shown to be completely more competent.


SyphenFreht said:


> https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/poll...YQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2QggXOMlfI3ueA3LZYRcxR
> 
> For now. Apparently an overwhelming number of U S. citizens suddenly lack confidence (and support) in the current 6-3. Conservative led Supreme Court, and


Who cares what they think? Their job is to uphold law, constitution, and civil liberties, not to listen to mob rule.


SyphenFreht said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-support-ending-filibuster-protect-abortion-access
> 
> Dropped a little Conservy news site for ya too. Even if things don't turn the way we hope, we're still gonna put up a helluva fight. Much better than that insurrection crap on the 6th. But I guess riots only count when they accomplish something subjectively good, right?


Oh you haven't seen what a fight is yet. Cast the first stone, I dare ya, because we will fight back twice as hard and your ass will get knocked back. We're taking back our country from you monsters one way or another. So go ahead, start the fight, we'll finish it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 1, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> All bullshit left wing news sites that lie consistently. So whatever they say, I know the opposite is always true.



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-proven-unfit-for-power-again

Here's a real zinger about him being unfit to lead from a right wing website. Oh wait, maybe these are those RINOs I keep laughing about.



BitMasterPlus said:


> It has been televised to tv channels like CNN and others, and because of that, their rating tanked to new lows because nobody with a brain gives a shit about the sham hearings. Literally not even shit would be in the same room as the hearings lol



Last I polled only Fox News lost real numbers. Wanna trade ratings reports? I bet you'll call all mine hearsay and bullshit.



BitMasterPlus said:


> I didn't say that, you did. If that's what you want fine, at least be honest about it. I want civil rights for all, you've just been led and programmed by the corrupt establishment some claim to be against.



Yes, I did say that you silly little person lol. I also said that what you said, sounded like what I said. 

Is English your first language? If not, you really are doing a decent job, but your comprehension could use some work. 



BitMasterPlus said:


> I don't judge anybody by race, only their character, so if I hear good music and they're a good person, I'll listen.



That's honestly good to know. I wish your general opinion reflected that. 



BitMasterPlus said:


> Oh lookie, more bullshit propaganda! My favorite! Biden has shown to be completely more competent.



But, it's a right wing news outlet? So what's the propaganda?

Luckily you and I are in agreement about Biden. Fun fact, if you Googled it, you'd find that a lot of Democrats only support him because he's blue; most of the Dems don't care for him a whole lot more. It's kinda like how Trump was only better cuz Hilary was a failure.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Who cares what they think? Their job is to uphold law, constitution, and civil liberties, not to listen to mob rule.



Ok, but if a majority of voters don't care for the Supreme Court Justices, they'll eventually get replaced. That's what my point was; an overwhelming number of both Democrats and some Republicans aren't happy with the current SCJs and their recent ruling in particular; they'll be uprooted soon enough. We already got an ally sworn in earlier today. 



BitMasterPlus said:


> Oh you haven't seen what a fight is yet. Cast the first stone, I dare ya, because we will fight back twice as hard and your ass will get knocked back. We're taking back our country from you monsters one way or another. So go ahead, start the fight, we'll finish it.



If your fight is anything like the Jan 6 insurrection, we'll probably just sit this one out and let you guys tired yourselves out. When's the last time Republicans won anything legitimate? Besides the most recent overturn none of y'all were really fighting for anyway.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 1, 2022)

Noctosphere said:


> It just isn't constitutional anymore and not illegal


Show me where Abortion is in the constitution because I yet to find it!


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 1, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-proven-unfit-for-power-again
> 
> Here's a real zinger about him being unfit to lead from a right wing website. Oh wait, maybe these are those RINOs I keep laughing about.


Probably are Rinos, just as bad as dems.


SyphenFreht said:


> Last I polled only Fox News lost real numbers. Wanna trade ratings reports? I bet you'll call all mine hearsay and bullshit.


Then you need to look and research more.


SyphenFreht said:


> Yes, I did say that you silly little person lol. I also said that what you said, sounded like what I said.
> 
> Is English your first language? If not, you really are doing a decent job, but your comprehension could use some work.


So you admit you want corruption from billionaires like Bill Gates and Dr. Fauci? You want to be controlled and have your rights taken away? Ok.


SyphenFreht said:


> That's honestly good to know. I wish your general opinion reflected that.


It does, I just pull no punches when calling people out.


SyphenFreht said:


> But, it's a right wing news outlet? So what's the propaganda?
> 
> Luckily you and I are in agreement about Biden. Fun fact, if you Googled it, you'd find that a lot of Democrats only support him because he's blue; most of the Dems don't care for him a whole lot more. It's kinda like how Trump was only better cuz Hilary was a failure.


Because the majority of the republican party is corrupt. This isn't about right vs left anymore, it's the people vs the uniparty or the establishment. It's just easier to pick on liberals because they constantly show how unhinged they are.


SyphenFreht said:


> Ok, but if a majority of voters don't care for the Supreme Court Justices, they'll eventually get replaced. That's what my point was; an overwhelming number of both Democrats and some Republicans aren't happy with the current SCJs and their recent ruling in particular; they'll be uprooted soon enough. We already got an ally sworn in earlier today.


That's still now the Supreme Court works. It's their job to uphold the law and civility, and to uphold laws and practices to protect the country, not listen to mob rule or threats or tantrums when a bunch of whales cry when they don't get their way. While I do believe there does need to be reform in the branches of government, you still need a basic understanding on how our system of government works. We're not a democracy, but a constitutional republic, and I think this is where people get confused. I'll admit I get confused at times, but we gotta keep reminding ourselves and educating ourselves on how our system works, and if it needs improvements or not. This guy can explain it much better than I can. I think it was this video or another.


SyphenFreht said:


> If your fight is anything like the Jan 6 insurrection, we'll probably just sit this one out and let you guys tired yourselves out. When's the last time Republicans won anything legitimate? Besides the most recent overturn none of y'all were really fighting for anyway.


That was us being nice and peacefully protesting before the Capitol Police and crisis actors invaded to try to frame and make them look bad. You haven't seen what a fight truly would be. Keep poking the sleeping lion though, and you're gonna find out how vicious it can be.


----------



## wartutor (Jul 1, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-proven-unfit-for-power-again
> 
> Here's a real zinger about him being unfit to lead from a right wing website. Oh wait, maybe these are those RINOs I keep laughing about.
> 
> ...


An ally wow the woman cant even identify her own sex...and they want to scream the other judges lied on their applications lmao.


And here just for shits and giggles hopefully you wont say wiki is lying

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 1, 2022)

wartutor said:


> An ally wow the woman cant even identify her own sex...and they want to scream the other judges lied on their applications lmao.



Ah yes, because she's supposedly confused about her sex means her entire position and integrity as a human being should be called into question. You'd think with stipulations like that you'd be a little more wary of who you elect president; Trump flipped flopped his political alignment so many times he might as well have flipped a coin to make his decisions.




BitMasterPlus said:


> Probably are Rinos, just as bad as dems.



Cult within a cult? Are you Illuminati?



BitMasterPlus said:


> Then you need to look and research more.



Care to post any relevant links then? 



BitMasterPlus said:


> So you admit you want corruption from billionaires like Bill Gates and Dr. Fauci? You want to be controlled and have your rights taken away? Ok.



No I'd rather the economy be controlled by the workers, not the elites. Actually, I myself would not mind enacting a modernized Trade and Barter system, moving away from gold backed standards and cryptocurrency altogether.

But hey man, you do you. Better to be run by Fauci than Christianity.



BitMasterPlus said:


> It does, I just pull no punches when calling people out.



Well luckily you have yet to call anyone out in this thread. 



BitMasterPlus said:


> Because the majority of the republican party is corrupt. This isn't about right vs left anymore, it's the people vs the uniparty or the establishment. It's just easier to pick on liberals because they constantly show how unhinged they are.



Uh huh. But you want to fight against the establishment and install Christianity as the new establishment, so at what point are you guys in favor of small government? Only when it acts as an extension of the overarching religious dystopia?



BitMasterPlus said:


> That's still now the Supreme Court works. It's their job to uphold the law and civility, and to uphold laws and practices to protect the country, not listen to mob rule or threats or tantrums when a bunch of whales cry when they don't get their way. While I do believe there does need to be reform in the branches of government, you still need a basic understanding on how our system of government works. We're not a democracy, but a constitutional republic, and I think this is where people get confused. I'll admit I get confused at times, but we gotta keep reminding ourselves and educating ourselves on how our system works, and if it needs improvements or not. This guy can explain it much better than I can. I think it was this video or another.



I appreciate the vid, I'll have to check it out when I'm on WiFi.

The point is, every few years we get new waves of red and blue colored elects that shit around and do not much until enough people complain that they get uprooted. Trump elected one or two, Obama got a couple, I think Bush put one there... Just give it time. Roe v Wade was a debacle to begin with, and it's overturn a tragedy, but there's something bigger going on, otherwise why wait until mid Biden to suddenly pull a Republican move? If Biden overturns the overturn (try saying that drunk lol), that's an auto victory for him. If he doesn't, well, the blame falls back on Republicans and the Christian establishment. So again, give it time. This won't last long, definitely not long after a couple SCJs get replaced after enough public outcry (after all, every president needs ratings).



BitMasterPlus said:


> That was us being nice and peacefully protesting before the Capitol Police and crisis actors invaded to try to frame and make them look bad. You haven't seen what a fight truly would be. Keep poking the sleeping lion though, and you're gonna find out how vicious it can be.



You've mentioned crisis actors before in another thread. Do you honestly believe Republicans have never used crisis actors in their demonstrations? We could argue this paranoia all night, but at the end of the day Republicans don't have many wins on their side. They lost the battle against women's rights before, and minority rights, and religious rights, and ... Well I could go on. 

I like poking things. Setting things aflame gets better results though.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 1, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> The people being able to overpower the state is why it's in there in the first place.
> 
> Just like our three Federal branches exist as a series of checks and balances on one another, the 2nd amendment is a check and balance against a tyrannical government.
> 
> There are several para-military organizations based out of the US that are private armies, and the US government even hires them on as mercenaries.


Yep, I met lots of Blackwater "employees" and other mercs out in Iraq and Afghanistan. Basically these were just contracted out to carry out private security and missions that weren't in the scope of the Army and were politically not likely to cause any problems for the government. They (private companies) also set up camps, and done maintenance on things such as the sewage/water/electricity/catering etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(company)

Wars today will always have private companies supplying food/accomodation/mercs etc - they are paid from the privated companies which are in turn contracted by the government - no pensions for the state to pay out, and no public to complain about the loss of soldiers - the government love this.

Mercs in Ukraine - quite a few have been wiped out and this hasn't made the news in the same way that a loss of a soldier would and for now there's a 50/50 survival rate for them.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/russia-ukr...aine war,Defense Ministry claimed on Thursday.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 1, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Yep, I met lots of Blackwater "employees" and other mercs out in Iraq and Afghanistan. Basically these were just contracted out to carry out private security and missions that weren't in the scope of the Army and were politically not likely to cause any problems for the government. They (private companies) also set up camps, and done maintenance on things such as the sewage/water/electricity/catering etc.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(company)
> 
> ...


The only problem with many PMC’s is that they treat the Geneva Convention more like the Geneva Suggestion, they’re not bound by the same agreements world governments are,  but other than that they’re legitimate businesses. As far as American ones are concerned, many hire former soldiers, particularly ones with a background in special forces. They’re few in number, but usually extremely well-trained and regimented. Can’t say the same about Russian PMC’s that are notoriously hired to do missions that’d be straight up illegal for the army to engage in. You mention Blackwater - those guys are particularly interesting. I vaguely remember listening to an interview with the founder, fascinating stuff. Guy bought 7000 acres of swampland and turned it into a giant training facility for “unwanted” soldiers. You’d think that kind of story was straight out of a Kojima script, and yet here we are, it’s real life.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The only problem with many PMC’s is that they treat the Geneva Convention more like the Geneva Suggestion, they’re not bound by the same agreements world governments are,  but other than that they’re legitimate businesses. As far as American ones are concerned, many hire former soldiers, particularly ones with a background in special forces. They’re few in number, but usually extremely well-trained and regimented. Can’t say the same about Russian PMC’s that are notoriously hired to do missions that’d be straight up illegal for the army to engage in. You mention Blackwater - those guys are particularly interesting. I vaguely remember listening to an interview with the founder, fascinating stuff. Guy bought 7000 acres of swampland and turned it into a giant training facility for “unwanted” soldiers. You’d think that kind of story was straight out of a Kojima script, and yet here we are, it’s real life.


In the British Army we have a rules of engagement card which is frankly ridiculous. In Afghanistan the Taliban could have set up an IED on a main supply route and then once it went off they could open fire on soldiers that got out their vehicles to render first aid. Once the Taliban run out of bullets they could run away and you weren't allowed to shoot them as they were no longer deemed a threat. If the same thing happened to a contractor - do you think they would just let them run away? Nope, they (The Taliban) would be in paradise with their 50 eight year old virgins and their corpses would have a shiney new bullet hole in them. The Taliban don't sign up to the geneva convention so rules don't apply to them in the same way the do for the USA/UK/Australia etc. Personnaly I would turn a blind eye if I had seem anyone slot a Taliban dude, I have zero compassion for them, the same way that they have zero for us and I am certain that had the opportunity arose during my time when I was in Afghanistan where I could have "misinterpreted" the rules - I probably would have. The same thing that the Russians and the Ukranians are doing to each other now in fact - they don't follow the rules either, there's more of an eye for an eye type scenarion going on there. The reality is that war is brutal and the people that are making up rule cards are not usually the ones doing any of the fighting.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 1, 2022)

mrdude said:


> In the British Army we have a rules of engagement card which is frankly ridiculous. In Afghanistan the Taliban could have set up an IED on a main supply route and then once it went off they could open fire on soldiers that got out their vehicles to render first aid. Once the Taliban run out of bullets they could run away and you weren't allowed to shoot them as they were no longer deemed a threat. If the same thing happened to a contractor - do you think they would just let them run away? Nope, they (The Taliban) would be in paradise with their 50 eight year old virgins and their corpses would have a shiney new bullet hole in them. The Taliban don't sign up to the geneva convention so rules don't apply to them in the same way the do for the USA/UK/Australia etc. Personnaly I would turn a blind eye if I had seem anyone slot a Taliban dude, I have zero compassion for them, the same way that they have zero for us and I am certain that had the opportunity arose during my time when I was in Afghanistan where I could have "misinterpreted" the rules - I probably would have. The same thing that the Russians and the Ukranians are doing to each other now in fact - they don't follow the rules either, there's more of an eye for an eye type scenarion going on there. The reality is that war is brutal and the people that are making up rule cards are not usually the ones doing any of the fighting.


I dunno about you but I don't like the idea of western forces being allowed to use shit like napalm or dirty bombs on enemy forces. Maybe you like people dying decades down the line to agent orange and shit though! Would be in line with your other psychotic opinions, lmao!!


----------



## mrdude (Jul 1, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I dunno about you but I don't like the idea of western forces being allowed to use shit like napalm or dirty bombs on enemy forces. Maybe you like people dying decades down the line to agent orange and shit though! Would be in line with your other psychotic opinions, lmao!!


When USA were bombing the caves where Al Qaeda were hanging out - I was cheering, in fact the bigger the bombs the better and the more enemy you can wipe out with the less chance of loss to your own forces the better. The more unfair war is the better it is for the winning side - you would have no idea on this though because other people will aways do the fighting while you sit about drinking your soy latte and complaining about stuff.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 1, 2022)

mrdude said:


> When USA were bombing the caves where Al Qaeda were hanging out - I was cheering, in fact the bigger the bombs the better and the more enemy you can wipe out with the less chance of loss to your own forces the better. The more unfair war is the better it is for the winning side - you would have no idea on this though because other people will aways do the fighting while you sit about drinking your soy latte and complaining about stuff.


*always

You haven't served a day in your life. Sit back down, civvie.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 1, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I dunno about you but I don't like the idea of western forces being allowed to use shit like napalm or dirty bombs on enemy forces. Maybe you like people dying decades down the line to agent orange and shit though! Would be in line with your other psychotic opinions, lmao!!


Napalm had been fully decommissioned by the U.S. Army, the last canister was destroyed in 2001. The use of Agent Orange stopped in the 1970’s. Not sure what you mean by “dirty bombs”, the U.S. never used dirty nukes if that’s what you meant, they can afford real ones. Do you mean depleted uranium shells? Those are not used because they’re radioactive, they’re used for armor penetration.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Nepalm had been fully decommissioned by the


Thanks me too.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 1, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Thanks me too.


My browser derped and slashed the post in half. I’ve updated it now. In any case, your concerns seem decades out of date, you’ll have to be more specific.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> My browser derped and slashed the post in half. I’ve updated it now. In any case, your concerns seem decades out of date, you’ll have to be more specific.


I don't see what relevance "The army doesn't use this" has to "Deregulation of munitions." Maybe you can elaborate.

Also, the last napalm bomb was used in 2003 in Iraq. While the exact composition isn't the same, the function and destruction is. Also, y'know. White phosphorus and all that. My point is, your post even once expanded is a pretty useless reply that doesn't really contribute anything to my objection to the removal of wartime regulations.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 1, 2022)

wartutor said:


> All 3 of those 1st quots were the same thing and they are all hear say. I


When it's littearrly the person right next to them saying that. That's not hearsay. If she heard it from someone else, who heard it. Then it would be. And she does meet the adquate part of that definition to pass, as she was right next to him time and time again. Primarily because it's part of her job


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 1, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I don't see what relevance "The army doesn't use this" has to "Deregulation of munitions." Maybe you can elaborate.
> 
> Also, the last napalm bomb was used in 2003 in Iraq. While the exact composition isn't the same, the function and destruction is. Also, y'know. White phosphorus and all that. My point is, your post even once expanded is a pretty useless reply that doesn't really contribute anything to my objection to the removal of wartime regulations.


White phosphorus and napalm are not the same, their chemical composition and function are different. Napalm is a mixture of a volatile (petrol or diesel fuel) and a gelling agent, it was deployed by plane to indiscriminately clear out large swathes of land. White phosphorous munitions are, well, white phosphorus. While they *can* be deployed somewhat like napalm, more modern munitions were specifically designed for tactical uses like bunker or tank busting. They’d penetrate otherwise impenetrable armor plating/obstacles and burn the crew. As far as munitions regulation is concerned, I think we both agree that it’s necessary - that sadly means that not everyone will play fair and honourable, but I’d rather be the “good guy” in any conflict, a sentiment not always shared by fellow gun enthusiasts. I simply figured that I’d mention that those weapons aren’t in use, and haven’t been in use for a very long time.

Edit: Had a quick look at that 2003 case and, technically speaking, they used a different chemical, let’s call it “Napalm 2.0”. The bomb used kerosene instead and was mostly deployed for its psychological effect - the smell of napalm. Still, the weapon type was banned, so they should get bonked a bit for that.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> White phosphorus and napalm are not one and the same, their chemical composition and function are different. Napalm is a mixture of a volatile (petrol or diesel fuel) and a gelling agent, it was deployed by plane to indiscriminately clear out large swathes of land. White phosphorous munitions are, well, white phosphorus. While they *can* be deployed somewhat like napalm, more modern munitions were specifically designed for tactical uses like bunker or tank busting. They’d penetrate otherwise impenetrable armor plating/obstacles and burn the crew. As far as munitions regulation is concerned, I think we both agree that it’s necessary - that sadly means that not everyone will play fair and honourable, but I’d rather be the “good guy” in any conflict, a sentiment not always shared by fellow gun enthusiasts. I simply figured that I’d mention that those games aren’t in use, and haven’t been in use for a very long time.
> 
> Edit: Had a quick look at that 2003 case and, technically speaking, they used “Napalm 2.0”. The bomb used kerosene instead and was mostly deployed for its psychological effect - the smell of napalm. Still, the weapon type was banned, so they should get bonked a bit for that.


DIY Petrol bomb terrorists use petrol mixed with polystyrene and a little sugar.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 1, 2022)

mrdudemanguysirmisterboy


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 1, 2022)

mrdude said:


> DIY Petrol bomb terrorists use petrol mixed with polystyrene and a little sugar.


Well, the whole point is that it’s highly flammable and sticky, so yeah, I can see that. Apparently styrene (the base polymer used for styrofoam) polymerises when combined with benzene, resulting in a highly flammable, sticky mess.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 1, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, the whole point is that it’s highly flammable and sticky, so yeah, I can see that. Apparently styrene (the base polymer used for styrofoam) polymerises when combined with benzene, resulting in a highly flammable, sticky mess.


For more top tips get yourself a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 1, 2022)

mrdude said:


> For more top tips get yourself a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook.


Oh, I’m well-aware of the recipe - I’m from the old Internet.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, I’m well-aware of the recipe - I’m from the old Internet.


I'm from the Amiga BBS days, back in the dial up days I had a 16 kbps modem and was the envy of many! How times have changed :-). Remember when AOL was a thing - In UK we had currant bun internet in the late 90's, back then it was awesome as it only took about 3 days to download a CD ISO.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2022)

mrdude said:


> I'm from the Amiga BBS days, back in the dial up days I had a 16 kbps modem and was the envy of many! How times have changed :-). Remember when AOL was a thing - In UK we had currant bun internet in the late 90's, back then it was awesome as it only took about 3 days to download a CD ISO.


Can’t help but think that things were better back then, I miss the old web. In any case, Roe v. Wade, yes? We strayed quite a bit from the topic of the conversation.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 2, 2022)

I am still wondering how the “small government” crowd is ok with this happening. Shouldn’t they be against states regulating what people can do to their bodies or is only big government when it’s a federal law protecting people? It seems like the “small government” crowd really seems to focus on laws that protect people from the government but turn a blind eye the second states enact actual laws restricting people.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 2, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I am still wondering how the “small government” crowd is ok with this happening. *Shouldn’t they be against states regulating what people can do to their bodies *or is only big government when it’s a federal law protecting people? It seems like the “small government” crowd really seems to focus on laws that protect people from the government but turn a blind eye the second states enact actual laws restricting people.


They are against people murdering other peoples bodies - the unborn child isn't some inconvenience that needs killed, it's a sentient being that doesn't deserve to be snuffed out before it's even taken it's first breath.



> The book, Watch Me Grow, by Professor Stuart Campbell, former head of obstetrics at the King's College Hospital, London, captured pictures of babies at 12 weeks "jumping off the sides of the womb like a trampoline," opening their eyes at 18 weeks and apparently smiling at 22 weeks.



https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...en-is-the-foetus-a-sentient-being-528676.html

Just because you can't see a baby under the skin of the mothers belly - doesn't mean it's not a live human being.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 2, 2022)

mrdude said:


> They are against people murdering other peoples bodies - the unborn child isn't some inconvience that needs killed, it's a sentient being that doesn't deserve to be snuffed out before it's even taken it's first breath.


Your comment didn’t answer my question. Why do pro-lifers constantly deflect questions? I have to ask, how do you or anyone else plan on stopping abortions? I’ve said this countless times before, history and current events show that abortions are going to continue to happen, they will just move to dirty motels. So what’s your plan to stop that? Roe v Wade at least moved abortions to cleans and professional settings, which drastically dropped the rate of people dying from abortions or dying from complications that lead up to an abortion. Abortions are still going to happen, so what’s the plan?


----------



## mrdude (Jul 2, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Your comment didn’t answer my question. Why do pro-lifers constantly deflect questions? I have to ask, how do you or anyone else plan on stopping abortions? I’ve said this countless times before, history and current events show that abortions are going to continue to happen, they will just move to dirty motels. So what’s your plan to stop that? Roe v Wade at least moved abortions to cleans and professional settings, which drastically dropped the rate of people dying from abortions or dying from complications that lead up to an abortion. These are still going to happen, so what’s the plan?


You won't be able to stop someone that's intent on going to a dirty motel because people have free will. They will however face the might of the law afterwards if they are found out so if they want to take that chance it's up to them and they have to live with that.

I found in the comments section from this youtube video from nurses that have been forced to give abortions quite heartbeaking. It's not just the person having the abortion that suffers, the kid is killed and the mental toll on the nurses also needs to be taken into account. As well as the fathers and potential grandparents.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 2, 2022)

mrdude said:


> You won't be able to stop someone that's intent on going to a dirty motel because people have free will. They will however face the might of the law afterwards if they are found out so if they want to take that chance it's up to them and they have to live with that.
> 
> I found in the comments section from this youtube video from nurses that have been forced to give aboritions quite heartbeaking. It's not just the person having the abortion that suffers, the kid is killed and the mental toll on the nurses also needs to be taken into account. As well as the fathers and potential grandparents.



I really don't see unverified sob stories posted by a group known for spreading misinformation and hatred as a very convincing argument. I also don't take unverified claims on a YouTube video for anything other than unverified claims. Neither of us can prove these claims are coming from actual nurses and I have no reason to trust they have. And it seems your logic really doesn't make much sense when dealing with the topic of abortions. If abortions are going to happen, why force them to happen in dirty motels? Equally, what plans are in place to help those who were forced to carry a child? If there's no plan, then why make people suffer? It seems more like the pro-life approach is just extremely abusive and only focused on forcing lives into this world and nothing else.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

mrdude said:


> They are against people murdering other peoples bodies - the unborn child isn't some inconvenience that needs killed, it's a sentient being that doesn't deserve to be snuffed out before it's even taken it's first breath.



Why doesn't it need to be snuffed out? What's the concern about preserving it's life? It offers nothing of value to society, it doesn't process pain or much of reality, especially during the first trimester. Why is it's life important to you when it has no impact on your life whatsoever except the satisfaction of having control over someone else's body?



mrdude said:


> Just because you can't see a baby under the skin of the mothers belly - doesn't mean it's not a live human being.



And yet these unseen babies are more important than preservation of the lives of the babies already born? What makes that distinction for you?


----------



## mrdude (Jul 2, 2022)

For those that want to see some hi-res pictures of fetal development week by week from when the sperm first fertilises an egg, this is a very interesting watch.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> I am still wondering how the “small government” crowd is ok with this happening. Shouldn’t they be against states regulating what people can do to their bodies or is only big government when it’s a federal law protecting people? It seems like the “small government” crowd really seems to focus on laws that protect people from the government but turn a blind eye the second states enact actual laws restricting people.



Diversity is a good thing.  Decentralizing government is progress.  I'd like to live in a community where abortion isn't celebrated.  Maybe you are different.

"I have to ask, how do you or anyone else plan on stopping abortions? I’ve said this countless times before, history and current events show that abortions are going to continue to happen"

Replace the abortion with murder.  Is the idea that "it's going to happen anyway, so let's facilitate it" actually a rational argument to you?


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> It offers nothing of value to society



Spoken like a true capitalist.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Spoken like a true capitalist.



Merely a reflection of the society we live in. Me personally, I wouldn't mind a little more socialism


----------



## AlexMCS (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Replace the abortion with murder.  Is the idea that "it's going to happen anyway, so let's facilitate it" actually a rational argument to you?



Oh, you'd be surprised, as many, MANY people think just like that. It exacerbates a pervasive issue in the morality of a society that can't avoid its vices: lack of discipline.

And looking from that PoV, I agree that it is better to have legal drugs, alcohol, abortion, prostitution, any other vice or controversial behavior legalized since we'd avoid the consequences of those who'd break the law for it anyway AND get some government revenue off it, which could be better used in other areas. The problem is that this PoV itself is wrong - it's an admission of cowardice, a moral failure.

We currently live in a world that abhors sacrifices and laughs at asceticism. Where instant gratification is the norm and pain is vilified. You can never expect the majority of such a society to hold higher standards.

The mental gymnastics some people do to justify killing other (unborn) people is amazing as well.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Merely a reflection of the society we live in.


_*You *_live in. Even then, your society is in a state of "arbitrary social construct" so there isn't consensus to your claim. Don't be so arrogant.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

AlexMCS said:


> Oh, you'd be surprised, as many, MANY people think just like that. It exacerbates a pervasive issue in the morality of a society that can't avoid its vices: lack of discipline.
> 
> And looking from that PoV, I agree that it is better to have legal drugs, alcohol, abortion, prostitution, any other vice or controversial behavior legalized since we'd avoid the consequences of those who'd break the law for it anyway AND get some government revenue off it, which could be better used in other areas. The problem is that this PoV itself is wrong - it's an admission of cowardice, a moral failure.
> 
> ...



I see virtue in letting people to explore their free will, to a point.  When it starts involving beings that do not (or cannot) consent, then the protection of law provides something of value.  An example of the opposite; the idea that suicide is illegal, so therefore someone will be held liable reads like a slaver's law.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> _*You *_live in. Even then, your society is in a state of "arbitrary social construct" so even then, there isn't consensus to your claim. Don't be so arrogant.



Arrogance? From someone who argues semantics rather than the topic at hand?

Call it what you will,  capitalism operates under the assumption that all who reside within contribute and therefore add value to the overall system. The only reason why child labor was eliminated was because people found more value in indoctrinating them with silly concepts like "religion" and "patriotism" than actually getting them to provide worthwhile labor.

So again. At what point is the baby's life valuable to anyone other than the immediate parents?



tabzer said:


> I see virtue in letting people to explore their free will, to a point.  When it starts involving beings that do not (or cannot) consent, then the protection of law provides something of value.  An example of the opposite; the idea that suicide is illegal, so therefore someone will be held liable reads like a slaver's law.   Women don't consent to forced births.  At some point you're saying the mother's life is irrelevant to your demand for control.



And at some point you're saying that the mother's life is irrelevant to your demand for control over her body.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 2, 2022)

There's the common argument about bodily autonomy which is a very powerful point against anti-choice people. Basically if your family member was sick, and needed a blood transfusion for 9 months to live, and you're the only one genetically capable of giving the transfusion. Should the government be allowed to force someone to save the other person. 

I'm pro-choice, but I can still steel-man the argument a bit. It's a good argument, but lacks the moral obligation of being the cause of the issue in the first place. A better addition to the theoretical would be if you were the cause of a car accident that put your family member into the hospital in the first place. 

With that change, a person should feel morally obligated to help that family member. BUT, that still shouldn't mean that a government should force you to do it. Just because you should, doesn't mean you must.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Arrogance? From someone who argues semantics rather than the topic at hand?



I'm directly addressing the topic.  Your arrogance is in thinking that your view is not only an American view (it's not), but that it's global or universal.



SyphenFreht said:


> Women don't consent to forced births. At some point you're saying the mother's life is irrelevant to your demand for control.  And at some point you're saying that the mother's life is irrelevant to your demand for control over her body.



First, women consent to pregnancy in varying degrees.  "Forced birth" implies forced impregnation, which is rape.  Second I never suggested that a "mother's" life is irrelevant nor assumed to demand control over another's body.



SyphenFreht said:


> At what point is the baby's life valuable to anyone other than the immediate parents?



I pity you and the society that you want to believe in.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 2, 2022)

Well that was fast: https://eu.dispatch.com/story/news/...g-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Well that was fast: https://eu.dispatch.com/story/news/...g-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/



I agree that child abuse is a bigger issue than the RvW issue.  If we could solve that issue, I'd be very happy.  Those who believe that a baby's life has no value are probably among the perpetrators contributing to the horrible situation you are reading about.  Of course, the usual suspects oust themselves.  They mistake access to the internet as being apart of a society.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'd like to live in a community where abortion isn't celebrated.
> ...
> Replace the abortion with murder.  Is the idea that "it's going to happen anyway, so let's facilitate it" actually a rational argument to you?


Nobody is celebrating abortion.

Replace abortion with cutting your hair or nails. You are removing some unwanted human cells from your body.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> Nobody is celebrating abortion.
> 
> Replace abortion with cutting your hair or nails. You are removing some unwanted human cells from your body.


Hey guy.  I already know that you are a POS.  Instead of trying harder to convince me of something I already know, why don't you address this?


----------



## Xzi (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> They mistake access to the internet as being apart of a society.


The irony.  Guess you're not a part of Japanese society because abortion is legal there up to almost the end of the second trimester.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Xzi said:


> The irony.  Guess you're not a part of Japanese society because abortion is legal there up to almost the end of the second trimester.



I'm apart of Japanese society, regardless of the legal status of abortion.  I was addressing the sentiment expressed about the lack of value in pregnancy.

Japanese people do not believe that pregnancy offers nothing of value to a society, by large.  Socially, we celebrate pregnancy and provide social support for it.  We aren't the only country that does this.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Hey guy.  I already know that you are a POS.  Instead of trying harder to convince me of something I already know, why don't you address this?


I have better things to do than addressing the delusional ramblings of an internet troll.

As you have regularly proved yourself to be one of the scummiest people on this forum, your opinion of me is as worthless as you are.



tabzer said:


> Japanese people do not believe that pregnancy offers nothing of value to a society, by large.  Socially, we celebrate pregnancy and provide social support for it.  We aren't the only country that does this.


Like all of your posts, this misses the point entirely.

People who are pregnant, who want to be pregnant, celebrate it. There is very little social support in the US, maybe if the US became socialist then it might improve.

I'm not aware of any society that celebrates pregnancy in every circumstance. People who are pro choice don't believe that pregnancy offers nothing, I think you know that but like to pretend that you are moral and anyone who disagrees with you is immoral and make shit up to "prove" that.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Japanese people do not believe that pregnancy offers nothing of value to a society, by large.  Socially, we celebrate pregnancy and provide social support for it.  We aren't the only country that does this.


Yes, and a major pillar of that social support is access to abortion services for those that need them.  Conservatives have this insane idea that women get abortions for funzies in-between shopping at malls, when the reality is it's always been a last resort.  That doesn't mean it's ever gonna be super uncommon, as capitalism has a funny way of leaving a lot of people with only bad options.


----------



## seany1990 (Jul 2, 2022)

https://eu.dispatch.com/story/news/...g-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/




https://preview.redd.it/pofoph0yq3991.jpg?width=799&auto=webp&s=b9125c235a825364eb529380e3b2aac100a6b3ba


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

seany1990 said:


> https://eu.dispatch.com/story/news/...g-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/


tabzer is celebrating the pregnancy of that 10 year old right now.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> tabzer is celebrating the pregnancy of that 10 year old right now.



Am I correct in assuming that because you cannot physically rape people, that you settle to rape the conversation?  I already stated my position on that.  What follows is what I already posted.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Well that was fast: https://eu.dispatch.com/story/news/...g-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/



I agree that child abuse is a bigger issue than the RvW issue.  If we could solve that issue, I'd be very happy.  Those who believe that a baby's life has no value are probably among the perpetrators contributing to the horrible situation you are reading about.  Of course, the usual suspects oust themselves.  They mistake access to the internet as being apart of a society.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Am I correct in assuming that because you cannot physically rape people, that you settle to rape the conversation?  I already stated my position on that.  What follows is what I already posted.


No, you are incorrect. Your other posts argue that you either

a. celebrate pregnancy
or
b. celebrate abortion

and there is no other alternative.

Therefore, by your own logic you are celebrating the pregnancy as you have stated you don't want to celebrate abortion.

You can't just hand wave that away with "bad things, mumble mumble".


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> I think you know that but like to pretend that you are moral and anyone who disagrees with you is immoral and make shit up to "prove" that.



I don't take offense to people disagreeing with me.  I disagree with everyone on this forum to some degree.  But when people make claims like "pregnancy has no social value", "home invaders only arm themselves for self-defense", or "RvW being repealed is pro rape", I consider them to be of a similar cloth. 

I am not against your laws.  Americans do as they please, obviously.

Your choice to argue against strawmen has little to do with how I am representing my opinions.

One can celebrate pregnancy and lament the need for abortion.  I have never argued that if you do not celebrate pregnancy, that it means you are celebrating abortion.  Your a or b logic is really stupid.  I celebrated the decentralization of federal government and nothing more.

Oh, and you are a racist.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> agree that child abuse is a bigger issue than the RvW issue.


what if. Now this is crazy...
We allow abortions, because expecting rape to never happen, is not going to happen. And is the fastest, quickest recourse, that can be followed up with a lawsuit afterword. Instead of carrying for the child that was forced onto you with no option to remove because of your state, you can just focus on the legal battle.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> what if. Now this is crazy...
> We allow abortions, because expecting rape to never happen, is not going to happen.



I'm noticing a strange trend in letting the actions of child-rapists lead the narrative on laws that do not actually stop them.  Maybe just clean their mess.

(is that the point?)


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm noticing a strange trend in letting the actions of child-rapists lead the narrative on laws that do not actually stop them.


I'm noticing a strange tend in enabling the actions of those child-rapists have long term consquences on the women via a forced child lead the narrative on laws that does not actually stop them.
I can play that game too you know


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> I'm noticing a strange tend in enabling the actions of those child-rapists have long term consquences on the women via a forced child lead the narrative on laws that does not actually stop them.
> I can play that game too you know



You are going to have to come up with a convincing argument on how a child being born makes a rapist's life easier (if that's what you are _*trying *_to suggest).


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You are going to have to come up with a convincing argument on how a child being born makes a rapist's life easier.


That's a disingenuous argument with trying to rebrand what I said. How about we argue the fact that removing the choice to abortion results in a rapists life tormenting the mother through a illegitimate child for the next 18+ years of her life? Since you know, no access to abortion, no exceptions for rape.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 2, 2022)

Or if she does orphan the child, she still had to go through the trumatic process of child birth,of a child that wasn't wanted or hers by choice


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> That's a disingenuous argument with trying to rebrand what I said. How about we argue the fact that removing the choice to abortion results in a rapists life tormenting the mother through a illegitimate child for the next 18 years of her life? Since you know, no access to abortion, no exceptions for rape.


Honestly, I don't know what you were trying to say, because it violated every English rule.  I took a stab at it, and if you aren't satisfied, then I am genuinely sorry.

I have never taken the position that abortion shouldn't be allowed in any situation.  I do find an article about a 10 year old not being allowed to have an abortion to be an eye opener.  I'm sorry to say that I am not so concerned with who can and cannot get an abortion than I am with who can and cannot rape children.  I have higher expectations of adults.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> Replace abortion with cutting your hair or nails. You are removing some unwanted human cells from your body.


Your hair and your fingernails are part of your body, a foetus is not a part of the woman’s body, it is temporarily attached to the woman’s body for the period of pregnancy. This can be verified scientifically with a simple genetic test. You own each and every part of your own body, it’s arguable whether that translates to agency over of another body, even if the two are attached to each other. That’s not to say that there are no circumstances when an abortion justifiable - that little girl should’ve been served in her hoe state because a pregnancy at 10 years old can be devastating to her health, but what you’re suggesting in this comparison is simply incorrect.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> foetus


Putting the foe in fetus.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Putting the foe in fetus.


That’s the spelling commonly used in the United Kingdom and the rest of the Commonwealth, both are acceptable. If we want to be Latin purists then fetus will do.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Your choice to argue against strawmen has little to do with how I am representing my opinions.
> ...
> 
> Oh, and you are a racist.


If you keep building strawmen, then I'll argue against them.

I don't care if you think I'm a racist, I'm not sure how it's relevant to your post but I guess you are running out of shit to throw at me.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Your hair and your fingernails are part of your body, a foetus is not a part of the woman’s body, it is temporarily attached to the woman’s body for the period of pregnancy..


How is the egg which grew into the fetus, not part of their body?


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm sorry to say that I am not so concerned with who can and cannot get an abortion than I am with who can and cannot rape children


Do you not realize there's a direct correlation? Like idk, maybe that if a rapist, impregnates a women. That the women's recourse is you know, *an abortion* followed by legal recourse on the offender (suing, criminal prosecution)
(And yes, I heard you say that you support exceptions. Good. Now can we please have roe v wade back so that exception is universal and always accepted)
But instead, somehow, the party who passed that ruling, with their states banning abortion, here missed the forest for the trees. I give incredible doubt on the "somehow" since it  they knew what they were doing.
So now your only action is to just sue. You still have to go through child birth.


tabzer said:


> Honestly, I don't know what you were trying to say, because it violated every English rule. I took a stab at it, and if you aren't satisfied, then I am genuinely sorry.


Two edited sentences got conjoined funny. Here's how it's supposed to read, and paraphrase what the intent was.


Nothereed said:


> . How about we argue the fact that removing the choice to abortion results in a rapists life tormenting the mother through a illegitimate child for the next 18+ years of her life?


"how about we argue the fact that removing the choice to an abortion results in rapists making women's lives even worse, since she no longer abortion has a recourse she can follow."


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Do you not realize there's a direct correlation? Like idk, maybe that if a rapist, impregnates a women. That the women's recourse is you know, *an abortion* followed by legal recourse on the offender (suing, criminal prosecution)
> (And yes, I heard you say that you support exceptions. Good. Now can we please have roe v wade back so that exception is universal and always accepted)


JonhathonBaxster has previous said that women should be happy about pregnancies even in cases of rape, which is completely fucked up. The problem is, nobody other than the woman and health professionals can realistically make a decision as to whether abortion would be right.

Government shouldn't be interfering by passing laws to ban all abortions. I'm ok with a cut off point where the fetus gains rights (with exceptions in cases of life and death etc)


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> How is the egg they were born with and grew into the fetus, not part of their body?


It’s a different body, by the virtue of being a separate life form - their DNA proves that. Not too dissimilar from conjoined twins which are also two separate entities joined at one or more points. More specifically, in the case of pregnancy they’re joined by the umbilical cord and, early on, the lining, both of which are disposable.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s a different body, by the virtue of being a separate life form - their DNA proves that.


You can have multiple DNA within the same body, it doesn't prove anything.

It's only when the brain develops that there is any argument that it's a separate life form. Which is basically Roe V Wade.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> JonhathonBaxster has previous said that women should be happy about pregnancies even in cases of rape, which is completely fucked up. The problem is, nobody other than the woman and health professionals can realistically make a decision as to whether abortion would be right.


Yeah I'm aware, it's the reason some of these people's shit is in my signature, to raise at least a level of awareness of what these people have said. the supreme court has ruled in the past through multiple cases that the constitution cannot apply to the unborn (primarily because of how dicy of a situation it is) and instead, only life that is already currently existing. Which just, gives another reason for me to suspect that Roe v Wade being overturned, was stupid, and they completely could of kept roe, but a different legal backing for it. Since those rulings go even further back.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Do you not realize there's a direct correlation? Like idk, maybe that if a rapist, impregnates a women. That the women's recourse is you know, *an abortion* followed by legal recourse on the offender (suing, criminal prosecution)
> But instead, somehow, the party who passed that ruling, with their states banning abortion, here missed the forest for the trees. I give incredible doubt on the "somehow" since it they knew what they were doing.
> So now your only action is to just sue. You still have to go through child birth.



I get that it is a shitty situation.  I just find that a 10 year old getting pregnant is more shitty.  If  government needs to make laws about what should happen if you are an impregnated 10 year old, then anarchy has already won the moral position.



Nothereed said:


> "how about we argue the fact that removing the choice to an abortion results in rapists making women's lives even worse, since she no longer abortion has a recourse she can follow."



Nah, because I don't think I disagree on that.  But I won't say that the rapist is "winning" either.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Nah, because I don't think I disagree on that. But I won't say that the rapist is "winning" either.


Umm, yeah the rapist does win. Sure, he looses the legal battle, but the material battle? No he fucking won. He got to impregent a women and force her to birth his child. The women just straight up looses on that front. She has to deal with the physical and mental trauma of that. And it doesn't even get to be her own kid, that's fucked.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I get that it is a shitty situation. I just find that a 10 year old getting pregnant is more shitty. If government needs to make laws about what should happen if you are an impregnated 10 year old, then anarchy has already won the moral position.


They didn't have to make a law, they chose to make a law that prevented a 10 year old getting an abortion & you are supporting that law. Roe V Wade was a law that prevented laws being passed that would prevent a 10 year old getting an abortion, it was overturned.

You live in a world where 10 year olds will need an abortion. You can't just pretend that it doesn't happen.

There are plenty more shitty situations where people need abortions.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> You can have multiple DNA within the same body, it doesn't prove anything.
> 
> It's only when the brain develops that there is any argument that it's a separate life form. Which is basically Roe V Wade.


Nonsense. Having a brain is not a prerequisite for something being a life form - many life forms have no brain at all at some or all stages of development. Not having a brain is a justification for abortion, which is fair - it is not a prerequisite for life. Arguing that a fetus “isn’t alive” or isn’t a separate human life form is unscientific and disingenuous. There’s no set definition of what life constitutes that all scientists agree on, but if we go by the American standard, life equals taking in nutrients and growing. Fetuses do that.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> There’s no set definition of what life constitutes that all scientists agree on


No but scientists also point out our complex brains as what makes us, us. That's like, our defining trait as a species outside of the opposable thumb


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Umm, yeah the rapist does win. Sure, he looses the legal battle, but the material battle? No he fucking won. He got to impregent a women and force her to birth his child. The women just straight up looses on that front. She has to deal with the physical and mental trauma of that. And it doesn't even get to be her own kid, that's fucked.



No. I'm not going to go that deep with you. Sorry. A rapist will have to pay for the child if the child exists. Trying to argue that someone should be denied their _possible _kink or be proclaimed as a winner is as immaterial as it gets.



smf said:


> They didn't have to make a law, they chose to make a law that prevented a 10 year old getting an abortion & you are supporting that law. Roe V Wade was a law that prevented laws being passed that would prevent a 10 year old getting an abortion, it was overturned.
> 
> You live in a world where 10 year olds will need an abortion. You can't just pretend that it doesn't happen.
> 
> There are plenty more shitty situations where people need abortions.



AFAIK the law already existed since before RvW and now the states have to play catch up with their legislation.  I'm not pretending that a 10 year old shouldn't be allowed an abortion, or a surgical procedure that alleviates her condition.  I'm arguing that child rape is a bigger issue.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> A rapist will have to pay for the child if the child exists. Trying to argue that someone should be denied their _possible _kink or be proclaimed as a winner is as immaterial as it gets.


excuse me... _what_.
Do you not understand the concept of like, material matters? Like... you know, causing Truma on someone  for a good chunk of their life is maybe idk, a material thing that happened? And that we should try to alivate that truama? And in this case, getting an abortion? So she doesn't have to go through more trauma???


----------



## Xzi (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Nonsense. Having a brain is not a prerequisite for something being a life form - many life forms have no brain at all at some or all stages of development. Not having a brain is a justification for abortion, which is fair - it is not a prerequisite for life. Arguing that a fetus “isn’t alive” or isn’t a separate human life form is unscientific and disingenuous. There’s no set definition of what life constitutes that all scientists agree on, but if we go by the American standard, life equals taking in nutrients and growing. Fetuses do that.


Life =/= human life.  There needs to be some common frame of reference there, at least the ability to understand one's own surroundings and existence on a base instinctual level.  Otherwise yes, the fetus is alive, but it could just as easily be considered the same as the fetus of any other mammal.  For that matter, even worms have hearts.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> No but scientists also point out our complex brains as what makes us, us. That's like, our defining trait as a species outside of the opposable thumb


You misunderstand the objection. I have no objections to abortion prior to the brain developing and becoming active - the brain is what makes us a person. What I objected to was comparing the removal of a fetus to cutting hair or fingernails - the two bodies are not one and the same, saying otherwise is verifiably incorrect.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Having a brain is not a prerequisite for something being a life form - many life forms have no brain at all at some or all stages of development.


Indeed, just look at conservatives - reactionary. No cerebral activity whatsoever, amoebas could definitely provider better interactions.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 2, 2022)

The irony is that the conservative argument against abortion has to appeal to emotion rather than to logic or science, something they denigrate liberals for doing often.  Then again, we all know how much they like to project.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> excuse me... _what_.
> Do you not understand the concept of like, material matters? Like... you know, causing Truma on someone  for a good chunk of their life is maybe idk, a material thing that happened? And that we should try to alivate that truama? And in this case, getting an abortion? So she doesn't have to go through more trauma???


Can you try reading to the end of a post before responding?


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> AFAIK the law already existed since before RvW and now the states have to play catch up with their legislation.  I'm not pretending that a 10 year old shouldn't be allowed an abortion, or a surgical procedure that alleviates her condition.  I'm arguing that child rape is a bigger issue.


There will be people under the age of adulthood who get pregnant and require abortions. Murder is illegal, there are still murders. It's a problem that will need to be dealt with.

Some states have recently introduced laws to ban abortions. They knew what the outcome will be, they did not care.



Foxi4 said:


> You misunderstand the objection. I have no objections to abortion prior to the brain developing and becoming active - the brain is what makes us a person. What I objected to was comparing the removal of a fetus to cutting hair or fingernails - the two bodies are not one and the same, saying otherwise is verifiably incorrect.


They both come from a human body. One has the ability to turn into a new human during pregnancy, the other currently does not. That is the only difference.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Life =/= human life.  There needs to be some common frame of reference there, at least the ability to understand one's own surroundings and existence on a base instinctual level.  Otherwise yes, the fetus is alive, but it could just as easily be considered the same as the fetus of any other mammal.  For that matter, even worms have hearts.


There needs to be some reading going on, if anything. Read what I was objecting to instead of telling me things I know. As for the comment, it is human life - it is human (genetically) and it is alive (which we agree on). We can only argue whether it’s sentient or not, which is a different discussion.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Indeed, just look at conservatives - reactionary. No cerebral activity whatsoever, amoebas could definitely provider better interactions.


Basic biology was never the strong suit of liberals.


smf said:


> They both come from a human body. One has the ability to turn into a new human during pregnancy, the other currently does not. That is the only difference.


As long as we agree there is a difference, I’m quite happy.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Basic biology was never the strong suit of liberals.


The right doesn't know how to meme or joke. (nor how to take one)


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Basic biology was never the strong suit of liberals.


Oh come on don't get flustered, it was served on a silver platter, I couldn't resist.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Oh come on don't get flustered, it was served on a silver platter, I couldn't resist.


Likewise.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> There needs to be some reading going on, if anything. Read what I was objecting to instead of telling me things I know. As for the comment, it is human life - it is human (genetically) and it is alive (which we agree on). We can only argue whether it’s sentient or not, which is a different discussion.
> Basic biology was never the strong suit of liberals.
> As long as we agree there is a difference, I’m quite happy.


If you define human life as something that is alive which has human DNA then my finger nails and hair are human life too.

I've cut them off, they aren't part of my body.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Likewise.


I agree, advanced biology is clearly more interesting, and well beyond reactionary brain capacity.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I agree, advanced biology is clearly more interesting, and well beyond reactionary brain capacity.


It's kinda more philosophical than biological, I know that an egg and sperm can turn into a human being while hair and finger nails on their own cannot. But if scientists could clone you from a hair sample, then does that change things?

Pro lifers seem to think of fetus as magic. I'm more pragmatic, once they are viable then they definitely are a person. Before that, things like sentience will guide me.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> If you define human life as something that is alive which has human DNA then my finger nails and hair are human life too.
> 
> I've cut them off, they aren't part of my body.


I know you’re being facetious, but I’ll humor you and “Explain like You’re 5”, as the Internet saying goes. Yes, *you* are a human life form (although some might have doubts about the human part) and you have body parts which you can remove. These parts generally cease being alive as soon as that happens. I don’t know (or care) how *you* define life, I posted the accepted definition that I (and NASA) use to determine whether something is alive or not. Your fingernails or hair have no means of absorbing nutrients and using them to grow/procreate. Moreover, a simple test can (again) determine the ownership of those fingernails and that hair - they’re yours. In conclusion, no, they’re not separate life forms.



smf said:


> It's kinda more philosophical than biological, I know that an egg and sperm can turn into a human being while hair and finger nails on their own cannot. But if scientists could clone you from a hair sample, then does that change things?
> 
> Pro lifers seem to think of fetus as magic. I'm more pragmatic, once they are viable then they definitely are a person. Before that, things like sentience will guide me.


Neither type of gamete contains a complete human genetic sequence - they contribute half each. It is the combination of those two halves that creates a *new* life form dissimilar from both donors. You can’t argue that a sperm or eggs are separate life forms - they’re cells that the host expels for the purposes of procreation. There’s nothing “philosophical” about it, it can be scientifically determined.


Dark_Ansem said:


> I agree, advanced biology is clearly more interesting, and well beyond reactionary brain capacity.


From the party that brought us “birthing persons” comes the long-awaited sequel - “reactionary brains”. It’s almost a compliment.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> you have body parts which you can remove. These parts generally cease being alive as soon as that happens.


The same happens if you remove a fetus from their body.

You are arguing that the fetus isn't part of their body, I'm arguing it is.

All the other stuff you are saying, is to try to support that argument.

It is purely philosophical. The same reason that we justify eating animals, but not people. We share quite a lot of DNA with animals we eat, they are sentient. They just haven't learned to talk.

If you are vegan or jain then you can have a consistent argument against abortion, otherwise it's just cherry picked philosophy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> The same happens if you remove a fetus from their body.


Yes, when you remove a fetus from a woman’s body, it dies - you’ve cut off its source of nutrition deliberately (and mangled it in the process). It is your interference that killed it. It would’ve grown otherwise, but you interrupted it (by way of killing it).



smf said:


> You are arguing that the fetus isn't part of their body, I'm arguing it is.
> 
> All the other stuff you are saying, is to try to support that argument.


It verifiably is not. It’s a separate entity.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> From the party that brought us “birthing persons” comes the long-awaited sequel - “reactionary brains”. It’s almost a compliment.


You can take it how you prefer  I reckoned "smooth-brains" would be redundant and obvious.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> It is purely philosophical.


It is entirely, 100%, without a doubt, scientific. The “my body, my choice” argument refers to the woman’s ability to control whether she is pregnant or not, which is a state her body is in. Nobody in their right mind argues that the fetus is part of her body because it verifiably isn’t - it is only connected to it. If we had magical technology that could harmlessly transfer that fetus to an artificial womb, it would continue to grow and eventually develop into a full-grown human. Your fingernail cannot, and would not, ever do that.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> It verifiably is not. It’s a separate entity.


If it can't survive without the womans body then it is not. You're making a philosophical argument.



Foxi4 said:


> Your fingernail cannot, and would not, ever do that.


I'm sure if there was demand for fingernail transplants then that would one day be possible.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> If it can't survive without the womans body then it is not. You're making a philosophical argument.


Things generally have trouble surviving without nutrition. If you remove a tapeworm from an intestine, it will also die as its method of extracting nutrients requires a host. Nobody would argue that a tapeworm is part of their body because it’s stupid - it’s a separate creature that saps the nutrients of the host.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> Things generally have trouble surviving without nutrition. If you remove a tapeworm from a colon, it will also die as its method of extracting nutrients requires a host. Nobody would argue that a tapeworm is part of their body because it’s stupid - it’s a separate creature that saps the nutrients of the host.


You're hand waving over the part about the egg coming from the woman's body in the first place.
The tape worm did not. Careful you don't build a strawman.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> I'm sure if there was demand for fingernail transplants then that would one day be possible.


Let’s use an argument that isn’t stupid. If your liver is removed, it will deteriorate unless it is transplanted into another body capable of sustaining it. Once it is, the ownership of the organ has changed as it was transferred to another body. At no point is the liver a separate life form. It retains the DNA of the donor by the virtue of being grown by the donor, it continues to function as a liver, and in a cosmic way you “live on”, your genetic material is still “alive”, but you are not a person - you ceased to exist, on account of losing your liver, without which you have no doubt died.


smf said:


> You're hand waving over the part about the egg coming from the woman's body in the first place.
> The tape worm did not. Careful you don't build a strawman.


The origin of the egg is inconsequential as the fetus is not an egg. Upon combining with a sperm cell the genetic sequence is recompiled and a new life is formed.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> You're hand waving over the part about the egg coming from the woman's body in the first place.
> The tape worm did not. Careful you don't build a strawman.


Hey there smarty pants, he's arguing against the claims that you make.  You are hand waving over basic biology.  Careful that you don't make everyone look like an idiot by interacting with you.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> The origin of the egg is inconsequential as the fetus is not an egg.


The egg turned into a fetus, it has remained inside the woman's body the entire time.
That seems pretty consequential that it's part of her body.



tabzer said:


> Careful that you don't make everyone look like an idiot by interacting with you.


You give me too much credit, you do extremely well at that on your own.



tabzer said:


> You are hand waving over basic biology.


No, it's philosophy whether something is a thing or not.

Biologically you aren't the exact same person you were ten years ago.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> The egg turned into a fetus, it has remained inside the woman's body the entire time.
> That seems pretty consequential that it's part of her body.


It obviously isn’t, and you can verify that with the myriad of methods I already described. In fact, the woman *expelled* the egg from her ovary prior to it being inseminated, so there was a period of time when it wasn’t connected to her at all. It then was fertilised and nested in the womb as a now-separate entity.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> In fact, the woman *expelled* the egg from her ovary prior to it being inseminated, so there was a period of time when it wasn’t connected to her at all.


Your blood is not connected to you, it's your blood. The egg is still within her body.


----------



## N7Kopper (Jul 2, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> I know you’re being facetious, but I’ll humor you and “Explain like You’re 5”, as the Internet saying goes. Yes, *you* are a human life form (although some might have doubts about the human part) and you have body parts which you can remove. These parts generally cease being alive as soon as that happens. I don’t know (or care) how *you* define life, I posted the accepted definition that I (and NASA) use to determine whether something is alive or not. Your fingernails or hair have no means of absorbing nutrients and using them to grow/procreate. Moreover, a simple test can (again) determine the ownership of those fingernails and that hair - they’re yours. In conclusion, no, they’re not separate life forms.


Fingernails and hair are also _already dead_. They're designed to be trimmed on the regular. The living cells that grow new fingernails and hair are not so easily replacable.

Abortion is much like slavery. Can't be bothered to pick your own cotton? Point a rifle at some poor Irishmen and defeated African tribes the Barberrys and warlords sold you. Can't be bothered to keep it in your knickers? Rip apart the fruit of your womb, then say you were raped. (Okay, that's not too fair to poor Roe - she spent the _rest of her life_ repenting the atrocity she had levelled upon the USA.) In fact, the super scary ideas of raaaeeeeeppppp and iinnncceeesssstttt are so vanishingly rare as to be statistically irrelevant: and induced labour is how you save the life of the mother. Abortion, in practice, ranges from casual baby murder to eugenics. It's even generally illegal either under government law or private broadcast guidelines to show people what an abortion is.

It is illegal to show it because seeing the dead babies will make the masses turn against the barbarism the progressives so readily support. The images are burned into my mind much like the USA's routine genital mutilation of baby boys. The insane echo chamber board for the alphabet mafia (my membership card has been long revoked for my loyalist tendencies: it's not about who you love, it's about the revolution, Comrade.) that this hacking forum has for some reason rages against the Church and the faithful for daring to defy them - I will tell you right here that the dead eyes of the most innocent played a large part in _driving me to the Church_. And the natural deflection of the militant abortionists is to pretend that those clearly human bodies are "just clumps of cells."

So am I. So are you. Without the soul, we are nothing more - and the soul has departed from those poor babies. I'll spare you the imagery, because your arguments have been picked apart already - and anyone who isn't convinced by the evidence and the corpses isn't interested in facts. The only deterrence for people like that is punishment; that is why they so fear babies having the right to choose. They all recoil from the executioner's tools. Here's some scary dissident evidence! Oh no!


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

N7Kopper said:


> Abortion is much like slavery.


No, pregnancy is like slavery. Abortions are a low percentage of pregnancies, incest and rape are a low percentage of a low percentage. But that doesn't make it any better for the person forced to go through with a pregnancy that they do not wish to "I'm forced to go through with this pregnancy and look after this child, but at least I wasn't raped".

You talk about echo chambers, then come to an echo chamber.

The soul is a projection, it only exists as brainwaves. Most pregnancies are terminated before the fetus has what you would consider a soul.

Allowing abortion is about weighing the benefit to the mothers soul at the expense of a fetus that doesn't currently have a soul.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> Your blood is not connected to you, it's your blood. The egg is still within her body.


Within her body, yes. That’s not what you’re arguing - you’re arguing that the fetus is *an integral part of her body*, which it isn’t - stay consistent. We know for a fact that your blood analogy is inconsequential because fertilisation can occur completely outside of the womb, IVF disproves your “philosophical” argument entirely. The egg being or not being physically inside the woman makes no difference as far as developing a new life is concerned, it could be on a different continent and implanted in a different womb after the fact, the result would be the same - a new human life form that is unique and different from both the sperm donor and the egg donor. It wouldn’t have the genetic material of the woman it was implanted into, it would have its own genetic material derived from a combination of the material from the original biological parents. The only thing it would “take” from the new womb is nutrition.

I can’t believe you’re arguing this point in earnest - you’re effectively saying that prenatal development is not part of human development and that until a child leaves the woman’s body through the birth canal, it is *a part of her body*, which is bonkers and on the level of Flat Earth. Not even abortion proponents argue this point - the bodily autonomy argument refers to the state of the mother’s body, not the fetus, which is not part of her body in any sense, it merely resides inside of it. An ice cube floating in a glass is not part of the glass, it is the content of the glass. I understand that you support abortion and that’s fine - I also find it permissible in certain specific circumstances we discussed earlier. What I don’t understand is why you’re arguing a point that you know is false.

I’m not going to continue this bizarre debate as it’s derailing the thread - you can’t seriously expect me to fill the gaps in your education, that’s not my job. Knowing basic biology is a prerequisite to participating in the debate - if you can’t accept it, there’s nothing to discuss here.


N7Kopper said:


> Fingernails and hair are also _already dead_. They're designed to be trimmed on the regular. The living cells that grow new fingernails and hair are not so easily replacable.


Correct, it’s not living tissue. It’s dead tissue, but the discussion was about genetic material, so I entertained the insane argument regardless.

Speaking of living and non-living tissue, treating the human life inside of the woman as part of her body implies that if she dies, so will it. That’s not the case - depending on the degree of development it can be saved despite the fact that the mother is deceased - you effectively end up with a preemie. In 2019 Czech doctors managed to deliver a healthy baby of a braindead mother after keeping her functions active for 117 days, nearly 4 months, specifically to allow the fetus to develop.

https://www.euronews.com/2019/09/03...ter-brain-dead-mother-kept-alive-for-117-days

The woman was, for all intents and purposes, dead - her bodily functions were maintained with machinery.

There are less extreme examples, obviously - the youngest preemie recorded survived after only 21 weeks of gestation. If a mother dies after that point, the baby can be successfully extracted and has a chance of surviving the ordeal. Medicine is pretty impressive nowadays, as it turns out. That doesn’t sound like “a part of the mother’s body”, that sounds like a separate entity contained inside of it.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> If it can't survive without the womans body then it is not. You're making a philosophical argument.


A newborn cannot survive without his/her parents or community. Does he/she share the same body? 

Once the mother does not want the pregnancy, the unborn is unwanted and could be aborted. By the same argument, a newborn who does not have anyone in the community who wants to support him/her, he/she becomes unwanted. Is it okay to let him/her die?

I am taking a position. Just showing inconsistencies.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 2, 2022)

N7Kopper said:


> Abortion is much like slavery.


Tell me you know nothing about abortion or slavery without telling me you know nothing about them.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

N7Kopper said:


> Abortion is much like slavery.


Slavery in the US involved numerous violations of people's bodily autonomy rights. Making abortion illegal is a violation of people's bodily autonomy rights. You didn't think your analogy through.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 2, 2022)

N7Kopper said:


> So am I. So are you. Without the soul, we are nothing more - and the soul has departed from those poor babies.



Don't bring souls into this. There is no evidence for it. Seriously, when does a soul develop then? Not as the sperm. As soon as the sperm hits the egg? Then *Poof* soul? It's just nonsensical on any level.

They also aren't babies. I can prove that to you with my usual fun hypothetical. I used this previously and had a fun chat with someone else. But in the end, any points they tried to make didn't relate to our current situation in the world. So here's the situation:

You're in a fertility clinic. It's on fire and about to come down. You're in the middle of a long hallway. On one side, there's an old man in a wheelchair. On the other side of the hallway is a briefcase containing hundreds of viable embryos (Fertilized and good to go), which are scheduled to be implanted into women that week. You only have time to save one. Which do you choose? And please don't try to say something inane like "I'd save them both!".

I won't have to wait for your answer though, since there is only one single answer that isn't monstruous. A normal person would choose the old man in the wheelchair. Which should prove that you yourself don't consider hundreds of embryos equivalent to the life of a single person, even if that person is old and near the end of their life.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 2, 2022)

Jesus, I've never seen such a narcissistic and self destructive species like humans before. Anything to fit the agenda, huh? Even if it means cutting your own throats.


Lacius said:


> Slavery in the US involved numerous violations of people's bodily autonomy rights. Making abortion illegal is a violation of people's bodily autonomy rights. You didn't think your analogy through.


That's not the same thing. Like, at all. Go back to school and educate yourself more before you make more idiotic statements like that.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> That's not the same thing. Like, at all. Go back to school and educate yourself more before you make more idiotic statements like that.


Slaves in the US were dehumanized and treated like livestock. For example, they were forced to procreate with other slaves, whether or not they wanted to. Their bodily autonomy rights were inarguably violated. When a pregnant woman is told she cannot legally have an abortion, that is inarguably also a violation of her bodily autonomy rights. Where's the problem?

The only idiotic statement I see is your "nuh uh" post. Next time you want to disagree with something I said, you might want to explain where the actual problem is instead of making petty statements like "go back to school." It's embarrassing.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jul 2, 2022)

N7Kopper said:


> In fact, the super scary ideas of raaaeeeeeppppp and iinnncceeesssstttt are so vanishingly rare as to be statistically irrelevant:



1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime. Rape or attempted rape is not rare at all like you claim.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Slaves in the US were dehumanized and treated like livestock. For example, they were forced to procreate with other slaves, whether or not they wanted to. Their bodily autonomy rights were inarguably violated. When a pregnant woman is told she cannot legally have an abortion, that is inarguably also a violation of her bodily autonomy rights. Where's the problem?
> 
> The only idiotic statement I see is your "nuh uh" post. Next time you want to disagree with something I said, you might want to explain where the actual problem is instead of making petty statements like "go back to school." It's embarrassing.


Nobody is forcing anyone to have sex. And if you really want that abortion, go to a blue state. Your statement is full of ignorance and hate and I truly someone like you never has kids because they would truly be miserable and messed up.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Nobody is forcing anyone to have sex.


You should do some more reading on the history of slavery in the US.



BitMasterPlus said:


> And if you really want that abortion, go to a blue state.



Taking away bodily autonomy rights in one state, even if they still exist next door in another state, doesn't mean taking them away isn't deplorable.
For some in the US, the driving distance to the nearest abortion clinic is now just under 900 miles (one-way). A lot of women don't have the money, job security, or time to do that.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Your statement is full of ignorance


This will be the second time I've asked: What did I get wrong? If you're going to say I'm wrong, it's a good idea to tell me how I'm wrong, because otherwise, you're just gasping and yelling into the void.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Your statement is full of hate


I am against it when the state violates people's bodily autonomy rights. If that's what you're referring to, then sure, I'm "full of hate." Do you have a point?



BitMasterPlus said:


> and I truly someone like you never has kids because they would truly be miserable and messed up.


Yes, I am the one full of hate.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm directly addressing the topic.  Your arrogance is in thinking that your view is not only an American view (it's not), but that it's global or universal.



At what point did I imply that my view is global? Or that my view is shared by anyone else? You're taking an awful lot of liberties to infer a way of thinking that I have yet to show. But if that's what you have to do to avoid answering questions and contributing to the overall thread, well... Who am I to force you to do something? I'm certainly not Republican. 



tabzer said:


> First, women consent to pregnancy in varying degrees.  "Forced birth" implies forced impregnation, which is rape.  Second I never suggested that a "mother's" life is irrelevant nor assumed to demand control over another's body.



The only time a woman consents to being pregnant is when she decides to be pregnant, not when someone else decides for her. Leaving the rape argument aside, any one person is free to have sex at their leisure without consent to getting pregnant. 

No, forced birth implies that someone else is forcing the woman to give birth based on anything other than the woman's consent. You can tack on any additional feelings and filler words you want, consent is more important than your wish to control someone's body. 

No, you didn't suggest that, however that's exactly the argument pro lifers debate on. Break it down and deny it all you want, that's the base argument. If it wasn't about control, then it wouldn't be illegal, even on a state level. 



tabzer said:


> I pity you and the society that you want to believe in.



Pity all you want, you still have a habit of avoiding questions you can't answer and ignoring valid points to hold on to the weak platform you're barely standing on. 

Your lack of recognition to said question implies that you don't believe babies have value, which leads me to believe that the only reason why you're against abortions stems from either control or religious upbringing. 

Care to leave anymore one sentence responses meant to deflect the issues at hand?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You should do some more reading on the history of slavery in the US.


Is that happening now though? It was wrong back then, but show me where that same exact situation is happening now? I don't see anyone forcing anyone to fuck at gun point from my view.


Lacius said:


> Taking away bodily autonomy rights in one state, even if they still exist next door in another state, doesn't mean taking them away isn't deplorable.
> For some in the US, the driving distance to the nearest abortion clinic is now just under 900 miles (one-way). A lot of women don't have the money, job security, or time to do that.


1. No rights were taken away. Abortion isn't a right. Read the constitution.
2. Tough shit. Use protection, don't have sex, or suck it up and take the drive. It's not my problem that you couldn't close your damn legs.


Lacius said:


> This will be the second time I've asked: What did I get wrong? If you're going to say I'm wrong, it's a good idea to tell me how I'm wrong, because otherwise, you're just gasping and yelling into the void.


You said rights are taken away and that people are being forced to procreate like it's the slave times. Neither are true.


Lacius said:


> I am against it when the state violates people's bodily autonomy rights. If that's what you're referring to, then sure, I'm "full of hate." Do you have a point?


You're full of hate and ignorance because you don't have a basic understanding on what's actually going on and trying to equate apple to oranges and spewing vile when someone disagrees.


Lacius said:


> Yes, I am the one full of hate.


Good that you agree. From what I've seen, I genuinely believe you shouldn't have kids, ever, until you work on your massive narcissism and ignorance, lest you want those kids to also be full of hate and be miserable, cause that's whats gonna happen.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Jesus, I've never seen such a narcissistic and self destructive species like humans before. Anything to fit the agenda, huh? Even if it means cutting your own throats.
> 
> That's not the same thing. Like, at all. Go back to school and educate yourself more before you make more idiotic statements like that.



Here, let's make a better analogy: forcing women to give birth because some people don't like abortions is like slavery. In both scenarios, the "slave" is made to do things they don't agree with and often violate their right to life at the whim of someone who wishes to control them because they're seen as inferior. 

Better?



BitMasterPlus said:


> Nobody is forcing anyone to have sex.



As if rape didn't exist. But forcing people to have sex is hardly the issue, isn't it? It's that forced birth thing every one seems to be up in arms about. 

Do you ever bring anything actually intellectually stimulating to the table, or do you just antagonize people with hollow standpoints until you feel it's time to start trolling everyone with your hypocritical statements and draconian views?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Here, let's make a better analogy: forcing women to give birth because some people don't like abortions is like slavery. In both scenarios, the "slave" is made to do things they don't agree with and often violate their right to life at the whim of someone who wishes to control them because they're seen as inferior.
> 
> Better?


Nope, cuz it's still not the same. They can still get abortions. No one is forcing either party, man or woman, to have sex, protected or unprotected. No one thinks they're inferior. Protecting life is not akin to slavery. Get it? :3


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 2, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> Don't bring souls into this. There is no evidence for it. Seriously, when does a soul develop then? Not as the sperm. As soon as the sperm hits the egg? Then *Poof* soul? It's just nonsensical on any level.
> 
> They also aren't babies. I can prove that to you with my usual fun hypothetical. I used this previously and had a fun chat with someone else. But in the end, any points they tried to make didn't relate to our current situation in the world. So here's the situation:
> 
> ...


I would choose the briefcase. The briefcase contains thousands of years of life with the potential to become millions of years of life. It would be selfish of the old man to assume that he should be saved instead. It is a typical way of thinking among semites (Arabs, Jews) and alluded to in both Islam and Judaism. My thinking is not based on religion though. I mean it as I have stated it.
A single person is not a plural btw; i hate it when people write "they". So confusing.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> At what point did I imply that my view is global? Or that my view is shared by anyone else? You're taking an awful lot of liberties to infer a way of thinking that I have yet to show. But if that's what you have to do to avoid answering questions and contributing to the overall thread, well... Who am I to force you to do something? I'm certainly not Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Look guy.  You said "we" live in a society were pregnancy "has no value".  

You seem to think that a woman can wake up 8 months pregnant and claim that she doesn't consent, as if it were some "arbitrary social construct", like some treat gender.  You are an idiot.

As for the great question--it answers itself.



SyphenFreht said:


> At what point is the baby's life valuable to anyone other than the immediate parents?



You are just an asshole.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> As if rape didn't exist. But forcing people to have sex is hardly the issue, isn't it? It's that forced birth thing every one seems to be up in arms about.


Rape does exist, and those who do it should be punished. Then abortion should be considered as a rare instance, depending on the circumstances, but you shouldn't also punish the sins of the child because of the father. And considering how many states still allow abortion, the forced birth argument falls flat.


SyphenFreht said:


> Do you ever bring anything actually intellectually stimulating to the table, or do you just antagonize people with hollow standpoints until you feel it's time to start trolling everyone with your hypocritical statements and draconian views?


I could say the same to you and others since you I've seen some evil and twisted views on here. I mean, if we're gonna go there, most of you should be locked up in an insane asylum, never to see the light of day every again. Society would be better for it, I guarantee it.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Is that happening now though? It was wrong back then, but show me where that same exact situation is happening now? I don't see anyone forcing anyone to fuck at gun point from my view.


You seem to have missed my point. I didn't say it was happening now. I was showing how @N7Kopper's analogy comparing abortion and slavery was backwards.



BitMasterPlus said:


> 1. No rights were taken away. Abortion isn't a right. Read the constitution.


Whether or not you agree with the recent Supreme Court ruling, access to abortion was a legal right women had in this country until now. This also sets a precedent for any bodily autonomy right being infringed upon.



BitMasterPlus said:


> 2. Tough shit.


You're the one who implied that anti-abortion laws were no big deal because a woman could just go to another state. I explained how you were mistaken.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Use protection



Protection is not 100% effective.
Access to contraception is not equal in this country.
Right-wing politicians in this country have made access to contraception and safe sex education more difficult in this country.
Whether or not a woman uses contraception is irrelevant to whether or not she should have a right to bodily autonomy.



BitMasterPlus said:


> don't have sex



Sex is a biological drive comparable to the biological drives for food or water.
Whether or not a woman has sex is irrelevant to whether or not she should have a right to bodily autonomy.



BitMasterPlus said:


> or suck it up and take the drive.


As I have already explained, that's an impossibility for many women if they care about keeping their jobs, taking care of their families, or having time/money for other things.



BitMasterPlus said:


> It's not my problem that you couldn't close your damn legs.



Whether or not something is "your problem" is irrelevant to whether or not it's an injustice and/or deplorable. I'm sorry this is how you view the world.
Thank you for the admission that this is about sex.



BitMasterPlus said:


> You said rights are taken away


Yes.



BitMasterPlus said:


> people are being forced to procreate


Yes.



BitMasterPlus said:


> people are being forced to procreate like it's the slave times.


I was showing how @N7Kopper's analogy comparing abortion and slavery was backwards. Slavery in the US included examples when slave-owners would violate the bodily autonomy of their slaves, and restricting access to legal abortion is also a violation of bodily autonomy rights. That's all.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Nope, cuz it's still not the same.


That's what makes it an analogy.



BitMasterPlus said:


> They can still get abortions.


Many states have made it so women cannot get legal abortions. Whether or not other states allow abortion access is irrelevant for the reasons I've already stated.



BitMasterPlus said:


> No one is forcing either party, man or woman, to have sex, protected or unprotected. No one thinks they're inferior. Protecting life is not akin to slavery. Get it?


The point was that both are examples of someone's bodily autonomy rights being violated.

Do you believe the state should be allowed to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You seem to think that a woman can wake up 8 months pregnant and claim that she doesn't consent


Consent to sex is not consent to get pregnant. Consent to become pregnant is not consent to stay pregnant. A woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy whenever she chooses and regardless of the circumstances. If it's before fetal viability, that would be an abortion. If it's after fetal viability, that would be a birth.



tabzer said:


> "arbitrary social construct", like some treat gender.


"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed.  This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Nope, cuz it's still not the same. They can still get abortions. No one is forcing either party, man or woman, to have sex, protected or unprotected. No one thinks they're inferior. Protecting life is not akin to slavery. Get it? :3



"They can still get abortions". And slaves could still run away. You know what happens when they get caught? Death. You know what's on the docket for a lot of these red states should a woman get caught getting an abortion? Death. Can't make this up bruh. And you can't call it protecting life if you're endangering the life of the woman involved. 



BitMasterPlus said:


> Rape does exist, and those who do it should be punished. Then abortion should be considered as a rare instance, depending on the circumstances, but you shouldn't also punish the sins of the child because of the father. And considering how many states still allow abortion, the forced birth argument falls flat.



How does the argument fall flat? Some states outlaw abortion on pain of, at worst, death. Just because some states allow abortion doesn't mean the argument falls flat, you just wish it does because arguing against it shows the issue pro lifers have with control. 



BitMasterPlus said:


> I could say the same to you and others since you I've seen some evil and twisted views on here. I mean, if we're gonna go there, most of you should be locked up in an insane asylum, never to see the light of day every again. Society would be better for it, I guarantee it.



There it is again, that control thing. What is it with you people wanting to control everyone else just because their views are different than yours? You people haven't been happy since the slaves were freed.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Look guy.  You said "we" live in a society were pregnancy "has no value".



Yes, because I live in the society that overturned Roe v Wade, so "we" as a society are dealing with it and it's view against capitalism as a whole. 

I never said pregnancy didn't have value, nor did I imply that children didn't have value in my eyes. In fact, I asked a question that you're still avoiding by arguing over what you inferred when I said "we". You're derailing to stay relevant without having to actually contribute by answering.



tabzer said:


> You seem to think that a woman can wake up 8 months pregnant and claim that she doesn't consent, as if it were some "arbitrary social construct", like some treat gender.  You are an idiot.



No, that's how you chose to infer my words. I can't be held responsible because you lack reading comprehension. 

But to call the kettle black, you seem to think that women all over the world are eagerly waiting until last minute to... What did another user say? "Decapitate" babies? As if women weren't struggling with the after effects of shitty men peeling off condoms as soon as they could, because they often feel the same way about abortion as a lot of you. That's why most abortions take place during the first trimester and anything after that is a direct result of the projected death of either the baby or the mother.



tabzer said:


> As for the great question--it answers itself.
> 
> You are just an asshole.



Glad to see you passively admitting your lack of intellectual reasoning.

Tell you what: if you can't place the value of the baby on anything than what it's worth to the parents, then you have nothing to argue for regarding abortion aside from control. 

Care to ignore this for two to three more comments?


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 2, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I would choose the briefcase. The briefcase contains thousands of years of life with the potential to become millions of years of life. It would be selfish of the old man to assume that he should be saved instead. It is a typical way of thinking among semites (Arabs, Jews) and alluded to in both Islam and Judaism. My thinking is not based on religion though. I mean it as I have stated it.
> A single person is not a plural btw; i hate it when people write "they". So confusing.



Wow, unexpected. I guess, well done on taking the monstrous route. No sane person would ever think that would be the moral choice, but here we are....

All I can say is that I envy anyone who has never met you.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You seem to have missed my point. I didn't say it was happening now. I was showing how @N7Kopper's analogy comparing abortion and slavery was backwards.


Except is still isn't.


Lacius said:


> Whether or not you agree with the recent Supreme Court ruling, access to abortion was a legal right women had in this country until now. This also sets a precedent for any bodily autonomy right being infringed upon.


No it isn't. No rights were taken away.


Lacius said:


> You're the one who implied that anti-abortion laws were no big deal because a woman could just go to another state. I explained how you were mistaken.


And I explained on what to do. People just like to make excuses in order to never take responsibility.


Lacius said:


> Protection is not 100% effective.
> Access to contraception is not equal in this country.
> Right-wing politicians in this country have made access to contraception and safe sex education more difficult in this country.
> Whether or not a woman uses contraception is irrelevant to whether or not she should have a right to bodily autonomy.


1. It's still pretty damn effective. If you're that scared, then don't fuck. Simple.
2. Um, yes it is. Not sure where you get that.
3. Replace with left-wing then it's actually true.
4. Not really. It's the persons responsibility to make their own decisions regarding how they have or don't have sex. If it's the women's choice, why are you so concerned? It's not your business now, is it?


Lacius said:


> Sex is a biological drive comparable to the biological drives for food or water.
> Whether or not a woman has sex is irrelevant to whether or not she should have a right to bodily autonomy.


1. It's not my fault people can't control how damn horny they get. A person can go through life without having sex once. It's actually not needed for a person's personal survival. The body needs food and water. Outside of making sure humanity exists for another generation, you won't die if you don't fuck.
2. No is isn't.


Lacius said:


> As I have already explained, that's an impossibility for many women if they care about keeping their jobs, taking care of their families, or having time/money for other things.


And as I have explained, it's not my problem if people make poor choices then don't have the time to fix those choices.


Lacius said:


> Whether or not something is "your problem" is irrelevant to whether or not it's an injustice and/or deplorable. I'm sorry this is how you view the world.
> Thank you for the admission that this is about sex.


1. No it's not.
2. It's about protecting human life. I know you can't see beyond yourself so it's easy to mistake.


Lacius said:


> Yes.


Nope.


Lacius said:


> Yes.



Nah.


Lacius said:


> I was showing how @N7Kopper's analogy comparing abortion and slavery was backwards. Slavery in the US included examples when slave-owners would violate the bodily autonomy of their slaves, and restricting access to legal abortion is also a violation of bodily autonomy rights. That's all.


Well maybe I misunderstood? It's hard to keep up when 500 posts show up at once, but I try, as anyone would. I have a life outside here that take priority as well.


Lacius said:


> That's what makes it an analogy.


And it's still not the same.


Lacius said:


> Many states have made it so women cannot get legal abortions. Whether or not other states allow abortion access is irrelevant for the reasons I've already stated.


No it isn't.


Lacius said:


> The point was that both are examples of someone's bodily autonomy rights being violated.
> 
> Do you believe the state should be allowed to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights?


No I don't, but no rights are being violated since you can still get abortions.



SyphenFreht said:


> "They can still get abortions". And slaves could still run away. You know what happens when they get caught? Death. You know what's on the docket for a lot of these red states should a woman get caught getting an abortion? Death. Can't make this up bruh. And you can't call it protecting life if you're endangering the life of the woman involved.


Pfft HAHAHAHAHA You're unreal. I mean, what reality do you live in?


SyphenFreht said:


> How does the argument fall flat? Some states outlaw abortion on pain of, at worst, death. Just because some states allow abortion doesn't mean the argument falls flat, you just wish it does because arguing against it shows the issue pro lifers have with control.


It falls flat because it's bullshit.


SyphenFreht said:


> There it is again, that control thing. What is it with you people wanting to control everyone else just because their views are different than yours? You people haven't been happy since the slaves were freed.


If it's about control, then why can't you or all the other left wing nut jobs let this go? Roe v. Wade is overturned, get over it. Move on. Live life. Instead you wanna reee and screech every time you don't get your way, and threaten to burn down business and murder people on top of that. No rights has been taken away. You can still walk outside and live your life the same as before. Don't talk about control when it's your side who wants to force their twisted views on the masses who don't want it. Like it or not, you are the twisted minority, and we're not backing down to you anymore.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 2, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> Wow, unexpected. I guess, well done on taking the monstrous route. No sane person would ever think that would be the moral choice, but here we are....
> 
> All I can say is that I envy anyone who has never met you.


Perhaps the difference lies in the memory of genocide. The tragedy of genocide is not only the lives lost but also their would-be (or would-have-been) descendents. Just look at North America as an example. The once proud Native Americans reduced to undeserving plots of land and their heritage mocked by presidential candidates.

Interesting how you think people of other cultures are insane. So unless I think as you do I cannot be sane.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 2, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Perhaps the difference lies in the memory of genocide. The tragedy of genocide is not only the lives lost but also their would-be (or would-have-been) descendents. Just look at North America as an example. The once proud Native Americans reduced to undeserving plots of land and their heritage mocked by presidential candidates.



Yeah, no.... If there was a choice of killing 6 million jews vs killing 6 million viable fetuses, morally there's no competition. On which would be considered more important to try and save.

You're comparing a group of people who have had lives, memories, and experiences to a bunch of cells.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> No I don't, but no rights are being violated since you can still get abortions.


If you do not believe the state should be allowed to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights, then you are against state bans on abortion.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 2, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> Yeah, no.... If there was a choice of killing 6 million jews vs killing 6 million viable fetuses, morally there's no competition. On which would be considered more important to try and save.
> 
> You're comparing a group of people who have had lives, memories, and experiences to a bunch of cells.


You were comparing the last years of a single individual vs hundreds of fertilized eggs ready to be implanted. Now you compare 6mio to 6mio.
Sleight of hand?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> No it isn't. No rights were taken away.



Just like having an abortion. A baby has no right to life.



BitMasterPlus said:


> It's not your business now, is it?



The pot calling the kettle black.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Pfft HAHAHAHAHA You're unreal. I mean, what reality do you live in?



The one where conservative Republican Christians and their issues with control are becoming a minority. As they should be.



BitMasterPlus said:


> It falls flat because it's bullshit.



Uh huh. *heavy breathing intensifies*



BitMasterPlus said:


> If it's about control, then why can't you or all the other left wing nut jobs let this go? Roe v. Wade is overturned, get over it. Move on. Live life. Instead you wanna reee and screech every time you don't get your way, and threaten to burn down business and murder people on top of that. No rights has been taken away. You can still walk outside and live your life the same as before. Don't talk about control when it's your side who wants to force their twisted views on the masses who don't want it. Like it or not, you are the twisted minority, and we're not backing down to you anymore.



Ok, let's apply the same logic. If it's not about control with you people, then why must you put your fingers where they don't belong? The difference between left and right wing is the right wing only cares about subjugating those who aren't right wing, and even that is starting to get blurred with all these RINO references they've been toting recently. It's almost reminiscent of Aryan Nazi supremacy, except the Nazis were kinda ok with abortions. 

Imagine being part of a group of people that are slowly becoming more disgusting than Nazis. That's our current Republican party. 

How are we the minority? There are more Democrats and liberals and other not bipartisan groups than there are non RINO Republicans. Do you know how numbers work? You also seem to forget that the only time we riot is against injustice. When's the last time you people stood up for anything you supposedly believe in?


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Consent to sex is not consent to get pregnant. Consent to become pregnant is not consent to stay pregnant. A woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy whenever she chooses and regardless of the circumstances. If it's before fetal viability, that would be an abortion. If it's after fetal viability, that would be a birth.



If you'd care to notice, the argument that consent to sex is not consent to get pregnant wasn't made.  I mentioned that there are varying degrees of consent.  Your attempt to present "consent" being as trivial as deciding on what to wear for the day falls flat with me.  There is no genuine concern being presented.


Lacius said:


> "Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."
> 
> https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender



At least you have my back on something.


SyphenFreht said:


> Yes, because I live in the society that overturned Roe v Wade, so "we" as a society are dealing with it and it's view against capitalism as a whole.



What on what?  Please parse your points so that they are clear.  You have this habit of muxing ideas into this "implied inference based on perspective" logic of yours.  If you think government decisions determine the consensus of your society, then why are you even here?  Just to be ironic?


SyphenFreht said:


> I never said pregnancy didn't have value



"What's the concern about preserving it's life? It offers nothing of value to society."


SyphenFreht said:


> But to call the kettle black, you seem to think that women all over the world are eagerly waiting until last minute to... What did another user say? "Decapitate" babies? As if women weren't struggling with the after effects of shitty men peeling off condoms as soon as they could, because they often feel the same way about abortion as a lot of you. That's why most abortions take place during the first trimester and anything after that is a direct result of the projected death of either the baby or the mother.



I haven't made an argument that is against abortion.  My argument was that consent isn't as fickle as you, and others, would like to present.



SyphenFreht said:


> Tell you what: if you can't place the value of the baby on anything than what it's worth to the parents, then you have nothing to argue for regarding abortion aside from control.



What the hell is this?  Do you think it is logic?  You seem to consider yourself intellectual and then you spout out something so self-defeating .

"I don't think @SyphenFreht should be aborted"
"You just want control!"


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you'd care to notice, the argument that consent to sex is not consent to get pregnant wasn't made.  I mentioned that there are varying degrees of consent.  Your attempt to present "consent" being as trivial as deciding on what to wear for the day falls flat with me.  There is no genuine concern being presented.


You said, "You seem to think that a woman can wake up 8 months pregnant and claim that she doesn't consent." The answer is yes, a woman can revoke her consent to be pregnant at any time, and I provided an explanation.

Anything else is a violation of one's right to bodily autonomy.



tabzer said:


> At least you have my back on something.


I am glad you agree gender is a social construct.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Anything else is a violation of one's right to bodily autonomy.


Can a man revoke his duty to financially provide for the child? If not, isn´t that a violation of his bodily autonomy (see slavery)? Unless he is rich, he has to work for it.

(not taking a position here; just testing consistency)


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You said, "You seem to think that a woman can wake up 8 months pregnant and claim that she doesn't consent." The answer is yes, a woman can revoke her consent to be pregnant at any time, and I provided an explanation.
> 
> Anything else is a violation of one's right to bodily autonomy.
> 
> ...


You think a woman can wake up 8 months pregnant and feel violated by her unborn baby.  Ok.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> What on what?  Please parse your points so that they are clear.  You have this habit of muxing ideas into this "implied inference based on perspective" logic of yours.  If you think government decisions determine the consensus of your society, then why are you even here?  Just to be ironic?



No one else here seems to have a problem with my clarity. Must just be you. 

"Implied inference based on perspective".
How else do you formulate responses on a forum thread? People comment, and other people comment based on what they perceive. If that perception is wrong, the original commenter will (hopefully) explain themselves, and the debate goes on from there. 

You're trying to argue semantics again as a way of misdirecting the argument you still don't know how to tackle.

Because government decisions are designed to be the consensus of society? Back before lobbying became a staple for politicians, elected government officials were supposed to make rulings based on what was best for their community, an idea called solidarity. The overturn of Roe v Wade proves even moreso that the government of today cares nothing for it's people, and only wishes to push Christian values on the same people they've devalued in order to maintain that cash flow.



tabzer said:


> "What's the concern about preserving it's life? It offers nothing of value to society."



Show me on my quote where it's hurt you due to inconsistency.



tabzer said:


> I haven't made an argument that is against abortion.  My argument was that consent isn't as fickle as you, and others, would like to present.



Nor did I accuse you of such, just that your idea on consent constantly seems to imply that a woman's consent is oblivious in terms of the baby being forced to birth. Consent is not fickle. Yes means yes, everything else means no. Implied consent should never be utilized, and if it is, that's moreso the fault of the perpetrator, though I can't say the consenter isn't completely at fault in every situation either. The fact that you think pro choice supporters think consent is fickle is a farce.



tabzer said:


> What the hell is this?  Do you think it is logic?  You seem to consider yourself intellectual and then you spout out something so self-defeating .
> 
> "I don't think @SyphenFreht should be aborted"
> "You just want control!"



Yeah, lol, it is logic. And the fact that you've consistently avoided answering the question only shows that you're not equipped to deal with that kind of intellectual debate, which is fine. 

For the record, it's not up to you to choose whether I should've been aborted or not, that's a choice that was only ever up to my parents. I applaud your desire to fight for those who don't have voices, but you'll find with that scenario that a lot of people don't want you fighting for them.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Can a man revoke his duty to financially provide for the child?


That has nothing to do with bodily autonomy.



tabzer said:


> You think a woman can wake up 8 months pregnant and feel violated by her unborn baby.  Ok.


A woman can decide at any time, for any reason, to do whatever she wants with her body. That's bodily autonomy. Consent to have sex can be revoked even after sex has started, and consent to remain pregnant can be revoked even after already becoming pregnant (pretending it was a choice to become pregnant in the first place).

Edit: So we are clear, if it's past the point of fetal viability, terminating the pregnancy would be a birth, not an abortion.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you do not believe the state should be allowed to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights, then you are against state bans on abortion.


No I'm not.


SyphenFreht said:


> Just like having an abortion. A baby has no right to life.


Spoken like a true monster. Why should general murder be illegal then?


SyphenFreht said:


> The pot calling the kettle black.


You displayed it first.


SyphenFreht said:


> The one where conservative Republican Christians and their issues with control are becoming a minority. As they should be.


Keep thinking that buddy, whatever helps you cope.


SyphenFreht said:


> Uh huh. *heavy breathing intensifies*


What's wrong? Need a breather? Or a diet?


SyphenFreht said:


> Ok, let's apply the same logic. If it's not about control with you people, then why must you put your fingers where they don't belong? The difference between left and right wing is the right wing only cares about subjugating those who aren't right wing, and even that is starting to get blurred with all these RINO references they've been toting recently. It's almost reminiscent of Aryan Nazi supremacy, except the Nazis were kinda ok with abortions.
> 
> Imagine being part of a group of people that are slowly becoming more disgusting than Nazis. That's our current Republican party.
> 
> How are we the minority? There are more Democrats and liberals and other not bipartisan groups than there are non RINO Republicans. Do you know how numbers work? You also seem to forget that the only time we riot is against injustice. When's the last time you people stood up for anything you supposedly believe in?


The democrat party are like, socialists and nazi's combined at this point, add along with Rinos. The act like nazi's, and want to implement socialist values, it's crazy. You're the minority because the actual majority of Americans agree with this decision. It's just the vocal minority being blasted by the news and social to make it seem like they're bigger then they are, but they're not. If you can't handle this now, you're not gonna like any future decisions that might crumble your world view. And you never riot against injustice, only then the corrupt politicians command you to for intimidation like the good sheep you are. I'm standing up for traditional American values that created this country, and I'm not backing down. Neither are millions of Americans either.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Yeah, lol, it is logic. And the fact that you've consistently avoided answering the question only shows that you're not equipped to deal with that kind of intellectual debate, which is fine.



Claiming that pregnancy has no social value is not an intellectual argument.



SyphenFreht said:


> I applaud your desire to fight for those who don't have voices, but you'll find with that scenario that a lot of people don't want you fighting for them.



Play that scenario out for me mister intellectual.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> No I'm not.


So you do believe the state should be allowed to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights? You're not making any sense.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Spoken like a true monster. Why should general murder be illegal then?



In a perfect Republican world, it wouldn't be, cuz everyone would have guns. But if all you people argue about is "personal responsibility", then both scenarios of abortion and legal homicide should be fine with you, since in both situations you have people handling their own problems without relying on the government or anyone else.



BitMasterPlus said:


> You displayed it first.



Where?



BitMasterPlus said:


> Keep thinking that buddy, whatever helps you cope.



I mean, I have numbers and statistics to back me up. You just have idealistic dreams of control and hatred to back you.



BitMasterPlus said:


> What's wrong? Need a breather? Or a diet?



Someone to debate with that isn't a Republican mouthpiece completely devoid of their own identity.



BitMasterPlus said:


> The democrat party are like, socialists and nazi's combined at this point, add along with Rinos. The act like nazi's, and want to implement socialist values, it's crazy. You're the minority because the actual majority of Americans agree with this decision. It's just the vocal minority being blasted by the news and social to make it seem like they're bigger then they are, but they're not. If you can't handle this now, you're not gonna like any future decisions that might crumble your world view. And you never riot against injustice, only then the corrupt politicians command you to for intimidation like the good sheep you are. I'm standing up for traditional American values that created this country, and I'm not backing down. Neither are millions of Americans either.



I'm still curious to see where these "millions" of Americans are. So far you've done nothing but tackle on one faithless argument after another to prove you actually have a platform to debate on, which you don't. 

The traditional values you're mentioning? That's "all men are created equal" and the separation of church and state, both of which seem to be oblivious to you and your Nazi-esque cohorts. Remember, the Nazis dehumanized a whole lot of people, the way Republicans are now by equating women to incubators. But that's ok because you guys are for the baby, despite not caring about it the minute it's born anyway.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Claiming that pregnancy has no social value is not an intellectual argument.



Except, yet again, I never said pregnancy has no social value. I asked you, and the other guy, what value they have to society, and by extension, you. You've put words in my mouth yet again because you can't argue one basic question, yet feel the need to somehow stay relevant. But yet somehow that's more of an intellectual argument than my original question.



tabzer said:


> Play that scenario out for me mister intellectual.



Well, in my personal case, I just did. Otherwise, you and I would have to get together and do some polling. Does that interest you, or are you formulating a facade of the idea thinking I'll back down and therefore prove my entire argument irrelevant? 

If at any point you actually want to discuss topics within the confines of the thread as opposed to trying to undermine people intellectually, please feel free to do so. You can't win many arguments by constantly trying to attack how they argue; eventually you're going to have to make the choice to either argue the point you don't know how or take the "L" and try again later.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 2, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> No it isn't. No rights were taken away.


the right to the choice, and bodily autonomy to an abortion, regardless of state, was indeed taken away. Instead of being accepted as a general right, you have to now question what state your living in, if you want to get one. And that's assuming  state governments such as Texas, don't make it a felony to get an abortion out of state, which their platform wants to do that, so go figure. Which by the way, a felony removes your right to vote in most cases.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> except the Nazis were kinda ok with abortions.


Nope. it was more for backwards reasons. If you didn't match the perfect Aryan image. An abortion would occur. General rights for those women? Nope.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> the right to the choice, and bodily autonomy to an abortion, regardless of state, was indeed taken away. Instead of being accepted as a general right, you have to now question what state your living in, if you want to get one. And that's assuming  state governments such as Texas, don't make it a felony to get an abortion out of state, which their platform wants to do that, so go figure. Which by the way, a felony removes your right to vote in most cases.



The problem with arguing this point is that, to some extent, they are right. Abortions are not a constitutional right, that is for sure. However, they seem to forget there are plenty of other things not in the Constitution, such as a baby's right to life. Or owning guns. Or the overarching rule of Christianity. It must be in the Republican playbook to be abhorrently hypocritical.



Nothereed said:


> Nope. it was more for backwards reasons. If you didn't match the perfect Aryan image. An abortion would occur. General rights for those women? Nope.



Exactly. I didn't mean to imply that the Nazis were so progressive that they were cool with abortions, just that as deplorable as they were/are, they're equatable with how the Republican party views women until they get to that point. Nazis gave abortions, but Republicans dehumanize women even worse by forcing them to carry births of any kind


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> The problem with arguing this point is that, to some extent, they are right. Abortions are not a constitutional right, that is for sure.


Actually, if you looked a few posts back, I did state that there was previous other rulings they could of used to keep Roe v Wade as constitutional (and make sense from a precedent standpoint)
Tl;dr there's a group of rulings that essentially state that the United States cannot apply the law to the unborn. And a lot of the cases go much, much further back. The only issue with Roe v Wade (and what they keep stating) is that the right to privacy clause is too vauge. (Even though technically the 9th amendment could also apply here. That the right to an abortion is again, not up to the federal government, nor states. But "to the people")
Point being, no that argument doesn't exactly work, there's more than plenty of ways they could of kept Roe, while also changing the legal basis into something stronger.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Except, yet again, I never said pregnancy has no social value. I asked you, and the other guy, what value they have to society, and by extension, you. You've put words in my mouth yet again because you can't argue one basic question, yet feel the need to somehow stay relevant. But yet somehow that's more of an intellectual argument than my original question.



Hmm...yet again, you said this:



SyphenFreht said:


> Why doesn't it need to be snuffed out? What's the concern about preserving it's life? It offers nothing of value to society



This is you saying that it has no value to society, then when called out, you asked me "when does it have value?" as if rephrasing it as a question makes your initial claim less nihilistic.



SyphenFreht said:


> I applaud your desire to fight for those who don't have voices, but you'll find with that scenario that a lot of people don't want you fighting for them.





SyphenFreht said:


> Well, in my personal case, I just did. Otherwise, you and I would have to get together and do some polling.



If you tell me, flat out, that you are on the spectrum, I'll let you be to run around doing as you please--with no further commentary.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> This is you saying that it has no value to society, then when called out, you asked me "when does it have value?" as if rephrasing it as a question makes your initial claim less nihilistic.


I think it's required that we add some context mr tabzer. Since he was not replying to you at that time.
Start of the reply chain in order.


The Catboy said:


> I am still wondering how the “small government” crowd is ok with this happening. Shouldn’t they be against states regulating what people can do to their bodies or is only big government when it’s a federal law protecting people? It seems like the “small government” crowd really seems to focus on laws that protect people from the government but turn a blind eye the second states enact actual laws restricting people.





mrdude said:


> They are against people murdering other peoples bodies - the unborn child isn't some inconvenience that needs killed, it's a sentient being that doesn't deserve to be snuffed out before it's even taken it's first breath.





SyphenFreht said:


> Why doesn't it need to be snuffed out? What's the concern about preserving it's life? It offers nothing of value to society, it doesn't process pain or much of reality, especially during the first trimester. Why is it's life important to you when it has no impact on your life whatsoever except the satisfaction of having control over someone else's body?





tabzer said:


> This is you saying that it has no value to society, then when called out, you asked me "when does it have value?" as if rephrasing it as a question makes your initial claim less nihilistic.


Intentionally pulling out something from a similar but different argument is rather bs don't you think?


----------



## mrdude (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> "Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed.  This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."


Is this is what left wing teachers are teaching kids nowadays, there's no wonder parents are in uproar at the gaslighting that's being taught. There's male and female and that's it, no matter how much mental gymnastics you do in your head, and that's all there has ever been or will ever be for the human species.

Woman - Biological adult female human.
Man - Biological adult male human.

There's nothing else, all that stuff you were gaslit into believing is false. You will come realise this on your own in time, sooner or later the penny will drop.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 2, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Is this is what left wing teachers are teaching kids nowadays, there's no wonder parents are in uproar at the gaslighting that's being taught. There's male and female and that's it, no matter how much mental gymnastics you do in your head, and that's all there has ever been of will ever be for the human species.
> 
> Woman - Biological adult female human.
> Man - Biological adult male human.
> ...


You know, I have to ask something of Republicans. When was the last time your position changed?
Because it sounds like you haven't moved away from the talking points from 50 years ago. Your also a climate change denier. And against LGBTQ people.


mrdude said:


> What's wrong with being against Alphabet people


Your not exactly in the best light with a lot of people. So saying "muh only women and man" is overwhelming self absorbed. Because it proves that you believe yourself as infallible, even though times have changed, you refuse.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> I think it's required that we add some context mr tabzer. Since he was not replying to you at that time.
> Start of the reply chain in order.
> 
> 
> ...


Other people said stuff.  So it was a heated response?  A rebuttal would do better.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> This is you saying that it has no value to society, then when called out, you asked me "when does it have value?" as if rephrasing it as a question makes your initial claim less nihilistic.



You also left out the part where my original quote was in reference to the comment on living in a capitalistic society, where everything has an inherent value. You've taken what I've said out of context to try and further discredit my point.

Since some advanced parsing needs to be made so you can catch up with the rest of the class, let's break it down like this:

In America, a capitalistic society where everything inherently is designated value based on it's contribution to said society, a baby has no value. Babies contribute nothing to society, and only exist as a potential product. Is that a morally good way to exist? No, but that's a problem with society, another thread.

A baby further only has value to those who care about it. We can argue all day whether life intrinsically is valuable on it's own or not, but that's a religious argument for another thread. In the confines of this thread, a baby holds no current value aside from it's immediate family, and maybe some friends of the family. It's life is completely meaningless to everyone else who doesn't hold the view that they can profit from it some way later in it's life.

With that being said, if you or anyone else cares about the baby outside of religious influence, it's because you see the potential value of it later on, and most likely it's monetary based. You can't say it could be a great leader, because we've had both Obamas (good) and Hitlers (bad). And if the only reason you see a baby being of value is because it might contribute later, that's deplorable. But then again, that's why Republicans want control. They see people as products, nothing more. You, nor anyone in your platform, have no sympathy or care for the babies at hand, you only care about the future you think it will have. That's apparent in your complete disregard for the type of environment the baby is born into. Sure, it's not your problem, but your blanket perspective nullifies the main scenario babies who aren't wanted are born into. 

Sorry if that wasn't "parsed" enough, but I shouldn't have to pander to someone who's proven multiple times that if anyone is on the spectrum, it's them. How many times now have you shown your inability to interact on a social basis with your continued attempts at ignoring questions and context in favor of having one sided arguments? You make jest as if being on the spectrum is a stigma; between that and your control issues, you're more of an asshole than I am 




tabzer said:


> If you tell me, flat out, that you are on the spectrum, I'll let you be to run around doing as you please--with no further commentary.



Well that's not nearly as entertaining as arguing with those less mentally capable.



tabzer said:


> Other people said stuff.  So it was a heated response?  A rebuttal would do better.



Semantics again. It's almost like you enjoy being proven wrong, but then have this weird inability to admit to it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Actually, if you looked a few posts back, I did state that there was previous other rulings they could of used to keep Roe v Wade as constitutional (and make sense from a precedent standpoint)
> Tl;dr there's a group of rulings that essentially state that the United States cannot apply the law to the unborn. And a lot of the cases go much, much further back. The only issue with Roe v Wade (and what they keep stating) is that the right to privacy clause is too vauge. (Even though technically the 9th amendment could also apply here. That the right to an abortion is again, not up to the federal government, nor states. But "to the people")
> Point being, no that argument doesn't exactly work, there's more than plenty of ways they could of kept Roe, while also changing the legal basis into something stronger.



I must've missed that one, I apologize. 

I'm super curious about the right to privacy clause. I wonder how Republicans argue that point, aside from the obviously hypocritical. Thanks for pointing all of that out.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> You know, I have to ask something of Republicans. When was the last time your position changed?
> Because it sounds like you haven't moved away from the talking points from 50 years ago. Your also a climate change denier. And against LGBTQ people.
> 
> Your not exactly in the best light with a lot of people. So saying "muh only women and man" is overwhelming self absorbed. Because it proves that you believe yourself as infallible, even though times have changed, you refuse.


A: How the hell would I know what republicans think - I don't have the powers of the XMAN - professor charles xavier.
B: Climate change has always been a thing, that's why we have seasons, I think you'll find there's been at least 5 ice ages and humans weren't around to cause them. If you want to study climate change - you need to study it on geologial scale time patterns and not just since the start of the industrial revolution. You need to take things into consideration such as gravity from other planets, their orbits, sun activity, earths magnetic fields, etc.....but that's nothing to do with abortion so try that in another thread.
C: Alphabet people - hmmmmmm, they are not for me and I don't buy into their crap, so we'll leave it at that.

As for the rest of your post - meh!


----------



## seany1990 (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you tell me, flat out, that you are on the spectrum, I'll let you be to run around doing as you please--with no further commentary.


So you are currently at the Ad Hominem stage of the debate you are losing horribly


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 2, 2022)

mrdude said:


> A: How the hell would I know what republicans think - I don't have the powers of the XMAN - professor charles xavier.
> B: Cimate change has always been a thing, that's why we have seasons, I think you'll find there's been at least 5 ice ages and humans weren't around to cause them. If you want to study climate change - you need to study it on geologial scale time patterns and not just since the start of the industrial revolution. You need to take things into consideration such as gravity from other planets, their orbits, sun activity, earths magnetic fields, etc.....but that's nothing to do with abortion so try that in another thread.
> C: Alphabet people - hmmmmmm, they are not for me and I don't buy into their crap, so we'll leave it at that.
> 
> As for the rest of your post - meh!


Wow so you liked a post you didn't even fully read.


Nothereed said:


> you already asked that question. And you already got decked on for your climate denying stance.


So you don't get to just get decked once for failing to read. But now twice


Nothereed said:


> Here we have another climate denier. I'll make it extra special to grill you to the max. Only fair since you threw so many personal attacks.
> First off, we're in a freezing period, and the temperatures are still rising. This is not normal. climate scientist's have measured the temperature and total carbon emissions through using deeply drilled ice to measure co2 levels captured in said ice. We also know a fuck ton of what the temperatures were back then through various data. Such as people measuring the total amount of sunspots over the ages, which essentially told us that the sun hasn't became much hotter. And through using other methods of tempeturr measuring.Now I guess you must of bought into the coal industries lies that they are somehow not causing the planet to warm up. Why the fuck do you think we've been experiencing non stop drought?
> Oh and I'll agree all parties are corrupt
> But the Republican party is the most corrupt for forcing their bullshit policies on the majority of people. Actively siding with actual fucking Nazis. and if you want to pretend that isn't the case
> ...


And you liked my response on this one. You better take a fat L on this one chief


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> You also left out the part where my original quote was in reference to the comment on living in a capitalistic society, where everything has an inherent value.



You are going to have to quote yourself because I cannot find it.



SyphenFreht said:


> A baby further only has value to those who care about it. We can argue all day whether life intrinsically is valuable on it's own or not, but that's a religious argument for another thread



It's not religious to suggest that society relies on reproduction or that value is determined by the living.



SyphenFreht said:


> Well that's not nearly as entertaining as arguing with those less mentally capable.



I don't find that entertaining.



seany1990 said:


> So you are currently at the Ad Hominem stage of the debate you are losing horribly


Guy suggested to poll those that have no voice to see how they feel about my representation of them (to find that they disapprove).    I was being polite.  My wife's a pilot now so there's still hope for you.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You are going to have to quote yourself because I cannot find it.



It's already been posted. I'm sure you saw it.



tabzer said:


> It's not religious to suggest that society relies on reproduction or that value is determined by the living.



The former? No, but neither side of that argument in particular has been provided thus far. Maybe you should run with that.

The latter? Of course it is. Religion was the first driving force behind designating morality over the globe as a whole through one particular set of idealized morals. Yes there's the inherent need for solidarity and things like compassion, but religion, Christianity, was the first to push the "love thy neighbor" concept onto everyone, everywhere, to the point it's become synonymous with society. 



tabzer said:


> I don't find that entertaining.



Everyone has their vice. 



tabzer said:


> Guy suggested to poll those that have no voice to see how they feel about my representation of them (to find that they disapprove).    I was being polite.



I, too, was being polite.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Is this is what left wing teachers are teaching kids nowadays, there's no wonder parents are in uproar at the gaslighting that's being taught. There's male and female and that's it, no matter how much mental gymnastics you do in your head, and that's all there has ever been or will ever be for the human species.
> 
> Woman - Biological adult female human.
> Man - Biological adult male human.
> ...


There are characteristics of gender (lots, in fact) that are purely subjective and vary by society. Attire, mannerisms, roles, etc. are purely arbitrary.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> There are characteristics of gender (lots, in fact) that are purely subjective and vary by society. Attire, mannerisms, roles, etc. are purely arbitrary.


What you just described is not related to gender but culture. And guess what, women look like women and men look like men in every culture, every ethnic, every country and every continent. We're still natural animals no matter how many clothes you put on and how many surgeries you go through, you won't ever be an artificial genderless anthropomorphic entinity; you're a human, either male or female.

Now go ahead and call me homophobic since that's the only thing you will ever come up with to counter my arguments.
And once you do call me a homophobic, answer me this:
If gender is a social construct, then so are Gays and Lesbians, since you can't define what a Lesbian is unless you define what a woman is. Therefore your theory states that Gays and Lesbians are unnatural, the result of societal perception.
I don't know how many gays you've met, but all the ones I have met were all men, clearly defined male humans, same for lesbians, all the ones I've met were female.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> It's already been posted. I'm sure you saw it.



I guess this epitomizes your position.  Even if what you say is true, that there was some capitalistic pretext underscoring your claim that pregnancy is worthless, I'd still be able to argue against it from multiple positions, including ones you've asserted.  I am incapable of finding a rationalization to your claim.  Reads nihilistic.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I guess this epitomizes your position.  Even if what you say is true, that there was some capitalistic pretext underscoring your claim that pregnancy is worthless, I'd still be able to argue against it from multiple positions, including ones you've asserted.  I am incapable of finding a rationalization to your claim.  Reads nihilistic.



Well you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

It's a shame you're still the only one purposely misreading what I've said, but I'm not an educator, so the only thing i can say is that I wish you the best in educating yourself.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 2, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Is this is what left wing teachers are teaching kids nowadays, there's no wonder parents are in uproar at the gaslighting that's being taught. There's male and female and that's it, no matter how much mental gymnastics you do in your head, and that's all there has ever been or will ever be for the human species.h
> 
> Woman - Biological adult female human.
> Man - Biological adult male human.
> ...


Yet I, a biological XX male, exists  
Why am I not shocked that people who hold restrictive views on abortion are the same people wanting to restrict other’s freedoms of identity and expression?


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Well you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.


It's easy to show me what you said.  Saying that it's out there somewhere is your decision.  

The claim that I am purposefully misreading something is unfounded.  Instead of saying that you didn't mean what you said in the interpretable manner, you pretended you never said it.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Well you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
> 
> It's a shame you're still the only one purposely misreading what I've said, but I'm not an educator, so the only thing i can say is that I wish you the best in educating yourself.


I would highly suggest not wasting your time or energy on him. He’s known for deliberately editing quotes, “misinterpreting” what you said, or just straight up trying to control the conversation. You are literally better off trying to talk a rock into walking on own.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Yet I, a biological XX male, exists
> Why am I not shocked that people who hold restrictive views on abortion are the same people wanting to restrict other’s freedoms of identity and expression?


If you could demonstrate how your ilk will live on, maybe that would carry some weight.

Frankly, I'm tired of you jumping in like you are some sort of example or proof that a lifestyle is functional when half of your posts are about how you cannot function.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If you could demonstrate how your ilk will live on, maybe that would carry some weight.
> 
> Frankly, I'm tired of you jumping in like you are some sort of example or proof that a lifestyle is functional when half of your posts are about how you cannot function.


Franky I am tired of you still logging on, yet here we are


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 2, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I would choose the briefcase. The briefcase contains thousands of years of life with the potential to become millions of years of life. It would be selfish of the old man to assume that he should be saved instead. It is a typical way of thinking among semites (Arabs, Jews) and alluded to in both Islam and Judaism. My thinking is not based on religion though. I mean it as I have stated it.
> A single person is not a plural btw; i hate it when people write "they". So confusing.


Jews do not believe foetuses are sentient or have a soul, they believe that only happens when they first draw breath FYI.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Franky I am tired of you still logging on, yet here we are


I didn't "edit quotes".  I used the quote format to paraphrase satire a couple of times, about a couple years ago.  My intentions were transparent, and if I remember correctly, you were upset that it made you look stupid, not because it was intellectually dishonest.    If you want to accuse me of something, you should accommodate with sources so we can relive the hilarity that actually took place.  I believe it had something to do with you claiming that your politician was a better choice because he raped fewer people or something to that affect, when I was arguing that they all should be tossed.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It's easy to show me what you said.  Saying that it's out there somewhere is your decision.
> 
> The claim that I am purposefully misreading something is unfounded.  Instead of saying that you didn't mean what you said in the interpretable manner, you pretended you never said it.



Pulled from post #1739, page 87

tabzer said:
This is you saying that it has no value to society, then when called out, you asked me "when does it have value?" as if rephrasing it as a question makes your initial claim less nihilistic.

Notheered said:
 I think it's required that we add some context mr tabzer. Since he was not replying to you at that time.
Start of the reply chain in order.

The Catboy said:
I am still wondering how the “small government” crowd is ok with this happening. Shouldn’t they be against states regulating what people can do to their bodies or is only big government when it’s a federal law protecting people? It seems like the “small government” crowd really seems to focus on laws that protect people from the government but turn a blind eye the second states enact actual laws restricting people.

mrdude said:
They are against people murdering other peoples bodies - the unborn child isn't some inconvenience that needs killed, it's a sentient being that doesn't deserve to be snuffed out before it's even taken it's first breath.

SyphenFreht said:
Why doesn't it need to be snuffed out? What's the concern about preserving it's life? It offers nothing of value to society, it doesn't process pain or much of reality, especially during the first trimester. Why is it's life important to you when it has no impact on your life whatsoever except the satisfaction of having control over someone else's body?

tabzer said:
This is you saying that it has no value to society, then when called out, you asked me "when does it have value?" as if rephrasing it as a question makes your initial claim less nihilistic.

Notheered said:
Intentionally pulling out something from a similar but different argument is rather bs don't you think?

...


Look I even parsed it for you. If at this point you still can't understand what I've said, and continue to say, then you're purposely being disingenuous because you have no counter.

And here we are, two pages further from the topic at hand because you're more interested in trying to deconstruct an argument instead of enlightening yourself or anyone else to anything other than semantics. You use tongue in cheek comments when the little logic you have fails, and now you seem to be caught up in this "show me" phase because you're still the only one who chooses to, again, purposely misread and take what I post out of context because at the end of the day you've exhausted all the mental gymnastics you had and have to resort to misdirection in order to derail the conversation enough to get comments deleted and the thread forgotten.

I never pretended to not say anything, I firmly argued that I didn't say what I said in the context you're trying to paint. You can twist my words any way you want, but general consensus has shown in two pages that more people seem to understand and empathize with my stand point than anyone has with you.  Must been you're the only one here having trouble figuring out my meaning and intent.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Pulled from post #1739, page 87
> 
> tabzer said:
> This is you saying that it has no value to society, then when called out, you asked me "when does it have value?" as if rephrasing it as a question makes your initial claim less nihilistic.
> ...



Dude.  You literally didn't mention capitalism at all in that context, nor did anyone else that you responded to.  Pregnancy being worthless was your brainchild and you are just too ashamed.  I don't care if you think I am the only one disagreeing with you.  I am disagreeing with you.

If you think I am misrepresenting it, then say how you think I am misrepresenting it.  All you are doing is what you accused me of, skirting the topic.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 2, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Yet I, a biological XX male, exists
> Why am I not shocked that people who hold restrictive views on abortion are the same people wanting to restrict other’s freedoms of identity and expression?


You can wear a green hat with bits coming out the top of it, and a purple coat and identify as a turnip for all I care, nobody is stopping you. Others might humour you and say "yes, you look like a turnip, therefore you are a turnip" to keep you happy. However don't expect eveyone with a degree of sanity to go along with this insane idea about yourself that you have, sane people will remind you that you're just a guy wearing a stuipd hat and a purple coat.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Frankly, I'm tired of you jumping in like you are some sort of example or proof that a lifestyle is functional when half of your posts are about how you cannot function.



Someone can be representative of a "lifestyle" and still have chaos in their home, person, etc. It's rather disingenuous of you to equate someone's worth and identity to their "lifestyle", and then use that to attack said "lifestyle".


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

Acid_Snake said:


> What you just described is not related to gender but culture.


It's both. That was kind of the point. Gender is a social/cultural construct. Thanks for agreeing.



Acid_Snake said:


> And guess what, women look like women and men look like men in every culture, every ethnic, every country and every continent. We're still natural animals no matter how many clothes you put on and how many surgeries you go through, you won't ever be an artificial genderless anthropomorphic entinity; you're a human, either male or female.


One's biological sex doesn't necessarily comport with one's gender, and that's without even mentioning being intersex.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I didn't "edit quotes".  I used the quote format to paraphrase satire a couple of times, about a couple years ago.  My intentions were transparent, and if I remember correctly, you were upset that it made you look stupid, not because it was intellectually dishonest.    If you want to accuse me of something, you should accommodate with sources so we can relive the hilarity that actually took place.  I believe it had something to do with you claiming that your politician was a better choice because he raped fewer people or something to that affect, when I was arguing that they all should be tossed.


So you edited people’s posts to create a strawman out of their comments, that’s literally what you are saying right now.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 2, 2022)

The argument between gender and sex is ridiculous. People think to hard on it.

However the person acts that's how they act based on themselves. All the science papers that tells me averages is completely useless when I'm talking to an individual person.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Someone can be representative of a "lifestyle" and still have chaos in their home, person, etc. It's rather disingenuous of you to equate someone's worth and identity to their "lifestyle", and then use that to attack said "lifestyle".



Is there someone with linguistic capacity that can decipher this for me?



The Catboy said:


> So you edited people’s posts to create a strawman out of their comments, that’s literally what you are saying right now.



You need to read.  I didn't "edit people's posts".  That makes it sound like I took what someone said, and discreetly changed something so it looked like they said something they didn't mean.  

Making a satire of someone's position =/= strawman.  It was clear that I thought their position was ridiculous and I was using the medium to demonstrate it.  Can't help if you felt embarrassed about how stupid you looked to me.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Dude.  You literally didn't mention capitalism at all in that context, nor did anyone else that you responded to.  Pregnancy being worthless was your brainchild and you are just too ashamed.  I don't care if you think I am the only one disagreeing with you.  I am disagreeing with you.
> 
> If you think I am misrepresenting it, then say how I you think I am misrepresenting it.  All you are doing is what you accused me of, skirting the topic.



So you're implying that I need to prove where I said the word "capitalism" in order to prove my point? Or are you just going to continuously take my words out of context to preserve your dying point? If I recall correctly, you still have yet to answer any of my questions and have ignored most of my points in your quest to disprove my integrity.

From there, it's clear you're the only one disagreeing, and it's going to take a lot more than just disagreement and out of context attacks to discredit my points. It's cute that you keep trying, but there already seems to be a precedent where you consistently antagonize other people to get them to derail so you can try and break them. Keep trying, hot stuff.

If anyone else thought what I said was off, they would've disagreed. They didn't, because they comprehended what I posted. You did not comprehend, which is why you keep hammering away like a blind smithy. You may not care that no one else is disagreeing, because you don't have any valid points to uphold. I care about what other posters feel in regards to my posts, because it means I must be doing something right.

I've told you how I thought you've misrepresented my words. I'm not going to spam the thread by being goaded into saying the same thing over and over again so I can get banned or comments removed. If you can't and choose not to comprehend something, just move on. No need to beat a dead horse because you feel embarrassed that you have nothing more to add to this conversation.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You need to read.  I didn't "edit people's posts".  That makes it sound like I took what someone said, and discreetly changed something so it looked like they said something they didn't mean.
> 
> Making a satire of someone's position =/= strawman.  It was clear that I thought their position was ridiculous and I was using the medium to demonstrate it.  Can't help if you felt embarrassed about how stupid you looked to





tabzer said:


> Is there someone with linguistic capacity that can decipher this for me?




Have em hit this post first


----------



## SG854 (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Is there someone with linguistic capacity that can decipher this for me?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And how did you achieve that satire? What steps did you do to make a satire from what they posted?


----------



## chrisrlink (Jul 2, 2022)

pretty supprised Ohio didn't make an exception for abortion due to child Molestation burn in hell Ohio https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...pc=U531&cvid=b4d2e0f1174d47d99ff7abafb07feb9b


----------



## SG854 (Jul 2, 2022)

chrisrlink said:


> pretty supprised Ohio didn't make an exception for abortion due to child Molestation burn in hell Ohio https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...pc=U531&cvid=b4d2e0f1174d47d99ff7abafb07feb9b


Just like gun control if you don't ban it everywhere they'll just go to another state to get what they want.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Is there someone with linguistic capacity that can decipher this for me?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Editing people’s posts and arguing that edit isn’t a “satire.”


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So you're implying that I need to prove where I said the word "capitalism" in order to prove my point? Or are you just going to continuously take my words out of context to preserve your dying point? If I recall correctly, you still have yet to answer any of my questions and have ignored most of my points in your quest to disprove my integrity.
> 
> From there, it's clear you're the only one disagreeing, and it's going to take a lot more than just disagreement and out of context attacks to discredit my points. It's cute that you keep trying, but there already seems to be a precedent where you consistently antagonize other people to get them to derail so you can try and break them. Keep trying, hot stuff.
> 
> ...


Bandwagoning doesn't work on me.

I haven't seen anybody agree with the idea that pregnancy is worthless.  You say you aren't going to spam this thread with rationale that clarifies what you mean, but you will spam it with information that you already know to be useless.

You seem to think that pregnancies have no value.  But after you posted, you pretend that it was intended in a capitalistic pov.  You are wrong.  Everything has "intrinsic value", even in a capitalistic system, no?



SyphenFreht said:


> Why doesn't it need to be snuffed out? What's the concern about preserving it's life? It offers nothing of value to society,



It's irredeemable.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Editing people’s posts and arguing that edit isn’t a “satire.”


You are going to have to post a source.  I'm telling you that what I posted was an artform, but you are acting like I ripped someone off.  Evidence, now please.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Bandwagoning doesn't work on me.



Great. It wasn't used to sway your opinion, it was used to highlight how everyone else sees my comment the way it was intended, not for the bastardization you're trying to make it.



tabzer said:


> I haven't seen anybody agree with the idea that pregnancy is worthless.  You say you aren't going to spam this thread with rationale that clarifies what you mean, but you will spam it with information that you already know to be useless.



That's because no one, including me, has made that claim. When I posted the idea originally, it was in relation to the society America lives in. 

What information have I presented that's been useless? The only person spamming the thread at this point is you, trying to constantly take people's words out of context.



tabzer said:


> You seem to think that pregnancies have no value.



Please show where I said I held that ideal, and that the idea was not an implied product of living in a capitalistic society.



tabzer said:


> ...but after you posted, you pretend that it was intended in a capitalistic pov.  You are wrong.



Not even remotely. On either of your two comments.



tabzer said:


> Everything has "intrinsic value", even in a capitalistic system, no?



That's the idea behind the design, yes. 



tabzer said:


> It's irredeemable.



What's irredeemable?


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> A newborn cannot survive without his/her parents or community. Does he/she share the same body?


Once born, the baby is separate and can provably survive without the mother.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Bandwagoning doesn't work on me.
> 
> I haven't seen anybody agree with the idea that pregnancy is worthless.  You say you aren't going to spam this thread with rationale that clarifies what you mean, but you will spam it with information that you already know to be useless.
> 
> ...


Bodily autonomy > Pregnancy


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You are going to have to post a source.  I'm telling you that what I posted was an artform, but you are acting like I ripped someone off.  Evidence, now please.


The fucking irony in you asking for evidence when you’ve literally never provided any for your bullshit claims in the past  I am not going through thousands of posts to find posts that I know were removed.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

chrisrlink said:


> pretty supprised Ohio didn't make an exception for abortion due to child Molestation burn in hell Ohio https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...pc=U531&cvid=b4d2e0f1174d47d99ff7abafb07feb9b



Well Republicans, here's your time to shine. Show of hands, which one of y'all thinks she should've just kept her legs shut? 

Who here wants to advocate for dad's rights on this?

Which of y'all pro-lifers are ready to tell her to take personal responsibility for her actions?

I will assume any right wing pro lifer that ignores this isn't against abortion, they're just anti woman.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I haven't seen anybody agree with the idea that pregnancy is worthless.


Pregnancy is less than worthless, it costs money to have a baby. It's a serious drain on resources and could end in the mothers death. Even childhood has a huge cost, children cost parents and tax payers for decades.

The only reason for pregnancy is sentimental value, which is lacking in people who are seeking abortions anyway.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Great. It wasn't used to sway your opinion, it was used to highlight how everyone else sees my comment the way it was intended, not for the bastardization you're trying to make it.



It's used to undermine my position, which is the definition.  Suggesting that you'd need more people to disagree with you before you would consider it is lame.   Pretending it's my fault that you said it is just pathetic. 



SyphenFreht said:


> That's because no one, including me, has made that claim. When I posted the idea originally, it was in relation to the society America lives in.
> 
> What information have I presented that's been useless? The only person spamming the thread at this point is you, trying to constantly take people's words out of context.



"The society America lives in".  You've been unable to contextually rationalize "pregnancies have no value".  Every response you make to me about how you aren't going to give me what I am asking for is exactly what I was referencing.



SyphenFreht said:


> Please show where I said I held that ideal, and that the idea was not an implied product of living in a capitalistic society.



I don't know if you hold that as an ideal or not.  I would hope not.  It's not my responsibility to invent an argument for you.  In or out of a capitalistic society, I'd disagree anyway.  



SyphenFreht said:


> Not even remotely. On either of your two comments.



I tend to be very accurate.



SyphenFreht said:


> That's the idea behind the design, yes.



Then that means pregnancy has value in a capitalistic system.  (it does)



SyphenFreht said:


> What's irredeemable?



The phrase I quoted.



Lacius said:


> Bodily autonomy > Pregnancy



That is the goal.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> Pregnancy is less than worthless, it costs money to have a baby. It's a serious drain on resources and could end in the mothers death. Even childhood has a huge cost, children cost parents and tax payers for decades.
> 
> The only reason for pregnancy is sentimental value, which is lacking in people who are seeking abortions anyway.


funny the anti aborters (GOP) want babies to survive but the also want to cut welfare,wic and other life sustaining programs such fucking hypocrites


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> Pregnancy is less than worthless, it costs money to have a baby. It's a serious drain on resources and could end in the mothers death. Even childhood has a huge cost, children cost parents and tax payers for decades.
> 
> The only reason for pregnancy is sentimental value, which is lacking in people who are seeking abortions anyway.



After all the whining from @SyphenFreht we get this nice capture of him liking this shit that @smf spews.

You did a service @smf, I did not expect.

You did fail to mention how all that is GREAT for "capitalism" though.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> The only reason for pregnancy is sentimental value, which is lacking in people who are seeking abortions anyway.



I would still argue that there's sentiment in at least *some* abortions (quantifying it further requires stats I'm not sure logically exist). I've definitely known some first hand scenarios where the fate of the baby, fetus, was already know to be dire, and so the abortion was performed at great pain to the mother, who knew it needed to be done to preserve already existent life and prevent turmoil to a life that didn't ask for either life or turmoil. Exceptions, yes, but exceptions often prove the rule. Not that I entirely disagree with your other point.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

I would argue, further, that women who get abortions can and do experience remorse for their actions regardless of how ethical the decision was.  @smf's representation is a romanticized view of abortion.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

chrisrlink said:


> funny the anti aborters (GOP) want babies to survive but the also want to cut welfare,wic and other life sustaining programs such fucking hypocrites


Right, if pregnancy is worth so much to them they should be happy to pay women to stay in a fully furnished apartment with good food, water, heat, light and give the child a decent education.

It seems they just want children who the police can go on to murder later on.



tabzer said:


> After all the whining from @SyphenFreht we get this nice capture of him liking this shit that @smf spews.
> 
> You did a service @smf, I did not expect.
> 
> You did fail to mention how all that is GREAT for capitalism though.


A service? I set the scene to destroy your arguments, you just don't think far enough ahead.

An unwanted child or a child growing up in a disadvantaged home is not necessarily great for capitalism. You were saying pregnancy had an inherent worth, I disagreed with that statement.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> That is the goal.


That would mean you are against state bans on abortion.


----------



## linuxares (Jul 2, 2022)

Why are non-women argue about abortion rights?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It's used to undermine my position, which is the definition.  Suggesting that you'd need more people to disagree with you before you would consider it is lame.   Pretending it's my fault that you said it is just pathetic.



You wouldn't have to worry about that if you had anything viable to say that wasn't stemmed in emotion or overanalyzing the vernacular and structure of ones words when you clearly understand the point.



tabzer said:


> "The society America lives in".  You've been unable to contextually rationalize "pregnancies have no value".  Every response you make to me about how you aren't going to give me what I am asking for is exactly what I was referencing.



Probably because that's not a standpoint I made. I think every pregnancy is valuable to those who care about the baby. I implied, several times, that pro lifers only advocate forced birth because they equate pregnancy with being valueless unless they can gain something from it, a capitalistic ideal. 

Every response you ask for something different and then when I present something you don't like, you ignore it and ask for more. You're not even trying to debate the topic anymore, you're just mad that you can't have the last word.



tabzer said:


> I don't know if you hold that as an ideal or not.  I would hope not.  It's not my responsibility to invent an argument for you.  In or out of a capitalistic society, I'd disagree anyway.



The only interaction you've had with me on this thread is the constant struggle of you trying to formulate an argument with me based on your fabrications of my intent based on your bastardization on the context I presented my arguments in. Sit down, Aristotle, not everyone you meet is blind to your play on diction to prove your worth.



tabzer said:


> I tend to be very accurate.



Is it only when you fabricate people's points and posts to prove you're intellectually fit to sit at the table?



tabzer said:


> Then that means pregnancy has value in a capitalistic system.  (it does)



Where's the value then?



tabzer said:


> The phrase I quoted.



I posted 3 lines, two of which were questions. I'd like some of that accuracy you advertised, please.



tabzer said:


> That is the goal.



Except for women, right? 



tabzer said:


> After all the whining from @SyphenFreht we get this nice capture of him liking this shit that @smf spews.
> 
> You did a service @smf, I did not expect.
> 
> You did fail to mention how all that is GREAT for "capitalism" though.



And I'll like it again and again. Because, yet again, you ignore context and facts in favor of pushing your own agenda. Never mind the post I started toward @smf or my explanation, what's important is my like. 

Thought bandwagoning didn't work on you? Or is hypocrisy just another play on your book on subjugating women?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Why are non-women argue about abortion rights?



I for one have many women in my life that I love and want to see the best for. At the end of the day it's not up to me to regulate any portion of a woman's body, but I have no qualm going toe to toe with people who feel they have the right to suppress or subjugate anyone, women in particular regarding the topic at hand. I'm sure there are many others on a similar platform 

Otherwise, it's about control. Plain and simple.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> The fucking irony in you asking for evidence when you’ve literally never provided any for your bullshit claims in the past  I am not going through thousands of posts to find posts that I know were removed.


Arguing about sources already presented doesn't require additional sources, which is the majority of the positions i take on this forum.  The last time I posted a reference in introducing something new to a conversation was to a that comedian's podcast.  You were too illiterate to notice that he had listed every publication reference that he cited.  

It's mighty convenient for you to post bullshit about something nobody can verify.  You can stfu.  It's apparent that "sources" are your way of gatekeeping the conversation, but you wouldn't be convinced to back up your own claims.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Arguing about sources already presented doesn't require additional sources, which is the majority of the positions i take on this forum.  The last time I posted a reference in introducing something new to a conversation was to a that comedian's podcast.  You were too illiterate to notice that he had listed every publication reference that he cited.
> 
> It's mighty convenient for you to post bullshit about something nobody can verify.  You can stfu.  It's apparent that "sources" are your way of gatekeeping the conversation, but you wouldn't be convinced to back up your own claims.



Didn't you whine about sources from my post a few posts before? You're literally doing the same thing you're accusing them of, and then derail when you're proven wrong.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It is, but contraception is not 100% effective, and the same people who are against abortion have also reduced access to contraception and safe sex education.



well neither is the vaccine but people wanted that forced on people, sucks.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> You were saying pregnancy had an inherent worth, I disagreed with that statement.


"Intrinsic value", and I was quoting @SyphenFreht .  Thanks.



SyphenFreht said:


> You wouldn't have to worry about that if you had anything viable to say that wasn't stemmed in emotion or overanalyzing the vernacular and structure of ones words when you clearly understand the point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Look.  You've already undone yourself with @smf's post and there is nothing that can undo that.  All I can see from you, now, is flailing.  Good chat though.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well neither is the vaccine but people wanted that forced on people, sucks.



Vaccines help prevent the spread of viruses, a public health issue. Condoms help prevent pregnancy, a private issue. Big difference. Though if the argument against vaccines is bodily autonomy, then the same should be upheld for abortions.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Didn't you whine about sources from my post a few posts before? You're literally doing the same thing you're accusing them of, and then derail when you're proven wrong.


Did you ask for a source.  I must have missed that.  Sorry.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well neither is the vaccine but people wanted that forced on people, sucks.


First, that was as much about the right to not be exposed to the disease by anti-vaxxers as much as it was about anything else.

Second, I don't remember anyone seriously talking about requiring vaccination by law. Sure, there were policy positions that would require proof of vaccination under specific circumstances (public transit, working in a healthcare facility, etc.), but nobody's bodily autonomy rights were ever being violated.

Try again.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> That would mean you are against state bans on abortion.


I'd still see that as temporal and conditional.  If you need a state or a federal government to represent you for you, then we aren't there yet.  Banning abortion might be a wake up call.  I don't know.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> "Intrinsic value", and I was quoting @SyphenFreht .  Thanks.
> 
> 
> Look.  You've already undone yourself with @smf's post and there is nothing that can undo that.  All I can see from you, now, is flailing.  Good chat though.



I mean, if you say so. Sounds to me like you're getting tired of being called out for being hollow and consistently disingenuous. But whatever helps you sleep at night. Just remember while you go back to cruising 4chan for chicks, the rest of us will uphold what ideals we can to ensure that women are treated as people, not whatever incubator/household equipment holders on your view typically see them as.

Any time you wanna be told of yourself, you know where to find me 




tabzer said:


> Did you ask for a source.  I must have missed that.  Sorry.



Uh, no ma'am, you asked for a source.

Are you trying to troll at this point? I feel like you could've easily inferred what I was saying.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'd still see that as temporal and conditional.  If you need a state or a federal government to represent you for you, then we aren't there yet.  Banning abortion might be a wake up call.  I don't know.


If you agree that bodily autonomy takes precedence over, say, pregnancy, then you agree that state bans on abortion are wrong. I don't know what you're babbling on about.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I mean, if you say so. Sounds to me like you're getting tired of being called out for being hollow and consistently disingenuous. But whatever helps you sleep at night. Just remember while you go back to cruising 4chan for chicks, the rest of us will uphold what ideals we can to ensure that women are treated as people, not whatever incubator/household equipment holders on your view typically see them as.
> 
> Any time you wanna be told of yourself, you know where to find me


Yuck man.  Between me and you, it was you who suggested that.  I'm antagonistic, but I'm not imagining the things you are.  Is it my fault that you think that for me?


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you agree that bodily autonomy takes precedence over, say, pregnancy, then you agree that state bans on abortion are wrong. I don't know what you're babbling on about.


It doesn't always.  It's the goal, but we aren't there yet.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It doesn't always.


Yes, it always does.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Yuck man.  Between me and you, it was you who suggested that.  I'm antagonistic, but I'm not imagining the things you are.  Is it my fault that you think that for me?



Lol, you're absolutely right I suggested that. It's more of that "implied inference on perspective" you mentioned earlier (I probably misquoted that. Just a little). I imply based on what I perceive, which is based on what you provide. 

Care to have another 14 post, 3 page back and forth on that or you wanna get back to talking about abortions? The former is probably going to require another thread at this point


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Yes, it always does.


Is your opinion more powerful than state laws?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Is your opinion more powerful than state laws?


My opinion is more correct than these state laws.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> "implied inference on perspective"


That was some dumb shit you originally said.  I was quoting you.  Lol.

I don't like talking about abortion.  I like talking about pregnancy.  I have an issue with people talking about pregnancy like it's a bad thing.  Circumstances around pregnancy can be bad, I admit, but that's not pregnancy's fault.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> My opinion is more correct than these state laws.


I believe you and I want to believe in you.  But I'm sad that I cannot.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I don't like talking about abortion.  I like talking about pregnancy.


Right-wing politicians are taking away abortion rights, not pregnancy rights.



tabzer said:


> I believe you and I want to believe in you.  But I'm sad that I cannot.


A state that can take away a woman's bodily rights in the name of saving a life can take away your bodily rights in the name of saving a life. A state where only some citizens are free is a state where no citizen is free.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 2, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Why are non-women argue about abortion rights?


Because men hold their opinions above others and for some reason that’s respected.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Why are non-women argue about abortion rights?


I feel my only input is to fight for women to have the opportunity to make the decision themselves.



tabzer said:


> "Intrinsic value", and I was quoting @SyphenFreht .  Thanks.



This is what you said.
_I haven't seen anybody agree with the idea that pregnancy is worthless._

So what intrinsic value do you think pregnancy has?

_Intrinsic value is *a measure of what an asset is worth*. This measure is arrived at by means of an objective calculation or complex financial model, rather than using the currently trading market price of that asset._

By saying you haven't seen anybody agree, then you are inviting discussion.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I tend to be very accurate.


No, you tend to be very arrogant.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Right-wing politicians are taking away abortion rights, not pregnancy rights.



I responded to a claim about pregnancy.



Lacius said:


> A state that can take away a woman's bodily rights in the name of saving a life can take away your bodily rights in the name of saving a life. A state where only some citizens are free is a state where no citizen is free.



Absolutely.  But what are "rights" if not a social construct?  Facetious.  




smf said:


> So what intrinsic value do you think pregnancy has?



You are right that the discussion is invited.  But I didn't make the claim.  If @SyphenFreht could answer first, then I'd be happy to chime in.  I only brought it up because it was his claim.



smf said:


> No, you tend to be very arrogant.



Though not mutually exclusive the claim that I am being arrogant has yet to be substantiated.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Though not mutually exclusive the claim that I am being arrogant has yet to be substantiated.


Let's have a vote shall we?



tabzer said:


> You are right that the discussion is invited.  But I didn't make the claim.


You didn't make what claim? You said you had not seen anyone make that argument, that is the only claim in that post.

As you obviously disagree with the argument, then you must have a way of determining the intrinsic value.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Absolutely.  But what are "rights" if not a social construct?  Facetious.


Assuming we are talking about the same thing when we say "morality," morality isn't subjective. It is objectively immoral to take away a person's bodily autonomy.


----------



## smf (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Assuming we are talking about the same thing when we say "morality," morality isn't subjective. It is objectively immoral to take away a person's bodily autonomy.


https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/Is_Morality_Objective


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Assuming we are talking about the same thing when we say "morality," morality isn't subjective. It is objectively immoral to take away a person's bodily autonomy.


If we assume the same thing, about anything, subjectivity thrown out.  So, of course?  You are going to be disappointed with my response, but a person only has the bodily autonomy that they can enforce.  The state is a problem.  The government is a problem.  I won't be satisfied until we, as people aren't interested in governing over each other.  I'll probably die before that.  For the meantime, I'll live for it though.



smf said:


> Let's have a vote shall we?


I'll accept the results, but it probably won't change how I act.



smf said:


> You didn't make what claim? You said you had not seen anyone make that argument, that is the only claim in that post.



I didn't originally pen the claim that everything has intrinsic value.  You see the contradiction between suggesting that and suggesting that pregnancy has no value, right?


----------



## KennyAtom (Jul 2, 2022)

while this is sad, if you really need an abortion, what's stopping you from going to a state that allows it?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> If we assume the same thing, about anything, subjectivity thrown out.  So, of course?  You are going to be disappointed with my response, but a person only has the bodily autonomy that they can enforce.  The state is a problem.  The government is a problem.  I won't be satisfied until we, as people aren't interested in governing over each other.  I'll probably die before that.  For the meantime, I'll live for it though.


I'm interested then why you think a state should be able to violate one's bodily autonomy.



KennyAtom said:


> while this is sad, if you really need an abortion, what's stopping you from going to a state that allows it?


Maybe the nearly 900 miles there and 900 miles back for some people. Just a hunch.

As I've said before, there being abortion access in another state doesn't make statewide abortion bans less deplorable.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I'm interested then why you think a state should be able to violate one's bodily autonomy.



"Should".  I didn't use that word as far as I know.  I'm not pretending that legislature is moral.  The lack thereof seems to be step in that direction imo.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> First, that was as much about the right to not be exposed to the disease by anti-vaxxers as much as it was about anything else.
> 
> *Second, I don't remember anyone seriously talking about requiring vaccination by law. Sure, there were policy positions that would require proof of vaccination under specific circumstances (public transit, working in a healthcare facility, etc.), but nobody's bodily autonomy rights were ever being violated.*
> 
> Try again.



uh by law in my state if you want your children to go to school  both public or private to be fully vaccinated by the school year against stuff like mumps polio measles etc they also tacked on covid to the list been like that for decades nothing new just a new fad called antIvaxxing (or atleast more prevalent since covid) the only other alternitives are home school or prison (for the parents that is)


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> "Should".  I didn't use that word as far as I know.  I'm not pretending that legislature is moral.  The lack thereof seems to be step in that direction imo.


You might want to make your views more clear then, because you've more than suggested that pregnancy at least sometimes takes precedence over bodily autonomy.



chrisrlink said:


> uh by law in my state if you want your children to go to school  both public or private to be fully vaccinated by the school year against stuff like mumps polio measles etc they also tacked on covid to the list been like that for decades nothing new just a new fad called antIvaxxing (or atleast more prevalent since covid) the only other alternitives are home school or prison (for the parents that is)


Unfortunately, depending on where parents live, there are often broad exceptions to vaccination requirements for schools. Regardless, there's nothing stopping a parent from keeping their children away from institutions that require vaccination.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 2, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> while this is sad, if you really need an abortion, what's stopping you from going to a state that allows it?


If this is your logical conclusion, then why even outlaw abortions in the first place? Why make people travel to get safe abortions, when we could just leave them legal and safe all over?


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You might want to make your views more clear then, because you've more than suggested that pregnancy at least sometimes takes precedence over bodily autonomy.


I don't think so.  Just because I disagree with something someone says doesn't mean I'm advocating the other side of the spectrum that they are on.  That's how a lot of people think and I think that's an ignorance that we are dealing with.  We shouldn't have to live like that.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> If this is your logical conclusion, then why even outlaw abortions in the first place? Why make people travel to get safe abortions, when we could just leave them legal and safe all over?



"Diversity"?  Maybe some communities that outlaw abortion turn out better?  This is a chance for us to find out.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I don't think so.  Just because I disagree with something someone says doesn't mean I'm advocating the other side of the spectrum that they are on.  That's how a lot of people think and I think that's an ignorance that we are dealing with.  We shouldn't have to live like that.


You've suggested that pregnancy at least sometimes takes precedence over bodily autonomy.

I'm asking you to make your views clear. Why won't you?



tabzer said:


> "Diversity"?  Maybe some communities that outlaw abortion turn out better?  This is a chance for us to find out.


They don't.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You've suggested that pregnancy at least sometimes takes precedence over bodily autonomy.
> 
> I'm asking you to make your views clear. Why won't you?


I don't think I have.  I do think I have suggested that pregnancy can be a result of bodily autonomy.   Every situation is different.  I can only be as clear as each individual situation.


Lacius said:


> They don't.


Brave new world.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 2, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Because men hold their opinions above others and for some reason that’s respected.


You are sexist, and you are saying ALL men have the same views (above yours). Putting eveyone into the same box because they don't hold the same view as you........and I'd bet you'd be the first to whinge about sexism.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

mrdude said:


> You are sexist, and you are saying ALL men have the same views (above yours). Putting eveyone into the same box because they don't hold the same view as you........and I'd bet you'd be the first to whinge about sexism.


It's not sexist because it's feeling like a woman, and they can't be sexist.

Or maybe it's a man, so it it can't be sexist, because he is talking about his own gender.

Who f'kn knows?

Sexism is just an social construct anyway.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I don't think I have.  I do think I have suggested that pregnancy can be a result of bodily autonomy.   Every situation is different.  I can only be as clear as each individual situation.


You literally said bodily autonomy "doesn't always" take precedence over pregnancy. If you didn't mean it, you need to make your views more clear.



mrdude said:


> You are sexist, and you are saying ALL men have the same views (above yours). Putting eveyone into the same box because they don't hold the same view as you........and I'd bet you'd be the first to whinge about sexism.


The word "all" wasn't used.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 2, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Why are non-women argue about abortion rights?


Because a kid is a man's and women's responsibility


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You literally said bodily autonomy "doesn't always" take precedence over pregnancy. If you didn't mean it, you need to make your views more clear.


It literally doesn't when the state can force you to do what it wants.  Again, ideals vs reality.  I'm not disagreeing with your virtue.


----------



## linuxares (Jul 2, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Because a kid is a man's and women's responsibility


Sure, that's if it's born. Abortion is to cease it to be born? I don't have any say in a woman's body.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'd still see that as temporal and conditional.  If you need a state or a federal government to represent you for you, then we aren't there yet.  Banning abortion might be a wake up call.  I don't know.


We were talking about how you think it should be, but feel free to continue to obfuscate your opinions because they're embarrassing.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> We were talking about how you think it should be, but feel free to continue to obfuscate your opinions because they're embarrassing.


I never mentioned how I think they "should be".  That's your thing.  I'm just accepting of what I cannot control.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 2, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Sure, that's if it's born. Abortion is to cease it to be born? I don't have any say in a woman's body.


Abortion rights. A man can argue for a women's right to have an abortion. Anybody that likes your comment and is a man and continues to argue for abortion rights is a hypocrite.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I never mentioned how I think they "should be".


That's my point, lol.


----------



## linuxares (Jul 2, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Abortion rights. A man can argue for a women's right to have an abortion. Anybody that likes your comment and is a man and continues to argue for abortion rights is a hypocrite.


Sure, but I don't feel qualified to discuss this since I can't literally birth a person.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Sure, but I don't feel qualified to discuss this since I can't literally birth a person.


At the very least, people who can't give birth should agree they like having bodily autonomy rights and think everyone else should have them too.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 2, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Sure, but I don't feel qualified to discuss this since I can't literally birth a person.


But you don't want to pay a life time for a kid you don't want or the mother doesn't want. So abortion rights very much concerns you.


----------



## linuxares (Jul 2, 2022)

SG854 said:


> But you don't want to pay a life time for a kid you don't want or the mother doesn't wants. So abortion rights very much concerns you.


No, I'm not dumb enough not to get a kid with a woman that I don't love. Even if a woman get pregnant by me, I can't decide anything. It's still her body, not mine.

I however would say that men should have the option to opt-out if the woman wanna keep the kid.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 2, 2022)

linuxares said:


> No, I'm not dumb enough not to get a kid with a woman that I don't love. Even if a woman get pregnant by me, I can't decide anything. It's still her body, not mine.
> 
> I however would say that men should have the option to opt-out if the woman wanna keep the kid.


Opting out seems like escape and hard time for the mother. Pump and Dump.


----------



## linuxares (Jul 2, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Opting out seems like escape and hard time for the mother. Pump and Dump.


Well, she can terminate the pregnancy right?
You can't have the cake and eat it as well, in my book that is. Still, this isn't what it is about.

Abortion rights should literally be decided by women. It's a medical or worst case a surgical procedure.
Men should have no say in it, personally.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

Lacius said:


> That's my point, lol.


Can you explain?  You claimed _we_ had a conversation.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Well, she can terminate the pregnancy right?
> You can't have the cake and eat it as well, in my book that is. Still, this isn't what it is about.
> 
> Abortion rights should literally be decided by women. It's a medical or worst case a surgical procedure.
> Men should have no say in it, personally.


What about transgenders?  Be careful you don't get banned.


----------



## linuxares (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> What about transgenders?  Be careful you don't get banned.


If they have a uterus, it's up to said person still. Since a vast majority of the worlds women are, well biologically female. I kept the word "Women" not need to explain myself for this. Please do try to create drama for dramas sake.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 2, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Well, she can terminate the pregnancy right?
> You can't have the cake and eat it as well, in my book that is. Still, this isn't what it is about.
> 
> Abortion rights should literally be decided by women. It's a medical or worst case a surgical procedure.
> Men should have no say in it, personally.


If you propose that if women have the choice to force a birth the man doesn't want, and man has the choice to opt out of child he doesn't want to raise or child support he doesn't want to pay, basically otp out of the consequences of having a kid then that'll put pressure on the mom to get an abortion so that she's not left a single mom. That's I guess a man's way of forcing a soon to be mom to get an abortion. Or maybe not force but put pressure towards abortion on the women.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 2, 2022)

linuxares said:


> If they have a uterus, it's up to said person still. Since a vast majority of the worlds women are, well biologically female. I kept the word "Women" not need to explain myself for this. Please do try to create drama for dramas sake.


Okay. I'm done.


----------



## linuxares (Jul 2, 2022)

SG854 said:


> If you propose that if women have the choice to force a birth the man doesn't want, and man has the choice to opt out of child he doesn't want to raise or child support he doesn't want to pay, basically otp out of the consequences of having a kid then that'll put pressure on the mom to get an abortion so that she's not left a single mom. That's I guess a man's way of forcing a soon to be mom to get an abortion.


That's the risk you have to take if you had unprotected sex! You literally try to make up a scenario at this very moment, and of course it will happen. It can already happen today a woman keeps the kid and force a man to pay child support. It goes same way. So yes, that can happen. It will most likely happen, and still. It's their body, not mine.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 2, 2022)

linuxares said:


> That's the risk you have to take if you had unprotected sex! You literally try to make up a scenario at this very moment, and of course it will happen. It can already happen today a woman keeps the kid and force a man to pay child support. It goes same way. So yes, that can happen. It will most likely happen, and still. It's their body, not mine.


If you say women have a right to give birth then man has the right to opt out of child support.


----------



## linuxares (Jul 2, 2022)

SG854 said:


> If you say women have a right to give birth then man has the right to opt out of child support.


If a woman want to keep the kid, but the man doesn't. Yes, they should be able to have a way to opt out.
If a man wanna keep the kid, but the woman doesn't. Yes, they should be able to have a way to terminate the pregnancy.

See how simple that was?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Can you explain?  You claimed _we_ had a conversation.


I've asked several times for your position on bodily autonomy and states' bans of abortion, and you continue to dodge and obfuscate.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 2, 2022)

linuxares said:


> If a woman want to keep the kid, but the man doesn't. Yes, they should be able to have a way to opt out.
> If a man wanna keep the kid, but the woman doesn't. Yes, they should be able to have a way to terminate the pregnancy.
> 
> See how simple that was?


Simple in words. Not that simple in today's world since there are women out there that want to take advantage of this and want to squeeze out as much money as they can from the man. There is no opting out for the man. 

Try to argue to make opting out a thing. You won't be granted that. People will see you as a crazy dead beat lazy dad that won't be there for their kids. Women have full control in this situation. And the law supports the women. So the only solution for man to avoid all this is 0 sex.


----------



## linuxares (Jul 2, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Simple in words. Not that simple in today's world since there are women out there that want to take advantage of this and want to squeeze out as much money as they can from the man. There is no opting out for the man.
> 
> Try to argue to make opting out a thing. You won't be granted that. People will see you as a crazy dead beat lazy dad that won't be there for their kids. Women have full control in this situation. And the law supports the women. So the only solution for man to avoid all this is 0 sex.


Then this topic isn't about that. That's absolutly that needs to be discussed. But for abortions, I personally feel women should have the right to dictate the discussion about for vs against. Since they are they're the once who's body it's about! That's why these 93 pages feel so strange since I mostly seen men arguing against men. This topic kind of have played it's course a long time ago.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 2, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Then this topic isn't about that. That's absolutly that needs to be discussed. But for abortions, I personally feel women should have the right to dictate the discussion about for vs against. Since they are they're the once who's body it's about! That's why these 93 pages feel so strange since I mostly seen men arguing against men. This topic kind of have played it's course a long time ago.


Maybe a gaming site is mostly men? You're a mod. What is the ratio of men vs women?


----------



## linuxares (Jul 2, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Maybe a gaming site is mostly men? You're a mod. What is the ratio of men vs women?


About three and half cat? I don't have those statistics nor do I care.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 2, 2022)

linuxares said:


> About three and half cat? I don't have those statistics nor do I care.


Maybe for the question you asked why are men mostly arguing about this topic here on this site it'll answer your question.


----------



## linuxares (Jul 2, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Maybe for the question you asked why are men mostly arguing about this topic here on this site it'll answer your question.


Of course, I know that. I mostly hoped in and tried to steer away the off-topicness plus it just turned absurd now.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jul 2, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> If this is your logical conclusion, then why even outlaw abortions in the first place? Why make people travel to get safe abortions, when we could just leave them legal and safe all over?


honestly, it doesn't really matter to me, I didn't like how the government had to step in and tell us what we can and can't limit, now that that ruling is gone, maybe we can start getting rid of all the stupid taxes, and maybe, just maybe, increase the standard of living by having a lot less taxes and a lot less government intervention.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 2, 2022)

linuxares said:


> Of course, I know that. I mostly hoped in and tried to steer away the off-topicness plus it just turned absurd now.


Threads like this are always expected to be absurd. 

I'm sure you were trying to divert attention elsewhere. But you know that'll never work even before you hoped in. I'm just picking your brain out of boredom.


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 2, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> honestly, it doesn't really matter to me, I didn't like how the government had to step in and tell us what we can and can't limit, now that that ruling is gone, maybe we can start getting rid of all the stupid taxes, and maybe, just maybe, increase the standard of living by having a lot less taxes and a lot less government intervention.


Lower taxes and less government intervention don't increase quality of life, higher wages and more government intervention increases quality of life. It isn't rocket science, government intervention means individuals can't ignore public interests in the pursuit of profits above all else i.e. polution and worker safety, and lower taxes means less money for public projects like roads and functioning sewers and ideally public health care like they have everywhere else in the world. That is how societies work~


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> That was some dumb shit you originally said.  I was quoting you.  Lol.



So it's dumb because it's a psychological fact that that's how people interact? You're a weird guy.



tabzer said:


> I don't like talking about abortion.  I like talking about pregnancy.  I have an issue with people talking about pregnancy like it's a bad thing.  Circumstances around pregnancy can be bad, I admit, but that's not pregnancy's fault.



Well that explains a lot. You mistook something I said because you hopped in mid conversation and then ran with it because you were already too far ingrained with trying to prove me wrong on a platform you, again, clearly misunderstood. 

Everyone makes mistakes kiddo. Nothing wrong with that as long as you learn from them. 

Again, to reiterate, I don't think pregnancy is valueless. It means a lot to the few people involved. However, in regards to pro capitalist pro lifers, every pregnancy only has value in what they feel they can gain. Otherwise, anyone who isn't directly involved with the baby has no business being a part of any pregnancy, period.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 2, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You are right that the discussion is invited.  But I didn't make the claim.  If @SyphenFreht could answer first, then I'd be happy to chime in.  I only brought it up because it was his claim.



Let's prove your lack of arrogance then. When and where did I state that in regards to it being my claim? After all these posts, after having multiple posters prove you wrong, you're still on this shoddy platform. You've asked, or otherwise implied, others to back up their claims. Back yours up. Show us how humble you really are.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2022)

smf said:


> https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/Is_Morality_Objective


A rare instance of me approving of your post. Morality isn’t objective, it is socially constructed. Different people have very different ideas on what is and isn’t moral. As far as our moral compass is concerned, we generally agree on some baseline things, but differ wildly when it comes to the details.


----------



## smf (Jul 3, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Again, to reiterate, I don't think pregnancy is valueless. It means a lot to the few people involved.


It CAN mean a lot to some people, however those are unlikely to be seeking an abortion.

The point I was making is that pregnancy doesn't automatically have a value.

"congratulations, your rape has resulted in a pregnancy, you must be so excited"


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jul 3, 2022)

A 10 yr old girl got raped and became pregnant and had to travel to Ohio to get an abortion


----------



## smf (Jul 3, 2022)

Foxi4 said:


> A rare instance of me approving of your post. Morality isn’t objective, it is socially constructed. Different people have very different ideas on what is and isn’t moral. As far as our moral compass is concerned, we generally agree on some baseline things, but differ wildly when it comes to the details.


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 3, 2022)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> A 10 yr old girl got raped and became pregnant and had to travel to Ohio to get an abortion


No exceptions... and by that, I mean every conservative leaning individual in this thread is a selfish ignorant and short sighted misogynistic bag of fecal matter. This is literally the beginning of a wave of preventable tragedies for no good reason.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 3, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> You were comparing the last years of a single individual vs hundreds of fertilized eggs ready to be implanted. Now you compare 6mio to 6mio.
> Sleight of hand?


I can increase the number to 100 million eggs. It still doesn't change the outcome. They aren't equal to even a single person. 

How quickly the genocide happened also has no bearing on anything. It could be in a single day, or stretched out over multiple years. It still doesn't change the value of a fertilized egg comparative to a human.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 3, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> I can increase the number to 100 million eggs. It still doesn't change the outcome. They aren't equal to even a single person.
> 
> How quickly the genocide happened also has no bearing on anything. It could be in a single day, or stretched out over multiple years. It still doesn't change the value of a fertilized egg comparative to a human.


Fertilized egg means it is from a couple who has tried to conceive. It certainly has value for the couple. Hundreds of couples´ hope vs a few years at the end of sb´s life.
You spoke of an old man purposefully. Someone who has a few years left to live is worth less than someone who has her life ahead of her and potentially have children. 

Do not make the mistake to deify your personal views.


----------



## hippy dave (Jul 3, 2022)




----------



## hippy dave (Jul 3, 2022)

But srsly



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...haring&pru=AAABgbyEz80*ki0mctT40bBlN9NCfbfg6w
It's nearer 900 at time of this posting


----------



## One_Blue_Glove (Jul 3, 2022)

DbGt said:


> Good, the right to life should always be prioritised


Got it, lemme write that down...


> Prioritize life
> UNLESS it is the life of a woman who is pregnant with a still born that will ultimately be fatal
> In this scenario, the woman's life does not matter and should not be prioritized
> 
> ...


I think I got it!


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 3, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Jews do not believe foetuses are sentient or have a soul, they believe that only happens when they first draw breath FYI.


That was not my point.

According to the Torah, if you accidently cause a miscarriage, you have to pay the mother damages. If a fetus has no value (see titan_tim), then you wouldn´t have to pay damages.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jul 3, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> No exceptions... and by that, I mean every conservative leaning individual in this thread is a selfish ignorant and short sighted misogynistic bag of fecal matter. This is literally the beginning of a wave of preventable tragedies for no good reason.


I myself, am somewhat conservative but I do not support the abortion ban, I think it destroys freedom


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 3, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Fertilized egg means it is from a couple who has tried to conceive. It certainly has value for the couple. Hundreds of couples´ hope vs a few years at the end of sb´s life.
> You spoke of an old man purposefully. Someone who has a few years left to live is worth less than someone who has her life ahead of her and potentially have children.
> 
> Do not make the mistake to deify your personal views.


That's the fun thing about hypotheticals. They can be changed to further a point any time. Let's say that instead of an old man, it's a small kid. I'd like to hope that you'd choose the little kid instead of a bunch of fertilized eggs. By your logic, the case has more years of life than the kid, so you'd let it burn for the hope of kids that don't yet exist.

I only like to choose the old man example because it further emphasizes how little a fertilized egg is worth.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 3, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> That's the fun thing about hypotheticals. They can be changed to further a point any time. Let's say that instead of an old man, it's a small kid. I'd like to hope that you'd choose the little kid instead of a bunch of fertilized eggs. By your logic, the case has more years of life than the kid, so you'd let it burn for the hope of kids that don't yet exist.
> 
> I only like to choose the old man example because it further emphasizes how little a fertilized egg is worth.


It depends. If it´s Baby Hitler, i´d choose the suitcase. If the suitcase is full of supremacist titan_tim fetuses, i`d save an old man who is has less than a minute to live.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 3, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> It depends. If it´s Baby Hitler, i´d choose the suitcase. If the suitcase is full of supremacist titan_tim fetuses, i`d save an old man who is has less than a minute to live.


Sad dodge. But the if baby = _____ person argument, then it could go either way. You may have just let the child who becomes the doctor who cures cancer. It's a pointless thing to bring up.

Just remember, it's just like the old saying: "A million well meaning hopes and promises aren't worth one single good deed." The same thing for a fertilized egg vs a real kid.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 3, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> It depends. If it´s Baby Hitler, i´d choose the suitcase. If the suitcase is full of supremacist titan_tim fetuses, i`d save an old man who is has less than a minute to live.


Sorry, one more point about that line of thinking. If we WERE able to predict who every kid would become, does that suddenly make abortion alright in your eyes? 

If you predict that the baby would be a murderer, you'd be alright with abortions for any murderer babies? What about all the babies that will be drags on society? Are they alright to remove from your carefully weeded out society? You'd pick out only the ones which go on to become the best of society? That's pretty dark.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 3, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> WiiMiiSwitch said:
> 
> 
> > A 10 yr old girl got raped and became pregnant and had to travel to Ohio to get an abortion
> ...



Letting the states decide their own laws enhances democracy, so the Supreme Court decision is still the right thing in principle if you value democracy.  Do you want to run the risk of a very conservative president getting elected & trying to pass restrictions at a federal level?

Now assuming this story of a 10 year old is true, it's clearly a case of rape and the victim would have to be more than 6 weeks pregnant as Ohio appears to be using the "heartbeat" law which caps abortions at 6 weeks, or at any week if the mother's life is threatened or "severely compromised physical health".

For adults I don't have too much of an issue with Ohio's law as adults are generally mature enough to identify rape and use contraception within 6 weeks of the crime.  But children don't necessarily have that level of maturity so perhaps they deserve special consideration and should be allowed to have later abortions.

Now the hard question for you is: at what month would you cap abortions, and what would you do if this 10 year old girl was already past that month?


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jul 3, 2022)

I think that in the case of rape abortion is valid at any point of the pregnancy, independent of the woman's age.

P.S.: I haven't been exposed to social media and I always read the same moderate/centre-right newspaper, so I'm not in any bandwagon. At the start of this conversation (when the SCOTUS memo was leaked), I considered myself a moderate pro-life, but the more I think about abortion, the less assured I am of any restrictions.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 3, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> Sorry, one more point about that line of thinking. If we WERE able to predict who every kid would become, does that suddenly make abortion alright in your eyes?


I am not taking a position on abortion. You cannot force a unwilling parent to be a good one. You cannot force society to pay for unwanted children. If a woman in her prime is in a financially stable marriage but has been convinced by feminism that her office job is more important and then later desperately tries to conceive at 36, so be it. I´m not her father.


titan_tim said:


> If you predict that the baby would be a murderer, you'd be alright with abortions for any murderer babies? What about all the babies that will be drags on society? Are they alright to remove from your carefully weeded out society? You'd pick out only the ones which go on to become the best of society? That's pretty dark.


If the future is determined (which is not clear), then I would be for aborting babies who would become murderers. However, then my typing this would be pre-determined as well.

Regarding babies who are a liability to society: the parents should make the decision and society should not be forced to pay for their decisions. Same as with number of children. If somebody wants to have 15 children but can only financially afford 3, let the family starve or find help at a religious group or extended family. There is nothing  moral about stealing from society to incentivize bad life choices. Rewarding bad choices is what has brought us here (look at oure conomy, our society).

I am against designer babies, btw. In order to get to your preferred baby, you´d have to get rid of a lot of unwanted ones. Since you give zero value to fetuses: How many fetuses are you willing to throw away in order to have your designer baby? 100? 1000? 1mio?


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Letting the states decide their own laws enhances democracy


I feel like a broken record, so I'm just going to quote myself


Nothereed said:


> As I mentioned time and time sgain. The Republican party voted against the removal of gerrymandering. Meaning that a majority of people can "vote them out" but fail becsuse how heavily gerrymandered the state is.





Nothereed said:


> I'm going to keep repeating this, the majority of people did not want Roe v Wade over turned. The Republican party, are acting like tyrants. The Republican party is a minority party, who could only one through undemocratic means, such as never wining the popular vote for the last 20 years, but instead heavily gerrymandering to over represent themselves. Abused the senate to create a super majority within the supreme court.
> There is no "your in for a rude awakening" because now _no one_ has faith in this system anymore because of this.
> We lost faith in our legislators years ago. Many of us lost faith in the police. And now, the highest court in the land, the part that is higher than the president, senate and house, just overturned a fundamental right.
> I do not see this going well for longevity of the States.


If we lived in popular vote democracy, sure your statement could work. But we don't. We have the electoral collage to contest with. So letting States decide in this case doesn't enhance it. Because the majority of people already didn't want states or federal government to handle it, and instead just accepted as a general right. We lost the right to just _believe_ that it'll be okay or it'll be an option because states can now legislate it. We now have to question over state lines. we lost a right,and we lost the protection to that right.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 3, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> I think that in the case of rape abortion is valid at any point of the pregnancy, independent of the woman's age.


Agreed. Otherwise you are breeding rapists in your society. Incels would see this as a chance of procreation.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 3, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Agreed. Otherwise you are breeding rapists in your society. Incels would see this as a chance of procreation.


As the bible intended. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 3, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> I think that in the case of rape abortion is valid at any point of the pregnancy, independent of the woman's age.



Why?  I mean it's not a baby's fault they were incorrectly conceived.   Either they have moral value or they don't.   If not, then why not allow it across the board?

And I think it's fair calling it a baby as "any point of the pregnancy" could be so close to birth so as to be practically indistinguishable from a literal baby.

So you have proposed that babies may be killed if they were incorrectly conceived.   I'm not saying you can't have this opinion but you would have to justify it if the burden of proof is on the killer.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 3, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I am not taking a position on abortion. You cannot force a unwilling parent to be a good one. You cannot force society to pay for unwanted children. If a woman in her prime is in a financially stable marriage but has been convinced by feminism that her office job is more important and then later desperately tries to conceive at 36, so be it. I´m not her father.


That's literally the main debate going on the board, and the crux of what the far right is trying to do. They are hoping to force unwilling potential parents to become parents. Which as you said, doesn't make them good parents. 



> I am against designer babies, btw. In order to get to your preferred baby, you´d have to get rid of a lot of unwanted ones. Since you give zero value to fetuses: How many fetuses are you willing to throw away in order to have your designer baby? 100? 1000? 1mio?


I wasn't the one who was picking and choosing a case of cells over baby Hitler, that was you deciding the fate of a baby which hasn't been molded by society to become a terrible person yet. I'd be more on the side that it's nurture over nature, and therefore the future of baby Hitler is unwritten. 

In your defense though, you also went on to say that the future isn't decided for a baby, which I completely agree with. But that just makes your baby Hitler comment moot, and leaves the hypothetical open. Would you choose a case of embryo's over a fully developed baby?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 3, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> In your defense though, you also went on to say that the future isn't decided for a baby, which I completely agree with. But that just makes your baby Hitler comment moot, and leaves the hypothetical open. Would you choose a case of embryo's over a fully developed baby?


I cannot define an exact border line at which I would choose the baby. I just argue that fetuses are not worthless. Define how many fetuses you are willing to sacrifice for your dog. How about your dog as a fetus?

I said we do not know whether we live in a deterministic universe. There are good arguments on both sides. 

I know the Bible verse you mentioned. I am not religious. I´d advocate for killing the rapist. But in some societies, it is the duty of the family to protect the virginity of a daughter; failing to do so is shameful in the eyes of society, to the point that marrying the rapist could be preferable. I don´t agree with it.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 3, 2022)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I cannot define an exact border line at which I would choose the baby. I just argue that fetuses are not worthless. Define how many fetuses you are willing to sacrifice for your dog. How about your dog as a fetus?


I had a similar conversation where we went over a couple other scenarios of when we'd choose the case over the baby. The only one which made sense was if the human race was going extinct. Although we're clearly not in that situation presently. Also, I'd choose my dog. Or to further drive a point home, a dog I've never seen before.



> I know the Bible verse you mentioned. I am not religious. I´d advocate for killing the rapist. But in some societies, it is the duty of the family to protect the virginity of a daughter; failing to do so is shameful in the eyes of society, to the point that marrying the rapist could be preferable. I don´t agree with it.


The whole prioritizing virginity is kind of outdated, but the idea of someone introducing someone else (especially children) to sex before they're ready is pure evil. If it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was committed, I'm all with you. Kill them off.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jul 3, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Lower taxes and less government intervention don't increase quality of life, higher wages and more government intervention increases quality of life. It isn't rocket science, government intervention means individuals can't ignore public interests in the pursuit of profits above all else i.e. polution and worker safety, and lower taxes means less money for public projects like roads and functioning sewers and ideally public health care like they have everywhere else in the world. That is how societies work~


lower taxes means higher wages, since businesses don't have to pay as much in taxes, therefore they will have an incentive to pay more in wages.

government intervention can be toned down a bit on our side as well, why can I go to war, vote, legally sign contracts, and get into debt, but not get a nice alcoholic beverage or smoke a pack of Newports? that's the kind of government intervention I'm on the side of removing, not stuff like "Oh you cannot make the environment worse" or intervention like that.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Letting the states decide their own laws enhances democracy, so the Supreme Court decision is still the right thing in principle if you value democracy.  Do you want to run the risk of a very conservative president getting elected & trying to pass restrictions at a federal level?
> 
> Now assuming this story of a 10 year old is true, it's clearly a case of rape and the victim would have to be more than 6 weeks pregnant as Ohio appears to be using the "heartbeat" law which caps abortions at 6 weeks, or at any week if the mother's life is threatened or "severely compromised physical health".
> 
> ...


Why Supreme Court and not the people?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 3, 2022)

smf said:


>



I take it that you don’t share the view that it has two components - the “broad strokes” that can be generally considered objective (things normally associated with natural law as defined in Greek philosophy, like right to life) and the subjective which is socially constructed (let’s define that as various religious precepts and other moral dogma)? Because it can be both, as demonstrated by some (not all) opinions listed in your previous link?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> First, that was as much about the right to not be exposed to the disease by anti-vaxxers as much as it was about anything else.
> 
> Second, I don't remember anyone seriously talking about requiring vaccination by law. Sure, there were policy positions that would require proof of vaccination under specific circumstances (public transit, working in a healthcare facility, etc.), but nobody's bodily autonomy rights were ever being violated.
> 
> Try again.



But see the problem is that it didn't work either way, you can take all the magic needles and still get sick, try again.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> But see the problem is that it didn't work either way, you can take all the magic needles and still get sick, try again.


Although effectiveness wanes over time, the vaccine is both safe and effective. It has saved millions of lives globally. If you don't want to get COVID-19, and if you don't want it to be serious if you do get it, the vaccine is the best choice you can make.

The conversation is about Roe, but feel free to try again.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> So you do believe the state should be allowed to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights? You're not making any sense.


No I don't think they should violate a person's bodily autonomy rights. Is that clear enough? It's not happening anyway so the point is moot.



SyphenFreht said:


> In a perfect Republican world, it wouldn't be, cuz everyone would have guns. But if all you people argue about is "personal responsibility", then both scenarios of abortion and legal homicide should be fine with you, since in both situations you have people handling their own problems without relying on the government or anyone else.


To libs and people like you, you already think murder is legal when it suits your narrative 


SyphenFreht said:


> Where?


Up my ass, where else? Just by reading the numerous posts in this thread alone you made.


SyphenFreht said:


> I mean, I have numbers and statistics to back me up. You just have idealistic dreams of control and hatred to back you.


Other way around as per usual. You don't have shit but propaganda that you can gladly shove it up your ass.


SyphenFreht said:


> Someone to debate with that isn't a Republican mouthpiece completely devoid of their own identity.


Once again, endless projection from a NPC liberal mouthpiece completely devoid on their own identity.


SyphenFreht said:


> I'm still curious to see where these "millions" of Americans are. So far you've done nothing but tackle on one faithless argument after another to prove you actually have a platform to debate on, which you don't.
> 
> The traditional values you're mentioning? That's "all men are created equal" and the separation of church and state, both of which seem to be oblivious to you and your Nazi-esque cohorts. Remember, the Nazis dehumanized a whole lot of people, the way Republicans are now by equating women to incubators. But that's ok because you guys are for the baby, despite not caring about it the minute it's born anyway.


Go outside and see the support for this decision. Hell, you can see it online in most places. The problem is, with most, is that you don't want to. You don't value human life, at all. Be it any stage in a persons life cycle. If it were up to people like you, the human race would die.


Nothereed said:


> the right to the choice, and bodily autonomy to an abortion, regardless of state, was indeed taken away. Instead of being accepted as a general right, you have to now question what state your living in, if you want to get one. And that's assuming  state governments such as Texas, don't make it a felony to get an abortion out of state, which their platform wants to do that, so go figure. Which by the way, a felony removes your right to vote in most cases.


No rights are being taken away. Get over it.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Although effectiveness wanes over time, the vaccine is both safe and effective. It has saved millions of lives globally. If you don't want to get COVID-19, and if you don't want it to be serious if you do get it, the vaccine is the best choice you can make.


I took the vaccine and I was fine, my friend took the vaccine and the next day vomited blood


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Although effectiveness wanes over time, the vaccine is both safe and effective. It has saved millions of lives globally.



so lemme ask you this, what are you mad at then?  lets say for the sake of argument you go out somewhere, MRNA'd to the tits and you pass someone and somehow, we have no idea how since covid is magic, they get sick and die, is that on you? should there be hatred toward you?  why is it that conformity is rewarded with a free ride?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 3, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> lower taxes means higher wages, since businesses don't have to pay as much in taxes, therefore they will have an incentive to pay more in wages.



Right but don't forget about standard of living costs and how they typically rise shortly after federal minimum wage increases, not to mention businesses raising their prices every time they suddenly have this extra money to pay employees with. It's why the "raise minimum wage" crowd gets it right on paper, but it never really makes a difference once it hits the streets. 

I do have to agree with you on this point just a bit: general quality of life could be improved with government touch, as long as boundaries exist. The government already has too much overreach on a lot of levels and in a lot of places. Dialing back certain reaches and allowing other ones more reach could definitely makes things a lot better for everyone involved, but the aspect of what in particular is best reserved for another thread. 

I can almost *guarantee* that if general quality of life was enhanced across the board in a way it couldn't be monetized for someone else's gain, you could definitely see a drop in the average number of abortions per year. While not all abortions grace this example by any means, a lot of these supposed abortions due to "irresponsibility" or "inconvenience" would disappear altogether if the mother generally felt safe and secure enough to keep the baby. Call that mentality what you will, it would cease to exist if there wasn't immediate fear for survival once that period skips.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> I took the vaccine and I was fine, my friend took the vaccine and the next day vomited blood



look unless the TV tells them something, they won't believe it, theyll pass it off as your friend being a racist or something.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jul 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> look unless the TV tells them something, they won't believe it, theyll pass it off as your friend being a racist or something.


He's doing fine now but he was sick for almost a month after he took the Pfizer one I think it was, but it shows the vaccine isn't as 'flawless' as some people say it is


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> No I don't think they should violate a person's bodily autonomy rights. Is that clear enough? It's not happening anyway so the point is moot.


If you don't think the state should be able to violate a person's bodily autonomy, then you are against state abortion bans.



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> I took the vaccine and I was fine, my friend took the vaccine and the next day vomited blood


There is no evidence I am aware of that the COVID vaccines cause "vomiting blood."



lolcatzuru said:


> so lemme ask you this, what are you mad at then?  lets say for the sake of argument you go out somewhere, MRNA'd to the tits and you pass someone and somehow, we have no idea how since covid is magic, they get sick and die, is that on you? should there be hatred toward you?  why is it that conformity is rewarded with a free ride?


If a person does everything a reasonable person would do to prevent the spread of COVID, then no, they should not feel bad if they contract it and give it to someone else. If a person acts recklessly (not getting vaccinated, going out in public with symptoms, etc.), then they should feel bad if they give it to someone.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> He's doing fine now but he was sick for almost a month after he took the Pfizer one I think it was, but it shows the vaccine isn't as 'flawless' as some people say it is



glad to hear your friend is ok (though long term who knows) but this is the ultimate form of irony, because people like this will say " well yea of course no treatment is safe"  and ignore the people who have died or been injured by the vaccine, its collateral damage to that person because it lines up with their ideals, but when someone goes against what CNN tells them, they are are the problem. This person could be responsible for more covid deaths than an unvaccinated person but because he has a piece of paper saying he's special, he just blindly claims everyone else is the problem.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you don't think the state should be able to violate a person's bodily autonomy, then you are against state abortion bans.
> 
> 
> There is no evidence I am aware of that the COVID vaccines cause "vomiting blood."
> ...



so then you are fine if someone dies from covid even if you got the magic needle?


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you don't think the state should be able to violate a person's bodily autonomy, then you are against state abortion bans.
> 
> 
> There is no evidence I am aware of that the COVID vaccines cause "vomiting blood."
> ...


Isn't it a coincidence this happended literally like a day after?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> so then you are fine if someone dies from covid even if you got the magic needle?


I'm not fine with it, but as long as I acted responsibly, I wouldn't beat myself up over it. Do you have a point?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Isn't it a coincidence this happended literally like a day after?


in fairness, theres evidence for much worse than vomiting blood.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I'm not fine with it, but as long as I acted responsibly, I wouldn't beat myself up over it. Do you have a point?



I'm just trying to see how far this rabbit hole goes, you admitted that you wouldn't "beat yourself up" over someone that died, because you" acted responsibly, what difference does it make? you can always be more responsible, always.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Isn't it a coincidence this happended literally like a day after?


When millions of people get vaccinated in a country, coincidences happen. The way to know if a side effect was the result of the vaccine is to look and see if incidents of things increased compared to before COVID and the vaccine. Incidents of "vomiting blood" did not increase compared to previous years.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> I'm just trying to see how far this rabbit hole goes, you admitted that you wouldn't "beat yourself up" over someone that died, because you" acted responsibly, what difference does it make? you can always be more responsible, always.


I really don't see your point. If I didn't intend to get someone sick, and if I acted responsibly so that I minimized the risk of someone getting sick, I'm not responsible.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> When millions of people get vaccinated in a country, coincidences happen. The way to know if a side effect was the result of the vaccine is to look and see if incidents of things increased compared to before COVID and the vaccine. Incidents of "vomiting blood" did not increase compared to previous years.


Well 1 in a million could happen, not to sound paranoid or anything but this does happen to people and new doesn't report everything
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/covid-jab-death-blood-clot-jack-last-b2112982.html
Take a look at this, another coincidence?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 3, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> No I don't think they should violate a person's bodily autonomy rights.



WHAT!?



BitMasterPlus said:


> To libs and people like you, you already think murder is legal when it suits your narrative



Aren't you for the death penalty? 



BitMasterPlus said:


> Up my ass, where else? Just by reading the numerous posts in this thread alone you made.



Is it up your ass because you won't abort it?



BitMasterPlus said:


> Other way around as per usual. You don't have shit but propaganda that you can gladly shove it up your ass.



Just because you like propaganda up your ass (see above) doesn't mean the rest of the class likes it. 

But no, I jest. 

Hey listen, that was about like, Republicans winning wars and movements and stuff. If I'm having a hard time coming up with some, and you're having a hard time coming up with some, and one else here thought of one enough to interject, then there probably not many. Tell you what. Remind me later tomorrow night (EST) and maybe we'll look some up together? Maybe I can help you PowerPoint them.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Once again, endless projection from a NPC liberal mouthpiece completely devoid on their own identity.



"I know you are but what am I?"

Wait, I think I used that one.

"I'm rubber and you're glue, everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you"



BitMasterPlus said:


> Go outside and see the support for this decision. Hell, you can see it online in most places. The problem is, with most, is that you don't want to. You don't value human life, at all. Be it any stage in a persons life cycle. If it were up to people like you, the human race would die.



I've lived in a deeply red state for over a decade and I've seen more prophets of God in the streets than anything pro whatever dehumanization technique Republicans support next, including pro lifers. Sure, that's just me and there's 49 other states out there and I'm certainly not implying that every state is exactly the same, but that's why my first sentence was "I've yet to see...".

If it was up to me? Not really. Not the whole human race. Just those that dehumanize others.



BitMasterPlus said:


> No rights are being taken away. Get over it.



Babies don't have the right to life. Get over it.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I really don't see your point. If I didn't intend to get someone sick, and if I acted responsibly so that I minimized the risk of someone getting sick, I'm not responsible.



well great, i dont intend to get someone sick, and i can be totally responsible by washing my hands ( even though that doesnt work) and wearing a mask ( even though that also doesnt work) and there shouldnt be any problem right? that was the whole point, and since it doesnt stop or reduce spread, the vaccine is only really helping me, so with what im doing, im actually being more responsible.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Well 1 in a million could happen, not to sound paranoid or anything but this does happen to people and new doesn't report everything


We've had enough vaccinations to clearly see "one in a million" side effects pop up in the data.



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/covid-jab-death-blood-clot-jack-last-b2112982.html
> Take a look at this, another coincidence?


We've known for a long time that there's a very rare clotting side effect with the viral vector vaccines (not the mRNA ones).


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well great, i dont intend to get someone sick, and i can be totally responsible by washing my hands ( even though that doesnt work) and wearing a mask ( even though that also doesnt work) and there shouldnt be any problem right? that was the whole point, and since it doesnt stop or reduce spread, the vaccine is only really helping me, so with what im doing, im actually being more responsible.


If you aren't vaccinated, you aren't acting to the best of your ability to minimize the risk of infecting others.

What does this have to do with Roe?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you aren't vaccinated, you aren't acting to the best of your ability to minimize the risk of infecting others.
> 
> What does this have to do with Roe?



well if you arent responsible with sex, and you get pregnant, you arent doing everything with your power to minmize pregnancy

btw no amount of shots will reduce transmission, by the way.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> We've had enough vaccinations to clearly see "one in a million" side effects pop up in the data.
> 
> 
> We've known for a long time that there's a very rare clotting side effect with the viral vector vaccines (not the mRNA ones).


Alright take a look at this
https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/corona.html#vaccines


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well if you arent responsible with sex, and you get pregnant, you arent doing everything with your power to minmize pregnancy


Contraception is not 100% effective. Contraception is not equally accessible by all Americans. Right wing politicians work to make contraception and education about contraception difficult to get.

Whether or not a woman uses contraception is also irrelevant to whether or not she should have a right to bodily autonomy. Sex, responsible or not, isn't necessarily consent to get or stay pregnant.

Do you believe the state should be able to violate a person's bodily autonomy?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Alright take a look at this
> https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/corona.html#vaccines


If you want me to respond to a point, actually make it. I clicked your last link, but unless it's a source to backup something you actually said, I'm not interested in having a conversation with myself.



lolcatzuru said:


> btw no amount of shots will reduce transmission, by the way.


The vaccine reduces one's risk of getting infected, which means you've reduced the risk of getting someone else sick.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you want me to respond to a point, actually make it. I clicked your last link, but unless it's a source to backup something you actually said, I'm not interested in having a conversation with myself.
> 
> 
> The vaccine reduces one's risk of getting infected, which means you've reduced the risk of getting someone else sick.
> ...


I would but it's a lot to uncover


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Contraception is not 100% effective. Contraception is not equally accessible by all Americans. Right wing politicians work to make contraception and education about contraception difficult to get.
> 
> Whether or not a woman uses contraception is also irrelevant to whether or not she should have a right to bodily autonomy. Sex, responsible or not, isn't necessarily consent to get or stay pregnant.
> 
> Do you believe the state should be able to violate a person's bodily autonomy?



sure they arent, but hey, as long as you are responsible, who cares about collateral damage right?  

Honestly, abortion isn't something im overly invested in ( as a man/incel) but i support the bans out of spite, because this wasn't a concern with the magic needle, and it wasnt a concern with gun control, its only a concern when liberals dont get what they want.  

As far as my actual stance, i don't care much for the practice, as i think it generates a lack of discipline, but i think there are some people who may need it, and those people will suffer, but you should be ok with that because you are doing whatever you can to be responsible.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you want me to respond to a point, actually make it. I clicked your last link, but unless it's a source to backup something you actually said, I'm not interested in having a conversation with myself.
> 
> 
> The vaccine reduces one's risk of getting infected, which means you've reduced the risk of getting someone else sick.



thats not true actually even if you don't get sick you can ABSOLUTELY get someone else sick, magic needle or not.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> sure they arent, but hey, as long as you are responsible, who cares about collateral damage right?
> 
> Honestly, abortion isn't something im overly invested in ( as a man/incel) but i support the bans out of spite, because this wasn't a concern with the magic needle, and it wasnt a concern with gun control, its only a concern when liberals dont get what they want.
> 
> As far as my actual stance, i don't care much for the practice, as i think it generates a lack of discipline, but i think there are some people who may need it, and those people will suffer, but you should be ok with that because you are doing whatever you can to be responsible.


Do you believe the state should be able to violate a person's bodily autonomy? Because that would set a dangerous precedent. If a woman's bodily autonomy can be violated by the state, so can yours.



lolcatzuru said:


> thats not true actually even if you don't get sick you can ABSOLUTELY get someone else sick, magic needle or not.


If you don't get infected, you cannot spread the disease to someone else.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Do you believe the state should be able to violate a person's bodily autonomy? Because that would set a dangerous precedent. If a woman's bodily autonomy can be violated by the state, so can yours.
> 
> 
> If you don't get infected, you cannot spread the disease to someone else.




no i don't but brandon opened that door, im just walking through it.

again, this is absolutely not true, if that were true then... there would be no more infections right? and the rona would be gone right?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> I would but it's a lot to uncover



he won't believe anything you show him, so what's the point.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> no i don't


Then you are against state abortion bans.



lolcatzuru said:


> again, this is absolutely not true, if that were true then... there would be no more infections right? and the rona would be gone right?


The vaccine reduces one's risk of getting infected, but it isn't 100% effective, and efficacy wanes over time. We also have plenty of people who are not vaccinated and spreading disease.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> he won't believe anything you show him, so what's the point.


I believe any reputable science shown to me. There are established side effects with the COVID vaccines, but anecdotes are not data. I've already explained above how side effects are actually established.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Then you are against state abortion bans.
> 
> 
> The vaccine reduces one's risk of getting infected, but it isn't 100% effective, and efficacy wanes over time. We also have plenty of people who are not vaccinated and spreading disease.



so then not only did you just lie, but you admitted i was right.  But what's your point about people who aren't vaxxed?  if you admitted that the vaccine wanes over time the doesn't that mean you are still doing damage?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I believe any reputable science shown to me. There are established side effects with the COVID vaccines, but anecdotes are not data. I've already explained above how side effects are actually established.



well define "reputable science?" is it only reputable if its from a person from a blue state?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> so then not only did you just lie, but you admitted i was right.  But what's your point about people who aren't vaxxed?  if you admitted that the vaccine wanes over time the doesn't that mean you are still doing damage?


Where did I lie?



lolcatzuru said:


> well define "reputable science?" is it only reputable if its from a person from a blue state?


That isn't what reputable science is, and your comment doesn't appear to be in good faith. Reputable science is from an unbiased source without an agenda, it's peer reviewed, it makes use of scientific methods, etc.

Again, this isn't the vaccine thread. It's the Roe thread.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Where did I lie?
> 
> 
> That isn't what reputable science is, and your comment doesn't appear to be in good faith. Reputable science is from an unbiased source without an agenda, it's peer reviewed, it makes use of scientific methods, etc.
> ...



well peered reviewed science can definitely be fraudulent, what difference would that make?

that's true,  it is a roe thread, and i made me stance clear: people don't mind myocarditis from brandon, but do mind not being able to get abortions, sucks to suck.

edit: also you lied when you said that if you are vaccinated you can't give it to anyone else, and then when i said you were wrong, you moved the goal post and said it that nothing is 100% effective, that's a lie.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> well peered reviewed science can definitely be fraudulent, what difference would that make?


It's significantly less likely than with studies that aren't peer reviewed.



lolcatzuru said:


> that's true,  it is a roe thread, and i made me stance clear: people don't mind myocarditis from brandon, but do mind not being able to get abortions, sucks to suck.


The side effects like myocarditis with the vaccines are extremely rare, we have mitigations in place against them, they generally aren't life threatening, and your risk of these things is significantly higher with actually contracting COVID-19. Most importantly though, it's wholly irrelevant to the topic of Roe.



lolcatzuru said:


> edit: also you lied when you said that if you are vaccinated you can't give it to anyone else


I never said vaccinated people can't give it to anyone else. I said vaccinated people are less likely to get it and spread it to someone else.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It's significantly less likely than with studies that aren't peer reviewed.
> 
> 
> The side effects like myocarditis with the vaccines are extremely rare, we have mitigations in place against them, they generally aren't life threatening, and your risk of these things is significantly higher with actually contracting COVID-19. Most importantly though, it's wholly irrelevant to the topic of Roe.
> ...



1.  do you have a source on that?

2.  it's actually about the same, also thats a lie that its irelevant to roe


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you don't think the state should be able to violate a person's bodily autonomy, then you are against state abortion bans.


No  I'm not.


SyphenFreht said:


> WHAT!?


What?


SyphenFreht said:


> Aren't you for the death penalty?


It's different when someone willingly murders and mutilates a body in cold blood vs. an unborn child who has not lived their life yet, don't try to equate the two.


SyphenFreht said:


> Is it up your ass because you won't abort it?


Better than having my head up my ass like you


SyphenFreht said:


> Just because you like propaganda up your ass (see above) doesn't mean the rest of the class likes it.
> But no, I jest.
> Hey listen, that was about like, Republicans winning wars and movements and stuff. If I'm having a hard time coming up with some, and you're having a hard time coming up with some, and one else here thought of one enough to interject, then there probably not many. Tell you what. Remind me later tomorrow night (EST) and maybe we'll look some up together? Maybe I can help you PowerPoint them.


Ok NPC. And no thanks, I'm busy doing plenty of other stuff.


SyphenFreht said:


> "I know you are but what am I?"
> 
> Wait, I think I used that one.
> 
> "I'm rubber and you're glue, everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you"


Hey, it continues to work every time a bad insult and or projection is thrown.


SyphenFreht said:


> I've lived in a deeply red state for over a decade and I've seen more prophets of God in the streets than anything pro whatever dehumanization technique Republicans support next, including pro lifers. Sure, that's just me and there's 49 other states out there and I'm certainly not implying that every state is exactly the same, but that's why my first sentence was "I've yet to see...".
> 
> If it was up to me? Not really. Not the whole human race. Just those that dehumanize others.


You already dehumanize others, and the majority is out there, whether you see it or not.


SyphenFreht said:


> Babies don't have the right to life. Get over it.


Yes they do. Roe v. Wade is done, and red states are banning abortion. Get over it.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Sex, not responsible, isn't necessarily consent to get pregnant.


If you stick you hand near an alligators mouth with all the warning signs you know what your going to get


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 3, 2022)

SG854 said:


> If you stick you hand near an alligators mouth with all the warning signs you know what your going to get


my god how many times do we have to go through this. Contraceptives,
ARE
NOT
100%
Effective
And saying "just Abstain"
is a stupid, and ignorant response.
Lets also not forget there is such insane shit  such as child trapping (go look it up on r/childfree. horrifying concept that wants to make me vomit) (tl;dr the concept is that a man or women intentionally sabotages the contraceptive in order to force the other person into a relationship through pregnancy.)
Sex being boiled down to "touch hotstove get burned" 
Is an extremely gross simplification.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 3, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> my god how many times do we have to go through this. Contraceptives,
> ARE
> NOT
> 100%
> ...


Uh Huh, respond back to me when you can read better


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 3, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Uh Huh, respond back to me when you can read better


And you clearly didn't read the end of my statement. (or it may of not updated to show there)
You literally don't take into account of sabotage, which is far more prevalent than I'd like to hear. People can have sex, and not consent to a child. You literally need both parties to consent to that. With what I mentioned (child trapping) I just essentially proved that two parties can consent to sex, and ONE of them decides it's time for a child without proper consent. Which would count as "irresponsible sex" because one of the parties was acting responsible, and the other was not.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 3, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> And you clearly didn't read the end of my statement. (or it may of not updated to show there)
> You literally don't take into account of sabotage, which is far more prevalent than I'd like to hear. People can have sex, and not consent to a child. You literally need both parties to consent to that. With what I mentioned (child trapping) I just essentially proved that two parties can consent to sex, and ONE of them decides it's time for a child without proper consent. Which would count as "irresponsible sex" because one of the parties was acting responsible, and the other was not.


You still lack reading skills


----------



## SG854 (Jul 3, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> And you clearly didn't read the end of my statement. (or it may of not updated to show there)
> You literally don't take into account of sabotage, which is far more prevalent than I'd like to hear. People can have sex, and not consent to a child. You literally need both parties to consent to that. With what I mentioned (child trapping) I just essentially proved that two parties can consent to sex, and ONE of them decides it's time for a child without proper consent. Which would count as "irresponsible sex" because one of the parties was acting responsible, and the other was not.


Let me redefine your terms 

Responsible Sex
Irresponsible Sex
Sabattoged Sex


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 3, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> No rights are being taken away. Get over it.


Dude. You know what? Let's play a tiny thought experiment.
Say I go to Texas, in 2014. Or for that matter, ANY state. And I would be guaranteed (if I was born as a a women, or reproductive organs of one)  to still have the choice to get an abortion. Now if we play that same game, but now. I don't get that guarantee. I now have to know what the states laws are on the matter ahead of time, before even being there, or else I might get a *felony* for attempting to get an abortion.


SG854 said:


> You still lack reading skills


Alright let's play from the top
"Sex, not responsible, isn't necessarily consent to get pregnant."
This is a modified quote you made from Lacious, here's the original quote


Lacius said:


> Whether or not a woman uses contraception is also irrelevant to whether or not she should have a right to bodily autonomy. Sex, responsible or not, isn't necessarily consent to get or stay pregnant.


Now your response to him


SG854 said:


> If you stick you hand near an alligators mouth with all the warning signs you know what your going to get


Okay. Now let's look at what I said, the most relevant part, since I gave three arguments that are relating to each other.

The last bit


Nothereed said:


> Lets also not forget there is such insane shit such as child trapping (go look it up on r/childfree. horrifying concept that wants to make me vomit) (tl;dr the concept is that a man or women intentionally sabotages the contraceptive in order to force the other person into a relationship through pregnancy.)
> Sex being boiled down to "touch hotstove get burned"
> Is an extremely gross simplification.



in this last statement I make two arguments.
1. it's possible for one to believe that they are having responsible sex, while the other party makes it irresponsible.
2. as a result of that argument, I point out that boiling it down to something as simple as that, is stupid.
Damn near, NO ONE, is arguing that having unprotected sex will not result in a child. What I am arguing however, is that it's possible for a party, to believe that their condom is working, or that their partner is using it. When said partner than can say, remove the condom right before finishing. Or, the birth control being tampered with, or not being taken at all.


SG854 said:


> Let me redefine your terms
> 
> Responsible Sex
> Irresponsible Sex
> Sabattoged Sex


of course your going to redefine midway as I'm making a response. _sigh_
alright. I'll play be those terms, and make a new argument.
How can one have irresponsible sex, and not consent to a baby? *how about if contraceptives were banned*
or how about a lack of proper sex education? Which for the sex ed issue, the states really REALLY likes to not teach that.
And for the contraceptives part... well let's look at the court.
“_n future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” he wrote, referring to the Supreme Court cases that found a privacy-enshrined right to contraception, sexual contact with someone of the same sex, and same-sex marriage. Thomas, who is Black, did not explicitly mention interracial marriage in his statement, though the Supreme Court ruling, Loving v. Virginia, is founded on the same legal principle"_

Or what if one of the parties is drunk? Or [put mind altering thing here]
 Would they once they're not completely wasted still consent to having a child? No. They may of consented to having sex that night, but a child? No. And that is DEFINITELY irresponsible sex. I'm pointing out that "irresponsible sex" can happen for a variety of reasons. and just thinking that two people just randomly decide to rog dog without thinking of the possibility of a child (even then lust in the heat of the moment during intimacy can definitely break logic too so there's that too, it requires one of the parties to be of reason, which can be rather difficult. ) is incredibly short sighted.
And it's also unrealistic to say to not have sex.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 3, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Dude. You know what? Let's play a tiny thought experiment.
> Say I go to Texas, in 2014. Or for that matter, ANY state. And I would be guaranteed (if I was born as a a women, or reproductive organs of one)  to still have the choice to get an abortion. Now if we play that same game, but now. I don't get that guarantee. I now have to know what the states laws are on the matter ahead of time, before even being there, or else I might get a *felony* for attempting to get an abortion.
> 
> Alright let's play from the top
> ...


Nature doesn't care if you consent or not. You are going to get pregnant if you have sex irresponsible. Sticking your hand in a pond of electric eels you know the outcome regardless if you say you did not consent. 

Women that drink and drive and kill are responsible for their actions. They go to jail. The same can be extended to sex.

Putting mind altering drugs is not consent and it's rape.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 3, 2022)

I support abortion @mrdude since you liked my comment. Just letting you know.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jul 3, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Right but don't forget about standard of living costs and how they typically rise shortly after federal minimum wage increases, not to mention businesses raising their prices every time they suddenly have this extra money to pay employees with. It's why the "raise minimum wage" crowd gets it right on paper, but it never really makes a difference once it hits the streets.


That is true, anytime wages are raised, prices just increase. That's why I want the minimum wage raised, but also want it to stay the same because prices would most likely go up to be the exact same money pit as when the minimum wage was the lower price, just more expensive then when the minimum wage was lower.



SyphenFreht said:


> I do have to agree with you on this point just a bit: general quality of life could be improved with government touch, as long as boundaries exist. The government already has too much overreach on a lot of levels and in a lot of places. Dialing back certain reaches and allowing other ones more reach could definitely makes things a lot better for everyone involved, but the aspect of what in particular is best reserved for another thread.


Yeah, government overreach into some areas should be repealed back, in fact, I think federal taxes in their current form are another form of government overreach at this point, but, as you said, that's reserved for another thread.

we do need limits on what intervention is repealed as well, considering if the federal government completely withdrew, we'd probably go back to ground up fingers in the hamburger meat and multiple people dying a day from suffocation because the smog is so thick.



SyphenFreht said:


> I can almost *guarantee* that if general quality of life was enhanced across the board in a way it couldn't be monetized for someone else's gain, you could definitely see a drop in the average number of abortions per year. While not all abortions grace this example by any means, a lot of these supposed abortions due to "irresponsibility" or "inconvenience" would disappear altogether if the mother generally felt safe and secure enough to keep the baby. Call that mentality what you will, it would cease to exist if there wasn't immediate fear for survival once that period skips.


Pretty weird to call the mentality "What you will", but I suppose there have been weirder names.

Dad jokes aside, if the standard of living was raised without prices being raised completely, I'd have to completely agree. At this point, abortions are done because women don't feel safe bringing a kid into the world, or because they (or the baby) would die if they gave birth. If the standard living was raised, we'd get less of the first, and that'd be a win in my book.

As much as I don't want abortions to happen after a certain time period, I do understand they must happen in specific circumstances, and raising the standard of living would defiantly be a win in my book in that department, as most women wouldn't need that reason anymore.


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Letting the states decide their own laws enhances democracy, so the Supreme Court decision is still the right thing in principle if you value democracy.  Do you want to run the risk of a very conservative president getting elected & trying to pass restrictions at a federal level?


If the president was elected by a democratic process and not an out of date system designed to limit democratic power, I'd have to yield the point... Of course, fixing the country so as to bypass gerrymandering and allow the masses to work towards their own destiny would mean even a rogue President would have to work with the checks and balances around them to deny a right to bodily autonomy. As for letting the states decide for themselves, I despise the idea as it pits powers inside the country against its own interests for self centered gains.



NoobletCheese said:


> Now assuming this story of a 10 year old is true, it's clearly a case of rape and the victim would have to be more than 6 weeks pregnant as Ohio appears to be using the "heartbeat" law which caps abortions at 6 weeks, or at any week if the mother's life is threatened or "severely compromised physical health".


It isn't uncommon for women to be late a week or two, particularly due to stress. It gets even more complicates should bleeding occur, which is again not unheard of and can lead to a false negative regarding pregnancy. Six weeks is simply insufficient, but you seem interested in this topic so I'm sure you're well versed in female anatomy and functions. You're cool like that!



NoobletCheese said:


> For adults I don't have too much of an issue with Ohio's law as adults are generally mature enough to identify rape and use contraception within 6 weeks of the crime.  But children don't necessarily have that level of maturity so perhaps they deserve special consideration and should be allowed to have later abortions.
> 
> Now the hard question for you is: at what month would you cap abortions, and what would you do if this 10 year old girl was already past that month?


Not a hard question at all. There is no cap. If it is in the womb, it can meet its doom.

Put bluntly, an abortion isn't a form of birth control, it is family planning. NO WOMAN EVER WANTS AN ABORTION JUST SO THEY CAN NOT HAVE A KID AFTER HAVING SEX. That is what condoms, injections, pills, stupid mesh that cuts into people, and a myriad of other goodies are for. An abortion is an action of last resort, and there are a countless number of perfectly good reasons women might find to get one depending on their individual circumstances, ranging from financial issues to risks to personal health to being mislead or raped to just knowing they aren't ready to be a good parent. 

The longer a pregnancy goes on, the more the WOMAN has to deal with the pains and problems of the abortion, but it is their body being used for this process. The fetus could be singing with the voice of an angel the mathematical solutions  to the calculus of the universe a month before it is ready to be brought into the world, and I wouldn't flinch for a second if their mother made the call to abort because it could well end her life to even try delivering. I might raise an eyebrow if the mother just thought their kid to be was tone deaf and didn't want them brought into the world and threaten Beyonce's dominance, but wouldn't deny the abortion even if I could see into the future they just wanted their bodily autonomy back so they could do drugs and lick drywall for a week. It doesn't matter because a woman still has to deal with those repercussions in order to enact their own bodily autonomy men take for granted. 

Is it the best idea in every circumstance? Maybe not. What boys here seem to forget is that the would be mother is in the best position to make that call and nobody but her and her doctor working for her best interest and information (like ADVISING inducing rather than aborting at 8 months because that would be so much less dangerous and less effort!) should get the chance to say booboo about it. End of story.


KennyAtom said:


> lower taxes means higher wages, since businesses don't have to pay as much in taxes, therefore they will have an incentive to pay more in wages.


Yeah, this theory has been tried out before to not much success. Having more money does NOT equal more incentive to pay more in wages, having government step in and ensure competition can thrive and setting strong baselines with government positions and federal minimum wages does. A business will always find a way to make a profit or die, and it will always afford the minimum amount of workers to do the most work for the maximum amount of profit, and that means no matter what government does to regulate them they'll still exist and hire people... until maybe the people utilize the government to make all jobs owned and sanctioned by the state, but that is a whole other can of worms~


KennyAtom said:


> government intervention can be toned down a bit on our side as well, why can I go to war, vote, legally sign contracts, and get into debt, but not get a nice alcoholic beverage or smoke a pack of Newports? that's the kind of government intervention I'm on the side of removing, not stuff like "Oh you cannot make the environment worse" or intervention like that.


Why can a woman join the military (which I did) and be trusted with the well being of others, but not be trusted to manage their own body and how it should be utilized? My family might have had three children... and it might have had one less parent, and clear signs of bad getting worse weren't apparent until after some time had passed. Anybody who says that call wasn't the right one had best brace their nose for impact because that sort of thing happens all the time and it is damn well worth fighting for.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jul 3, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Why can a woman join the military (which I did) and be trusted with the well being of others, but not be trusted to manage their own body and how it should be utilized? My family might have had three children... and it might have had one less parent, and clear signs of bad getting worse weren't apparent until after some time had passed. Anybody who says that call wasn't the right one had best brace their nose for impact because that sort of thing happens all the time and it is damn well worth fighting for.


Honestly, I don't know much about this at all, which is why I most likely seem uninformed most of the time.

I do try and stay informed, to the best of my abilities, but sometimes I don't know.

All in all, government overreach is bad, and most things should be left up to the states. Abortion I'm not sure about, but most other things should be.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 3, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Contraceptives,
> ARE
> NOT
> 100%
> Effective


Women are only fertile part of the month. If one can keep track of the moon or a modern calendar, it is 100% effective. Coitus interruptus is also 100% effective unless the man is an unexperienced 17-year-old. Put both together and a nuclear war with Russia is more likely.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 3, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> It's different when someone willingly murders and mutilates a body in cold blood vs. an unborn child who has not lived their life yet, don't try to equate the two.



Aren't the both of them human?



BitMasterPlus said:


> You already dehumanize others, and the majority is out there, whether you see it or not.



I dehumanize others? Is that apparent in my defense of women's bodily autonomy? 



BitMasterPlus said:


> Yes they do. Roe v. Wade is done, and red states are banning abortion. Get over it.



Show me in the Constitution where they explicitly have the right to life.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 3, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> All in all, government overreach is bad, and most things should be left up to the states.


States are goverments too you know


----------



## KennyAtom (Jul 3, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> States are goverments too you know


I stand by what I said (any government overreach, federal or state, is bad).


----------



## mrdude (Jul 3, 2022)

SG854 said:


> I support abortion @mrdude since you liked my comment. Just letting you know.


I also support it in special circumstances. Rape/Incest or when there's going to be a bad disability to the child or the mothers life is in danger because of the pregnancy, or a genetic abnormality in the family history where the kid is likely to have a poor life plagued with illness and die young.
As for normal healthy females that got pregnant because they just liked having sex and failed to use protection or take the morning after pill, will that's a different matter.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It's both. That was kind of the point. Gender is a social/cultural construct. Thanks for agreeing.
> 
> 
> One's biological sex doesn't necessarily comport with one's gender, and that's without even mentioning being intersex.


You know who said that sex was a social construct? Those who, in the 20th century, would force homosexuals into conversion theories to make them straight.

So what you're saying is that homosexuality is an invention and it's not natural, and we know that in nature it exists, it's not a human creation, it's very natural.

Gender is NOT a social construct, homosexuals are homosexuals since the day they are born, it's NOT something "they learned from society" as you say.

How we VIEW sexuality is a social construct, but the fact that humans are either male or female, that's nature, that's human, that's the real world we live in.

You know, trans people are trans becase they transition from one sex to the other. If sex/gender is a social construct, then so is being trans, and as far as science goes, gender disphoria and homosexuality appear to be innate, not a socially motivated conduct.

Now I wanna know, who is the real homophobe here?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 3, 2022)

mrdude said:


> when there's going to be a bad disability to the child [...], or a genetic abnormality in the family history where the kid is likely to have a poor life plagued with illness and die young.


Oh so basically eugenics are ok, but poverty and immaturity aren't?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

SG854 said:


> If you stick you hand near an alligators mouth with all the warning signs you know what your going to get


Whether or not someone makes a stupid decision is irrelevant to whether or not their bodily autonomy should be taken away. We don't punish the alligator bite victim by refusing medical care, lol.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

Acid_Snake said:


> You know who said that sex was a social construct? Those who, in the 20th century, would force homosexuals into conversion theories to make them straight.
> 
> So what you're saying is that homosexuality is an invention and it's not natural, and we know that in nature it exists, it's not a human creation, it's very natural.
> 
> ...


I didn't say sex was a social construct. I said gender was a social construct. You seem to be confusing the two.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Why?  I mean it's not a baby's fault they were incorrectly conceived.   Either they have moral value or they don't.   If not, then why not allow it across the board?
> 
> And I think it's fair calling it a baby as "any point of the pregnancy" could be so close to birth so as to be practically indistinguishable from a literal baby.
> 
> So you have proposed that babies may be killed if they were incorrectly conceived.   I'm not saying you can't have this opinion but you would have to justify it if the burden of proof is on the killer.



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 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 for the right to abort for medical reasons after that in particular circumstances, such as 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 insemination was forced upon the woman.

However, I think about the practical effects of these restrictions after consciousness. How are we going to verify if the woman had valid reasons to abort, and should we trust a third-party to judge the decision? The woman would be subject to expose potentially sensible information on her private life, and she could be exposed to several interferences that make the abortion inviable. As we know, there are plenty of people that put themselves in positions of power to submit others to their political, social, or religious dogmas, and the same would happen here. Before the due process is concluded, or before there’s a chance to appeal, we’d see pregnancies carried to term and pregnancies aborted in the same set of personal circumstances, but with different arbitrary decisions imposed by people of authority.

The right to abortion brought with it a bigger emancipation and financial success for women, along with reduced criminal rates. By forcing a baby into the world, we might be often condemning a woman and a child to a life of misery and unhappiness, as well as levelling down the quality of society. The future potentially miserable existence of a non-rational being (the fetus) shouldn't take precedence over the preference of a rational being (the mother). She knows best about her life, she knows how well she'll be able to provide for her child; she has the right to choose which life she wants to live and what responsibilities to carry.

Ultimately, the most elegant and safest idea would be to just allow a woman the right to decide whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy. There are some things in which the state shouldn’t have a say – as we’ve seen in the past and in the present, an overreaching state only stagnates personal and collective lives into mediocrity, and dehumanizes and traumatizes people in the process.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jul 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> he won't believe anything you show him, so what's the point.


Or he'd just say really rare (even though it happens)


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Or he'd just say really rare (even though it happens)


The odds of serious side effects with the COVID-19 vaccines, particularly the mRNA vaccines, are vanishingly small, and these risks are broadly more likely with actually contracting COVID-19. However, that is not the same thing as saying these risks don't exist. I don't know what your point is, and I don't know what it has to do with Roe.

The COVID-19 vaccines are relatively safe and effective, and they've saved millions of lives. Next time you talk about me, have the courage to tag me or respond to one of my posts directly.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The odds of serious side effects with the COVID-19 vaccines, particularly the mRNA vaccines, are vanishingly small, and these risks are broadly more likely with actually contracting COVID-19. However, that is not the same thing as saying these risks don't exist. I don't know what your point is, and I don't know what it has to do with Roe.
> 
> The COVID-19 vaccines are relatively safe and effective, and they've saved millions of lives. Next time you talk about me, have the courage to tag me or respond to one of my posts directly.


@Lacius My point is vaccines aren't as secure as everyone says, please don't try mock me with the "have courage to tag me or respond", like just don't be like that


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> @Lacius My point is vaccines aren't as secure as everyone says


The vaccines have been demonstrated to be relatively safe and effective.



WiiMiiSwitch said:


> please don't try mock me with the "have courage to tag me or respond", like just don't be like that


I was not mocking you, but if you want someone to see something you wrote, you need to tag them or respond to one of their posts directly.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The vaccines have been demonstrated to be relatively safe and effective.
> 
> 
> I was not mocking you, but if you want someone to see something you wrote, you need to tag them or respond to one of their posts directly.


Yeah "relatively" safe not 100%, I took it I was fine, but it doesn't go for evryone. I know many people who took it and became sick for days, not just the one person who vomtted blood


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jul 3, 2022)

@WiiMiiSwitch the concept of a vaccine is to inject a weakened version of the illness into your body, so that the body learns how to defend itself against it. If those people became sick with the vaccine, imagine if they had been infected with the virus.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I didn't say sex was a social construct. I said gender was a social construct. You seem to be confusing the two.


Yeah you are right, sex and gender is not the same thing. Humans have a sex, objects have a gender.

Which is why you imply with your theories that trans people aren't normal people, but objects that have to be categorized into genders.

I on the other hand view thans people are any other human being, they don't have a gender, because they aren't objects that you can classify, they are individual human beings that were born with one sex and transitioned into the opposite sex.

There's no mystery mumbo jumbo black magic flat earth theory needed here.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

Acid_Snake said:


> Yeah you are right, sex and gender is not the same thing. Humans have a sex, objects have a gender.
> 
> Which is why you imply with your theories that trans people aren't normal people, but objects that have to be categorized into genders.
> 
> ...


Humans have gender, and I have no idea what this has to do with Roe.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jul 3, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> @WiiMiiSwitch the concept of a vaccine is to inject a weakened version of the illness into your body, so that the body learns how to defend itself against it. If those people became sick with the vaccine, imagine if they had been infected with the virus.


Ok, so vomiting blood is just acceptable?!


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jul 3, 2022)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Ok, so vomiting blood is just acceptable?!



Of course not, but you surely know we can have histories of people vomiting blood after eating a croissant, if there's inclination to be against croissants. Correlation doesn't mean causation, and we should consider the medical history of the person.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Jul 3, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> Of course not, but you surely know we can have histories of people vomiting blood after eating a croissant, if there's inclination to be against croissants. Correlation doesn't mean causation, and we should consider the medical history of the person.


Sorry to get all mad just confused by why you brought that up


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Humans have gender, and I have no idea what this has to do with Roe.


Human gender is tied to their sex, the same doesn't apply to objects.

English isn't even a gendered language so I don't know what the fuss is all about in English-speaking countries.

And even when you get to study gendered languages like Spanish or any other Latin-derived language, you will find out that the gender of objects don't coincide with the gender of humans.

One such example would be the word astronaut, in English the word has no gender, but in Spanish it has Female gender: Astronauta.
However, that gender only applies to the object itself (in this case, the profession), not to humans, if you were to specify a human astronaut, you have to use El/La for male or female, El Astronauta, La Astronauta, because El/La refers to a human, but Astronauta refers to a profession, there is no such thing as an Astronauto.

Some professions do get adjusted to the gender of the person (conductor, conductora), but that only furthers indicate that human gender is strictly based on sex, while objects either have neutral gender, or their gender is tied to the sex of the human involved.

There's may other examples of this in any gendered languages, but English isn't one so it's hard to find them. There wasn't even a he/she in old English, everyone was she. The introduction of a He was due to influence of gendered languages like French and Spanish.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

Acid_Snake said:


> Human gender is tied to their sex, the same doesn't apply to objects.


One's gender identity doesn't always comport with one's sex, since the former is a social construct.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> One's gender identity doesn't always comport with one's sex, since the former is a social construct.


The problem with this perception and these theories is that it equates trans with objects and makes a clear distiction between them and the rest of us. You even have words to seggregate those who are trans from those aren't, words like cisgender, transgender, gender fluid, etc, that go above and beyond pure sexual orientation and tries to make them into a totally different category aside from humans.

I can asure you, transexual people, same as homosexuals and bisexuals, are just as human as heterosexuals, they aren't a different category or a different "gender", they are people with sexual orientations like anyone of us.

What you propose is saying that because I like apples and you like oranges we should classify differently and consider each other as very different beings.

I knew the democrats loved Jim Crow laws, but damn you can't make it so obvious.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

Acid_Snake said:


> The problem with this perception and these theories is that it equates trans with objects and makes a clear distiction between them and the rest of us. You even have words to seggregate those who are trans from those aren't, words like cisgender, transgender, gender fluid, etc, that go above and beyond pure sexual orientation and tries to make them into a totally different category aside from humans.


Are you suggesting that people who are transgender are not human?


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Are you suggesting that people who are transgender are not human?


No, YOU ARE, when you use the word gender instead of sex.
The word gender comes from the Latin word Generus. It is used to identify subspecies.
It was coined by John Money and the whole idea behind it is to differentiate, not to be inclusive.
So you might want to check the sources of your own theories before spitting out contradicting comments.

In any case I will dumb it down so even a radical iliterate leftie like you can understand:

- There is only ONE GENDER: Humans (Generus Homo).

- Humans have TWO SEX: Male or Female.

- Some humans are not OK with the sex they were born into, and its ok (nobody asked them what sex they wanted to be born with anyways), so they change from one SEX to the other SEX, but they are still of the HUMAN GENERUS (Gender).


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

Acid_Snake said:


> No, YOU ARE, when you use the word gender instead of sex.
> The word gender comes from the Latin word Generus. It is used to identify subspecies.
> It was coined by John Money and the whole idea behind it is to differentiate, not to be inclusive.
> So you might want to check the sources of your own theories before spitting out contradicting comments.
> ...


You appear to be confusing gender with genus, and I have no idea what it has to do with Roe.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You appear to be confusing gender with genus, and I have no idea what it has to do with Roe.


Ok let's start from square one. I don't really wanna be in bad terms with you, or wanna start any biggotry.

I get it that you wanna fight for trans people rights, I admire that and in no way want to critizice it.

But I digress, if you wanna fight for someone's rights, you gotta know what that someone is, right?

So, if you wanna fight for women's rights, you have to be able to properly define what a woman is.
Same goes for trans people.

You keep using the word transgender, which also implies you believe in the word cisgender, but I say these words are discriminatory and seggregates as it gives the impression that we are talking about the existence of people who are "normal" (non-trans, cisgender) and people who aren't (trans).

The correct term would be transexual, as it correlates nicely with heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual, which appear to be a more inclusive categorization that treats everyone as equally human based on a single behaviour rather than their entire persona.

Now, I would like to know what your definition of "transgender" is, and give me examples that aren't either a man transitioning to a woman or a woman transitioning to a man. Give me an example of any other human gender that you can transition to and from. You can't, because there's no human genders.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Whether or not someone makes a stupid decision is irrelevant to whether or not their bodily autonomy should be taken away. We don't punish the alligator bite victim by refusing medical care, lol.


An Alligator bite victim in this scenario already punished themselves.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

SG854 said:


> An Alligator bite victim in this scenario already punished themselves.


You seem to be confused by your own analogy. The "dumb" behavior of hanging around an alligator is analogous to having irresponsible sex. The alligator bite is analogous to the pregnancy. Medical treatment for the alligator bite is analogous to medical treatment for the pregnancy (e.g. an abortion). Let me know if you have any questions.



Acid_Snake said:


> You keep using the word transgender, which also implies you believe in the word cisgender, but I say these words are discriminatory and seggregates as it gives the impression that we are talking about the existence of people who are "normal" (non-trans, cisgender) and people who aren't (trans).


Using words to describe different types of people isn't inherently discriminatory. You might as well be making the same argument about the words homosexual and heterosexual, lol.



Acid_Snake said:


> The correct term would be transexual, as it correlates nicely with heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual, which appear to be a more inclusive categorization that treats everyone as equally human based on a single behaviour rather than their entire persona.


Transexual deals with sex, and transgender deals with gender.



Acid_Snake said:


> Now, I would like to know what your definition of "transgender" is


People who are transgender have a gender identity that differs from the one that society says would normally comport with the sex they were assigned at birth.

Transgender people can also be transsexual, but that isn't always the case.



Acid_Snake said:


> and give me examples that aren't either a man transitioning to a woman or a woman transitioning to a man. Give me an example of any other human gender that you can transition to and from. You can't, because there's no human genders.


Nonbinary or genderqueer.

For the last time, what does this have to do with Roe?


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Nonbinary or genderqueer.


A human isn't born with a non-binary or genderqueer organ between their legs.

So you are making up new ways to seggregate people.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

Acid_Snake said:


> A human isn't born with a non-binary or genderqueer organ between their legs.


You're right. Nonbinary and genderqueer deal with gender, not sex.

You also keep ignoring my question about what this has to do with Roe.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You're right. Nonbinary and genderqueer deal with gender, not sex.
> 
> You also keep ignoring my question about what this has to do with Roe.


Yeah but humans don't have gender unless you make them up for the sole purpose of seggregation.

Basically what you are saying is that a trans person is different from me, and I don't buy that, as it's biggotry at it's finest.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

Acid_Snake said:


> Yeah but humans don't have gender unless you make them up


Now you're getting it. Gender is a social construct.



Acid_Snake said:


> Basically what you are saying is that a trans person is different from me


Transgender people are different from cisgender people, yes. Heterosexual people are different from homosexual people. People are different from each other. What is your point, and what does it have to do with Roe?


----------



## Acid_Snake (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Now you're getting it. Gender is a social construct.
> 
> 
> Transgender people are different from cisgender people, yes. Heterosexual people are different from homosexual people. People are different from each other. What is your point, and what does it have to do with Roe?


No, homosexual people are not different from heterosexual people the same way liking apples doesn't make you different from someone who likes oranges. That's biggotry and hatred.

You aren't an advocate for trans people rights, you can't even properly define what trans people are.
All you are really doing is pushing for seggregation among people and I won't participate in it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 3, 2022)

Acid_Snake said:


> A human isn't born with a non-binary or genderqueer organ between their legs.
> 
> So you are making up new ways to seggregate people.



It's not segregation to classify unless you're doing it to maliciously and purposely deem one class lower than another. I understand what you're trying to say when you suggest that labels only belong to objects, but when you have movements this large, they need to be classified to some degree. That's where you get things like statistics and representation from. At the end of the day, people classify themselves a certain way not just for scientific based reasons, but also for a sense of belonging. Any breakdown of that exists only to dehumanize and undermine the uniqueness of the individuals in question.

To bring this round back to the topic at hand, there is a difference of classification when it comes to sex and gender, and the formation of a fetus into a baby. In this sense, the classification and identity associated with the fetus and related stages are to designate how far along the eventual person is during it's developmental stage, not necessarily unlike the classification of sex and gender, however the latter, again, classifies also based on belonging. 

Of course, people tend to forget that science is constantly changing and getting better at identifying things. For example, it was widely accepted fact that there were only men and women back in the '50's because science hadn't progressed far enough. These days, from a combination of both biological and psychological science, we've come to know that while most people are born with one other or another, a person's attachment to this predetermined "gender" differs between people and only recently have people been comfortable enough to try and figure themselves out, despite the animosity they've received for trying to figure themselves out.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

Acid_Snake said:


> No, homosexual people are not different from heterosexual people the same way liking apples doesn't make you different from someone who likes oranges.


You're minimizing the differences between gay and straight people.



Acid_Snake said:


> You aren't an advocate for trans people rights, you can't even properly define what trans people are.


I'm not the one entering irrelevant threads to spam about how transgender people don't exist, lol.



Acid_Snake said:


> All you are really doing is pushing for seggregation among people and I won't participate in it.


I haven't once pushed or promoted segregation.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 3, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> 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 manifests around the 30th week, which is beyond six and a half months.



My philosophy is that if I don't know exactly when I can reasonably doubt the baby's lack of consciousness, then I'll err on the side of caution and set the cutoff point a bit lower just to be sure, as in my view it's a "lesser evil" to infringe on a woman's bodily autonomy a few weeks earlier than risk accidentally killing a conscious baby.

@10:12 this guy is saying 18-20 weeks


Then there's that analogy of the coma patient who is unconscious and will wake up in 9 months.   But "potential consciousness" is problematic for me as it could be used to set the cutoff point to a very low value since even a clump of cells would have "potential consciousness".



Dark_Phoras said:


> By forcing a baby into the world, we might be often condemning a woman and a child to a life of misery and unhappiness



Adoption tho



Dakitten said:


> even a rogue President would have to work with the checks and balances around them to deny a right to bodily autonomy.



This happened with Biden's attempt to mandate vaccines at a federal level.  To me this felt risky even just letting him even have a shot at it.   The guy's an authoritarian menace and I presume you would feel the same way about a whackjob conservative trying to pass the "heartbeat" law at a federal level.   Giving all the power to a small group of people at the top is dangerous.  imo it's already dangerous enough at a state level -- I'd like to see individual cities/councils have their own autonomy.



Dakitten said:


> If it is in the womb, it can meet its doom.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> My philosophy is that if I don't know exactly when I can reasonably doubt the baby's lack of consciousness, then I'll err on the side of caution and set the cutoff point a bit lower just to be sure, as in my view it's a "lesser evil" to infringe on a woman's bodily autonomy a few weeks earlier than risk accidentally killing a conscious baby.


Do you think the state should be able to violate your bodily autonomy to save a life then?



NoobletCheese said:


> Adoption tho


The option of adoption doesn't solve the bodily autonomy problem.


----------



## Fighter92 (Jul 3, 2022)

100 pages of comments.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Do you think the state should be able to violate your bodily autonomy to save a life then?



Yes of course, eg. if I'm conducting an armed robbery then I could be arrested, or if I have Ebola I could be quarantined.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jul 3, 2022)

@NoobletCheese the earliest recorded timeframe of a brain developed enough to theoretically be conscious (as in, to be able to send and receive sensory information through the nervous system, if I understood correctly) is 24 weeks (Wikipedia cites Oxford and Cambridge [1] [2] academia, I don't have access). The recorded first evidence of their function occurs around week 30. Also, I believe we should strive to have fewer orphans, the more there are, the harder it is for them to receive proper care and education.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Yes of course, eg. if I'm conducting an armed robbery then I could be arrested, or if I have Ebola I could be quarantined.


Neither of these is an example of bodily autonomy rights being violated.


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> sure they arent, but hey, as long as you are responsible, who cares about collateral damage right?
> 
> Honestly, abortion isn't something im overly invested in ( as a man/incel) but i support the bans out of spite, because this wasn't a concern with the magic needle, and it wasnt a concern with gun control, its only a concern when liberals dont get what they want.
> 
> As far as my actual stance, i don't care much for the practice, as i think it generates a lack of discipline, but i think there are some people who may need it, and those people will suffer, but you should be ok with that because you are doing whatever you can to be responsible.


Okay, seriously, because it can't be said enough...

ABORTION IS NOT BIRTH CONTROL, IT IS A LAST RESORT REGARDING FAMILY PLANNING! THEY ABSOLUTELY SUCK TO GET BUT ARE SOMETIMES REQUIRED BECAUSE LIFE IS UNPREDICTABLE, AND EVEN BEING RESPONSIBLE CAN ENDANGER LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS! IF YOU CANNOT EXPERIENCE ONE, PLEASE STFU ABOUT HOW IT IS USED BY IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE LIKE A REPEAT METHOD FOR BIRTH CONTROL, YOU PIG HUMPING SMOOTHBRAINS!



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Women are only fertile part of the month. If one can keep track of the moon or a modern calendar, it is 100% effective. Coitus interruptus is also 100% effective unless the man is an unexperienced 17-year-old. Put both together and a nuclear war with Russia is more likely.


You... really have never had sex, have you? That is so wrong it hurts.

First of all, women have a peak fertility during their cycle, but sperm can survive for several days inside a woman, and cycles can vary a fair bit. No scientist worth their salt would give the calendar projection model a 100% effective rating, and there have been cases of women getting pregnant even during their period! "Pulling out" also fails to get a 100% rating, but this one is far less complicated. Pre-ejaculate still contains sperm and can knock one's partner up, and is far more difficult to control and regulate. Also, and this is a little more subjective so bare with me, women have enough difficulty with the staying power of their partners so pulling out, while appreciated from a family planning perspective, would generally appreciate methods with more certainty and less excuses on performance. Somewhat anecdotal, I know, but hopefully it helps.


NoobletCheese said:


> My philosophy is that if I don't know exactly when I can reasonably doubt the baby's lack of consciousness, then I'll err on the side of caution and set the cutoff point a bit lower just to be sure, as in my view it's a "lesser evil" to infringe on a woman's bodily autonomy a few weeks earlier than risk accidentally killing a conscious baby.
> 
> @10:12 this guy is saying 18-20 weeks
> 
> ...


Thousands of folk don't get adopted in the USA, and plenty of folk wish they'd never been put up for adoption. This is absolutely ridiculous since we don't even have a system in place to ensure a good home with guarantees to food, shelter, and education for all children in families, let alone children without one. Also, "potential consciousness" is a cute point and all, but it doesn't change the fact that an undeveloped life is causing a HUGE impact on a fully realized life, and they may have any number of perfectly valid reasons they want or need to end that process. That is on them, not you or anybody else, to figure out, at any time.


NoobletCheese said:


> This happened with Biden's attempt to mandate vaccines at a federal level.  To me this felt risky even just letting him even have a shot at it.   The guy's an authoritarian menace and I presume you would feel the same way about a whackjob conservative trying to pass the "heartbeat" law at a federal level.   Giving all the power to a small group of people at the top is dangerous.  imo it's already dangerous enough at a state level -- I'd like to see individual cities/councils have their own autonomy.


Congratulations, you're on the crazy train of antivax and government upheaval. Amazing. THIS will surely get you taken more seriously!  While we're here though...



NoobletCheese said:


> Yes of course, eg. if I'm conducting an armed robbery then I could be arrested, or if I have Ebola I could be quarantined.


Or if you're a potential spreader risk for Covid-19, you could get vaccinated to reduce your ability to propagate the virus! Full circle, comrade.

The funny thing is, Biden has actually been annoyingly lax on a true vaccine mandate. If you think he is a whackjob, an actual progressive would be so much better at seeing this actually happen. For the good of genuine constructive discourse, conservative men need to up your game.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 3, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Congratulations, you're on the crazy train of antivax and government upheaval. Amazing. THIS will surely get you taken more seriously!
> Or if you're a potential spreader risk for Covid-19, you could get vaccinated to reduce your ability to propagate the virus! Full circle, comrade.





NoobletCheese said:


> To any confused vax zealots reading this: the gov't's failure to prove I'm a Covid threat to others stems from the fact that others can protect themselves from me with three vaccines, PPE, social distancing, me testing negative while zealots aren't testing negative, me being asymptomatic, me having natural vaccine from prior infection, and me being part of a small population cohort which they have a dramatically lower chance of encountering in public or the workplace.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 3, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> @NoobletCheese the earliest recorded timeframe of a brain developed enough to theoretically be conscious (as in, to be able to send and receive sensory information through the nervous system, if I understood correctly) is 24 weeks (Wikipedia cites Oxford and Cambridge [1] [2] academia, I don't have access). The recorded first evidence of their function occurs around week 30. Also, I believe we should strive to have fewer orphans, the more there are, the harder it is for them to receive proper care and education.



So this whole dispute is about whether we violate women's autonomy at week 18 or week 24, and that decision is based on science not morality, so it's not even a moral dispute, so we don't have any reason to be annoyed with eachother.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> So this whole dispute is about whether we violate women's autonomy at week 18 or week 24, and that decision is based on science not morality, so it's not even a moral dispute, so we don't have any reason to be annoyed with eachother.



Yes, but that's if we both had the pro-life perspective. However, why week 18?


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 3, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> Yes, but that's if we both had the pro-life perspective. However, why week 18?



I was going based on what Campbell was saying in that youtube video.   He's considered somewhat of a centrist or "moderate".


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> So this whole dispute is about whether we violate women's autonomy at week 18 or week 24, and that decision is based on science not morality, so it's not even a moral dispute, so we don't have any reason to be annoyed with eachother.


Do you believe it's ever okay to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights? If a state can ban abortion in order to "save a life," couldn't a state also take one of your kidneys in order to save a life?


----------



## SG854 (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You seem to be confused by your own analogy. The "dumb" behavior of hanging around an alligator is analogous to having irresponsible sex. The alligator bite is analogous to the pregnancy. Medical treatment for the alligator bite is analogous to medical treatment for the pregnancy (e.g. an abortion). Let me know if you have any questions.
> 
> 
> Using words to describe different types of people isn't inherently discriminatory. You might as well be making the same argument about the words homosexual and heterosexual, lol.
> ...


How'd you come to the conclusion I'm confused by my own analogy lol


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 3, 2022)

If nobody wants to look after these animals is it ok to kill them?


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> This actually isn't my core reasoning for being against civilian disarmament.  My reasoning is that the burden is on the gov't to prove I'm a threat to others, and they have failed to do so.  Just like they failed to prove I'm a Covid threat to others, so they don't get to revoke my bodily autonomy wrt drugs, so why would they get to revoke it wrt guns.    To any confused vax zealots reading this: the gov't's failure to prove I'm a Covid threat to others stems from the fact that others can protect themselves from me with three vaccines, PPE, social distancing, me getting tested, me being asymptomatic, me having natural vaccine from prior infection, me being not significantly more likely to transmit covid than a vaccinated person, me being part of a small cohort which they have a lower chance of encountering in the wild, and probably more things I can't think of right now.


This makes you look foolish when you made that post, and foolish now. Hey, fun trick, what do covid and roe have in common? Birth control and vaccines are both not 100% effective but that doesn't mean they're worthless and we should prepare for exceptions while working with any tools we can to plan against exceptions~ Covid might get around with better reliability than pregnancy around birth control, but to be fair we've only really been working on that one for three years.

Just because YOU don't feel like you're a thread doesn't mean you aren't, either with guns or vaccines, but in a proper functioning society I'm pretty sure you'd be denied one and forced by any civil means available to have the other or to quarantine. Civilization means more than your selfish way of thinking, comrade.


NoobletCheese said:


> So this whole dispute is about whether we violate women's autonomy at week 18 or week 24, and that decision is based on science not morality, so it's not even a moral dispute, so we don't have any reason to be annoyed with eachother.


No, the dispute is that a woman's autonomy should never be infringed upon. Some people draw up timelines and exceptions and limitations, but at the end of the day, it should be total freedom.


NoobletCheese said:


> If nobody wants to look after these animals is it ok to kill them?


Animals aren't fetuses, but thanks for playing. Please don't try again.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

SG854 said:


> How'd you come to the conclusion I'm confused by my own analogy lol


Because you made the bad analogy in the first place, lol.

In all seriousness though, it's because you don't understand that restricting access to legal abortion is comparable to restricting access to medical care for the person bitten by an alligator. Whether or not the person did something stupid leading up to their medical condition is irrelevant.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> I was going based on what Campbell was saying in that youtube video.   He's considered somewhat of a centrist or "moderate".









[Source]


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Do you believe it's ever okay to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights?



Yes of course and I gave those 2 examples.



Lacius said:


> If a state can ban abortion in order to "save a life," couldn't a state also take one of your kidneys in order to save a life?



Could they?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Yes of course and I gave those 2 examples.


I already corrected you that those examples have nothing to do with bodily autonomy.



NoobletCheese said:


> Could they?


I'm asking you. It appears to be a consistent position to me.

Respectfully, you don't appear to have given bodily autonomy rights a lot of thought.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 3, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Just because YOU don't feel like you're a thread doesn't mean you aren't, either with guns or vaccines, but in a proper functioning society I'm pretty sure you'd be denied one and forced by any civil means available to have the other or to quarantine. Civilization means more than your selfish way of thinking, comrade.



Well the burden is on you to prove I'm a threat.  I can just sit here and say nothing and I win by default because I have no burden of proof.  I've actually done you a huge favour by giving you all the reasons why I'm not a threat to you, which I didn't even have to do.

You're the one who's coming at me with multiple injections, penetrating my skin and inserting your genetic material inside me without my consent, so the burden is all on you, and boy is it a huge burden.  You've got all the work to do, all the mountains to climb, and all the hoops to jump through, GO  GO  GO  .

Can you imagine the moral disaster on your plate if it turned out you actually _weren't_ justified in raping me multiple times? Can you imagine how vast the moral disaster of that would be? No you cannot, because your rational agency is impaired, and rational agency is a prerequisite for moral agency. So your moral agency is impaired, and I have little reason to be hateful towards you because it's not your fault.

Also "you MUST put this in your body" is in a different league to "You CANNOT put this in your body".


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Well the burden is on you to prove I'm a threat.


Even though breakthrough infections regularly occur, a person who is vaccinated is less likely to contract the disease, which means they are less likely to spread the disease.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/covid19_vaccine_safety.html



NoobletCheese said:


> You're the one who's coming at me with multiple injections, penetrating my skin and inserting your genetic material inside me without my consent, so the burden is all on you, and boy is it a huge burden.  You've got all the work to do, all the mountains to climb, and all the hoops to jump through, GO  GO  GO  .
> 
> Can you imagine the moral disaster on your plate if it turned out you actually _weren't_ justified in raping me multiple times? Can you imagine how vast the moral disaster of that would be? No you cannot, because your rational agency is impaired, and rational agency is a prerequisite for moral agency. So your moral agency is impaired, and I have little reason to be hateful towards you because it's not your fault.
> 
> Also "you MUST put this in your body" is in a different league to "You CANNOT put this in your body".


Nobody is violating your bodily autonomy rights. You're free to not get vaccinated if that's the stupid decision you want to make. Vaccine mandates that, for example, bar you from specific privileges like public transit, schools, hospitals, etc. because you're unvaccinated is in the interest of public health and isn't a violation of your bodily autonomy rights. You still have the choice to be unvaccinated and put yourself and others at risk.


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Well the burden is on you to prove I'm a threat.  I can just sit here and say nothing and I win by default because I have no burden of proof.  I've actually done you a huge favour by giving you all the reasons why I'm not a threat to you, which I didn't even have to do.
> 
> You're the one who's coming at me with multiple injections, penetrating my skin and inserting your genetic material inside me without my consent, so the burden is all on you, and boy is it a huge burden.  You've got all the work to do, all the mountains to climb, and all the hoops to jump through, GO  GO  GO  .
> 
> ...


You actually gave plenty of reasons why you ARE a threat to me and everyone else around you? You are not vaccinated and don't believe in PPE yet still wish to operate in society with no regard to the safety of others due to your conveniently self centered and quite flawed perspective. Also, if you're comparing rare vaccine side effects to pregnancy effects, you're woefully unaware of the discomfort and pains that come along with pregnancy, let alone the abhorrent crime actual rape is. You're playing a marvelous fool, and I do hope others are finding your floundering informative considering how important many of these topics are.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Even though breakthrough infections regularly occur, a person who is vaccinated is less likely to contract the disease, which means they are less likely to spread the disease.



You can protect yourself from me with three vaccines, PPE, social distancing, *me testing negative while you aren't testing negative*, me being asymptomatic, me having natural vaccine from prior infection, and me being part of a small population cohort which you have a dramatically lower chance of encountering in public or the workplace.

If you still think I'm a significant threat to you, then it means deep down in the grey matter of your brain you don't actually believe those things are protecting you to any significant degree.

And the bit in bold actually makes me LESS of a threat to you than a vaccinated person.



Lacius said:


> Nobody is violating your bodily autonomy rights. You're free to not get vaccinated if that's the stupid decision you want to make.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> You can protect yourself from me with three vaccines, PPE, social distancing, me testing negative while you aren't testing negative, me being asymptomatic, me having natural vaccine from prior infection, and me being part of a small population cohort which you have a dramatically lower chance of encountering in public or the workplace.


None of this changes the fact that vaccination is one of the best ways to protect yourself and others, and you're willfully choosing not to do it. You cannot guarantee that you won't spread disease to other people, and you don't seem to care about minimizing that risk.



NoobletCheese said:


> If you still think I'm a significant threat to you, then it means deep down in the grey matter of your brain you don't actually believe those things are protecting you to any significant degree.


The vaccine isn't 100% effective, and neither is PPE.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You cannot guarantee that you won't spread disease to other people, and you don't seem to care about minimizing that risk.



The problem is that you lack the rational agency to realise that A and B are logically compatible with each other:

A. Being vaccinated minimises your risk of transmitting Covid

B. An unvaccinated person can minimise their risk of transmitting Covid to the same level or lower than a vaccinated person


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> A. Being vaccinated minimises your risk of transmitting Covid
> 
> B. An unvaccinated person can minimise their risk of transmitting Covid to the same level or lower than a vaccinated person


If a person hasn't gotten vaccinated, then it means they have not lowered their risk as much as they could. In fact, it means they've gone out of their way to increase their risk of catching and spreading disease relative to what it could have been.



NoobletCheese said:


> The problem is that you lack the rational agency to realise


I honestly love it when people make catty statements despite showing absolutely no justification for behaving cattily, lol.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If a person hasn't gotten vaccinated, then it means they have not lowered their risk as much as they could. In fact, it means they've gone out of their way to increase their risk of catching and spreading disease relative to what it could have been.



Compare the pair:

John is vaccinated but has not been tested for Covid.

Mary is unvaccinated but has tested negative, or has natural vaccination from prior infection.

Who is more of a threat to society: John or Mary?

If John is interested in minimising his risk of Covid transmission, shouldn't he be getting regularly tested and wearing a mask?

If the government is interested in minimising risk of Covid transmission, shouldn't they run public health campaigns to get people to lose weight and minimise their vitamin & nutritional deficiencies?


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Compare the pair:
> 
> John is vaccinated but has not been tested for Covid.
> 
> ...


There is no such thing as natural vaccination, and while you do build up some resistance to an infection after getting it, you're still better off getting the vaccination before and after. You're clearly confused, as your comparison is just blatantly inconsistent with the findings of medical science and paints your worldview in a less than favorable light to others.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 3, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> There is no such thing as natural vaccination



It's like if you get chickenpox your body creates antibodies and you have natural immunity from then on, even CDC acknowledges this even for Covid


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> It's like if you get chickenpox your body creates antibodies and you have natural immunity from then on, even CDC acknowledges this even for Covid


That is not "natural vaccinations", that is your body (ideally) surviving the virus and flagging key markers in its makeup to recognize and counter in the future. It has an increased chance of minor and major discomfort, life long debilitating complications, and death.

While vaccines operate on a similar principle, it is done with a variant of the virus built to not do any damage and better train your antibodies to defend against it being injected into your body with your knowledge and hopefully your consent because you aren't a doorknob.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Compare the pair:
> 
> John is vaccinated but has not been tested for Covid.
> 
> ...


John should be testing if he is symptomatic or has been in close contact with someone who tested positive. He should be wearing a mask if he has been in close contact with someone who tested positive or is in a county with a high rate of transmission (or if he is immunocompromised).

Mary should do all the same things, and she should get vaccinated. The fact that she is unvaccinated also means she is less likely to do the things John should be doing too.

If all I knew was a person's vaccination status, I'd rather be around the vaccinated person vs. the unvaccinated person.

While comorbidities like being overweight increases the odds of serious illness and death with COVID-19, they have nothing to do with minimizing COVID transmission, and the US government runs active public health campaigns regarding healthy lifestyles. 

What is your point? You aren't going to succeed in arguing that people shouldn't be vaccinated, and it has nothing to do with Roe aside from the failed attempt to paint a false equivalency about bodily autonomy.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> It's like if you get chickenpox your body creates antibodies and you have natural immunity from then on, even CDC acknowledges this even for Covid


Natural immunity exists, but vaccination is far more reliable and controlled. A person can get sick with COVID and obtain very little natural immunity relative to someone being vaccinated, or they could get about the same level of immunity. There is a correlation with how bad the illness was and how much natural immunity the person gets, but it's an unreliable indicator.

Regardless of whether or not someone has been infected, vaccination is going to increase one's immunity. The existence of natural immunity is not an excuse to not get vaccinated.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Mary should do all the same things, and she should get vaccinated.



Why should she get vaccinated given that her risk of transmitting Covid is actually LOWER than John's, given that she has tested negative and has natural immunity which is just as effective or more effective than vaccination (which the CDC admits)?   Keeping in mind the burden of proof is on you here and the consequences of getting this wrong would be morally disastrous.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> If the government is interested in minimising risk of Covid transmission, shouldn't they run public health campaigns to get people to lose weight and minimise their vitamin & nutritional deficiencies?



They've tried, numerous times in the past. The one I can recall most clearly was when Michelle Obama was focused on getting healthier through school nutrition and related programs. Probably not ideally what you're referring to, but a start.



NoobletCheese said:


> Why should she get vaccinated given that her risk of transmitting Covid is actually LOWER than John's, given that she has tested negative and has natural immunity which is just as effective or more effective than vaccination (which the CDC admits)?   Keeping in mind the burden of proof is on you here and the consequences of getting this wrong would be morally disastrous.



Why not lower her risk even more? Why be happy with, let's say 50% risk, when you could drop it to 40? 25? 10? Why settle for less, when you can have the best?



NoobletCheese said:


> It's like if you get chickenpox your body creates antibodies and you have natural immunity from then on, even CDC acknowledges this even for Covid



Right, natural immunity, not natural vaccination. However, what is the reasoning against getting a vaccine? From your perspective, if you will.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Why should she get vaccinated given that her risk of transmitting Covid is actually LOWER than John's, given that she has tested negative and has natural immunity which is just as effective or more effective than vaccination (which the CDC admits)?   Keeping in mind the burden of proof is on you here and the consequences of getting this wrong would be morally disastrous.


Because it's still going to significantly reduce her risk of getting, suffering from, or transmitting the disease.

Natural immunity can be comparable to the immunity obtained from vaccination, but as I already said, it's inconsistent, and natural immunity plus vaccine immunity is better than anything else.

There is no excuse to not get vaccinated if  one is medically able to do so. I think we can drop the conversation topic here unless you can bring it back to Roe.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Okay, seriously, because it can't be said enough...
> 
> ABORTION IS NOT BIRTH CONTROL, IT IS A LAST RESORT REGARDING FAMILY PLANNING! THEY ABSOLUTELY SUCK TO GET BUT ARE SOMETIMES REQUIRED BECAUSE LIFE IS UNPREDICTABLE, AND EVEN BEING RESPONSIBLE CAN ENDANGER LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS! IF YOU CANNOT EXPERIENCE ONE, PLEASE STFU ABOUT HOW IT IS USED BY IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE LIKE A REPEAT METHOD FOR BIRTH CONTROL, YOU PIG HUMPING SMOOTHBRAINS!
> 
> ...



im an incel, i dont get laid period, pigs included. Ok so abortion isnt birth control and the vaccine isn't a vaccine as it doesnt prevent an illness, just might possible make you feel a little better,  guess neither are particularly useful then huh?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Because it's still going to significantly reduce her risk of getting, suffering from, or transmitting the disease.
> 
> Natural immunity can be comparable to the immunity obtained from vaccination, but as I already said, it's inconsistent, and natural immunity plus vaccine immunity is better than anything else.
> 
> There is no excuse to not get vaccinated if  one is medically able to do so. I think we can drop the conversation topic here unless you can bring it back to Roe.



again, this is untrue, you keep lying and saying this, but, it isnt true.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> again, this is untrue, you keep lying and saying this, but, it isnt true.


Nothing I said was untrue. If you take issue with anything specific I said, please tell me what it is and how I'm wrong.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Nothing I said was untrue. If you take issue with anything specific I said, please tell me what it is and how I'm wrong.



ive told you this before and you admitted to it, and are now lying again. The vaccine does not reduce transmission


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> ive told you this before and you admitted to it, and are now lying again. The vaccine does not reduce transmission


With old variants, the vaccine reduced the risk of being infected, and even if one suffered a breakthrough infection, it reduced one's viral load and the risk of transmitting the infection to others.

With modern variants, the vaccine reduces the risk of being infected, but those who suffer breakthrough infections have about the same viral load as someone who is unvaccinated and infected, meaning they will transmit the virus just as much. However, since they're less likely to contract the virus in the first place, the vaccine remains one of the ways to minimize the spread of disease. The risk of contracting the virus is minimized even more if one has natural immunity and gets vaccinated (or in the opposite order).

I haven't said anything untrue, and I've been consistent in what I've said. No lies here. Try again. Actually, I take it back. I'd rather talk about Roe in the Roe thread. I still haven't heard anyone explain how they can support taking a woman's right to bodily autonomy without also supporting taking away other people's right to bodily autonomy.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> With old variants, the vaccine reduced the risk of being infected, and even if one suffered a breakthrough infection, it reduced one's viral load and the risk of transmitting the infection to others.
> 
> With modern variants, the vaccine reduces the risk of being infected, but those who suffer breakthrough infections have about the same viral load as someone who is unvaccinated and infected, meaning they will transmit the virus just as much. However, since they're less likely to contract the virus in the first place, the vaccine remains one of the ways to minimize the spread of disease. The risk of contracting the virus is minimized even more if one has natural immunity and gets vaccinated (or in the opposite order).
> 
> I haven't said anything untrue, and I've been consistent in what I've said. No lies here. Try again. Actually, I take it back. I'd rather talk about Roe in the Roe thread. I still haven't heard anyone explain how they can support taking a woman's right to bodily autonomy without also supporting taking away other people's right to bodily autonomy.



but literally the first 2 paragraphs are totally factually untrue.

i'd be happy to support it when my body autonomy is protected against untested therapeutics


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> but literally the first 2 paragraphs are totally factually untrue.


They aren't. I'm sorry the facts are inconvenient to your position. That seems to be how it goes for right-wingers (climate change, LGBTQ youth suicide statistics, abortion stats, gun control stats, medical science and vaccines, evolution, age of the Earth, pretty much all science, etc.).



lolcatzuru said:


> i'd be happy to support it when my body autonomy is protected against untested therapeutics


Your bodily autonomy is protected. Don't want to get vaccinated? Don't get vaccinated. It's stupid, selfish, and shameful if you don't, and it was particularly reckless a year ago when so many people lacked immunity, but that's your decision.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 3, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Why not lower her risk even more? Why be happy with, let's say 50% risk, when you could drop it to 40? 25? 10? Why settle for less, when you can have the best?



Why does John settle for less?  He could be getting tested and wearing PPE, staying home more etc.   Majority of spread is caused by the vaccinated so John has a lot to answer for, putting public health at risk when he could be minimising the risk.

OH wait , I know why!  Because John has already "done his bit".   He already did his bit for medical conscription, so it doesn't matter if he puts people at risk, because he has already signaled his virtue and committed himself to society and state.  Because of this, John gets to oppress the vaccine-free because he is righteous. 



SyphenFreht said:


> However, what is the reasoning against getting a vaccine? From your perspective, if you will.



What is your reasoning against:

* donating blood
* registering as an organ donor
* getting vaccinated against other viruses
* donating to starving children
* not consuming junk food & alcohol
* only driving cars with airbags
* not riding motorcycles
* wearing helmet when cycling
* wearing sunscreen and hat
* eating a vegan diet (50% lower risk of high blood pressure; 66% lower risk of type-2 diabetes, 15% lower risk of cancer, significantly lower cholesterol levels, avoid cruelty to animals)




Lacius said:


> Because it's still going to significantly reduce her risk of getting, suffering from, or transmitting the disease.



Please provide proof of that.   I'm looking at CDC data which indicates this is not true.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Please provide proof of that.   I'm looking at CDC data which indicates this is not true.


https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.html



> MYTH: The natural immunity I get from being sick with COVID-19 is better than the immunity I get from COVID-19 vaccination.
> FACT: Getting a COVID-19 vaccination is a safer and more dependable way to build immunity to COVID-19 than getting sick with COVID-19.
> 
> COVID-19 vaccination causes a more predictable immune response than infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. Getting a COVID-19 vaccine gives most people a high level of protection against COVID-19 and can provide added protection for people who already had COVID-19. One study showed that, for people who already had COVID-19, those who do not get vaccinated after their recovery are more than 2 times as likely to get COVID-19 again than those who get fully vaccinated after their recovery.


Links to studies are included on the actual page. So, you were either mistaken or lying.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 3, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Links to studies are included on the actual page. So, you were either mistaken or lying.



Neither: CDC is lying by omission and you're falling hook line and sinker for it.

The page you've linked is their typical public-facing "do the right thing and don't worry about the details" propaganda designed to influence how the public behaves.

When we actually look into the details we find things like...



> https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/592457-the-cdc-is-finally-recognizing-natural-immunity-legislators-should-follow/
> In the CDC report, which analyzed COVID-19 cases in California and New York in 2021 from May 30 to November 20, the scientists compared the risk of new SARS-CoV-2 infection among four groups of people: those who were unvaccinated without a prior case of COVID-19; those vaccinated without prior COVID-19; those unvaccinated with prior COVID-19 and those vaccinated with prior COVID-19.
> 
> The authors explain that before the emergence of the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, recent vaccination was more protective against new infection than natural immunity (in California during June, for example, 20.9-fold vs 8.2-fold). *However, after delta became prevalent, natural immunity was more protective against infection than vaccination* (in California during September, 8.3-fold vs 35.0-fold).


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Neither: CDC is lying and you're falling hook line and sinker for it.


"I cite the CDC when I think it supports my point, but I reject it as a bunch of lies when it doesn't." Lol.


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> im an incel, i dont get laid period, pigs included. Ok so abortion isnt birth control and the vaccine isn't a vaccine as it doesnt prevent an illness, just might possible make you feel a little better,  guess neither are particularly useful then huh?


I beg your pardon, I was speaking broadly while using your quote as a starting point. I don't actually care how you get your kicks, I just know that you seem to have zero empathy for women.

As for the vaccination...



lolcatzuru said:


> but literally the first 2 paragraphs are totally factually untrue.
> 
> i'd be happy to support it when my body autonomy is protected against untested therapeutics



It was tested, then utilized on hundreds of millions of people, where its impact could be measured. It helps, but it was never presented as any sort of magical bullet to handle a very new virus. Once again, you're showing off your own ignorance while throwing slander at folk, please stop.



NoobletCheese said:


> Neither: CDC is lying by omission and you're falling hook line and sinker for it.
> 
> The page you've linked is their typical public-facing "do the right thing and don't worry about the details" propaganda designed to influence how the public behaves.
> 
> When we actually look into the details we find things like...



And then we have things like this, which focuses on how unsafe it is to go around unvaccinated (thanks for making that point for everyone to see, by the by~) and yet because the chart shows that natural antibodies are effective, you're dismissing the issue with not taking the vaccine.

1. It is almost as effective by itself, and it supplements natural antibodies after having caught it to boot. Since the side effects are so low, there is no reason not to get it even if you've had covid before, as it further reduces your chance to spread it to others or catch it yourself again, which leads into...

2. YOU WENT AROUND UNVACCINATED BEFOREHAND LIKE A BUNCH OF OTHER FOOLS WHO THEN HAD TO ENDURE IT AND BE A VECTOR FOR IT TO CONTINUE TO MUTATE AND CIRCULATE! You've proven yourself to be the threat you talked about earlier, congratulations. The longer it stays in circulation, the more dangerous and elusive variants can become, and the worse your point gets.

The vaccine is a no brainer looking at that chart, and the boosters are designed to be more efficient and counter more variants, something your natural antibodies will be less effective at doing the more the virus changes. You aren't an expert adding some kind of new startling information to the discourse here, you're just peddling nonsense convenient to your world view much like you were regarding abortions until I guess you got a bad case of  "dead ass wrong syndrome", a common ailment for the conservative community.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 4, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> I beg your pardon, I was speaking broadly while using your quote as a starting point. I don't actually care how you get your kicks, I just know that you seem to have zero empathy for women.
> 
> As for the vaccination...
> 
> ...



actually it was presented as just that, it was presented as an opportunity to get rid of covid right? thats why they created the buzz word "anti vaxxer" because you were the only ones keeping it around, now thats absolutely untrue but people still believe it.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 4, 2022)

Lacius said:


> They aren't. I'm sorry the facts are inconvenient to your position. That seems to be how it goes for right-wingers (climate change, LGBTQ youth suicide statistics, abortion stats, gun control stats, medical science and vaccines, evolution, age of the Earth, pretty much all science, etc.).
> 
> 
> Your bodily autonomy is protected. Don't want to get vaccinated? Don't get vaccinated. It's stupid, selfish, and shameful if you don't, and it was particularly reckless a year ago when so many people lacked immunity, but that's your decision.



gonna need clarification on all of the second part, and the first part, really the whole thing, as it seems that you seem uninformed in, probably all of those things.

regarding autonomy, ok easy, worried about an abortion? don't have sex.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> regarding autonomy, ok easy, worried about an abortion? don't have sex.



Generally speaking, sex is a biological drive comparable to the biological drives for food or water. My experience has been that people who say "just don't have sex" generally don't have sex themselves (often involuntarily).
Whether or not someone has sex, responsibly or irresponsibly, is irrelevant to whether or not they should have a right to bodily autonomy (they should).
Hypothetically, if a state made it so men who had sex had to be added to a registry to donate their kidneys if the need arose, you'd apparently be on board. Don't like it? "Don't have sex" is what you'd say.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 4, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> The longer it stays in circulation, the more dangerous and elusive variants can become



It's more likely to snow in the Sahara, which _can_ happen.



Dakitten said:


> The vaccine is a no brainer looking at that chart



The chart is designed to make it appear that people who get vaccinated are more likely to be admitted to the hospital.  You can't see or admit that? The vaccine is a "no brainer" (lol) to you, and you looked at a chart.



Dakitten said:


> the boosters are designed to be more efficient and counter more variants,


Afaik the boosters aren't designed to counter variants.  They are being sold to boost the ever decreasing efficaciousness.  You will never have the same strength of immunity that you had when you got the initial shot, unless it is supplemented with antibodies from actually contracting it.  The boosters were not "designed to counter variants".  That's false marketing.  If there is a new "booster" that has its MRNA sequence updated from variants, then it could be true.



Dakitten said:


> something your natural antibodies will be less effective at doing the more the virus changes



Acquired immunization is more effective in dealing with COVID and variants than the artificial methods you are talking about.  The problem is that one has to have had COVID to acquire it.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 4, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Generally speaking, sex is a biological drive comparable to the biological drives for food or water. My experience has been that people who say "just don't have sex" generally don't have sex themselves (often involuntarily).
> Whether or not someone has sex, responsibly or irresponsibly, is irrelevant to whether or not they should have a right to bodily autonomy (they should).
> Hypothetically, if a state made it so men who had sex had to be added to a registry to donate their kidneys if the need arose, you'd apparently be on board. Don't like it? "Don't have sex" is what you'd say.



well i am in fact an incel, so tehy can do whatever they want, doesnt matter to me either way, the question is would YOU be on board?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Dude. You know what? Let's play a tiny thought experiment.
> Say I go to Texas, in 2014. Or for that matter, ANY state. And I would be guaranteed (if I was born as a a women, or reproductive organs of one)  to still have the choice to get an abortion. Now if we play that same game, but now. I don't get that guarantee. I now have to know what the states laws are on the matter ahead of time, before even being there, or else I might get a *felony* for attempting to get an abortion.


Then go to a state where abortion is allowed. Simple. The thought experiment you presented falls apart almost immediately.


SyphenFreht said:


> Aren't the both of them human?


If someone kills and mutilates a corpse in cold blood, or just kills, then they gave up their right to be called human anymore, so no.


SyphenFreht said:


> I dehumanize others? Is that apparent in my defense of women's bodily autonomy?


You don't support the "defense of women's bodily autonomy", you support the killing of life.


SyphenFreht said:


> Show me in the Constitution where they explicitly have the right to life.


The constitution states man has the natural rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, and that includes those who will be born. It says life, the baby in almost all situations has the right to life.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Then go to a state where abortion is allowed. Simple. The thought experiment you presented falls apart almost immediately.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/08/missouri-abortion-ban-texas-supreme-court/
And this falls apart when you make getting an abortion out of state illegal, seems that your thought expirment didn't go very far


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/08/missouri-abortion-ban-texas-supreme-court/
> And this falls apart when you make getting an abortion out of state illegal, seems that your thought expirment didn't go very far


Dude, it was your thought experiment first, not mine, I just responded to it. And oh no, now you can't abort your baby, it's the end of the world, it's not like you can give it up for adoption so it can be happy then you can continue to lead your own selfish and miserable existence or anything. Or use protection. Or not fuck. Or not use the billion of other lame excuses to never take responsibilities for your own actions. My body, my choice as long as it means I don't have to take any responsibility in life. Enough with the excuses. Man the fuck up and take responsibility for your own choices. I don't know what and how else to tell you this.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Dude, it was your thought experiment first, not mine, I just responded to it. And oh no, now you can't abort your baby, it's the end of the world, it's not like you can give it up for adoption


Dude your moving the goddamn goal post, because I just disproved how your claim doesn't work. No that is not an acceptable choice because you are still violating womens right to a choice. And now your enforcing a draconian state, to prosecute someone OUTSIDE of that state. you are removing choice.
How many more mental gymnastics are you going to play.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> the question is would YOU be on board?


I think it should go without saying that, no, I don't think the state should be able to forcibly remove people's kidneys, just like I don't think the state should be able to force a woman to remain pregnant.



lolcatzuru said:


> well i am in fact an incel, so tehy can do whatever they want, doesnt matter to me either way.


Excusing deplorable policy because it "doesn't affect you" is also deplorable. I'm sure you would have been a hoot during times of slavery. "I'm not part of the group that is enslaved, so it doesn't matter to me either way." I'm sorry this is how you navigate the world.

My example was also, well, just an example. How would you feel about the state forcibly violating your bodily autonomy rights if it did affect you personally? A state that can take away one group's bodily autonomy rights can take away any group's bodily autonomy rights.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Dude, it was your thought experiment first, not mine, I just responded to it. And oh no, now you can't abort your baby, it's the end of the world, it's not like you can give it up for adoption so it can be happy then you can continue to lead your own selfish and miserable existence or anything. Or use protection. Or not fuck. Or not use the billion of other lame excuses to never take responsibilities for your own actions. My body, my choice as long as it means I don't have to take any responsibility in life. Enough with the excuses. Man the fuck up and take responsibility for your own choices. I don't know what and how else to tell you this.


How would you feel if the state could legally take one of your kidneys if you had sex? "Fuckin' take responsibility for your actions, man."


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 4, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I think it should go without saying that, no, I don't think the state should be able to forcibly remove people's kidneys, just like I don't think the state should be able to force a woman to remain pregnant.
> 
> 
> Excusing deplorable policy because it "doesn't affect you" is also deplorable. I'm sure you would have been a hoot during times of slavery. "I'm not part of the group that is enslaved, so it doesn't matter to me either way." I'm sorry this is how you navigate the world.
> ...



obviously i wouldnt like it but maybe if people had been more mature with mandates, this wouldnt have happened.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> but maybe if people had been more mature with mandates, this wouldnt have happened.


The overturning of Roe had nothing to do with COVID vaccine mandates, and these vaccine mandates were not violations of bodily autonomy rights. You can legally be unvaccinated in all 50 states, but you can't legally get an abortion in all 50 states.



lolcatzuru said:


> obviously i wouldnt like it


Then you should be against state abortion bans.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jul 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/08/missouri-abortion-ban-texas-supreme-court/
> And this falls apart when you make getting an abortion out of state illegal, seems that your thought expirment didn't go very far


I would move out of state but then again that would make states (especially swing states) more power to the GOP and we don't want that especially if trump returns and goes full dictator


----------



## lolcatzuru (Jul 4, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The overturning of Roe had nothing to do with COVID vaccine mandates, and these vaccine mandates were not violations of bodily autonomy rights. You can legally be unvaccinated in all 50 states, but you can't legally get an abortion in all 50 states.
> 
> 
> Then you should be against state abortion bans.



well maybe i wouldve been if you they hadnt had mandates, now i say bring it on, also source on those 2 things not being related?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Dude your moving the goddamn goal post, because I just disproved how your claim doesn't work. No that is not an acceptable choice because you are still violating womens right to a choice. And now your enforcing a draconian state, to prosecute someone OUTSIDE of that state. you are removing choice.
> How many more mental gymnastics are you going to play.


I'm not moving anything. If you're just gonna start making shit up and making false accusations then the conversation ends here.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 4, 2022)

Lacius said:


> How would you feel if the state could legally take one of your kidneys if you had sex? "Fuckin' take responsibility for your actions, man."


Oh good lord what a piss poor comparison that's not even the same nor does it make a lick of sense. It's not even grasping at straws, it's the equivalent of me saying, "It's your fault that the criminal broke into your house and shot you so you deserve to go to jail."


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 4, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Then go to a state where abortion is allowed. Simple. The thought experiment you presented falls apart almost immediately.



If you don't like that people are having abortions, move to a country that outlaws them as a whole. 



BitMasterPlus said:


> If someone kills and mutilates a corpse in cold blood, or just kills, then they gave up their right to be called human anymore, so no.



I don't think that's how that works, or else everyone in the military that's killed someone isn't human.



BitMasterPlus said:


> You don't support the "defense of women's bodily autonomy", you support the killing of life.



Why can't it be both?



BitMasterPlus said:


> The constitution states man has the natural rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, and that includes those who will be born. It says life, the baby in almost all situations has the right to life.



The pursuit of happiness designates through inference that abortions are covered unless it's amended that it isn't. Same way you people infer the 2A rights includes the right to own guns.



BitMasterPlus said:


> I'm not moving anything. If you're just gonna start making shit up and making false accusations then the conversation ends here.



Why? You do it all the time.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 4, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Why does John settle for less?  He could be getting tested and wearing PPE, staying home more etc.   Majority of spread is caused by the vaccinated so John has a lot to answer for, putting public health at risk when he could be minimising the risk.
> 
> OH wait , I know why!  Because John has already "done his bit".   He already did his bit for medical conscription, so it doesn't matter if he puts people at risk, because he has already signaled his virtue and committed himself to society and state.  Because of this, John gets to oppress the vaccine-free because he is righteous.



If John wishes to live and function in an active society, he should take whatever steps necessary to ensure that society continues to function, even if it means getting a vaccine and abiding by whatever measures the CDC recommends to keep that safety. If he doesn't wish to comply, then he shouldn't leave his house.




NoobletCheese said:


> What is your reasoning against:
> 
> * donating blood
> * registering as an organ donor
> ...



I don't disagree with most of that. Where are you going with this besides dodging the question at hand?


----------



## mrdude (Jul 4, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I'm not moving anything. If you're just gonna start making shit up and making false accusations then the conversation ends here.


It's pointless responding to that guy (Nothereed)
. He's a woke trans SJW (you know the type) NPC and can never get pregnant so this change in law doesn't affect him in any way whatsover. He just likes complaining about Republicans, Hate's patriots, and doesn't like the police or anyone with authority over him. He thinks there's Nazi's around every corner and that all white people are guilty or some sort of hate crime. You may as well argue with a piece of wood as the wood won't try any do mental gymnastics and make up words or new definitions for existing words to justify the mental stuff that his brain CPU is trying to compute.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 4, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Oh good lord what a piss poor comparison that's not even the same nor does it make a lick of sense. It's not even grasping at straws, it's the equivalent of me saying, "It's your fault that the criminal broke into your house and shot you so you deserve to go to jail."


You're saying a person should lose their right to bodily autonomy if they have sex. Finding my example inconvenient doesn't mean it isn't comparable.

Do you think the state should be able to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights in order to save a life? Pick a side and be consistent.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 4, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You're saying a person should lose their right to bodily autonomy if they have sex.


Damn incels, getting jealous of everyone who isn't as abnormal as them.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 4, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Damn incels, getting jealous of everyone who isn't as abnormal as them.


It's the chicken or the egg. Are these admitted incels deplorable because they can't have sex, or can they not have sex because they're deplorable?


----------



## Relys (Jul 4, 2022)

mrdude said:


> These people were just called "ugly people" when I was younger. Usually smallish fat/stocky ladies that had a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp (like Nicola Sturgeon), and were unlikely to be found to be attractive by males, which would most likely only have sex with them for a drunken bet with their mates. Males that found it difficult to have sex with (non prostitute) girls/women and were usually weird gaunt looking and effimate types. These people today just wear makeup and claim to be women then claim everyone they disagree with is an incel or a reincarnation of Hitler.


Actually most transgender women are lesbians or pansexual and the reason for transition isn't for lack of sex, but to match the internal image of how they view themselves (both physically and emotionally).

Anyways, let's stay on the thread topic shall we.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 4, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> If you don't like that people are having abortions, move to a country that outlaws them as a whole.


Why when the simpler solution is to live in a state where abortions are may or may not be allowed than to move to another country?


SyphenFreht said:


> I don't think that's how that works, or else everyone in the military that's killed someone isn't human.


Yes it is how that works. In the military, it's to kill terrorists. It may depend on the type of military in different nations, but it's different in war.


SyphenFreht said:


> Why can't it be both?


It's one thing to support a person's rights, but if that means the murder of an innocent life, then yes, it's two different things.


SyphenFreht said:


> The pursuit of happiness designates through inference that abortions are covered unless it's amended that it isn't. Same way you people infer the 2A rights includes the right to own guns.


No it doesn't. And the 2ndA explicitly states for people to bear arms, aka guns and whatnot. Don't try to pull that bs with me.


SyphenFreht said:


> Why? You do it all the time.


Not really, just unhinged people like you do. And that wasn't even a response to you so butt out asshole.



Lacius said:


> You're saying a person should lose their right to bodily autonomy if they have sex. Finding my example inconvenient doesn't mean it isn't comparable.
> 
> Do you think the state should be able to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights in order to save a life? Pick a side and be consistent.


No I'm not, but I know it's hard for someone so unhinged and programmed with hardcore NPC ideals to understand so I can't blame you completely. Your example isn't inconvenient, it's just plain wrong and shallow. There is nothing that is violating a person's autonomy rights to save a life. Why do you think a baby is a god damn parasite if you don't like it? If that were the case, we were all parasites in one point in our lives that deserved to die. Do you think you or I or anyone still deserve to die today even though we've long gone outside our mother's womb? Why don't you look past yourself for once, actually go outside, and educate yourself before you make even more ridiculous and borderline to just plain evil and vile responses.


----------



## Relys (Jul 4, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> No I'm not, but I know it's hard for someone so unhinged and programmed with hardcore NPC ideals to understand so I can't blame you completely. Your example isn't inconvenient, it's just plain wrong and shallow. There is nothing that is violating a person's autonomy rights to save a life. Why do you think a baby is a god damn parasite if you don't like it? If that were the case, we were all parasites in one point in our lives that deserved to die. Do you think you or I or anyone still deserve to die today even though we've long gone outside our mother's womb? Why don't you look past yourself for once, actually go outside, and educate yourself before you make even more ridiculous and borderline to just plain evil and vile responses.


So should we also extend child support payments, welfare, medicaid and voting rights to a fetus?

But you don't care do you? You don't even care about supporting it once it's outside the womb. It's just a convenience excuse to feel morally superior and call your opponents a bunch of baby killers without having to worry about passing any legislation to expand social services to take care of the children we already have in poverty and the foster care system.

A fetus is potential to develop into a human. What separates us from animals is our ability to use tools, language, think abstractly, and modify the world around us. A fetus has none of those abilities. Giving it more rights than the adult women that's carrying it is absolutely absurd.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 4, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> There is nothing that is violating a person's autonomy rights to save a life.


So the state can take your bodily autonomy rights as long as it saves a life? Great. The state can forcibly take your kidney then.


----------



## assassinz (Jul 4, 2022)

All this means is just go get an abortion in states where it's legal. 

No constitutional rights have been violated or taken away.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 4, 2022)

assassinz said:


> All this means is just go get an abortion in states where it's legal.
> 
> No constitutional rights have been violated or taken away.


Re-read this stupidity, but slowly


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

As a  reminder


----------



## Lacius (Jul 4, 2022)

assassinz said:


> All this means is just go get an abortion in states where it's legal.


That's a nearly 900 mile drive for many people, one way. And that isn't something many people can afford to do.



assassinz said:


> No constitutional rights have been violated or taken away.


Whether or not you think it's a constitutional right, bodily autonomy rights now no longer exist. Do you believe a state should be able to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights? Because that sets a dangerous precedent.


----------



## assassinz (Jul 4, 2022)

Lacius said:


> That's a nearly 900 mile drive for many people, one way. And that isn't something many people can afford to do.
> 
> 
> Whether or not you think it's a constitutional right, bodily autonomy rights now no longer exist. Do you believe a state should be able to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights? Because that sets a dangerous precedent.


Im


Lacius said:


> That's a nearly 900 mile drive for many people, one way. And that isn't something many people can afford to do.
> 
> 
> Whether or not you think it's a constitutional right, bodily autonomy rights now no longer exist. Do you believe a state should be able to violate a person's bodily autonomy rights? Because that sets a dangerous precedent.


It doesn't matter what I or anyone here believes. The repeal just shows roe vs wade was unconstitutional to begin with and so the SCOTUS finally removed it from Federal jurisdiction.

And I'm not aware of any laws regarding bodily autonomy rights. But I agree it may set a dangerous precedent depending on how government wants to spin it.


----------



## assassinz (Jul 4, 2022)

No. You re-read the facts and accept them. Fact check on google if you need to. Don't worry, it's not the end of the world.


Dark_Ansem said:


> Re-read this stupidity, but slowly


----------



## Lacius (Jul 4, 2022)

assassinz said:


> It doesn't matter what I or anyone here believes. The repeal just shows roe vs wade was unconstitutional to begin with and so the SCOTUS finally removed it from Federal jurisdiction.


Overturning Roe doesn't mean it was unconstitutional. It means the current Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional, despite 50 years of precedent saying it was. It isn't a secret that there was a concerted political effort to get justices on the court who would repeal it, whether or not abortion bans were actually constitutional.



assassinz said:


> I'm not aware of any laws regarding bodily autonomy rights. But I agree it may set a dangerous precedent depending on how government wants to spin it.


State anti-abortion laws are anti-bodily autonomy laws.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 4, 2022)

mrdude said:


> He thinks there's Nazi's around every corner


That's a strawman. It just happens that your language is very Nazi adjacent along with your group of peers. You outed yourself as against LGBTQ people. And you refuse to listen to evidence but rather alternative facts, regarding "dear leader"
Something Nazi's in Germany did before taking complete power. They wanted to control people's bodies, which hello to Roe reversal. And maybe the fact oath keepers and proudboys were explicitly called out by the former president, to do an arm coup attempt. Which also Nazi Germany went through.  Maybe hints at borderline nazi /fascist rehetoric.


mrdude said:


> white people are guilty or some sort of hate crime


Now that's just another strawman. Cope harder



mrdude said:


> and can never get pregnant so this change in law doesn't affect him in any way whatsover


It does effect me, just not directly. My mother originally wanted to get an abortion. But couldn't do so because I was too far developed. She wasn't ready to have a kid or in the best of mental places.
Had abortions been banned back then. She would of tried to get an abortion. And end up dying in the process getting a "back alley" abortion. Because the lack of information and safety. Her and my life would of been lost for nothing.
 Since you can make something  illegal, but won't stop it from happening. I have several women friends that I'm not interested in for a longer term relationship. But even they have vented to me about how terrorfying it is. That's where my belief comes from. It's not from myself. It's confirmed in almost every friend I've talked to. So I'll be the speaker, and they'll be microphone.
So maybe you, as obvious male, should learn to relate to your peers. Instead of casting them, their opinion like fodder for something that doesn't effect you.


mrdude said:


> and doesn't like the police or anyone with authority over him.


I'm raised like how my mother taught me. Question authority, even her own.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 4, 2022)

Relys said:


> So should we also extend child support payments, welfare, medicaid and voting rights to a fetus?
> 
> But you don't care do you? You don't even care about supporting it once it's outside the womb. It's just a convenience excuse to feel morally superior and call your opponents a bunch of baby killers without having to worry about passing any legislation to expand social services to take care of the children we already have in poverty and the foster care system.
> 
> A fetus is potential to develop into a human. What separates us from animals is our ability to use tools, language, think abstractly, and modify the world around us. A fetus has none of those abilities. Giving it more rights than the adult women that's carrying it is absolutely absurd.


Considering how much you don't seem to care for human life in general, you really have no idea, do you? If that's the case then why isn't murder for any age legal then? We can improve the foster system, people want to adopt and genuinely take care of kids, and give them a chance to grow up and life the life happy life they want to. Can't do that if they aren't given a chance in the first place because some dumb fuck decided it's okay to kill babies as long as their twisted agenda is satisfied. The idea that we want to give it more rights than the women is absurd. We want to give it rights in the first place, so it has a chance to live. You want to take away those rights, not us.


Lacius said:


> So the state can take your bodily autonomy rights as long as it saves a life? Great. The state can forcibly take your kidney then.


It seems the state has already forcibly taken your brain and cognitive thinking. It's not the same thing, no matter how hard you try to push it. There's a big difference between voluntarily organ donating and abortion, but keep trying.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 4, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Why when the simpler solution is to live in a state where abortions are may or may not be allowed than to move to another country?



For the same reason you think people who need to get life preserving surgeries should have to travel abroad. What's good for the goose is good for the gander?



BitMasterPlus said:


> Yes it is how that works. In the military, it's to kill terrorists. It may depend on the type of military in different nations, but it's different in war.



So that means, by your logic alone, they're not human. Got it. Never thought I'd see a Republican that hates the military.



BitMasterPlus said:


> It's one thing to support a person's rights, but if that means the murder of an innocent life, then yes, it's two different things.



Isn't that what you're doing by advocating forced births, especially on pain of death in certain states?



BitMasterPlus said:


> No it doesn't. And the 2ndA explicitly states for people to bear arms, aka guns and whatnot. Don't try to pull that bs with me.



The only BS is how you interpret the Constitution to fit your idealistic need for control of other people. If it's not about control, then at no point should you care.

Also, the 2A does not explicitly state the right to own guns, in any sense. That was a narrative pushed by gun manufacturers to sell guns, the way abortion statistics are manipulated to support religious oppression.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Not really, just unhinged people like you do. And that wasn't even a response to you so butt out asshole.



Of course you do, and I'm not the first person to point that out. 

Last I checked this was a public forum. You don't like people responding to you? Don't post. Otherwise you're just crying. 

Mmm, those Republican tears taste much better than liberal.



BitMasterPlus said:


> No I'm not, but I know it's hard for someone so unhinged and programmed with hardcore NPC ideals to understand so I can't blame you completely. Your example isn't inconvenient, it's just plain wrong and shallow. There is nothing that is violating a person's autonomy rights to save a life. Why do you think a baby is a god damn parasite if you don't like it? If that were the case, we were all parasites in one point in our lives that deserved to die. Do you think you or I or anyone still deserve to die today even though we've long gone outside our mother's womb? Why don't you look past yourself for once, actually go outside, and educate yourself before you make even more ridiculous and borderline to just plain evil and vile responses.



Just because something is a parasite doesn't mean it deserves to die, but why advocate the death of the host in favor of the parasite unless you had no empathy for the host? You pick and choose what lives are important under the guise of "all lives matter" and then don't understand why people call you hypocrites. 

At the end of the day, you present yourself as a miserable Republican who gets mad when people call you out for being a bigot. Call everyone else an NPC or programmed all you want, you're the only one here at the moment that's ok with dehumanizing women because you only care about a baby when it's getting forced to be born. And before you argue that it's not your responsibility to care for someone else's child, you should realize that if you're not going to help the kid at hand, you have no business having an opinion on the matter in any regard. That's pretty entitled of you people to think you can put your mouth anywhere you want despite your fingers being in someone else's pocket.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 4, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> There's a big difference between voluntarily organ donating and abortion, but keep trying.


I agree. The analogy is involuntary organ donating.

Edit: A big thanks to @Issac for removing the anti-LGBTQ posts. I've been reporting these kinds of posts and bookmarking them to check later if anything is done about them, and it's often the case that nothing is done about them. Thanks again.


----------



## assassinz (Jul 5, 2022)

Lacius said:


> SOverturning Roe doesn't mean it was unconstitutional. It means the current Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional, despite 50 years of precedent saying it was. It isn't a secret that there was a concerted political effort to get justices on the court who would repeal it, whether or not abortion bans were actually constitutional.
> 
> 
> State anti-abortion laws are anti-bodily autonomy laws.


It can be argued that roe vs wade was unconstitutionally added to the constitution to begin with. But yes any SCOTUS ruling will depend on who's got the majority.

“The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion…,” the June 24 ruling said. “We thus return the power to weigh those arguments to the people and their elected representatives.”

The best way to change laws is vote or get involved and become a politician. Or be a lobbyist if you have lots of cash to sway things in the direction you want.

I say let's have a special election where only the biological women vote on abortion and let the pieces fall where they may.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 5, 2022)

assassinz said:


> It can be argued that roe vs wade was unconstitutionally added to the constitution to begin with. But yes any SCOTUS ruling will depend on who's got the majority.
> 
> “The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion…,” the June 24 ruling said. “We thus return the power to weigh those arguments to the people and their elected representatives.”
> 
> ...


Regardless of whether or not abortion bans are unconstitutional (they are), any law that infringes on a person's bodily autonomy rights is unjust and immoral.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I don't disagree with most of that. Where are you going with this besides dodging the question at hand?



I don't disagree with people taking vaccines, if that's what they want to do that's their choice.



Lacius said:


> "I cite the CDC when I think it supports my point, but I reject it as a bunch of lies when it doesn't." Lol.



Looking at the page you cited, it seems they are only claiming it's "safer and more dependable" in the sense that deliberately exposing yourself to Covid is unsafe, which I haven't suggested anyone do, so it's a moot point.

If by "dependable" they mean "more likely to give you a certain level of immunity", then their own study contradicts this and CDC is being disingenuous which is not my fault.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 5, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Looking at the page you cited, it seems they are only claiming it's "safer and more dependable" in the sense that deliberately exposing yourself to Covid is unsafe


Not even close.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> I don't disagree with people taking vaccines, if that's what they want to do that's their choice.



Just like abortions, no?


----------



## assassinz (Jul 5, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Regardless of whether or not abortion bans are unconstitutional (they are), any law that infringes on a person's bodily autonomy rights is unjust and immoral.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Just like abortions, no?



If people want to get pregnant that's their choice.  But choices have consequences.   If you want to live and function in a society you should abide by the law of the land.  If you don't wish to comply you shouldn't leave your house.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> If people want to get pregnant that's their choice.  But choices have consequences.   If you want to live and function in a society you should abide by the law of the land.  If you don't wish to comply you shouldn't leave your house.



Except abortions aren't a public health issue.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Except abortions aren't a public health issue.



Prenatal care is a public health issue just for the mother or the baby also?   Is the baby included in the public?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Prenatal care is a public health issue just for the mother or the baby also?   Is the baby included in the public?



No, those are both private issues. You can't spread pregnancy or the termination of the way you can spread COVID


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> For the same reason you think people who need to get life preserving surgeries should have to travel abroad. What's good for the goose is good for the gander?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not gonna even read this nonsense anymore because it's already gone on for far too long, I'd have a more intelligent debate against a wall made out of manure. You have no ounce of respect or humanity in you for this to continue. I'm tired, have a headache, nothing will get solved, neither of us will budge on our positions ever regardless of how long this debate goes on, and it'll just be another 500 pages of arguing so good day or night sir and Roe v. Wade is still kill like it or not.


Lacius said:


> I agree. The analogy is involuntary organ donating.
> 
> Edit: A big thanks to @Issac for removing the anti-LGBTQ posts. I've been reporting these kinds of posts and bookmarking them to check later if anything is done about them, and it's often the case that nothing is done about them. Thanks again.


And you're an evil moron, good night.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I'm not gonna even read this nonsense anymore because it's already gone on for far too long, I'd have a more intelligent debate against a wall made out of manure. I'm tired, have a headache, nothing will get solved, neither of us will budge on our positions ever regardless of how long this debate goes on, and it'll just be another 500 pages of arguing so good day or night sir and Roe v. Wade is still kill like it or not.



Look at you, crying again. What a whiner.

Biden's already set to filibuster the codifying of Roe v Wade. Even if that's all he did during his presidency, that's still gonna be way more than Trump ever did. 

Good night, sweet dreams, don't let the thoughts of people having rights keep you up too late. I'm sure you'll have more vitriol to spread tomorrow.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Look at you, crying again. What a whiner.
> 
> Biden's already set to filibuster the codifying of Roe v Wade. Even if that's all he did during his presidency, that's still gonna be way more than Trump ever did.
> 
> Good night, sweet dreams, don't let the thoughts of people having rights keep you up too late. I'm sure you'll have more vitriol to spread tomorrow.


Haha, funny. When the republicans take over again they will just add even more and it will be back to square one, Biden will be impeached soon enough, I will laugh at that.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Look at you, crying again. What a whiner.
> 
> Biden's already set to filibuster the codifying of Roe v Wade. Even if that's all he did during his presidency, that's still gonna be way more than Trump ever did.
> 
> Good night, sweet dreams, don't let the thoughts of people having rights keep you up too late. I'm sure you'll have more vitriol to spread tomorrow.


Biden can't even wipe his ass by himself, so unless he does want a civil war, that old cocksucker isn't gonna do anything. Your benevolent isn't gonna do shit if he knows what's good for him. His main job is to improve and protect the US citizens, which he has not done a single thing. Trump made this nation strong in 4 years despite all the push back he got, and Biden destroyed all that in 4 months. You better hope a civil war doesn't actually start, cause then we'd actually take our country back and guys like you would have to leave for good.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Haha, funny. When the republicans take over again they will just add even more and it will be back to square one, Biden will be impeached soon enough, I will laugh at that.



You mean the way Trump got impeached twice? Honestly I see Biden dying of old age before his term is up, but that's still more desirable than letting Chester Cheetah or any of his cohorts back into the office. 

Tell me, when's the last time Republicans took control of anything? Trump was laughable every day in office and Bush didn't do much either. Is it when the second coming of Jesus that Republicans will actually have majority control? Cuz right now the only thing they got going for them is lobbying dying enterprises like coal and oil. 

Good try though.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> No, those are both private issues.



So just to confirm:

Women having access to abortion = public health issue
Women having access to prenatal care = not a public health issue
Women's babies = not a part of the public

Is my understanding correct?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> So just to confirm:
> 
> Women having access to abortion = public health issue
> Women having access to prenatal care = not a public health issue
> ...



Public health typically refers to situations where the health of a large group of people as a whole is at stake. Whether this is COVID, bad meat, a radioactive spill, so on and so forth, makes no difference as long as it affects a large group of people in an open, public area.

Women having access to abortions can be considered a public health issue as the lack of such care affects women as a whole, but honestly that's more of a general health issue, as groups of women don't go and have abortions in the middle of a public space. 

Prenatal care has the same response as above. 

If a baby is taken into the public, then it becomes part of the public, if we're looking at this literally, but the real answer is that while the baby's foray into the public is irrelevant, it's also of no business to anyone else outside the select few that care for it. 

Let me ask you this as a rebuttal: if you believe having a baby, and any abortion that may be considered with it, is a public health issue, then why is the care of the baby before and after birth not a public health issue as well? At what point is it feasible to reason that the birth of a child is the only part of that child's life that deserves to be at the concern of the general public?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Biden can't even wipe his ass by himself, so unless he does want a civil war, that old cocksucker isn't gonna do anything. Your benevolent isn't gonna do shit if he knows what's good for him. His main job is to improve and protect the US citizens, which he has not done a single thing. Trump made this nation strong in 4 years despite all the push back he got, and Biden destroyed all that in 4 months. You better hope a civil war doesn't actually start, cause then we'd actually take our country back and guys like you would have to leave for good.



I missed this post. My bad.

Who's going to incite the civil war? Is it going to be the anti abortion Republicans? Who are they going to fight? Pregnant women? What a war that'll be. 

At what point did Trump make the country strong? Was it when he tanked the economy right after COVID because he didn't understand the implications of the nothing he did when it became a large public issue? Was it when he put strain on all of our intercontinental trade by having a cow over China and then buddy buddied with Russia? 

What an American thing to say: "When we start rioting we're gonna kick all the other Americans out!" No wonder your party has never been anything more than a waste of time and human organs.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Let me ask you this as a rebuttal: if you believe having a baby, and any abortion that may be considered with it, is a public health issue, then why is the care of the baby before and after birth not a public health issue as well? At what point is it feasible to reason that the birth of a child is the only part of that child's life that deserves to be at the concern of the general public?



I've heard people say that women not being able to access healthcare is a "public health issue", and they include abortion as being part of healthcare.

If they include abortion, then why not include prenatal care as well.  And if prenatal care is included, then perhaps the health of the baby is part of the "public health" equation as well.  

Care of the baby after birth would be postnatal care which I presume is considered healthcare as well.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 5, 2022)

assassinz said:


> No. You re-read the facts and accept them. Fact check on google if you need to. Don't worry, it's not the end of the world.


No, you re-read your nonsense and make sense of it.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 5, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> I've heard people say that women not being able to access healthcare is a "public health issue", and they include abortion as being part of healthcare.
> 
> If they include abortion, then why not include prenatal care as well.  And if prenatal care is included, then perhaps the health of the baby is part of the "public health" equation as well.
> 
> Care of the baby after birth would be postnatal care which I presume is considered healthcare as well.


Are you a childfree fanatic?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> I've heard people say that women not being able to access healthcare is a "public health issue", and they include abortion as being part of healthcare.
> 
> If they include abortion, then why not include prenatal care as well.  And if prenatal care is included, then perhaps the health of the baby is part of the "public health" equation as well.
> 
> Care of the baby after birth would be postnatal care which I presume is considered healthcare as well.



So if all these things are considered public healthcare, then it stands to reason that the public should be involved in every aspect of the child's growth, correct? It doesn't make sense to call every respect of a child's development a public health issue but then only be active during the birthing process. 

If Republicans want to stop abortions so bad, then they need to stop being hypocrites and start supporting the ideas that foster environments where people want to have the child. Unfortunately, that comes across as socialism, which of course no Republican likes. 
So then we get into this never ending cycle where Republicans want to stop abortions but don't care enough to actually do anything about it unless it resorts down to control.

Modern day Republicans are turning very quick into new age Nazism.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I missed this post. My bad.
> 
> Who's going to incite the civil war? Is it going to be the anti abortion Republicans? Who are they going to fight? Pregnant women? What a war that'll be.
> 
> ...


More nonsense and gibberish.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> More nonsense and gibberish.



Did you have anything more pertinent to say or is it too early to come up with anything more than potshots?

I feel like there should be a thread where people like you and I can just trade insults and leave the integrity of this thread alone.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Did you have anything more pertinent to say or is it too early to come up with anything more than potshots?
> 
> I feel like there should be a thread where people like you and I can just trade insults and leave the integrity of this thread alone.


More nonsense and gibberish.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> More nonsense and gibberish.



You're such a beautiful person.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> You're such a beautiful person.


Something we can actually agree on for once.


----------



## wartutor (Jul 5, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Something we can actually agree on for once.


Only took a hundred and five pages


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> You're such a beautiful person.



Inside and outside I'm sure.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Inside and outside I'm sure.



What's funny is how they take this as a win. But I guess when you choose to be that degenerate, you take whatchu can get. 

Back to the topic at hand, I haven't seen any updates on that 10 year old. I hope she's ok. Cases like that are going to spread like wildfire now. Notice how none of these conservatives replied to that topic, just back to hurling insults and trolling. Senseless and completely unempathetic.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jul 5, 2022)

chrisrlink said:


> I would move out of state but then again that would make states (especially swing states) more power to the GOP and we don't want that especially if trump returns and goes full dictator


don't worry, I'm sure that Ron Desantis will win, Trump is too stained in the eyes of the people.


Also I feel bad for that 10 year old, but this shouldn't represent most of the bans. I'm sure the other governments would be much better about this, especially since it was a 10 year old.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

KennyAtom said:


> don't worry, I'm sure that Ron Desantis will win, Trump is too stained in the eyes of the people.
> 
> 
> Also I feel bad for that 10 year old, but this shouldn't represent most of the bans. I'm sure the other governments would be much better about this, especially since it was a 10 year old.



But that begs the question, with cases like this, are blanket laws helpful?


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 5, 2022)

All that matters is what the moral status of the baby/fetus is.   If it has a certain amount of moral status then you can't just kill them because you don't want them around, no matter how desperate you are.  If I dump a newborn kitten in your house that doesn't mean you can flush it down the toilet because you can't be dealing with an animal right now.  Especially if someone else is willing to adopt them, and there are plenty of conservatives wanting to adopt babies slated for abortion which demolishes the argument that they don't care what happens after the baby is born.

People are pronounced dead if their heart stops beating for a certain amount of time.  Ohio flips this around and says therefore life begins at the beginning of a heartbeat at 6 weeks.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So if all these things are considered public healthcare, then it stands to reason that the public should be involved in every aspect of the child's growth, correct? It doesn't make sense to call every respect of a child's development a public health issue but then only be active during the birthing process.



If people can't access healthcare for their children then yes that would be a public health issue in my view.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> All that matters is what the moral status of the baby/fetus is.   If it has a certain amount of moral status then you can't just kill them because you don't want them around, no matter how desperate you are.  If I dump a newborn kitten in your house that doesn't mean you can flush it down the toilet because you can't be dealing with an animal right now.  Especially if someone else is willing to adopt them, and there are plenty of conservatives wanting to adopt babies slated for abortion which demolishes the argument that they don't care what happens after the baby is born.
> 
> People are pronounced dead if their heart stops beating for a certain amount of time.  Ohio flips this around and says therefore life begins at the beginning of a heartbeat at 6 weeks.



So what are your thoughts on regards to the 10 year that got raped and became pregnant? In your eyes, should she carry it even though she "doesn't want it around"? Regardless of what happens to the perpetrator, do you honestly believe this 10 year old should go through with the pregnancy, even though there's a good chance it will kill her and the baby?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> If people can't access healthcare for their children then yes that would be a public health issue in my view.



I appreciate your answer but it didn't exactly answer my question. I'll ask again:

If people feel they are entitled enough to try and control a woman's pregnancy, shouldn't they also be involved in ensuring the care of the baby, pre and post birth?


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So what are your thoughts on regards to the 10 year that got raped and became pregnant? In your eyes, should she carry it even though she "doesn't want it around"? Regardless of what happens to the perpetrator, do you honestly believe this 10 year old should go through with the pregnancy, even though there's a good chance it will kill her and the baby?



Ohio allows abortion at any stage if the baby is a physical risk so I'm guessing that wasn't the case.

The way I deal with this difficult question is to flip it around and say how late term are you willing to go in rape cases?   If we set a limit then we're still "forcing" a rape victim to give birth.  If we dont set a limit then we can kill babies if no-one wants them.

Pro-life Youtuber "Awaken with JP" says if he was raped he would have an abortion, but also says that it is evil.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> If people feel they are entitled enough to try and control a woman's pregnancy, shouldn't they also be involved in ensuring the care of the baby, pre and post birth?



I think it depends on the moral status of the baby/fetus and if they pay taxes to public healthcare.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> The way I deal with this difficult question is to flip it around and say how late term are you willing to go in rape cases?   If we set a limit then we're still "forcing" a rape victim to give birth.  If we dont set a limit then we can kill babies if no-one wants them.



So should the ten year old be forced to give birth?



NoobletCheese said:


> I think it depends on the moral status of the baby/fetus and if they pay taxes to public healthcare.



If who pays taxes? The people wanting to control pregnancy?


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So should the ten year old be forced to give birth?



Failing to provide a service is not really the same thing as forcing someone to do something.

If I'm accidentally injured and need medical care, and you don't give me care, and my condition becomes worse as a result, I can't really say you forced me to become worse.   I can say that you should have provided better care.

How many weeks pregnant was she?   Does it even matter?   Either way her autonomy is being overruled.  Assuming 10 year olds have such autonomy — what if she doesn't want an abortion but the parent does?



SyphenFreht said:


> If who pays taxes? The people wanting to control pregnancy?



Yeah


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> How many weeks pregnant was she?   Does it even matter?   Either way her autonomy is being overruled.  Assuming 10 year olds have such autonomy — what if she doesn't want an abortion but the parent does?



All valid points and questions.

Do you think she should be forced to give birth?



NoobletCheese said:


> Yeah



Should that same precedent be upheld across all topics of interest regarding both taxes and public health/safety? For example, since I pay taxes, should I be able to control:

Where religion is allowed to be taught and enforced?

What people are able to do in regards to the purchase and ownership of guns? 

The administration and force of vaccines and masks?

All of these, in some situations more than others, can be argued as public health and safety issues. If it stands to reason that we should enact blanket laws on abortion because these people pay taxes, then it should also be true that these examples I put forth should fall under the same rules. That way, we can ensure that everyone follows the same rules, regardless of belief or background.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 5, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Failing to provide a service is not really the same thing as forcing someone to do something.
> 
> If I'm accidentally injured and need medical care, and you don't give me care, and my condition becomes worse as a result, I can't really say you forced me to become worse.   I can say that you should have provided better care.


It isn't that someone is failing to provide a service. The state is saying that doing something to one's own body is illegal.

It would be like saying you got injured and needed medical care, but the state made it illegal to provide you medical care.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 5, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Do you think she should be forced to give birth?



Nobody is forcing her to do anything.  Failing to provide medical care is not an act of force.  

Do you have a self-consistent position regarding rape cases?



SyphenFreht said:


> If it stands to reason that we should enact blanket laws on abortion because these people pay taxes, then it should also be true that these examples I put forth should fall under the same rules. That way, we can ensure that everyone follows the same rules, regardless of belief or background.



I don't believe I've claimed the legality of abortion should be a function of whether taxes are paid.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 5, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Nobody is forcing her to do anything.  Failing to provide medical care is not an act of force.



I understand that. 

Do you think she should be forced to birth?



NoobletCheese said:


> Do you have a self-consistent position regarding rape cases?



Yes. I think if a person is raped, it's up to the victim to decide regardless of any other input what they do with the pregnancy.



NoobletCheese said:


> I don't believe I've claimed the legality of abortion should be a function of whether taxes are paid.



You haven't. But that doesn't answer my question either. 

If abortion can be considered a public health issue because people pay taxes to support these services, should that same logic be applied across the board?


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It would be like saying you got injured and needed medical care, but the state made it illegal to provide you medical care.



What if the state said abortion is legal, but no hospitals wanted to provide the service — is she still being forced to have the baby?



SyphenFreht said:


> Yes. I think if a person is raped, it's up to the victim to decide regardless of any other input what they do with the pregnancy.



So a rape victim could have an abortion at any stage of pregnancy?   



SyphenFreht said:


> If an abortion can be considered a public health issue because people pay taxes to support these services



My claim was that if people are paying taxes to public healthcare, then they are providing care for everyone.

I can't currently think of a reason why taxes would need to be paid in order for something to be considered a public health issue.   eg. Covid would be a public health issue regardless of whether taxes are paid.

I don't personally think abortion is healthcare as it's contrary to the health of the baby.  Prenatal care is healthcare because it cares for the health of the baby.   Abortion is more of a medical service in my view.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> So a rape victim could have an abortion at any stage of pregnancy?



In my opinion, yes. 



NoobletCheese said:


> I don't personally think abortion is healthcare as it's contrary to the health of the baby.  Prenatal care is healthcare because it cares for the health of the baby.   Abortion is more of a medical service in my view.



You don't believe abortion is healthcare in regards to the mother? Like at all, or just in regards to the baby?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 6, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Inside and outside I'm sure.


You know it


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> What's funny is how they take this as a win. But I guess when you choose to be that degenerate, you take whatchu can get.


If I'm considered degenerate, ho lord, that must make most people here even worse than that.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> If I'm considered degenerate, ho lord, that must make most people here even worse than that.



Well most of us aren't cool with taking away someone's rights or repealing laws that dehumanize them, so... 

You do you bro


----------



## mrdude (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Well most of us aren't cool with taking away someone's rights.


And by that you mean the right to live for some small human - some human too small and innocent to defend themselves.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> You don't believe abortion is healthcare in regards to the mother? Like at all, or just in regards to the baby?



I would classify it as healthcare for the mother & unhealthcare for the baby.  Not really caring for their health so much as ending it.  Imagine being a doctor who specialises in both abortions and prenatal care.  One patient would come in and you would be in the mindset of helping the baby survive, all smiling and lovey dovey with concern for the baby's health, checking their pulse and mothers vitamin levels with genuine concern as if the baby was a real person that you cared about.   Next patient comes in and your mindset is now about the best way to harm their baby.  Similar feeling towards veterinarians who work in slaughterhouses -- the only doctors who eat their patients.   Is euthanasia healthcare? 



SyphenFreht said:


> In my opinion, yes.



Ok, but I think the burden of proof is going to be quite high given the similarity in moral status of a baby which is close to exiting the womb and one that has just exited it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> And by that you mean the right to live for some small human - some human too small and innocent to defend themselves.



Your picture isn't wrong, but it is misleading. I can almost guarantee you without a doubt that anything looking like that isn't getting aborted unless it's already dead or causing death in itself or the mother.

At what point does a baby have the right to live, according to the Constitution? If conception is your answer, why? If later, then you would technically be ok with abortions as long as they were before a certain timeframe.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 6, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> What if the state said abortion is legal, but no hospitals wanted to provide the service — is she still being forced to have the baby?


That's a separate issue from whether or not someone has a legal right to abortion. That would have nothing to do with law or politics.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Your picture isn't wrong, but it is misleading. I can almost guarantee you without a doubt that anything looking like that isn't getting aborted unless it's already dead or causing death in itself or the mother.
> 
> At what point does a baby have the right to live, according to the Constitution? If conception is your answer, why? If later, then you would technically be ok with abortions as long as they were before a certain timeframe.


And yet there's people out there that would want to abort a 9 month pregnancy, that baby is a newborn so is in the exact  developmnet phase of it's life.
This is one of the reasons that this case went to the supreme court and was kicked back to the individual states. You asked for an inch and took a mile, and people got sick of all the take, take, take.

Also there's no point in using fringe type cases to justify abortion. Most people that have abortions aren't ten and haven't been raped, they are generally promiscous girls and women that couldn't keep their legs closed and are looking for an easy way out.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> And by that you mean the right to live for some small human - some human too small and innocent to defend themselves.


I'm at least equally cute, but I don't think you want the state to be able to violate your bodily autonomy to save my life.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> I would classify it as healthcare for the mother & unhealthcare for the baby.  Not really caring for their health so much as ending it.  Imagine being a doctor who specialises in both abortions and prenatal care.  One patient would come in and you would be in the mindset of helping the baby survive, all smiling and lovey dovey with concern for the baby's health, checking their pulse and mothers vitamin levels with genuine concern as if the baby was a real person that you cared about.   Next patient comes in and your mindset is now about the best way to harm their baby.  Similar feeling towards veterinarians who work in slaughterhouses -- the only doctors who eat their patients.   Is euthanasia healthcare?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but I think the burden of proof is going to be quite high given the similarity in moral status of a baby which is close to exiting the womb and one that has just exited it.



As far as I'm concerned a doctor should do their best to separate their job and their feelings. Caring is one thing, judgement is another.

Is euthanasia healthcare? Certainly. However that borders a conversation for another thread. For the sake of this topic, euthanasia can be used in situations like cancer. Once you've hit the end of your rope, euthanasia helps ease the patient into the beyond with very little to no pain, and no lasting impression of the world to remind them that reality is ceasing to exist. And yes, I support euthanasia as well. 

The burden of proof, if you're referring to my opinion, is inconsequential as you can't "prove" an opinion. You can define it and give reasoning for why it exists, but you can't "prove" an opinion the way you can statistics.
I apologize if I read that last quote incorrectly.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I'm at least equally cute, but I don't think you want the state to be able to violate your bodily autonomy to save my life.


Most abortions aren't carried out the save the mothers lives - most are carried out because someone didn't use protection and opened their legs for a bit of nooky.
Abortion laws will very from state to state, if you need to save your life - get on a bus/trian/plane/car and go to a state where abortion will be legal - if you can't afford to do that, buy condoms, if you can't afford them - don't have sex.

One thing's for sure, with all the news coverage, no man or women in the country will be able to say they didn't know the consequences of unprotected sex.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> And yet there's people out there that would want to abort a 9 month pregnancy, that baby is a newborn so is in the exact  developmnet phase of it's life.
> This is one of the reasons that this case went to the supreme court and was kicked back to the individual states. You asked for an inch and took a mile, and people got sick of all the take, take, take.
> 
> Also there's no point in using fringe type cases to justify abortion. Most people that have abortions aren't ten and haven't been raped, they are generally promiscous girls and women that couldn't keep their legs closed and are looking for an easy way out.



Maybe there are, but those people are also an exception. Blanket laws shouldn't be used in either instance, as the majority of women getting abortions are doing it for morally positive reasons, such as rape, birth defects, ectopic pregnancy and related issues, religious reasons, quality of life reasons, so on and so forth. I myself don't necessarily agree with the idea of a woman getting pregnant and wantonly getting an abortion like it's nothing, but from what I've seen those cases are few and far in between, always happen during the first trimester, and absolutely are none of my business because it's not my kids being aborted nor my body. Banning abortions nationwide because a few are for shitty reasons is equitable to banning guns because of a few mass shootings.

Nobody asked for an inch, they asked for bodily autonomy, an umbrella under which abortion rights were protected. The problem with repealing an act that protected bodily autonomy is that it sets a precedent for future rulings along the same lines. For example, in the bible it is stated that "...the seed of man is better spent in the belly of a whore than upon the ground" (paraphrased). Should you get one of these holy evangelical politicians to sign off on illegalizing masturbation because sperm holds the potential for life, what then? You now have another bodily autonomy issue, this time against men. Would you be ok when scenarios like that arise?

Except, you can use fringe cases, because they defy blanket laws. If abortions were outlawed nationwide, how would you in particular feel about this ten year old in particular being forced to give birth? In what eye, religious or other, would that be justifiable? And your argument can't be to lock up the perpetrator, as the same argument is used to justify anti gun bans; criminals are just going to keep doing it anyway.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Most abortions aren't carried out the save the mothers lives - most are carried out because someone didn't use protection and opened their legs for a bit of nooky.
> Abortion laws will very from state to state, if you need to save your life - get on a bus/trian/plane/car and go to a state where abortion will be legal - if you can't afford to do that, buy condoms, if you can't afford them - don't have sex.
> 
> One thing's for sure, with all the news coverage, no man or women in the country will be able to say they didn't know the consequences of unprotected sex.


My life wasn't analogous to the mother's life. It was analogous to the fetus's life. Please tell me while the fetus is worth saving but I am not.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> My life wasn't analogous to the mother's life. It was analogous to the fetus's life. Please tell me while the fetus is worth saving but I am not.


Not everything is about you and laws aren't passed for each individual that exists as well you know, they are rules for society to follow and if you want to live in that society and be a productive member of it you are expected to follow those laws. If you find these laws are not to your liking - well you live in the land of the free so are free to move to a state where you will be happy. You don't even have to move, you can just get on a train and go out of state for a day or two.
There's no exuses now, people are aware of the consequences of getting pregnant and the laws of their own state, deal with it because it's now a thing.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Not everything is about you and laws aren't passed for each individual that exists as well you know, they are rules for society to follow and if you want to live in that society and be a productive member of it you are expected to follow those laws. If you find these laws are not to your liking - well you live in the land of the free so are free to move to a state where you will be happy. You don't even have to move, you can just get on a train and go out of state for a day or two.
> There's no exuses now, people are aware of the consequences of getting pregnant and the laws of their own state, deal with it because it's now a thing.



They are dealing with it. Biden has already agreed to filibuster in order to codify Roe v Wade into law. The bigger question is, if and when it becomes law again, will your advice still be applicable? Will you move to another state, or in this case, country? Will you just "deal with it"? Or will you fight, in your own way, to have it stopped again?

You seem to be under this mentality that America was founded upon anything other than rebellion. Rioting. Protests. To tell someone to just deal with it is to be inherently in American.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> They are dealing with it. Biden has already agreed to filibuster in order to codify Roe v Wade into law. The bigger question is, if and when it becomes law again, will your advice still be applicable? Will you move to another state, or in this case, country? Will you just "deal with it"? Or will you fight, in your own way, to have it stopped again?
> 
> You seem to be under this mentality that America was founded upon anything other than rebellion. Rioting. Protests. To tell someone to just deal with it is to be inherently in American.


I don't speculate on hypotheticals - the law is how it is now, if it changes again then I will comment on it.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Not everything is about you and laws aren't passed for each individual that exists as well you know, they are rules for society to follow and if you want to live in that society and be a productive member of it you are expected to follow those laws. If you find these laws are not to your liking - well you live in the land of the free so are free to move to a state where you will be happy. You don't even have to move, you can just get on a train and go out of state for a day or two.
> There's no exuses now, people are aware of the consequences of getting pregnant and the laws of their own state, deal with it because it's now a thing.


I'm asking why you think a woman's bodily autonomy doesn't matter when she's pregnant, but your bodily autonomy does matter when I need a kidney, for example. Seems wholly inconsistent to me.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I'm asking why you think a woman's bodily autonomy doesn't matter when she's pregnant, but why your bodily autonomy does matter when I need a kidney, for example. Seems wholly inconsistent to me.


I've given you a reply, if you don't like it well that's life.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> I've given you a reply, if you don't like it well that's life.


You didn't respond to my question. Why do you think the state can ban abortion, but it can't mandate kidney donations?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> I don't speculate on hypotheticals - the law is how it is now, if it changes again then I will comment on it.



That's fair, but not all of my question was based on hypothetical. My main question was on whether or not you would have the same mindset should the roles be reversed. That's not a hypothetical as it was the standard until a week ago. Or better yet, let me ask you this then:

What was your reasoning for staying in this country (if you're American) before the overturn? Were you dealing with it then or were you fighting for change? If your position differs depending on the situation at hand, does that not reek of hypocrisy to you? Or at least a hollow opinion?


----------



## mrdude (Jul 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You didn't respond to my question. Why do you think the state can ban abortion, but it can't mandate kidney donations?


I thought your waffling about mandatory human organ trafficking was pathetic and a distraction from the topic, not worthy of a reply. It's nothing to do with letting states make their own abortion laws, maybe in your head it's the same thing, but for any sane person it's not.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> That's fair, but not all of my question was based on hypothetical. My main question was on whether or not you would have the same mindset should the roles be reversed. That's not a hypothetical as it was the standard until a week ago. Or better yet, let me ask you this then:
> 
> What was your reasoning for staying in this country (if you're American) before the overturn? Were you dealing with it then or were you fighting for change? If your position differs depending on the situation at hand, does that not reek of hypocrisy to you? Or at least a hollow opinion?


The roles aren't reversed though are they, so once again it's pointless commenting on hypothetical scenarios.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> I thought your waffling about mandatory human organ trafficking was pathetic and a distraction from the topic, not worthy of a reply. It's nothing to do with letting states make their own abortion laws, maybe in your head it's the same thing, but for any sane person it's not.


I'll make it clear for you then.

A state makes a law that violates people's bodily autonomy rights in the name of saving lives.

Am I describing anti-abortion laws, or am I describing mandated kidney donations? If you don't know which one I'm describing, then you have to either accept both or accept neither.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> The roles aren't reversed though are they, so once again it's pointless commenting on hypothetical scenarios.



It seems since you continue to refuse to answer the part of my question that wasn't hypothetical, that you're probably embarrassed by what your answer would be. Sounds like someone's a little hypocritical in their belief system. What a shame.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I'll make it clear for you then.
> 
> A state makes a law that violates people's bodily autonomy rights in the name of saving lives.
> 
> Am I describing anti-abortion laws, or am I describing mandated kidney donations? If you don't know which one I'm describing, then you have to either accept both or accept neither.



Seems like someone's run out of things to say besides "It's illegal now, deal with it!"

What a shame. Here I thought he was actually going to have something of interest to say. Trolls be trollin.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I'll make it clear for you then.
> 
> A state makes a law that violates people's bodily autonomy rights in the name of saving lives.
> 
> Am I describing anti-abortion laws, or am I describing mandated kidney donations? If you don't know which one I'm describing, then you have to either accept both or accept neither.


Is there any states in the USA or the world mandating forced kidney/organ donations/removals? No, don't be an idiot.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Is there any states in the USA or the world mandating forced organ removal? No, don't be an idiot.



You didn't answer my question.
There are no states mandating kidney donations because violating people's bodily autonomy is ridiculous and deplorable.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You didn't answer my question.
> There are no states mandating kidney donations because violating people's bodily autonomy is ridiculous and deplorable.


It seems you're too immature to look after a child - don't have sex. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> It seems you're too immature to look after a child - don't have sex. It's as simple as that.



Generally, sex is a biological drive comparable to the drive for food or water.
Why won't you answer my question?


----------



## mrdude (Jul 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Generally, sex is a biological drive comparable to the drive for food or water.
> Why won't you answer my question?


Look, it seems the basic concept of understanding simple stuff is difficult for you so I'll put this in a way even you will be able to comprehend.

If I liked the taste of peanuts, but I had a peanut allergey - I wouldn't eat peanuts.
If you like sex but are too poor or immature to have a child - don't have sex with a female and just stick to mastrubation.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Look, it seems the basic concept of understanding simple stuff is difficult for you so I'll put this in a way even you will be able to comprehend.
> 
> If I liked the taste of peanuts, but I had a peanut allergey - I wouldn't eat peanuts.
> If you like sex but are too poor or immature to have a child - don't have sex with a female and just stick to mastrubation.



We don't withhold medical care from people with peanut allergies who have eaten peanuts.
Last I checked, peanut wasn't a biological drive shared by just about every adult human on Earth.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> We don't withhold medical care from people with peanut allergies who have eaten peanuts.
> Last I checked, peanut wasn't a biological drive shared by just about every adult human on Earth.


Please don't ever have sex again with anyone apart from yourself. At least until your are mentally mature enough.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Look, it seems the basic concept of understanding simple stuff is difficult for you so I'll put this in a way even you will be able to comprehend.
> 
> If I liked the taste of peanuts, but I had a peanut allergey - I wouldn't eat peanuts.
> If you like sex but are too poor or immature to have a child - don't have sex with a female and just stick to mastrubation.



What about anal? You cool with anal?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Please don't ever have sex again with anyone apart from yourself.


One of my turn on's is when people act smug despite having no rational basis for acting smug, so I'm probably good for at least another day.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> What about anal? You cool with anal?


Not for me, there's a few on here that are into that sort of thing though. They won't be the type that need abortions so probably you should start another thread on that, you could call it something like "People that like sex with fecal matter" or something like that.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Not for me, there's a few on here that are into that sort of thing though. They won't be the type that need abortions so probably you should start another thread on that, you could call it something like "People that like sex with fecal matter" or something like that.



Well when they ban contraceptives you better get used to a lot of people into sodomy. 

Wait, that's a hypothetical. The banning, anyway. There's definitely a lot of butt sex going around.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> you could call it something like "People that like sex with fecal matter" or something like that.


I guess that means people who like oral sex like sex with mouths full of partially chewed food.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Well when they ban contraceptives you better get used to a lot of people into sodomy.


Why will I need to get used to it? it won't affect me at all and I don't give a hoot if they want to have unprotected fecal love with each other, better they do that if they can't control their urges, than have unprotected vaginal sex as they won't put some poor innocent baby in the trash bin that way.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> as they won't put some poor innocent baby in the trash bin that way.


Why don't you think the state should require you to donate one of your kidneys to me to save my life? I'm innocent, but you're just throwing me in the trash next to Frank Reynolds.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Why don't you think the state should require you to donate one of your kidneys to me to save my life? I'm innocent, but you're just throwing me in the trash next to Frank Reynolds.


I'm not going to keep replying to this same stupid question from you, I've already replied to this and so have others, if you have senile dementia and can't remember this, just read back a few posts for the previous reply you got, nothing has changed since that reply.
Any further questions from you with this pathetic scenario will be ignored. Don't expect a reply.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> I'm not going to keep replying to this same stupid question from you, I've already replied to this and so have others, if you have senile dementia and can't remember this, just read back a few posts for the previous reply you got, nothing has changed since that reply.
> Any further questions from you with this pathetic scenario will be ignored. Don't expect a reply.


I don't recall you directly answering my question. Please remind me of your answer and put me in my place, daddy.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> Why will I need to get used to it? it won't affect me at all and I don't give a hoot if they want to have unprotected fecal love with each other, better they do that if they can't control their urges, than have unprotected vaginal sex as they won't put some poor innocent baby in the trash bin that way.



Abortions don't affect you at all and you seem to have a hard on for keeping these kids. Sounds a little sus if you ask me.

Trash bin? I thought they were killing them. At least use the leftovers for stem cell research. Trash bin seems like a waste of good genetic material.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 6, 2022)

How would a woman prove she was raped in order to qualify for unrestricted abortion?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 6, 2022)

mrdude said:


> If I liked the taste of peanuts, but I had a peanut allergey - I wouldn't eat peanuts.


You totally should, they taste amazing.


NoobletCheese said:


> How would a woman prove she was raped in order to qualify for unrestricted abortion?


How would a woman prove she was raped, end of. Also, what do you mean, "unrestricted".


----------



## Metal64 (Jul 6, 2022)

Good


----------



## Lacius (Jul 6, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> How would a woman prove she was raped in order to qualify for unrestricted abortion?


This is a problem that doesn't require a solution. A woman should have legal abortion access regardless of whether or not she was raped.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 6, 2022)

Metal64 said:


> Good


Hey look, a Trumptard speaking in mono-syllabe, what a shocking turn of events.


----------



## Metal64 (Jul 6, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Hey look, a Trumptard speaking in mono-syllabe, what a shocking turn of events.


You look angry about something little friend, are ok? Also, who said that I voted for trump? I am not a north american citizen


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 6, 2022)

Metal64 said:


> You look angry about something little friend, are ok? Also, who said that I voted for trump? I am not a north american citizen


I didn't say you voted for him, I said you supported him, because you do. Just like you like spreading your stupid conspiracy posts about January 6th. 

Also, little friend? Relax boy, there's nothing little about me and most certainly I am not your friend.


----------



## Metal64 (Jul 6, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Just like you like spreading your stupid conspiracy posts about January 6th.


Conspiracy posts?



Dark_Ansem said:


> Also, little friend? Relax boy, there's nothing little about me and most certainly I am not your friend.


Why did you felt the need to say this? I dont care about your height


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Well most of us aren't cool with taking away someone's rights or repealing laws that dehumanize them, so...


Yes you are


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 6, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Yes you are



Only for things that aren't technically people


----------



## assassinz (Jul 6, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> No, you re-read your nonsense and make sense of it.





Dark_Ansem said:


> No, you re-read your nonsense and make sense of it.


Wow. You really are a hard-headed person. You choose not to accept reality. 

No matter, the facts still stand. Abortion is NOT constitutional. You want an abortion then go to a state where it's legalized.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 6, 2022)

assassinz said:


> No matter, the facts still stand. Abortion is NOT constitutional.


Regardless of whether or not abortion is a constitutional right (like the legal precedent said it was for the last 50 years), everyone should believe it should be. Otherwise, that sets a very dangerous precedent regarding bodily autonomy.



assassinz said:


> You want an abortion then go to a state where it's legalized.


That's a nearly 900 mile drive (one way) for some. Many people who need an abortion most can't afford it.

Also, whether or not abortion happens to be legal elsewhere is irrelevant to whether or not anti-abortion laws are deplorable violations of bodily autonomy.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 6, 2022)

I think I understand now why the left started pushing for unrestricted abortion at any term of pregnancy:

1. If they cap abortions at a certain week, that's still a violation of women's autonomy, it's just that the violation would be shifted forward by a few months.

2. Women have no way of proving they were raped, so women could just say they were raped and get an abortion at any term anyway, so there is no point in trying to restrict it.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 6, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> 1. If they cap abortions at a certain week, that's still a violation of women's autonomy, it's just that the violation would be shifted forward by a few months.


A woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy at any time, since anything else would be a violate of bodily autonomy. That is correct. However, a woman's right to bodily autonomy rights only gives her the right to terminate a pregnancy. It arguably doesn't give her the right to end the life of a fetus if it's able to survive outside of her. In other words, if a woman terminates a pregnancy after fetal viability, that's a birth, not an abortion.



NoobletCheese said:


> 2. Women have no way of proving they were raped, so women could just say they were raped and get an abortion at any term anyway, so there is no point in trying to restrict it.


Rape should have nothing to do with whether or not a woman has a right to an abortion, and it has zero to do with whether or not a rape can be proven.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 6, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Only for things that aren't technically people


Guess you're not a person also then.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> A state makes a law that violates people's bodily autonomy rights in the name of saving lives.
> 
> Am I describing anti-abortion laws, or am I describing mandated kidney donations? If you don't know which one I'm describing, then you have to either accept both or accept neither.


People have already explained to you why your forced kidney donation analogy is flawed, but you haven't listened. A fetus is not the same as a kidney. A kidney is a part of your body, whereas a fetus is an independent organism with its own DNA that is separate from your DNA. The fetus needs the woman's body as a source of energy so that it can grow, but it's not a part of her body. It's only temporarily attached to her body.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 6, 2022)

Lacius said:


> A woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy at any time, since anything else would be a violate of bodily autonomy. That is correct. However, a woman's right to bodily autonomy rights only gives her the right to terminate a pregnancy. It arguably doesn't give her the right to end the life of a fetus if it's able to survive outside of her. In other words, if a woman terminates a pregnancy after fetal viability, that's a birth, not an abortion.



Interesting, so you would cap abortions at around 20 weeks due to the baby's viability outside of the womb?   What if there was a new technology that could keep them alive outside of the womb at 10 weeks? 

Actually now that I think about it, what even is the philosophical basis for thinking that being inside or outside of the womb imbues moral value?  Like, if we move the baby outside of the womb at 20 weeks they will still need to live inside an artificial incubator. Whether they are inside an artificial incubator or the mother's natural incubator (womb) doesn't seem all that relevant to the moral value of the baby itself.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 6, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> People have already explained to you why your forced kidney donation analogy is flawed, but you haven't listened. A fetus is not the same as a kidney. A kidney is a part of your body, whereas a fetus is an independent organism with its own DNA that is separate from your DNA. The fetus needs the woman's body as a source of energy so that it can grow, but it's not a part of her body. It's only temporarily attached to her body.


You don't seem to understand the comparison. Having a kidney forcibly removed is analogous to forcibly being unable to terminate a pregnancy, since they are both matters of bodily autonomy rights. Nobody made the comparison between a "fetus and kidney."


----------



## smf (Jul 7, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> Sad dodge. But the if baby = _____ person argument, then it could go either way. You may have just let the child who becomes the doctor who cures cancer. It's a pointless thing to bring up.


Right, it could be a mass murderer or the person to cure cancer.

But also, the people you are murdering by giving them the death penalty could have gone on to cure cancer too.



NoobletCheese said:


> And I think it's fair calling it a baby as "any point of the pregnancy" could be so close to birth so as to be practically indistinguishable from a literal baby.
> 
> So you have proposed that babies may be killed if they were incorrectly conceived.   I'm not saying you can't have this opinion but you would have to justify it if the burden of proof is on the killer.


Most people support abortions early in pregnancy, but not close to birth. The debate is somewhere round the middle.

It's disingenuous to call a fetus a baby, or someone a killer. You lose all credibility.


----------



## smf (Jul 7, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Interesting, so you would cap abortions at around 20 weeks due to the baby's viability outside of the womb?   What if there was a new technology that could keep them alive outside of the womb at 10 weeks?
> 
> Actually now that I think about it, what even is the philosophical basis for thinking that being inside or outside of the womb imbues moral value?  Like, if we move the baby outside of the womb at 20 weeks they will still need to live inside an artificial incubator. Whether they are inside an artificial incubator or the mother's natural incubator (womb) doesn't seem all that relevant to the moral value of the baby itself.


Interesting points, no idea. Pity it's kinda pointless because a bunch of undemocratic idiots banned it.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 7, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> Interesting, so you would cap abortions at around 20 weeks due to the baby's viability outside of the womb?   What if there was a new technology that could keep them alive outside of the womb at 10 weeks?


Good questions. I'd argue that if a woman at around 24 weeks wanted to end a pregnancy, she might have to induce birth instead of having an abortion. All that matters from an autonomy point of view is she can end the pregnancy.

If we end up with some futuristic technology that makes it so fetuses are viable outside the womb at 10 weeks by using an artificial womb, I have no problem with using the artificial womb.

What matters most is the woman's bodily autonomy takes precedence over anything else.


----------



## smf (Jul 7, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> 2. Women have no way of proving they were raped, so women could just say they were raped and get an abortion at any term anyway, so there is no point in trying to restrict it.


The problem with allowing exceptions for rape, is when a woman is so desperate that she tells the police you raped her.
Good luck with that.


----------



## smf (Jul 7, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> with its own DNA that is separate from your DNA.


So you're saying different DNA is what describes whether something is part of something or not?

How do you describe Chimera? Or cancer? Is cancer part of someones body?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Guess you're not a person also then.



If you say so bud. Just remember, according to the Constitution I have more rights than a fetus.


----------



## smf (Jul 7, 2022)

mrdude said:


> And by that you mean the right to live for some small human - some human too small and innocent to defend themselves.


What a disingenuous meme. You've outdone yourself here for pure fucktardiness


----------



## smf (Jul 7, 2022)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Just like you like spreading your stupid conspiracy posts about January 6th.


January 6th was a conspiracy, they were conspiring to reverse the results of a democratic election.

It only takes two people to conspire, there were loads of them there on january 6th.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 7, 2022)

smf said:


> Right, it could be a mass murderer or the person to cure cancer.
> 
> But also, the people you are murdering by giving them the death penalty could have gone on to cure cancer too.


Yes.... that's exactly what I said. I said "It could be A, but it could also be B". Then you said "It could also be B". That doesn't move the conversation forward at all.

Also, using loaded language like murder (Which it isn't), or death penalty (Which it isn't) isn't helping your position in any way. If you read my previous hypothetical question, you'd come to the same conclusion.


----------



## TornMD (Jul 7, 2022)

Abortion is murder. By no means should anybody cut short human life for their own convenience. Don't commit the act if you can't take responsibility for the life that you brought into the world. Don't look away from the truth by using whatever excuses your fleshly mind can think up to justify the taking of innocent life.  Now, that's my unpopular opinion, now here comes the hate...


----------



## Lacius (Jul 7, 2022)

TornMD said:


> Abortion is murder. By no means should anybody cut short human life for their own convenience. Don't commit the act if you can't take responsibility for the life that you brought into the world. Don't look away from the truth by using whatever excuses your fleshly mind can think up to justify the taking of innocent life.  Now, that's my unpopular opinion, now here comes the hate...


If you refuse to give me one of your kidneys to save my life, is that murder?


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Having a kidney forcibly removed is analogous to forcibly being unable to terminate a pregnancy, since they are both matters of bodily autonomy rights. Nobody made the comparison between a "fetus and kidney."


The problem is that a kidney is a part of your body that cannot exist on its own. It therefore has no rights. A fetus, given enough time, will develop into an independent organism with the same rights as any other human. This includes rights to bodily autonomy. Forcing a woman to carry a fetus she doesn't want violates her bodily autonomy, and killing a fetus violates its bodily autonomy, too. That's the part you're leaving out. A kidney has no rights, whereas a fetus, at some point between week 1 and week 36, will have the same rights as every other person. Violating bodily autonomy is unavoidable when talking about pregnancy and abortion; it's just a matter of whether you prefer to violate the bodily autonomy of the woman or the fetus. The only question is where you stand regarding which one's right to bodily autonomy is more important and whether that stance changes depending on how far the pregnancy has progressed.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 7, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> The problem is that a kidney is a part of your body that cannot exist on its own. It therefore has no rights.


You've misunderstood the analogy. The fetus is analogous to me. The kidney is analogous to the pregnancy.

If you don't give me your kidney, I die. If the woman doesn't carry the fetus to term, it dies. Should the state be able to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term? Should the state be able to require you to donate a kidney to me? To be consistent, you either say "yes" to both or "no" to both.

Edit: And so you understand, it isn't a violation of a fetus's bodily autonomy abort it, just like it isn't a violation of my bodily autonomy to deny me your kidney.  With respect, please familiarize yourself with these terms.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> ...A fetus, given enough time, will develop into an independent organism with the same rights as any other human.



The same thing can be said about sperm. Should would advocate for a sperm's bodily autonomy as well?


----------



## SScorpio (Jul 7, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> The same thing can be said about sperm. Should would advocate for a sperm's bodily autonomy as well?


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> it isn't a violation of a fetus's bodily autonomy abort it, just like it isn't a violation of my bodily autonomy to deny me your kidney.


This is your problem. You are assuming that a fetus doesn't have the right to bodily autonomy, whereas anti-abortion advocates assume it does. This is why your kidney analogy will never work. A kidney has no rights, and everybody agrees on this. A fetus may or may not have rights, depending upon whom you ask. You can't convince people of your position by using the same flawed analogy over and over, because your analogy doesn't address the real issue of the abortion debate, which is, "How do you weigh the rights of a woman against the rights of a fetus?" Saying a fetus has no rights, as if it were merely a kidney, does not help you argue your position, because you've taken too much for granted when formulating the analogy. If you want to convince anti-abortion advocates of your position, you must explain to them why a fetus is not deserving of any rights, rather than repeatedly saying that it obviously has none, because it's roughly equivalent to a kidney, and kidneys don't have rights. That's nonsense.



SyphenFreht said:


> The same thing can be said about sperm. Should would advocate for a sperm's bodily autonomy as well?


No, it can't. Sperm has a 0% chance of developing into a separate human, just as a kidney has a 0% chance of developing into a separate human. Only once a sperm fertilises an egg and travels to the uterus can it develop into an independent organism.


----------



## Metal64 (Jul 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you refuse to give me one of your kidneys to save my life, is that murder?


Why should we give our kidneys to a babie killer enthusiastic?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 7, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> This is your problem. You are assuming that a fetus doesn't have the right to bodily autonomy,


You don't seem to understand what bodily autonomy is. Is it a violation of my bodily autonomy to not give me your kidney?



Metal64 said:


> Why should we give our kidneys to a babie killer enthusiastic?


Do you think the state should be able to force you to donate your kidney to me? Would you donate your kidney to me willingly? Are you an adult human killer if you don't? You don't appear to have thought this through.


----------



## Metal64 (Jul 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You don't seem to understand what bodily autonomy is. Is it a violation of my bodily autonomy to not give me your kidney?
> 
> 
> Do you think the state should be able to force you to donate your kidney to me? Would you donate your kidney to me willingly? Are you an adult human killer if you don't? You don't appear to have thought this through.


A kidney is not equal a baby.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 7, 2022)

Metal64 said:


> A kidney is not equal a baby.


I agree. In the analogy, the person who needs the kidney is analogous to the fetus. Are you being disingenuous, or are you a moron?


----------



## Metal64 (Jul 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I agree. In the analogy, the person who needs the kidney is analogous to the fetus. Are you being disingenuous, or are you a moron?


Nah, its just that your analogy is terrible


----------



## Lacius (Jul 7, 2022)

Metal64 said:


> Nah, its just that your analogy is terrible


Could you at least attempt to explain how without getting the analogy wrong?


----------



## Metal64 (Jul 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Could you at least attempt to explain how without getting the analogy wrong?


I already did


----------



## Lacius (Jul 7, 2022)

Metal64 said:


> I already did


In my analogy, the kidney is not analogous to the baby. Try again.


----------



## Metal64 (Jul 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> In my analogy, the kidney is not analogous to the baby. Try again.


Sure


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 7, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You've misunderstood the analogy. The fetus is analogous to me. The kidney is analogous to the pregnancy.
> 
> If you don't give me your kidney, I die. If the woman doesn't carry the fetus to term, it dies. Should the state be able to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term? Should the state be able to require you to donate a kidney to me?


I guess I'll try one more time. You don't seem to have thought this analogy through. For one thing, the results of action and inaction are opposed. In a pregnancy, inaction promotes life, as the fetus will continue to develop, as long as you don't kill it. Action will end the fetus's life. In the kidney scenario, inaction promotes death. You won't get my kidney unless I give it to you, so if I do nothing, you die. If I act by giving you my kidney, you will live.

Can the government compel me to save a life? No. Can the government compel me to not take a life? Yes. The government already does this by outlawing murder. Is it murder if I see a car about to run over a child, and I decide not to jump into the street to save it? No. People are not obliged to take extraordinary measures (i.e. putting their own lives at risk) to prevent bad things, including death, from befalling other people.

A better analogy would be one regarding life support: if one of your parents is in the hospital on life support, can the government compel you not to pull the plug? This scenario aligns more closely with the pregnancy situation, since doing nothing will allow life to continue in both situations, whereas acting will cause life to end.



Lacius said:


> To be consistent, you either say "yes" to both or "no" to both.


No, you don't. As I said above, people don't have an obligation to save the lives of strangers by endangering their own. People do have obligations to their progeny, but those obligations are not necessarily absolute. There's a big difference between the government compelling you to save a stranger's life and the government compelling you not to kill your own offspring.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 7, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> If you say so bud. Just remember, according to the Constitution I have more rights than a fetus.


Nah you don't.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> No, it can't. Sperm has a 0% chance of developing into a separate human, just as a kidney has a 0% chance of developing into a separate human. Only once a sperm fertilises an egg and travels to the uterus can it develop into an independent organism.



Sperm has a 0% on it's own, yes, but a fetus before the first trimester also has a 0% of survival outside it's mother. Considering sperm is the only way to form a baby, and based upon Republican logic, if a woman's bodily autonomy is restricted to protect the baby, then the man's should be as well.



BitMasterPlus said:


> Nah you don't.



Are you ok? You seem to be up my ass a lot. Although I guess I shouldn't be surprised; you seem to be the kind of person that leeches onto people smarter and more assertive than you.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 7, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> whereas a fetus is an independent organism with its own DNA that is separate from your DNA. The fetus needs the woman's body as a source of energy so that it can grow, but it's not a part of her body. It's only temporarily attached to her body.


So a parasite?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jul 7, 2022)

assassinz said:


> Wow. You really are a hard-headed person. You choose not to accept reality.
> 
> No matter, the facts still stand. Abortion is NOT constitutional. You want an abortion then go to a state where it's legalized.


No, you're just an incoherent moron.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 7, 2022)

Kidney metaphor is bunk for all the reasons @AleronIves pointed out.  Forcing a bank to bail someone out is not the same as forcing a bank to employ someone based on hiring requirements.  Although both do happen, it isn't comparable because you are dealing with separate issues and there isn't consistency between the variables and their representation.  The people who the kidney metaphor works for already agree that the obligation being presented is comparable but it serves no purpose in terms of an argument to people who think that the obligation isn't comparable.  At best it's virtue signaling to proponents that do not see virtue.  Likely, it's just self-gratification. 

It may be suggested that bodily autonomy is the only thing that matters here, but the reality is that we don't exist in a society were bodily autonomy exists.  Maybe it's impossible to achieve in reality.  We have obligations in which we must dedicate our time and health to meet.  Parents are responsible for children in their home.  We have to pay bills.  We have to share air and water with each other (and with corporations who don't care about our health as long as it doesn't affect the bottom line).  Most people live in a state of coercion, or rebellion, because their basic needs aren't guaranteed.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> It may be suggested that bodily autonomy is the only thing that matters here, but the reality is that we don't exist in a society were bodily autonomy exists.


I don't think that's quite right. We do have some rights to bodily autonomy, at least in the US. As the saying goes, your right to swing your arm stops just short of where it hits my face. The problem is that Lacius is assuming that the fetus has no right to bodily autonomy, whereas the woman does, so therefore her rights are obviously supreme. This issue is nowhere close to being settled, so it's an ineffective argument. The whole point of opposing abortion is that you believe a fetus has rights that are violated when you kill it, so... you shouldn't kill it. Lacius's arguments are basically, "A fetus has no rights, so killing it is fine!" That's not an argument. That's just stating the extreme pro-abortion position as if it were fact, which is obviously not compelling to the anti-abortion camp.


----------



## smf (Jul 7, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> Yes.... that's exactly what I said. I said "It could be A, but it could also be B". Then you said "It could also be B". That doesn't move the conversation forward at all.
> 
> Also, using loaded language like murder (Which it isn't), or death penalty (Which it isn't) isn't helping your position in any way. If you read my previous hypothetical question, you'd come to the same conclusion.



I was restating your point in the first sentence, to make it clear in the second sentence.

I called executing someone murder, because people are calling abortion murder.

Maybe my point was too subtle for you.


----------



## smf (Jul 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Kidney metaphor is bunk for all the reasons @AleronIves pointed out.


In your opinion.

The woman's egg is her property at the point of conception, it has been part of her body since she was born. Her body will likely not even retain it. Much later the fetus has some rights, but lets focus on <28 weeks.

If we have a responsibility to keep something alive that has no brain activity, then what does that say about people at the end of life?

Should the state raise taxes to prolong the life of someone who is brain dead, in case there is some future treatment that allows them to recover?


----------



## tabzer (Jul 7, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I don't think that's quite right. We do have some rights to bodily autonomy, at least in the US. As the saying goes, your right to swing your arm stops just short of where it hits my face. The problem is that Lacius is assuming that the fetus has no right to bodily autonomy, whereas the woman does, so therefore her rights are obviously supreme. This issue is nowhere close to being settled, so it's an ineffective argument. The whole point of opposing abortion is that you believe a fetus has rights that are violated when you kill it, so... you shouldn't kill it. Lacius's arguments are basically, "A fetus has no rights, so killing it is fine!" That's not an argument. That's just stating the extreme pro-abortion position as if it were fact, which is obviously not compelling to the anti-abortion camp.


I agree that your point about the rights of the fetus being a source of contention are not being respected by his metaphor.  I disagree with the suggestion that bodily autonomy may be the premise of human rights.  I'm not sure if you are going as far to say that much, but I feel if that is a point that should be addressed.  Sorry if it seemed like I was trying to conflate our concerns.

@smf, in your opinion.  Would you argue that people are not the property of the state, when everything that they do in their life is weighted on the survival of the state?  You haven't been saying things that suggests that you are interested in sanctifying life, so I don't see much value in making arguments against nihilistic suggestions you assume to be true.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 7, 2022)

smf said:


> I was restating your point in the first sentence, to make it clear in the second sentence.
> 
> I called executing someone murder, because people are calling abortion murder.


If your point to make clear that the future person could become the doctor that cures cancer, the chances of that, based on statistics, are much lower than becoming a murderer. 

Also, just because people like to call it murder, doesn't mean that you need to follow then, and thus be wrong together with them. People also say the earth is flat, but I would hope that you wouldn't follow them as well. 

You never looked back at my hypothetical in that conversation, did you. If you want, I can restate it here to hear what you think.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 7, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I guess I'll try one more time. You don't seem to have thought this analogy through.


In your last post, you literally thought the kidney represented the fetus in my analogy, lol.



AleronIves said:


> For one thing, the results of action and inaction are opposed. In a pregnancy, inaction promotes life, as the fetus will continue to develop, as long as you don't kill it. Action will end the fetus's life. In the kidney scenario, inaction promotes death. You won't get my kidney unless I give it to you, so if I do nothing, you die. If I act by giving you my kidney, you will live.


Bodily autonomy is the freedom to do, or not do, whatever I want to my body, so your distinction between action and inaction is irrelevant to the topic of bodily autonomy.

Pretend a state makes a law that violates people's bodily autonomy rights in the name of saving lives. Am I describing anti-abortion laws, or am I describing mandated kidney donations? If you don't know which one I'm describing, then your argument has a problem.



AleronIves said:


> People are not obliged to take extraordinary measures (i.e. putting their own lives at risk) to prevent bad things, including death, from befalling other people.





AleronIves said:


> people don't have an obligation to save the lives of strangers by endangering their own.


I'm glad we agree. It sounds here like you should be against anti-abortion laws.


----------



## smf (Jul 7, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> Also, just because people like to call it murder, doesn't mean that you need to follow then, and thus be wrong together with them.


I don't have to do anything, but is it not valid to show someone they are wrong by doing the same thing they are but in a way that you know they will disagree with?



titan_tim said:


> If your point to make clear that the future person could become the doctor that cures cancer, the chances of that, based on statistics, are much lower than becoming a murderer.


So it's ok to kill people based on statistics?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 7, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Are you ok? You seem to be up my ass a lot. Although I guess I shouldn't be surprised; you seem to be the kind of person that leeches onto people smarter and more assertive than you.


Just want to help you with your constant projections of yourself.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Just want to help you with your constant projections of yourself.



Where are my projections in my fight to retain bodily autonomy?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 7, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Where are my projections in my fight to retain bodily autonomy?


You don't have to fight for rights you already have.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> You don't have to fight for rights you already have.



So I'm projecting the rights I already have?


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 7, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I agree that your point about the rights of the fetus being a source of contention are not being respected by his metaphor.  I disagree with the suggestion that bodily autonomy may be the premise of human rights.


I'm not saying it is. I'm framing this in the way Lacius did solely to highlight the problem with his analogy. He says a woman has a right to bodily autonomy, and therefore she has a right to kill the fetus. The anti-abortion camp would say that a fetus has a right to bodily autonomy, too, since it's a separate organism with its own DNA and not a part of the woman's body; therefore, the woman doesn't have a right to kill it. The anti-abortion camp has concerns beyond just bodily autonomy, but establishing a fetal right to bodily autonomy is as far as you need to go to refute his argument.



Lacius said:


> In your last post, you literally thought the kidney represented the fetus in my analogy, lol.


I apologise for the confusion. In my defense, your analogy doesn't make sense, so it's easy to be confused as to what point you're trying to make. 



Lacius said:


> I'm glad we agree. It sounds here like you should be against anti-abortion laws.


I am, to a point. I'm just trying to help you come up with better arguments by challenging your use of terrible analogies.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 7, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> He says a woman has a right to bodily autonomy, and therefore she has a right to kill the fetus.


You are confused. A woman has a right to bodily autonomy, but she does not have the right to kill a fetus. She does, however, have the right to remove the fetus from her body. There's a very real difference, and the fact that the fetus can't survive outside her is irrelevant, just like the fact that I hypothetically can't survive without your kidney is irrelevant.



AleronIves said:


> The anti-abortion camp would say that a fetus has a right to bodily autonomy, too, since it's a separate organism with its own DNA and not a part of the woman's body.


Even if we say the fetus has a right to bodily autonomy, you don't seem to know what bodily autonomy is. Bodily autonomy doesn't give you the right to another person's body. Per my analogy, I have a right to bodily autonomy, but that does not give me a right to your kidney. Even if a fetus has a right to bodily autonomy, that does not give it a right to the woman's body.



AleronIves said:


> but establishing a fetal right to bodily autonomy is as far as you need to go to refute his argument.


I really don't mean to beat up on you and laugh at you like I've already done, but establishing that you don't know what bodily autonomy is is as far as you need to go to refute your argument, lol.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Jul 7, 2022)

Instead of engaging in mental masturbation I’ll share my experience.

Early in my life my wife was pregnant.

We are both very pro-life.
However, for many reasons this could not happen.
So we choose to end the pregnancy.
It hurt us both very much.

Today we are both much older.
She is remarried with children and we have a good friendship.
And yet that personal choice still hurt us.
The future is never clear. We live in the moment.

Both of us are also saddened and scared about overturning roe.
We feel judged and yet we know our choice was correct.

Make no doubt about it.
The religious right is coming for you.
They have been for a very long time.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 7, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> Instead of engaging in mental masturbation I’ll share my experience.
> 
> Early in my life my wife was pregnant.
> 
> ...



My heart aches for you. I appreciate you sharing that with us, and just know that before any of these yokels start flaming you, I know I, and possibly many others on this board, understand the hard choice you had to make to ensure survival, at worst. It's a terrible thing to have happened, but you'll get no harsh judgement from me, neither for your stance or your decision. You made the best decision you could at the time, and it led to what appears to be continued prosperity in at least one aspect of another. A commendable decision in my eyes, if that matters.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Jul 8, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> My heart aches for you. I appreciate you sharing that with us, and just know that before any of these yokels start flaming you, I know I, and possibly many others on this board, understand the hard choice you had to make to ensure survival, at worst. It's a terrible thing to have happened, but you'll get no harsh judgement from me, neither for your stance or your decision. You made the best decision you could at the time, and it led to what appears to be continued prosperity in at least one aspect of another. A commendable decision in my eyes, if that matters.


Thank you. 
I've tried to explain what I think is the importance of pro-choice before in this thread.
But those were all words based on my life without any context. 
Easy for any troll to eat.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 8, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> Thank you.
> I've tried to explain what I think is the importance of pro-choice before in this thread.
> But those were all words based on my life without any context.
> Easy for any troll to eat.



Trolls mean nothing as long as you uphold your values, and so far it seems you're doing a great job. Just know you have allies if you need, whereas trolls have nobody.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> A woman has a right to bodily autonomy, but she does not have the right to kill a fetus. She does, however, have the right to remove the fetus from her body. There's a very real difference, and the fact that the fetus can't survive outside her is irrelevant


I've heard Libertarians make this argument before. They choose to base it in property rights. They say the fetus is a trespasser, and therefore the woman has the right to evict it, even if eviction results in death. In my view, this is nonsense. You cannot separate the performance of an action from its inevitable result. If you stow away in my plane, and I don't find you until after I take off, do I have the right to say, "You're trespassing on my plane. I have a right to remove you from my property, so you must disembark immediately. The fact that you will fall 30,000 feet to your death as a result is not my problem." No, of course not. I have to wait until the plane lands (the point of fetal viability) before I can evict the trespasser.

If the inevitable result of your action is death, the victim's right to life supercedes your right to take that action, unless failure to take that action will result in someone else's death. This is why even anti-abortion advocates generally support abortion in cases where the mother's life is at risk. If nobody's life is at risk, then everybody should have the chance to live. If both people's lives are at risk, the one who was there first (the mother) gets priority.



Lacius said:


> Even if we say the fetus has a right to bodily autonomy, you don't seem to know what bodily autonomy is. Bodily autonomy doesn't give you the right to another person's body. Per my analogy, I have a right to bodily autonomy, but that does not give me a right to your kidney. Even if a fetus has a right to bodily autonomy, that does not give it a right to the woman's body.


A fetus is an independent organism with its own DNA. It has a body, although that body is not fully formed. The topic of bodily autonomy becomes much more complex when one person has another person's body inside her own, but that doesn't mean a fetus doesn't have a right to bodily autonomy, as murder is the ultimate violation of bodily autonomy. The question is not whether a fetus has bodily autonomy, but rather at what point in the pregnancy does it gain that right, if the right is not created at conception.

Your example is comparing apples to oranges. You have no obligation to save the life of a stranger, but you surely have a higher level of obligation to your own offspring, and that obligation may supercede your right to bodily autonomy under certain circumstances.

Furthermore, comparing a pregnancy to a kidney (as I believe you've stated was your intent) doesn't work, because they're not equivalent. A person only has two kidneys, and while you can survive with only one, you will die if you lose both. A woman can complete a pregnancy without giving up any internal organs, and she can become pregnant multiple times during her life.

The entire abortion debate revolves around how to weigh the bodily autonomy right of a woman against the right of a fetus to live. Your position seems to be, "A woman has a right to bodily autonomy, therefore there are no other considerations." You have failed to demonstrate why a fetus's right to live is less important than a woman's right to bodily autonomy; you're just saying that it is, as if it's an obvious fact. It isn't, at least to people who oppose abortion. They would tell you that a fetus's right to live is more important than a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and your analogy doesn't explain why your position should be viewed as correct.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I've heard Libertarians make this argument before. They choose to base it in property rights. They say the fetus is a trespasser, and therefore the woman has the right to evict it, even if eviction results in death. In my view, this is nonsense. You cannot separate the performance of an action from its inevitable result. If you stow away in my plane, and I don't find you until after I take off, do I have the right to say, "You're trespassing on my plane. I have a right to remove you from my property, so you must disembark immediately. The fact that you will fall 30,000 feet to your death as a result is not my problem." No, of course not. I have to wait until the plane lands (the point of fetal viability) before I can evict the trespasser.


I never made a "property rights" argument. If you want to argue with yourself, that's fine, but leave me out of it.



AleronIves said:


> If the inevitable result of your action is death, the victim's right to life supercedes your right to take that action, unless failure to take that action will result in someone else's death. This is why even anti-abortion advocates generally support abortion in cases where the mother's life is at risk. If nobody's life is at risk, then everybody should have the chance to live. If both people's lives are at risk, the one who was there first (the mother) gets priority.


If you don't give me your kidney, I die. That doesn't mean the state should violate your bodily autonomy rights and take your kidney.



AleronIves said:


> but that doesn't mean a fetus doesn't have a right to bodily autonomy


For the last time dude, learn what bodily autonomy is. Even if we say a fetus has bodily autonomy rights, that doesn't give it the right to use another person's body. That only gives it a right to its own body.



AleronIves said:


> as murder is the ultimate violation of bodily autonomy.


The fact that an organism cannot survive without violating someone else's bodily autonomy doesn't mean it's murder if it dies. You wouldn't call it murder if you refused to donate one of your kidneys to me.



AleronIves said:


> The question is not whether a fetus has bodily autonomy, but rather at what point in the pregnancy does it gain that right, if the right is not created at conception.


The question isn't about whether a fetus has bodily autonomy rights, because I already said we could pretend it does, and it doesn't change anything. I have bodily autonomy rights, but that doesn't mean I have a right to your organs, even if the consequence of me not getting your kidney is I die.



AleronIves said:


> You have no obligation to save the life of a stranger, but you surely have a higher level of obligation to your own offspring, and that obligation may supercede your right to bodily autonomy under certain circumstances.


Should people be required by law to donate their kidney to any biological children who need them to survive?



AleronIves said:


> Furthermore, comparing a pregnancy to a kidney (as I believe you've stated was your intent) doesn't work, because they're not equivalent. A person only has two kidneys, and while you can survive with only one, you will die if you lose both. A woman can complete a pregnancy without giving up any internal organs, and she can become pregnant multiple times during her life.


If I describe a medical situation in which someone experiences permanent changes to their body, potentially some serious health effects, a chance of death, and you can't tell if I'm describing pregnancy or donating a kidney, your argument has a serious problem.



AleronIves said:


> The entire abortion debate revolves around how to weigh the bodily autonomy right of a woman against the right of a fetus to live.


The entire forced kidney donation debate revolves around how to weigh the bodily autonomy right of a person with compatible kidneys against the right of a human adult to live.



AleronIves said:


> Your position seems to be, "A woman has a right to bodily autonomy, therefore there are no other considerations." You have failed to demonstrate why a fetus's right to live is less important than a woman's right to bodily autonomy; you're just saying that it is, as if it's an obvious fact. It isn't, at least to people who oppose abortion. They would tell you that a fetus's right to live is more important than a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and your analogy doesn't explain why your position should be viewed as correct.


Because you wouldn't want your right to bodily autonomy violated under any circumstance.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 8, 2022)

smf said:


> I don't have to do anything, but is it not valid to show someone they are wrong by doing the same thing they are but in a way that you know they will disagree with?


Then I'll just show you that the wording is wrong then by making you answer my original hypothetical. 



> So it's ok to kill people based on statistics?


That would be putting words in my mouth. I merely mentioned that your hope to have a potentially aborted fetus to go on to become the person who cures cancer is not realistic, and is more realistically going to be a terrible person. Nothing more. 

So here's the hypothetical that you just don't want to answer:
You're in a burning fertility clinic in the middle of a long corridor. On one end of the corridor, there is a crying child. On the other side of the long corridor is a briefcase containing thousands of viable embryos that are scheduled for transplant that week. You only have time to save one before the building comes down. Which do you choose? (No dodges please)


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 8, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So I'm projecting the rights I already have?


You're projecting something you think you and others don't have but already do.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 8, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> Then I'll just show you that the wording is wrong then by making you answer my original hypothetical.
> 
> 
> That would be putting words in my mouth. I merely mentioned that your hope to have a potentially aborted fetus to go on to become the person who cures cancer is not realistic, and is more realistically going to be a terrible person. Nothing more.
> ...


A sure sign that the conversation is lost is when people start playing "What If" games with each other. It is a purely emotional response by people who do not have facts on their side. This is how kids argue with each other. It looks like some people just never grow up. Smh


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> I never made a "property rights" argument.


Yes, you did. It's the same argument. Replacing "bodily autonomy" rights with "property" rights changes nothing, as "bodily autonomy" is the same thing as a right to control your property, of which your body is the most essential element. The argument says that your right to control your property/body gives you license to violate the right to life of a fetus, even though the right to life is generally considered more important than the right to property (and thus bodily autonomy).



Lacius said:


> Even if we say a fetus has bodily autonomy rights, that doesn't give it the right to use another person's body. That only gives it a right to its own body.


Killing it would violate its right to bodily autonomy (as well as, more importantly, its right to life), so you're merely pitting its right to bodily autonomy against your own.



Lacius said:


> You wouldn't call it murder if you refused to donate one of your kidneys to me.


That's because I didn't cause your death; your kidney failure did. I am merely refusing to fix a problem you already had. Abortion is the opposite, as I already explained. The fetus will live if left undisturbed. Abortion is you making a deliberate choice to kill it in order to avoid having a child. Since people have (or at least should have) the right to control their own procreation, this may be morally permissible under certain circumstances, but it doesn't free you from the inevitable consequence of having to kill the fetus in order to exercise your right to not have a child.



Lacius said:


> Should people be required by law to donate their kidney to any biological children who need them to survive?


No, and that's an ineffective comparison. After your children are born, you have a reasonable expectation that they will be healthy and have self-sustaining bodies. When you have sex, you have a reasonable expectation that pregnancy will result if you don't take steps to prevent it, and it is wholly expected that the fetus will require the help of the woman's body to sustain itself for the first nine months. In other words, if a woman has consensual sex without protection, this act could reasonably be interpreted as giving consent for a fetus to violate her bodily autonomy for the next nine months, because getting pregnant is an obvious and natural result from having unprotected sex.



Lacius said:


> The entire forced kidney donation debate revolves around how to weigh the bodily autonomy right of a person with compatible kidneys against the right of a human adult to live.


Yes, and the "forced organ donation" question was already settled in McFall v. Shimp. Obviously the abortion question must be significantly different from the forced organ donation question, or Americans wouldn't still be debating it. Even so, you continue to use the flawed analogy.



Lacius said:


> Because you wouldn't want your right to bodily autonomy violated under any circumstance.


Your right to bodily autonomy is already regularly violated. The government forbids you from using certain drugs, it subjects you to invasive strip searches at the airport, and it prevents people with terminal illnesses from killing themselves in many cases. You could even argue that your employer violates your bodily autonomy by forcing you to wear certain clothing as a condition of employment. Although people can have reasonable objections to these restrictions, they are not politically contentious, because they don't usually involve life and death decisions. Euthanasia and abortion are the two main exceptions right now, hence the level of dispute surrounding them.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 8, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> A sure sign that the conversation is lost is when people start playing "What If" games with each other. It is a purely emotional response by people who do not have facts on their side. This is how kids argue with each other. It looks like some people just never grow up. Smh


Aaaaaaaand, the typical deflect!

 Sorry if answering a question which is a reflection of your true priorities in life are makes you uncomfortable.  Smh.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 8, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> Aaaaaaaand, the typical deflect!
> 
> Sorry if answering a question which is a reflection of your true priorities in life are makes you uncomfortable.  Smh.


Let's check your science knowledge with a few questions shall we.

1. What is a woman?

2. What are the physical differences between an 8.75 month fetus and a 1 day old infant besides location?

3. What are the mental differences between an 8.75 month fetus and a 1 day old infant?

4. What are the emotional differences between an 8.75 month fetus and 1 day old infant?

5. Is a 1 day old infant more self aware and independent than an 8.75 month fetus?


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 8, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Let's check your science knowledge with a few questions shall we.
> 
> 1. What is a woman?
> 
> ...


1. A biological woman is someone who is born without a Y chromosome. I don't care what others say, that's my definition. If someone is born with gender dysphoria, and they're no longer under the supervision of their parents or guardians, and they want to become a woman in name, then what do I care? You do you. The idea that men can become biological women is only held by a tiny fraction on the far left. It's the equivalent to saying that all right wingers want everyone to have a gun, and zero gun restrictions. Some are out there, but the vast minority.

2-5. Not much really. But I never mentioned 8.75 months. By that time the baby is able to be removed and live without the use of the parents body. Luckily, nobody is talking about abortion at 8.75 months. 

The hypothetical mentions that there are thousands of embryos in a suitcase, so you can assume that they're in test tubes. Sorry, but a 1 day old infant is more important than a thousand test tubes with a collection of cells in them.


----------



## ZeroFX (Jul 8, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> If I'm considered degenerate, ho lord, that must make most people here even worse than that.


You mfking degenerate that wants a baby to live and is against self destructive practices like self mutilation. God damn you!


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 8, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> So here's the hypothetical that you just don't want to answer:
> You're in a burning fertility clinic in the middle of a long corridor. On one end of the corridor, there is a crying child. On the other side of the long corridor is a briefcase containing thousands of viable embryos that are scheduled for transplant that week. You only have time to save one before the building comes down. Which do you choose? (No dodges please)


I'm happy to answer this question, but I don't think the answer proves the point you think it does. The correct answer is that you should save the child, but this scenario does not demonstrate that abortions should be permitted in the first two trimesters, because nobody's life is in immediate danger during that time. All it demonstrates is that abortions should be permitted when pregnancy complications threaten the life of the mother, and even people who oppose abortion are usually willing to make this exception.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 8, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I'm happy to answer this question, but I don't think the answer proves the point you think it does. The correct answer is that you should save the child, but this scenario does not demonstrate that abortions should be permitted in the first two trimesters, because nobody's life is in immediate danger during that time. All it demonstrates is that abortions should be permitted when pregnancy complications threaten the life of the mother, and even people who oppose abortion are usually willing to make this exception.


It shows the value of life that we have truly given to an embryo. 1000 embryos doesn't equal to a single child when we're put to the choice. It also shows that you don't truly believe that it's murder to abort an embryo since it would make you a mass murderer to choose a single child over 1000 test tubes. 

Going further, if the single child wasn't a child, but an 80 year old man, you'd still choose the 80 year old man, knowing that he was already near the end of his life. Further lowering the idea that an embryo has the value of a baby.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 8, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> It shows the value of life that we have truly given to an embryo. 1000 embryos doesn't equal to a single child when we're put to the choice. It also shows that you don't truly believe that it's murder to abort an embryo since it would make you a mass murderer to choose a single child over 1000 test tubes.


An embryo is not a fetus, though, just as a fetus is not a baby. Everybody agrees that the life of a baby has value, and most people agree that the life of an embryo has significantly less value. The value of fetal life is the most contentious, and the question of how much value to place on a human life at each stage of development is unsettled, because you need an explanation for your decision that can somehow satisfy both the pro- and anti-abortion camps.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 8, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> An embryo is not a fetus, though, just as a fetus is not a baby. Everybody agrees that the life of a baby has value, and most people agree that the life of an embryo has significantly less value. The value of fetal life is the most contentious, and the question of how much value to place on a human life at each stage of development is unsettled, because you need an explanation for your decision that can somehow satisfy both the pro- and anti-abortion camps.


I couldn't agree more. Which is where the entire topic of abortion has gone off the rails in the past couple months. The supreme court has put the choice of abortion legality into the hands of some states which believe that any form of abortion is murder, no matter how early.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Jul 8, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> An embryo is not a fetus, though, just as a fetus is not a baby. Everybody agrees that the life of a baby has value, and most people agree that the life of an embryo has significantly less value. The value of fetal life is the most contentious, and the question of how much value to place on a human life at each stage of development is unsettled, because you need an explanation for your decision that can somehow satisfy both the pro- and anti-abortion camps.


I would take my wife over an embryo any day.
No one is going to make me do otherwise.
There is no explanation required.

The Supreme Court is unbalanced and its decision biased.
As a matter of settled law and over 50 years of precedence it took four justices to lie about how they really feel.
A Senator from Kentucky to jury rig the system to get us here and then bam...
...stupid conversations that are best left to doctors and the people involved in the choice.

Philosophy or debate all you want, Laws cannot and never will properly address the situation of the moment for every case that involves abortion.

Involving your personal input into the very fabric of the personal lives of people that you will never meet or care to know is selfish and arrogant.

Sycophants and religious assholes involve themselves barging their way in from afar and not giving a damn about the details.
Only broad brush strokes that stoke their own egos as the laws they believe will fix a problem that does not exist.


----------



## smf (Jul 8, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> So here's the hypothetical that you just don't want to answer:
> You're in a burning fertility clinic in the middle of a long corridor. On one end of the corridor, there is a crying child. On the other side of the long corridor is a briefcase containing thousands of viable embryos that are scheduled for transplant that week. You only have time to save one before the building comes down. Which do you choose? (No dodges please)


What do you mean I don't want to answer. The child obviously, I'm not sure you understand my position.


----------



## smf (Jul 8, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> because you need an explanation for your decision that can somehow satisfy both the pro- and anti-abortion camps.


Why not give them the ability to make the decision that suits them?


----------



## smf (Jul 8, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> 1. A biological woman is someone who is born without a Y chromosome.


Why do you hate women? https://novonordiskfonden.dk/en/news/more-women-than-expected-are-genetically-men/



titan_tim said:


> Luckily, nobody is talking about abortion at 8.75 months.


I've seen pro life people use it as an argument.


----------



## smf (Jul 8, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> When you have sex, you have a reasonable expectation that pregnancy will result if you don't take steps to prevent it,


1. What if you did take steps to prevent it?

2. It is not reasonable to expect that pregnancy *will* result, there is a lot of anecdotal and scientific evidence that says it's kinda random.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Jul 8, 2022)

smf said:


> 1. What if you did take steps to prevent it?
> 
> 2. It is not reasonable to expect that pregnancy *will* result, there is a lot of anecdotal and scientific evidence that says it's kinda random.


Details, details... the willfully ignorant ignore all of them.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/roe-v-wade-has-been-repealed.614315/post-9875087

And the trolls are here.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/roevwad...on-abortion-jay-reeves-cnn-clip.614989/page-7


----------



## tabzer (Jul 8, 2022)

smf said:


> 2. It is not reasonable to expect that pregnancy *will* result, there is a lot of anecdotal and scientific evidence that says it's kinda random.






Make sure to take your daily pregnancy test.  Never know when it is going to happen!


----------



## smf (Jul 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> View attachment 317149
> Make sure to take your daily pregnancy test.  Never know when it is going to happen!



Thanks for that, it's hilarious watching you misunderstand posts and then excitedly troll.

I get to do it pretty much every time you post


----------



## smf (Jul 8, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> Details, details... the willfully ignorant ignore all of them.
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/roe-v-wade-has-been-repealed.614315/post-9875087
> 
> And the trolls are here.
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/roevwad...on-abortion-jay-reeves-cnn-clip.614989/page-7


What details do you think I'm ignoring?

I merely pointed out that you can't *expect* to get a woman pregnant.

She might have reduced fertility, you might have reduced fertility, even fertile couples aren't able to get pregnant from a single intercourse.

Of course I'm picking holes in the troll post, but trolls should expect to have their posts dissected. They have become too used to slap dash inflammatory language getting an emotional response, I'm avoiding that. You need to use logic.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 8, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> 1. A biological woman is someone who is born without a Y chromosome. I don't care what others say, that's my definition. If someone is born with gender dysphoria, and they're no longer under the supervision of their parents or guardians, and they want to become a woman in name, then what do I care? You do you. The idea that men can become biological women is only held by a tiny fraction on the far left. It's the equivalent to saying that all right wingers want everyone to have a gun, and zero gun restrictions. Some are out there, but the vast minority.
> 
> 2-5. Not much really. But I never mentioned 8.75 months. By that time the baby is able to be removed and live without the use of the parents body. Luckily, nobody is talking about abortion at 8.75 months.
> 
> The hypothetical mentions that there are thousands of embryos in a suitcase, so you can assume that they're in test tubes. Sorry, but a 1 day old infant is more important than a thousand test tubes with a collection of cells in them.


Nobody is talking about 3rd trimester abortion? 

You don't read much do you?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47066307

To answer your dumb hypothetical... All life is equally important. Just because one would have to make a certain decision during an emergency does not negate the value of those thousands of embryos. It's not an either/or for most people. It's like asking parents which kid do they love the most. It's a stupid question that stupid people ask to try and trip up people smarter than they are and it adds nothing to the conversation.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 8, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> It shows the value of life that we have truly given to an embryo. 1000 embryos doesn't equal to a single child when we're put to the choice. It also shows that you don't truly believe that it's murder to abort an embryo since it would make you a mass murderer to choose a single child over 1000 test tubes.
> 
> Going further, if the single child wasn't a child, but an 80 year old man, you'd still choose the 80 year old man, knowing that he was already near the end of his life. Further lowering the idea that an embryo has the value of a baby.


Unless you are the one who set the fire putting the baby and embryos in danger, you wouldn't be a murderer for not saving the embryos. 

Not only are your hypotheticals dumb, you don't even know basic good samaritan laws.

Your assumption is that people would save the baby or the old man because of your belief that they have more value than 1000 embryos. You are attaching your motives to other people. That's what lazy people do when they don't have facts on their side.

This is why people normally stop using hypotheticals in debates around the 3rd grade.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 8, 2022)

smf said:


> Thanks for that, it's hilarious watching you misunderstand posts and then excitedly troll.
> 
> I get to do it pretty much every time you post


You get to do what now?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Yes, you did. It's the same argument. Replacing "bodily autonomy" rights with "property" rights changes nothing, as "bodily autonomy" is the same thing as a right to control your property, of which your body is the most essential element. The argument says that your right to control your property/body gives you license to violate the right to life of a fetus, even though the right to life is generally considered more important than the right to property (and thus bodily autonomy).


The bodily autonomy rights argument is different from the property rights argument. If you want to say they're the same, then great, we can ignore the property rights argument.



AleronIves said:


> Killing it would violate its right to bodily autonomy (as well as, more importantly, its right to life), so you're merely pitting its right to bodily autonomy against your own.


Two things.

For the umpteenth time, bodily autonomy rights only refer to one's rights over their own body. It does not extend to someone else's body. It's unfortunate for the fetus that it cannot survive outside the womb, just like it's unfortunate I hypothetically cannot survive without your kidney, but that doesn't mean the woman shouldn't have bodily autonomy rights, just like it doesn't mean you shouldn't have bodily autonomy rights. This isn't about pitting one person's right to bodily autonomy against someone else's. We can give the woman and the fetus equal bodily autonomy rights, and that doesn't change anything. Even if the fetus has full bodily autonomy rights, that doesn't allow it to take away a shred of the woman's bodily autonomy. We can give you and me equal bodily autonomy rights, but that doesn't allow me to take away a shred of your bodily autonomy.
You just said that a right to life is more important than bodily autonomy rights, so why don't you think the state can mandate organ donations?



AleronIves said:


> That's because I didn't cause your death; your kidney failure did. I am merely refusing to fix a problem you already had.


You're right that if you refused to give me one of your kidneys, you didn't kill me. My kidney failure killed me. It goes both ways, however. If someone has an abortion, it's the fact that the embryo/fetus cannot survive outside the woman's body that led to its death. I don't have a right to your kidney, and a fetus doesn't have a right to the resources of a woman's body.



AleronIves said:


> After your children are born, you have a reasonable expectation that they will be healthy and have self-sustaining bodies. When you have sex, you have a reasonable expectation that pregnancy will result if you don't take steps to prevent it, and it is wholly expected that the fetus will require the help of the woman's body to sustain itself for the first nine months. In other words, if a woman has consensual sex without protection, this act could reasonably be interpreted as giving consent for a fetus to violate her bodily autonomy for the next nine months, because getting pregnant is an obvious and natural result from having unprotected sex.


After your children are born, you have a reasonable expectation that they will be healthy and have self-sustaining bodies, yes. This doesn't violate anybody's bodily autonomy rights.

Nothing takes away a person's bodily autonomy rights. It doesn't matter if a person has sex, how consensual the sex was, or whether or not the sex was responsible. Consent to have sex is not consent to be pregnant. Consent to become pregnant is not consent to stay pregnant. I doubt you believe the state should be able to force people to donate kidneys to biological children, even if the children were consensual. I doubt you believe the state should be able to force people to donate kidneys to people because the law requires consensual sex-havers to register with a organ donor database.



AleronIves said:


> Yes, and the "forced organ donation" question was already settled in McFall v. Shimp. Obviously the abortion question must be significantly different from the forced organ donation question, or Americans wouldn't still be debating it. Even so, you continue to use the flawed analogy.



This wasn't a Supreme Court case, so it isn't exactly settled.
Before the very recent fall of Roe, McFall v. Shimp was pretty consistent with other state and federal court rulings.
I 100% agree with this court case. It's the anti-choice people who can't agree with this court case without being inconsistent.
If, hypothetically, Pennsylvania took away abortion rights, McFall v. Shimp would be one good legal precedent for striking it down in the Pennsylvania courts.



AleronIves said:


> Your right to bodily autonomy is already regularly violated. The government forbids you from using certain drugs


I agree. Repeal these laws.



AleronIves said:


> it subjects you to invasive strip searches at the airport


You have the choice to decline, turn around, and walk out, so it isn't really a violation of bodily autonomy rights.



AleronIves said:


> and it prevents people with terminal illnesses from killing themselves in many cases.


I agree. Repeal these laws.



AleronIves said:


> You could even argue that your employer violates your bodily autonomy by forcing you to wear certain clothing as a condition of employment.


You have the choice to decline, turn around, and walk out, so it isn't really a violation of bodily autonomy rights.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The bodily autonomy rights argument is different from the property rights argument. If you want to say they're the same, then great, we can ignore the property rights argument.
> 
> 
> Two things.
> ...


You are trying way too hard to ignore the existence of a dependent.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You are trying way too hard to ignore the existence of a dependent.


Could you please be more specific? I don't think I've ignored the existence of a dependent. Having a dependent, however, doesn't void anybody's bodily autonomy rights.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You are confused. A woman has a right to bodily autonomy, but she does not have the right to kill a fetus. She does, however, have the right to remove the fetus from her body. There's a very real difference, and the fact that the fetus can't survive outside her is irrelevant, just like the fact that I hypothetically can't survive without your kidney is irrelevant.


The Women is killing the fetus


The woman is placing the fetus in an environment where it can't survive. She knows the fetus will die. 

Same argument like leaving a baby in a hot car with the windows rolled up. Women is leaving baby in an environment where it can't survive. She know what will happen.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2022)

SG854 said:


> The Women is killing the fetus
> 
> The woman is placing the fetus in an environment where it can't survive. She knows the fetus will die.


The woman isn't killing the fetus anymore than you're killing me by not donating one of your kidneys to me. The fetus doesn't have a right to someone else's body, just like I don't have a right to yours. It's unfortunate that the fetus or embryo will die, and it's unfortunate that I will die, but neither is murder (and that's even pretending that a fetus or embryo is a person).



SG854 said:


> Same argument like leaving a baby in a hot car with the windows rolled up. Women is leaving baby in an environment where it can't survive. She know what will happen.


That has nothing to do with a woman's bodily autonomy rights, and she's killing the baby.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The woman isn't killing the fetus anymore than you're killing me by not donating one of your kidneys to me. The fetus doesn't have a right to someone else's body, just like I don't have a right to yours. It's unfortunate that the fetus or embryo will die, and it's unfortunate that I will die, but neither is murder (and that's even pretending that a fetus or embryo is a person).
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with a woman's bodily autonomy rights, and she's killing the baby.


I don't know why you are talking about the rights of a fetus to someone's body. It's a fetus. It's created and starts off in someone's body. 

Sorry your argument doesn't fly. The women's actions is killing the fetus. I support abortion but your argument comes off as you doing mental gymnastics.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2022)

SG854 said:


> I don't know why you are talking about the rights of a fetus to someone's body. It's a fetus. It's created and starts off in someone's body.


How is this relevant to whether or not people have bodily autonomy?



SG854 said:


> Sorry your argument doesn't fly. The women's actions is killing the fetus. I support abortion but your argument comes off as you doing mental gymnastics.


Be sure to tag me to respond to one of my posts directly if you decide to say anything substantive other than "nuh uh." Thanks.

Do you believe the state should impose laws violating people's bodily autonomy in the name of saving lives?


----------



## tabzer (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Could you please be more specific? I don't think I've ignored the existence of a dependent. Having a dependent, however, doesn't void anybody's bodily autonomy rights.


Where does the dependent, aka fetus, exist in your kidney metaphor?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Where does the dependent, aka fetus, exist in your kidney metaphor?


If you found out today you have a biological son, and that son needs a kidney transplant, should you be required by law to donate your kidney to him.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> How is this relevant to whether or not people have bodily autonomy?
> 
> 
> Be sure to tag me to respond to one of my posts directly if you decide to say anything substantive other than "nuh uh." Thanks.
> ...


I did tag you. Should've been implied when I replied and quoted your post.

And this is not a nuh uh argument. I gave you a reason. You're just trying to downplay the fact that the fetus is being killed.

At the end of the day you are killing the fetus. It doesn't matter if you twist the argument to try to convince yourself that you are not killing the fetus or try to not use the word kill so that the anti abortion crowd doesn't get rilled up at that emotionally charged word.



Lacius said:


> Do you believe the state should impose laws violating people's bodily autonomy in the name of saving lives?




You'll need to give examples of what you mean by this. Saying something general is useless if I don't have a specific scenario since not everything is black and white. There may be some cases where laws may make sense but other times where it doesn't. In general, no laws should not be imposed in the name of saving lives. But that's in general without any specific situations.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you found out today you have a biological son, and that son needs a kidney transplant, should you be required by law to donate your kidney to him.


Can you pretend to be straight for argument?  Where is the dependent, aka fetus, in the kidney metaphor?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 8, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> You're projecting something you think you and others don't have but already do.



Ok, and what is that? You keep commenting one liners in an attempt to prove you're either humorous or relevant, and your last few posts toward me have only proven that you're humorously irrelevant. I would ignore you, but I like to think I'm polite. 

Please, indulge me in what values or rights or whatever you think it is I'm projecting, because I'm fairly certain at this point you have no idea what projection is on a philosophical level, do unless you have something coherent to say, you should probably rethink how you try to annoy me. 

You're another one who has no voice or identity. You've mentioned multiple times you're here to drink liberal tears, but then you've spent two days posting one liners that has only created tears of laughter, far from whatever you think you need to further sustain yourself and your mindless posts. Please God post back with something other than "OoOoOoh libtard mad" and spare us the inane drivel that's come from your fingers the past few days.

Or maybe you haven't replied much because you've spent your time acclimating yourself with Stormfront, a KKK website that seems like a great place to spread your vitriol and draconian opinions. Maybe grab yourself an incest-bred Nazi bride while you're there so you can someone else to cry over abortions with.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2022)

SG854 said:


> I did tag you. Should've been implied when I replied and quoted your post.


My point wasn't that you didn't tag me before. My point was that your post didn't say much other than "nuh uh," and I wasn't sure if I should expect another post from you later.



SG854 said:


> And this is not a nuh uh argument. I gave you a reason. You're just trying to downplay the fact that the fetus is being killed.


I've already explained to you that the fetus isn't being killed anymore than I'm being killed when I don't get my kidney donation, so yes, your post was pretty much a "nuh uh" post, particularly the second half.



SG854 said:


> At the end of the day you are killing the fetus. It doesn't matter if you twist the argument to try to convince yourself that you are not killing the fetus or try to not use the word kill so that the anti abortion crowd doesn't get rilled up at that emotionally charged word.


Then at the end of the day, you're killing the man who needs a kidney. Should the state still require you to donate one of your kidneys?



SG854 said:


> You'll need to give examples of what you mean by this. Saying something general is useless if I don't have a specific scenario since not everything is black and white. There may be some cases where laws may make sense but other times where it doesn't. In general, no laws should not be imposed in the name of saving lives. But that's in general without any specific situations.


It's a simple question. Do you believe the state should impose laws violating people's bodily autonomy in the name of saving lives?



tabzer said:


> Where is the dependent, aka fetus, in the kidney metaphor?


I gave you one. Pretend the person who needs the kidney is a biological offspring/dependent.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 8, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> A sure sign that the conversation is lost is when people start playing "What If" games with each other. It is a purely emotional response by people who do not have facts on their side. This is how kids argue with each other. It looks like some people just never grow up. Smh



Quaint response considering you've posted nothing to back up any claim you've made besides, again, a dead website with falsified statistics. You continually point fingers at people and attack them for doing the same things you continue to do. All of your responses have been emotionally based and without reason, yet you ridicule someone who posts the same thing. I said it in the other thread and I'll say it here:

You have no voice of your own.

Attack everyone all you want, at the end of the day, you're an angry child who cries and throws tantrums when people argue outside your lowered level of thinking. 

Any time you wanna play with the big boys, trying reading your own crap before you start pointing fingers.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> My point wasn't that you didn't tag me before. My point was that your post didn't say much other than "nuh uh," and I wasn't sure if I should expect another post from you later.
> 
> 
> I've already explained to you that the fetus isn't being killed anymore than I'm being killed when I don't get my kidney donation, so yes, your post was pretty much a "nuh uh" post, particularly the second half.
> ...


Ok.  Then why is it okay for the mother to force someone to need a kidney transplant?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Ok.  Then why is it okay for the mother to force someone to need a kidney transplant?


The question is if the state should be able to force a parent to donate a kidney to a biological offspring. The mother is not "forcing someone to need a kidney transplant." You seemed confused by the analogy.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 8, 2022)

Hey @BitMasterPlus man child, check this out:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-abortion-executive-order_n_62c7c916e4b045168460ae03

Abortion rights won't be subjugated for long. What's the crap you've been saying?

Deal with it? Get over it?

I hope Republican tears taste half as good as liberal tears.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The woman isn't killing the fetus anymore than you're killing me by not donating one of your kidneys to me. The fetus doesn't have a right to someone else's body, just like I don't have a right to yours. It's unfortunate that the fetus or embryo will die, and it's unfortunate that I will die, but neither is murder (and that's even pretending that a fetus or embryo is a person).
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with a woman's bodily autonomy rights, and she's killing the baby.


A fetus doesn't need a right to a woman's body. It's called nature, and that's how it works for almost all mammals. Only leftists try to take rights away from people who cannot defend themselves. For people who claim they are the "Party of Science", you people have an open disdain of science. And the left has the gall to call other people science deniers. The left's projections are stronger than a thousand suns.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The question is if the state should be able to force a parent to donate a kidney to a biological offspring. The mother is not "forcing someone to need a kidney transplant." You seemed confused by the analogy.


Of course I am "confused" by the analogy.  It's not consistent.  The question is if the state should hold a parent responsible for their child's welfare.  The mother forced the offspring into existence, not the other way around.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Of course I am "confused" by the analogy.  It's not consistent.  The question is if the state should hold a parent responsible for their child's welfare.  The mother forced the offspring into existence, not the other way around.


You think a parent should be forced to donate an organ?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 8, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Quaint response considering you've posted nothing to back up any claim you've made besides, again, a dead website with falsified statistics. You continually point fingers at people and attack them for doing the same things you continue to do. All of your responses have been emotionally based and without reason, yet you ridicule someone who posts the same thing. I said it in the other thread and I'll say it here:
> 
> You have no voice of your own.
> 
> ...


This whole thread is one giant leftist struggle session. 

In fact, every political thread on GBATemp is one big leftist struggle session. I'm actually running out of storage for all the salty tears you people are producing. And it will only get better as the year progresses. I imagine by the end of the year, you will rage quit this forum and in typical leftist style, you will announce your departure.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You think a parent should be forced to donate an organ?


Do you really want me to pretend you are stupid?  I think a parent should donate an organ to the person who was forced into needing an organ by the said parent.  Please note that I am not advocating force, but force does exist.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I think a parent should donate an organ to the person who was forced into needing an organ by the said parent.


The offspring exists and is dependent on needing an organ because the parent had sex. Is that enough for a state to mandate the donation of a kidney from one of the parents?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 8, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> This whole thread is one giant leftist struggle session.
> 
> In fact, every political thread on GBATemp is one big leftist struggle session. I'm actually running out of storage for all the salty tears you people are producing. And it will only get better as the year progresses. I imagine by the end of the year, you will rage quit this forum and in typical leftist style, you will announce your departure.



And yet here you are again, responding and taking active part. Laugh all you want, you're caught up in this as much as any "leftie".

You sure about that? If you recall, your Republican party is the one that continually gets shut down and forgotten about. What happennnnned to the KKK? The Proud Boys? Trump's reelection? Putting Hilary in jail? The January 6th insurrection? The Confederacy? The American Mexican wall? Aren't these all viable examples of how alt rights cry and then accept their eventual defeat and departure? When's the last time Republicans won anything compared to Democrats?

In fact, when's the last time you highlighted a party that isn't red or blue? You're getting awfully caught up in this red v blue concept for someone who is supposedly anti bipartisan and anti big government. 

Tell you what. You keep drinking whatever leftist tears you think are in this thread and on this platform, I'll keep drinking your hypocrite tears. Sound like a deal?


----------



## tabzer (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> The offspring exists and is dependent on needing an organ because the parent had sex. Is that enough for a state to mandate the donation of a kidney from one of the parents?


A kidney and a uterus?  You made a metaphor and now we are transcending reality.

If the act of sex forces someone to need a kidney, then I suppose those who made someone need a kidney should correct the situation.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> A kidney and a uterus?  You made a metaphor and now we are transcending reality.
> 
> If the act of sex forces someone to need a kidney, then I suppose those who made someone need a kidney should correct the situation.


Sex created the human being now contingent on the body of one of the parents. Keep up.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Sex created the human being now contingent on the body of one of the parents. Keep up.


Right, so who forced the need for a kidney?

"Keep up".  Someone getting agitated?

Sex isn't a magical thing that absolves people of responsibility, lol.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Right, so who forced the need for a kidney?


Nobody forced the need for a kidney, just like nobody forced the need of the womb.



tabzer said:


> "Keep up".  Someone getting agitated?


Agitated? No. However, you do need to keep up. It isn't hard.



tabzer said:


> Sex isn't a magical thing that absolves people of responsibility, lol.


Sex isn't a magical thing that causes one to lose their bodily autonomy. Sex that results in pregnancy doesn't take away bodily autonomy, and sex that results in pregnancy and birth to a child who needs a kidney doesn't take away bodily autonomy.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 8, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Nobody is talking about 3rd trimester abortion?
> 
> You don't read much do you?
> 
> ...


That specific 3rd trimester abortion issue comes specifically if the mother is in danger, or in cases of extreme deformity. I've had a family member give birth to a baby with trisomy 13. The lungs and heart were born out of place. The baby lived for two days in pain. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I wouldn't want someone to go and just decide last minute that a baby wouldn't be good for them socially last minute, but there are still situations that it's necessary.

Also, it's not the same as asking a parent which kid they love the most. It's completely different. Once again to my own personal experiences, my wife and I have two kids, and we've also had two miscarriages. I love my two kids more than the two I never had the chance to meet. We were sad when it happened, but we moved on. If one of our kids were to die today, we wouldn't be able to move on from that.

You can take this all as hearsay, but I don't really care.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Nobody forced the need for a kidney, just like nobody forced the need of the womb.
> 
> 
> Agitated? No. However, you do need to keep up. It isn't hard.
> ...


You seem to be suggesting that an embryo is an uninvited guest.  Do you believe that?

Consider this: If every time you have sex, there is a chance of you forcing someone to need a kidney; is it ethical?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You seem to be suggesting that an embryo is an uninvited guest.  Do you believe that?


If the person doesn't want to be pregnant, then yes.



tabzer said:


> Consider this: If every time you have sex, there is a chance of you forcing someone to need a kidney; is it ethical?


Sex would potentially be unethical if when you did it, there's a chance you actively damaged someone's kidneys. That's a separate issue from whether or not it should be illegal.

Edit: And it would definitely be a separate issue from whether or not you can be compelled to donate a kidney.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If the person doesn't want to be pregnant, then yes.
> 
> 
> Sex would potentially be unethical if when you did it, there's a chance you actively damaged someone's kidneys. That's a separate issue from whether or not it should be illegal.
> ...


When I consider that you think that someone changing their mind after the fact qualifies as "not wanting to become pregnant" it seems that you are advocating for the existence of such people.

But on the other point, should manslaughter be illegal?  Should the crime have a harsher punishment if a remedy cannot be provided?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> When I consider that you think that someone changing their mind after the fact qualifies as "not wanting to become pregnant" it seems that you are advocating for the existence of such people.


I didn't say it qualifies as "not wanting to become pregnant." I said "not wanting to be pregnant." Consent to have sex is not consent to become pregnant. Consent to become pregnant is not consent to remain pregnant.



tabzer said:


> But on the other point, should manslaughter be illegal?


Of course.


----------



## smf (Jul 8, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You get to do what now?


Laugh at how pleased you are with yourself, when I know you didn't understand the post.


----------



## smf (Jul 8, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Only leftists try to take rights away from people who cannot defend themselves.


Only rightists try to take rights away from people who cannot defend themselves.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62088103


----------



## MicroNut99 (Jul 8, 2022)

smf said:


> What details do you think I'm ignoring?
> 
> I merely pointed out that you can't *expect* to get a woman pregnant.
> 
> ...



Oops. I was agreeing with you. Its folks like Tabzer that I was calling out.
I use both. Logic isn't a magical salve with these people.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Jul 8, 2022)

smf said:


> Laugh at how pleased you are with yourself, when I know you didn't understand the post.





tabzer said:


> Of course I am "confused" by the analogy.  It's not consistent.  The question is if the state should hold a parent responsible for their child's welfare.  The mother forced the offspring into existence, not the other way around.


Tabzer is routinely "confused"
Do not waste your time.
There is literally nothing to be gained from a conversation with him.  
Tabzer has no position on the subject.
Another troll whos only purpose is to sow confusion where this is none.


----------



## AdamCatalyst (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> In some states, it now is.


Name one.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2022)

AdamCatalyst said:


> Name one.


Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Wisconsin, South Dakota, West Virginia, and more to follow.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Jul 8, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Wisconsin, South Dakota, West Virginia, and more to follow.



They are called trigger laws.
The republicans have been planning the take over of the Supreme Court for over 40 years.


----------



## smf (Jul 8, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> They are called trigger laws.
> The republicans have been planning the take over of the Supreme Court for over 40 years.


The elite will always ignore the will of the common man.

Though USA got rid of Trump, so it is certainly possible to fight back.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 8, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> Which is where the entire topic of abortion has gone off the rails in the past couple months. The supreme court has put the choice of abortion legality into the hands of some states which believe that any form of abortion is murder, no matter how early.


The topic of abortion hasn't gone off the rails, so much as Roe tried to stop the train from moving 50 years ago, and after 50 years of pushing and pulling, the anti-abortion camp is downright giddy to have achieved its goal after so long and is making stupid, vindictive decisions with its newfound power. Had Roe never happened, we could have had this debate 50 years ago, and maybe the US would have been able to put it to rest by now. Instead, Roe delayed the inevitable by half a century.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 8, 2022)

Sorry for making multiple posts, but it seems inelegant to address multiple points from multiple people in one post.



Lacius said:


> The bodily autonomy rights argument is different from the property rights argument.


As usual, you just state something as fact without backing it up. Please explain why they are different.



Lacius said:


> You're right that if you refused to give me one of your kidneys, you didn't kill me. My kidney failure killed me. It goes both ways, however. If someone has an abortion, it's the fact that the embryo/fetus cannot survive outside the woman's body that led to its death. I don't have a right to your kidney, and a fetus doesn't have a right to the resources of a woman's body.


It doesn't naturally follow that it goes both ways. I'm not responsible for your death by kidney failure, since I didn't cause your kidneys to fail. I only refused to give you one of mine. A woman holds half the responsibility for the creation of a fetus (with the man holding the other half), so she doesn't get to pretend that its life isn't her responsibility. This is the hole in your argument.

People aren't forced to give organs to strangers, because a stranger's problem isn't your problem. It's not really a matter of bodily autonomy. A woman bears half the responsibility for the fetus she created, and her right to bodily autonomy does not absolve her of this responsibility; therefore, she doesn't get to say that the fetus dying after an abortion isn't her fault. It absolutely is.

As I've said before, the abortion question is about pitting a woman's right to bodily autonomy against the right of a fetus to live. If abortion is legal, she may decide that her rights outweigh whatever rights the fetus may have, but that does not free her from the fact that she has to kill the fetus in order to exercise her right to not be pregnant.



Lacius said:


> Consent to have sex is not consent to be pregnant. Consent to become pregnant is not consent to stay pregnant.


In your view, this means a woman gives consent for pregnancy on an ongoing basis by choosing not to abort/kill the fetus day by day? Are there any scenarios where she lacks this right, or does she have the right to an abortion from week 1 - week 36?



Lacius said:


> This wasn't a Supreme Court case, so it isn't exactly settled.


It wasn't appealed to my knowledge, so... yes it is, until somebody brings another similar case to the courts. The same was true of Roe. It was "settled" until somebody brought a case before the SCOTUS that gave the SCOTUS the opportunity to pass a different ruling.



Lacius said:


> I agree. Repeal these laws.


I applaud you for your consistency on this front.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 8, 2022)

smf said:


> 2. It is not reasonable to expect that pregnancy *will* result, there is a lot of anecdotal and scientific evidence that says it's kinda random.


That's not quite right. Yes, pregnancy is not a guaranteed outcome, but it is reasonable to expect that pregnancy *could* be the outcome. If you're not deliberately trying to achieve a pregnancy, then the responsible thing to do is to take steps to ensure that it doesn't happen.



smf said:


> 1. What if you did take steps to prevent it?


This is the more interesting question. The anti-abortion camp tends to take the "you broke it, you bought it" philosophy with pregnancy, i.e. if you have unprotected sex, you knew pregnancy was a possible outcome, so you don't get feign surprise when it happens, and now that you created a new human, you're stuck with it. This argument falls apart when faced with the real possibility of contraceptive failure. If you're having recreational sex and using contraceptives in a good-faith attempt to prevent pregnancy, yet the woman gets pregnant anyway, what's the answer? The anti-abortion camp tends to say, "Well, you knew that contraceptives weren't 100% effective before you had sex, and you decided to take that risk. You lost the bet, and now you're stuck. Too bad!"

This argument doesn't work very well, because it negates the role of parental consent. Since having sex without contraceptives has a very real chance of resulting in pregnancy, this can potentially be considered as giving consent for pregnancy to occur. Having sex with contraceptives, however, can just as reasonably be considered as denying consent for pregnancy to occur. Since the "parents" acted responsibly by trying to prevent pregnancy to the best of their ability, do they still hold responsibility for the fetus? There are two ways to answer this question:


Yes, they are responsible, because they knew the contraceptive(s) might fail, and they chose to take that risk.
No, they are not responsible, because they took reasonable measures to prevent pregnancy from occurring.

The problem with the first option is that it gives people the following two choices:


You can have sex with contraception, but if the contraception fails, you're required to complete the resulting pregnancy.
If you're not comfortable with taking the risk of having unwanted kids, then you must never have sex.

This is not a practical solution, since a) sex is one of the most fundamental urges that humans experience, so you can't expect people to abstain from it their entire lives, and b) it's arguably unethical to force people to have children they don't want.

This leaves us with the conclusion that you cannot be held responsible for a pregnancy if you took reasonable measures to prevent it. Now the question becomes: can you allow abortions only in this circumstance? In other words, if abortion is ethically permissible only if the woman got pregnant due to contraceptive failure, then is it possible to prove that this is how she got pregnant?

For the sake of argument, one "solution" would be to force the man to take a video of himself putting on a condom to prove that he used contraception, but he could easily take it off during sex, so then you'd have to mandate the recording of the entire sexual process. Even if you did this, it doesn't help if the woman is the one using contraception, since you can't very well stick a camera inside her to prove that she has a Mirena coil in place.

As such, we are forced to conclude that you cannot prove a pregnancy resulted from contraceptive failure, as you can't prove that contraceptives were used in the first place. If we assume that forcing people to have children they didn't want is unethical and that using contraception constitutes denial of consent to have children, then we can only conclude that abortion must be legal, even though this will also allow people who had unprotected sex to obtain abortions. If the ideal regulatory framework can only exist in theory and not in practice, then you are forced to compromise based upon what is actually feasible in the real world.


----------



## smf (Jul 8, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> That's not quite right. Yes, pregnancy is not a guaranteed outcome, but it is reasonable to expect that pregnancy *could* be the outcome.


It's a possible outcome, I believe the likelihood is between %15 and %25 a month if you are trying.

That isn't what he said.



AleronIves said:


> As such, we are forced to conclude that you cannot prove a pregnancy resulted from contraceptive failure, as you can't prove that contraceptives were used in the first place. If we assume that forcing people to have children they didn't want is unethical and that using contraception constitutes denial of consent to have children, then we can only conclude that abortion must be legal, even though this will also allow people who had unprotected sex to obtain abortions. If the ideal regulatory framework can only exist in theory and not in practice, then you are forced to compromise based upon what is actually feasible in the real world.



To be fair, I think they were trolling. I can't see them being happy with abortions even if you could prove that you did everything humanly possible to avoid pregnancy. The pregnancy would be "proof" that you should have tried harder and bad luck.

But abortions will be legalized again soon in america, so it shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 8, 2022)

smf said:


> That isn't what he said.
> [...]
> To be fair, I think they were trolling. I can't see them being happy with abortions even if you could prove that you did everything humanly possible to avoid pregnancy. The pregnancy would be "proof" that you should have tried harder and bad luck.


Who are "he" and "they"? Did you leave out some quotes? You quoted me, and I was replying to you, not somebody else.


----------



## titan_tim (Jul 9, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> is making stupid, vindictive decisions with its newfound power


If that isn't going off the rails, then what else could be?

Also at least with Roe, things were uniform across the country (Even though people were constantly trying to undermine it the entire time). Now it's going to be fragment the country even more into left and right camps.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 9, 2022)

smf said:


> Laugh at how pleased you are with yourself, when I know you didn't understand the post.



How am I pleased with myself?  Have you considered the idea that you might be a troll?

"is it not valid to show someone they are wrong by doing the same thing they are but in a way that you know they will disagree with?"



MicroNut99 said:


> Tabzer is routinely "confused"
> Do not waste your time.
> There is literally nothing to be gained from a conversation with him.
> Tabzer has no position on the subject.
> Another troll whos only purpose is to sow confusion where this is none.



I think sex leading to pregnancy is not an unreasonable outcome.  I also think that the people who would argue that "unprotect_ed_ sex leading to pregnancy is not a reasonable expectation" are idiots that would dip out the moment they _force _someone to depend on them.

Not to conflate two different points.  "Confused" was code for "disagree", as in I disagree with Lacius's metaphor.  Hope that cleared it up for you.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 9, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> And yet here you are again, responding and taking active part. Laugh all you want, you're caught up in this as much as any "leftie".
> 
> You sure about that? If you recall, your Republican party is the one that continually gets shut down and forgotten about. What happennnnned to the KKK? The Proud Boys? Trump's reelection? Putting Hilary in jail? The January 6th insurrection? The Confederacy? The American Mexican wall? Aren't these all viable examples of how alt rights cry and then accept their eventual defeat and departure? When's the last time Republicans won anything compared to Democrats?
> 
> ...


When is the last time we won?

1. Roe v Wade given back to the states and the people
2. EPA can't implement climate change rules without Congress
3. 2nd Amendment upheld
4. J6 committee falling apart
5. Biolabs and Nazis exposed in Ukraine
6. Twitter's lies about their bots are exposed
7. Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled drop boxes are illegal now and were illegal in 2020
8. Georgia Guidestones got demolished
9. Farmers in the Netherlands standing up to globalists
10. Dems don't have the votes to pass abortion law
11. Ghislaine Maxwell got sentenced, and her customers are being investigated
12. Joe Biden voicemail to Hunter exposed proving he was involved in the business deals
13. Missouri passes voter ID and eliminates drop boxes
14. One of the ballot mules in AZ just got 1 year in prison
15. Macron lost his majority
16. Judge in Uruguay suspends vaccinations for kids under 13
17. Mayra Flores flipped a House seat
18. Biden's job approval is lower than Trump's
19. NY Supreme Court shot down law allowing illegal aliens to vote in local elections
20. NY Supreme Court dismissed the Dems gerrymandered district map and drew their own
21. 130 people accused of human trafficking arrested in Europe

And that's just in the last couple weeks. Also, when I say we, I don't mean the Republican Party. I'm talking about Patriots.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 9, 2022)

smf said:


> Only rightists try to take rights away from people who cannot defend themselves.
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62088103


George Floyd couldn't defend himself because he was dying from a fentanyl overdose. C'mon man, you can do better than this.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jul 9, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> George Floyd couldn't defend himself because he was dying from a fentanyl overdose. C'mon man, you can do better than this.


Proven to not be true. Amazing how this excuse/lie is still being used.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jul 9, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> And yet here you are again, responding and taking active part. Laugh all you want, you're caught up in this as much as any "leftie".
> 
> You sure about that? If you recall, your Republican party is the one that continually gets shut down and forgotten about. What happennnnned to the KKK? The Proud Boys? Trump's reelection? Putting Hilary in jail? The January 6th insurrection? The Confederacy? The American Mexican wall? Aren't these all viable examples of how alt rights cry and then accept their eventual defeat and departure? When's the last time Republicans won anything compared to Democrats?
> 
> ...


History is not kind to those who oppress. Radical Southern religious freaks have been trying to push their Anti-LGBT agenda on the entire country and world for as long as anyone can remember, and now look what's happening. The LGBT community is widely accepted by a vast majority of people while the number of idiots that are afraid of two dudes kissing are slowly dying off and fading away. Even in their safe spaces, aka the states where gay marriage was not legal until Obergefell v. Hodges, was taken away in 2015.

Remember, the people that cry about _other people_ having rights aren't actual victims, they're just weak victims in their own pathetic minds. They're thrown away by society, as they should be. Remember the jackass that assaulted a minor working at a smoothie shop and called her a racial slur? He was fired from his job and charged within a weak of the incident.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 9, 2022)

dpad_5678 said:


> Proven to not be true. Amazing how this excuse/lie is still being used.


It's still being used because it was never proven false. Toxicology report showed he had fentanyl, methamphetamine and cannabinoids in his system. He also had heart disease. Even the corporate media reported this so you have no excuse not knowing.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jul 9, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It's still being used because it was never proven false. Toxicology report showed he had fentanyl, methamphetamine and cannabinoids in his system. He also had heart disease. Even the corporate media reported this so you have no excuse not knowing.


I do not watch mainstream media, but then again everyone who watches FOX News claims they don't either, because FOX News is somehow the only exception to the fact that all mainstream media lies, right? 
Regardless, I remain amazed that people still try to use the weak lie that he died from a drug overdose, and that being just around the time he, I don't know, had his neck leaned on and was asphyxiated? His cause of death was ruled as neck compression. Anything to avoid admitting that the United States is a racist country and that black people still suffer racism at varrying degrees on a regular basis, right? I'm sure Chauvin is your personal hero. Good thing he's rotting in prison.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 9, 2022)

dpad_5678 said:


> I do not watch mainstream media, but then again everyone who watches FOX News claims they don't either, because FOX News is somehow the only exception to the fact that all mainstream media lies, right?
> Regardless, I remain amazed that people still try to use the weak lie that he died from a drug overdose, and that being just around the time he, I don't know, had his neck leaned on and was asphyxiated? His cause of death was ruled as neck compression. Anything to avoid admitting that the United States is a racist country and that black people still suffer racism at varrying degrees on a regular basis, right? I'm sure Chauvin is your personal hero. Good thing he's rotting in prison.


There's that Fox News boogeyman again, lol

Are you sure Chauvin is my personal hero? More like you hope he is. I honestly could care less about him. Good thing George Floyd is rotting in the ground so he can't threaten his baby momma's life anymore.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jul 9, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> There's that Fox News boogeyman again


"Hurr durr FOX News good and anything modern scares me"


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 9, 2022)

dpad_5678 said:


> "Hurr durr FOX News good and anything modern scares me"


Hurr durr I'm so scared of one cable channel that only a few million people watch. Cry moar


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jul 9, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Hurr durr I'm so scared of one cable channel that only a few million people watch. Cry moar


Okay, champ. You're welcome to cry and pout here about why the world is more accepting and advanced than you could ever comprehend and why you're somehow the victim of everything, but, eh, I'm not going to turn this into a hundred post long back-and-forth. Feel free to rant to yourself. <3


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 9, 2022)

dpad_5678 said:


> Okay, champ. You're welcome to cry and pout here about why the world is more accepting and advanced than you could ever comprehend and why you're somehow the victim of everything, but, eh, I'm not going to turn this into a hundred post long back-and-forth. Feel free to rant to yourself. <3


Poor guy has nothing left except projection. In the future, you don't have to announce your exit. You can just leave. Nobody will care, especially me.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 9, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Ok, and what is that? You keep commenting one liners in an attempt to prove you're either humorous or relevant, and your last few posts toward me have only proven that you're humorously irrelevant. I would ignore you, but I like to think I'm polite.
> 
> Please, indulge me in what values or rights or whatever you think it is I'm projecting, because I'm fairly certain at this point you have no idea what projection is on a philosophical level, do unless you have something coherent to say, you should probably rethink how you try to annoy me.
> 
> ...


Someone sounds like they had too much salt at dinner.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 9, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Hey @BitMasterPlus man child, check this out:
> 
> https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-abortion-executive-order_n_62c7c916e4b045168460ae03
> 
> ...


Nobody reasonable listens to that thieving, cheating, lying cocksucker anyways so his "executive orders" might as well be fancy toilet paper one would wipe their ass with.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 9, 2022)

titan_tim said:


> If that isn't going off the rails, then what else could be?


I guess we might have different ideas of what constitutes "off the rails". The current political climate surrounding abortion is vitriolic, but the vitriol still exists within the constitutional framework that defines the US government, so that's not "off the rails" in my book. Democrats had 50 years to pass actual legislation protecting abortion rights, and they were too lazy and complacent to do so. They preferred to rely on a shaky SCOTUS precedent, which can be overturned with a single SCOTUS vote. It took a while, but that's exactly what happened, and Democrats can't feign surprise, since Republicans have been using the call to overturn Roe to rally their base for decades. Their goal was never a secret, and Democrats did nothing to stop it.

In fact, Democrats actively helped Republicans achieve their goal by making it easier to confirm judges to the SCOTUS. When Democrats were in power, they got mad that Republicans were blocking their judicial nominees, so they removed filibuster protections for federal judge confirmations -- except for the SCOTUS. A few years later, they tried to block a Republican SCOTUS nominee, and Republicans predictably followed their precedent by removing filibuster protections for SCOTUS confirmations. Trump never would have gotten all of his SCOTUS picks had Democrats not started tinkering with Senate rules, as Republicans are generally much better at politics than Democrats and are much less likely to initiate changes that can be used against their own agenda the next time they lose political power.

Now, Republicans reduced the legitimacy of the SCOTUS by stealing an appointment from Obama and then hypocritically reversing course to slap as many judges onto the SCOTUS as they could during Trump's term, but the only constitutional mechanism to punish them for doing that is for the people of Kentucky to throw Mitch McConnell out of office, so there isn't much the rest of us can do about it. We can vote other Republicans out of office to punish them for their party's unethical behaviour, but since the economy is down and inflation is way up, it's unlikely that Republicans will suffer much electoral pain come November.


----------



## smf (Jul 9, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It's still being used because it was never proven false. Toxicology report showed he had fentanyl, methamphetamine and cannabinoids in his system. He also had heart disease. Even the corporate media reported this so you have no excuse not knowing.



So what you're saying is that it was his own fault that he wasn't fit enough to survive the assault he was subjected to?

I wasn't aware that one of my duties was to prepare for my neck to be knelt on by a police officer for nine minutes.
I wonder how many people would have survived that?

Derek Chauvin has been convicted of killing George Floyd, so it's been proven in court that you are wrong.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 9, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Nobody reasonable listens to that thieving, cheating, lying cocksucker anyways so his "executive orders" might as well be fancy toilet paper one would wipe their ass with.



Oh for a minute I thought you were talking about Trump.

You know what an executive action is, right?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 9, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> When is the last time we won?
> 
> 1. Roe v Wade given back to the states and the people
> 2. EPA can't implement climate change rules without Congress
> ...



So then your reply is pointless then, as you didn't highlight wins for Republicans, you highlighted "wins" for patriots. Half of those at least are wins for humanity, like arresting sex traffickers and suspending Twitter bots.

If you can't even formulate a proper response, why bother trying? You did nothing but show defense for my point. So uhh, thanks for that.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 9, 2022)

dpad_5678 said:


> History is not kind to those who oppress. Radical Southern religious freaks have been trying to push their Anti-LGBT agenda on the entire country and world for as long as anyone can remember, and now look what's happening. The LGBT community is widely accepted by a vast majority of people while the number of idiots that are afraid of two dudes kissing are slowly dying off and fading away. Even in their safe spaces, aka the states where gay marriage was not legal until Obergefell v. Hodges, was taken away in 2015.
> 
> Remember, the people that cry about _other people_ having rights aren't actual victims, they're just weak victims in their own pathetic minds. They're thrown away by society, as they should be. Remember the jackass that assaulted a minor working at a smoothie shop and called her a racial slur? He was fired from his job and charged within a weak of the incident.



Exactly right, which is a big part of why you have people like @TraderPatTX trying to actively erase or rewrite history to fit their narrative. And it's all over the place too. Without derailing too much, you know a lot of schools are rewriting the Native American massacre when Columbus "discovered" America? It's ludicrous. And with the onset of unregulated Internet websites, which I'm back and forth on, you have people freely uploading falsified information to further push their agenda.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 9, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Oh for a minute I thought you were talking about Trump.
> 
> You know what an executive action is, right?


Something Biden has abused since literally the first day he took office. You call Trump a dictator, but of course, Biden acts like one even more than Trump supposedly ever did.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 9, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Something Biden has abused since literally the first day he took office. You call Trump a dictator, but of course, Biden acts like one even more than Trump supposedly ever did.



He's made 91 of them in two years. Trump made 220 in 4. Which of them have hurt you personally?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 9, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> In your view, this means a woman gives consent for pregnancy on an ongoing basis by choosing not to abort/kill the fetus day by day?


That's right.



AleronIves said:


> Are there any scenarios where she lacks this right, or does she have the right to an abortion from week 1 - week 36?


There are no scenarios in which a woman would lack the right to end her pregnancy from Week 1 through Week 36. However, ending a pregnancy isn't always an abortion. If it's after fetal viability, then it'd be a birth.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 9, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> He's made 91 of them in two years. Trump made 220 in 4. Which of them have hurt you personally?


Considering the state of the US right now, in total chaos, Biden's obviously.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 9, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Considering the state of the US right now, in total chaos, Biden's obviously.



You didn't live in America during Trump's presidency a whole lot, did you?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 9, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> You didn't live in America during Trump's presidency a whole lot, did you?


I did, and we and the whole world were better off for it. Only delusional moronic NCP brainwashed sheep think differently.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 9, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I did, and we and the whole world were better off for it.


Did you forget about the deadly pandemic exacerbated by an egregious mishandling of it by the U.S. President at that time?

Whether or not you agree that the former President mishandled the pandemic (he did), it's pretty ridiculous to refer to the time he was in office, including the pandemic, as a time in which the world was "better off." Lol.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Did you forget about the deadly pandemic exacerbated by an egregious mishandling of it by the U.S. President at that time?
> 
> Whether or not you agree that the former President mishandled the pandemic (he did), it's pretty ridiculous to refer to the time he was in office, including the pandemic, as a time in which the world was "better off." Lol.


And yet people have died under Biden's reign more than Trump due to the "plandemic". In fact, even fewer would've been dead under Trump if the dems didn't stonewall him every chance they got and took precautions before hand. Of course, you don't care for facts so,,,


----------



## Lacius (Jul 9, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> In fact, even fewer would've been dead under Trump if the dems didn't stonewall him every chance they got and took precautions before hand.


What are you talking about?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> What are you talking about?


Something that your tiny, ignorant brain would never be able to understand unfortunately.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 9, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Something that your tiny, ignorant brain would never be able to understand unfortunately.


Try me. Please give specific examples.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Try me. Please give specific examples.


I've gone and done this song and dance in the past with no progress or success, so why you go and look it up yourself outside of what the mainstream media has brainwashed you to believe.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 9, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I've gone and done this song and dance in the past with no progress or success, so why you go and look it up yourself outside of what the mainstream media has brainwashed you to believe.


If you can't articulate a single example, why should anyone believe you or care what you have to say about it?


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> If you can't articulate a single example, why should anyone believe you or care what you have to say about it?


Why should anyone believe you or care about the lies and bullshit you spew either, especially when your "facts" and "sources" are pure propagandist garbage?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 9, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> I did, and we and the whole world were better off for it. Only delusional moronic NCP brainwashed sheep think differently.



So you were cool during the whole COVID thing? Where businesses kept shutting down every few months, jobs were cut left and right and the only businesses that turned an accurate profit were rideshare and delivery services, most of which led to the current spike in gas prices due to a sudden influx of supply and demand?

You were cool with having to wear a mask because you're pro life and didn't want to take a chance at spreading a virus that ran rampant throughout the elderly demographic and started getting scary big throughout children, those same people you supposedly are pro life about?

You don't leave your mom's basement a whole lot, do you?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 9, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Why should anyone believe you or care about the lies and bullshit you spew either, especially when your "facts" and "sources" are pure propagandist garbage?



So essentially you don't even care about your standpoint or defending your reasoning, you're just here to argue, demean, and otherwise throw tantrums?

Gotcha.

Hey listen, any time you wanna feel relevant, start backing up your "truth". Seems silly to glorify your garbage as absolute truth but then never actually try to convince others with facts.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Jul 9, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> So you were cool during the whole COVID thing? Where businesses kept shutting down every few months, jobs were cut left and right and the only businesses that turned an accurate profit were rideshare and delivery services, most of which led to the current spike in gas prices due to a sudden influx of supply and demand?
> 
> You were cool with having to wear a mask because you're pro life and didn't want to take a chance at spreading a virus that ran rampant throughout the elderly demographic and started getting scary big throughout children, those same people you supposedly are pro life about?
> 
> You don't leave your mom's basement a whole lot, do you?


All the democrats fault, Trump wanted none of that. It seems like YOU never left your mother's basement.



SyphenFreht said:


> So essentially you don't even care about your standpoint or defending your reasoning, you're just here to argue, demean, and otherwise throw tantrums?
> 
> Gotcha.
> 
> Hey listen, any time you wanna feel relevant, start backing up your "truth". Seems silly to glorify your garbage as absolute truth but then never actually try to convince others with facts.


You're just as clueless as he is and your ignorant and misguided world views and opinions means nothing. It's just a waste of internet space.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 9, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> All the democrats fault.


How?


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 9, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> And yet people have died under Biden's reign more than Trump due to the "plandemic". In fact, even fewer would've been dead under Trump if the dems didn't stonewall him every chance they got and took precautions before hand. Of course, you don't care for facts so,,,





BitMasterPlus said:


> Something that your tiny, ignorant brain would never be able to understand unfortunately.





BitMasterPlus said:


> I've gone and done this song and dance in the past with no progress or success, so why you go and look it up yourself outside of what the mainstream media has brainwashed you to believe.


This is the same nonsense as always. You make a claim, get asked to clarify, then you make a shitty comment and act like the questions being asked are as shitty as your comment. Why is so hard for you (and honestly the same like 5 people,) to give a specific link or example to your claims? Seriously, there's a group of you all who make claims and then drag out for pages upon pages deflecting any questions towards these claims, what's up with that?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 9, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> All the democrats fault, Trump wanted none of that. It seems like YOU never left your mother's basement.



But Trump. The President. Who had 220 executive orders during his 4 years. As President. Could not do one thing besides issuing checks. Because the Democrats blocked everything. Except his 220 executive orders?

You uh.... You do realize not even a child would believe this, right?

There's so much he could've done and chose not to. He sat on his hands when COVID first started spreading, even though originally both parties urged him to do anything. Something. The fallout could've been so much better e but he was the only person who held himself back.

How can you continue to endorse someone who never cared about the American people, who you claim is so great and monumental, but was somehow powerless during his entire presidency? 

How?



BitMasterPlus said:


> You're just as clueless as he is and your ignorant and misguided world views and opinions means nothing. It's just a waste of internet space.



But yet you keep arguing. Over nothing. With me.

800-273-8255

This is the national suicide hotline. You clearly are looking for help, but I'm not qualified in that department. Please understand. Help is out there.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> ending a pregnancy isn't always an abortion. If it's after fetal viability, then it'd be a birth.


Although a fetus can survive outside the womb by the third trimester, to my knowledge, it can't survive without help. If a woman is choosing to prematurely end her pregnancy in the third trimester, this would suggest she doesn't want the baby, so in your view, who should pay for the neonatal care? Is it the parents, the state, or some other party?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 9, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Although a fetus can survive outside the womb by the third trimester, to my knowledge, it can't survive without help. If a woman is choosing to prematurely end her pregnancy in the third trimester, this would suggest she doesn't want the baby, so in your view, who should pay for the neonatal care? Is it the parents, the state, or some other party?


There should be a universal single-payer health care system for all.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 9, 2022)

I was speaking in terms of the current healthcare system and not in terms of some hypothetically ideal system, but your point is well taken, nonetheless.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 9, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> I was speaking in terms of the current healthcare system and not in terms of some hypothetically ideal system, but your point is well taken, nonetheless.


To give you a maybe more satisfactory answer, I would be amenable to the parents paying for neonatal care as long as nobody's bodily autonomy rights are violated. Bodily autonomy takes precedence.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 9, 2022)

Lacius said:


> To give you a maybe more satisfactory answer, I would be amenable to the parents paying for neonatal care as long as nobody's bodily autonomy rights are violated. Bodily autonomy takes precedence.



Being born is a violation of bodily autonomy.  It's an ideal that doesn't exist.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 10, 2022)

smf said:


> So what you're saying is that it was his own fault that he wasn't fit enough to survive the assault he was subjected to?
> 
> I wasn't aware that one of my duties was to prepare for my neck to be knelt on by a police officer for nine minutes.
> I wonder how many people would have survived that?
> ...


Sometimes crazy shit happens when you resist arrest. I've been arrested before, and I lived to tell the tale. You know how I managed that feat? Because I complied with the officer's orders and dealt with it in court like an adult.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 10, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Exactly right, which is a big part of why you have people like @TraderPatTX trying to actively erase or rewrite history to fit their narrative. And it's all over the place too. Without derailing too much, you know a lot of schools are rewriting the Native American massacre when Columbus "discovered" America? It's ludicrous. And with the onset of unregulated Internet websites, which I'm back and forth on, you have people freely uploading falsified information to further push their agenda.


Thanks for the shout out, but you are wrong, which is why you didn't provide any evidence.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 10, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Did you forget about the deadly pandemic exacerbated by an egregious mishandling of it by the U.S. President at that time?
> 
> Whether or not you agree that the former President mishandled the pandemic (he did), it's pretty ridiculous to refer to the time he was in office, including the pandemic, as a time in which the world was "better off." Lol.


More people have died since the Resident took office than when the Bad Orange Man was running things, and he had vaccines that were given to him on a silver platter. I have to ask, what is your definition of mishandling, because the number of deaths is obviously not a part of it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 10, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Thanks for the shout out, but you are wrong, which is why you didn't provide any evidence.





TraderPatTX said:


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



There you go. Would you like me to provide some more, or your wanna deny this one somehow?


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 10, 2022)

@Lacius thanks for giving a straight answer.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 10, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> There you go. Would you like me to provide some more, or your wanna deny this one somehow?


Why would I deny this? Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not accurate. This is why leftists are always trying to change history. It doesn't paint you guys in a good light. At first I used to hear that communism has never been tried. Then it changed to the communism that has been tried is not left wing communism. And now, the left says that the communism that has been tried and is implemented now is actually right wing communism based on capitalism. You people will say anything to deny the violent, racist past of your ideology, but it's not working anymore. The People are waking up and not believing you anymore. A major global shift is happening and I find it amusing that you don't even see it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 10, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Why would I deny this? Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not accurate. This is why leftists are always trying to change history. It doesn't paint you guys in a good light. At first I used to hear that communism has never been tried. Then it changed to the communism that has been tried is not left wing communism. And now, the left says that the communism that has been tried and is implemented now is actually right wing communism based on capitalism. You people will say anything to deny the violent, racist past of your ideology, but it's not working anymore. The People are waking up and not believing you anymore. A major global shift is happening and I find it amusing that you don't even see it.



Your post would be believable if you didn't structure your arguments based on the ones given to you that you clearly fail at. 

"People in power change history to fit their narratives"

"NoOoOo leftists change history!"

Now we're talking about communism, in a thread about Roe v Wade.

Sounds like you're out of arguments again. Care to come back to the target topic or are you just so used to derailing that you've given up completely?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 10, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Your post would be believable if you didn't structure your arguments based on the ones given to you that you clearly fail at.
> 
> "People in power change history to fit their narratives"
> 
> ...


Topics on a thread change all the time. I've already said my peace about Roe v Wade. All of you cried about it and tried to say it was authoritarian for the Supreme Court to send it back to the states and the people to vote on. I have demolished your sick arguments promoting abortion up until birth, and in some cases, afterwards. 

If you knew history, abortion is very important to fascists and communists. It's all about power and control over the populace, not women's health.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 10, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Topics on a thread change all the time. I've already said my peace about Roe v Wade. All of you cried about it and tried to say it was authoritarian for the Supreme Court to send it back to the states and the people to vote on. I have demolished your sick arguments promoting abortion up until birth, and in some cases, afterwards.
> 
> If you knew history, abortion is very important to fascists and communists. It's all about power and control over the populace, not women's health.



I uh, I never once mentioned that it was authoritarian or that I even had a problem with it being reverted to a state level; I think abortion rights should be protected at every level. 

You've demolished literally nothing. You've been told about yourself and your falsified history lessons based on draconian views by multiple people in quite a few different posts, all of which you ignore because you can't think of anything else relevant to respond to the source material with. If you have to take those as wins to make yourself feel better as a person, well .. I can't help with the kind of trauma you suffered as a child that led you to needing to distort facts to boost your confidence and moral value. 

Please explain how abortion leads to control of anything except women their own bodies. The only excuse I can think of is the elimination of potential heirs, the only reason why it was even important in the Christian Bible or throughout kingdoms as a whole. The only reason why pro life capitalists care about having abortions abolished is because every abortion performed takes more potential earnings out of their pockets. Capitalists equate people with products, nothing more.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 10, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> I uh, I never once mentioned that it was authoritarian or that I even had a problem with it being reverted to a state level; I think abortion rights should be protected at every level.
> 
> You've demolished literally nothing. You've been told about yourself and your falsified history lessons based on draconian views by multiple people in quite a few different posts, all of which you ignore because you can't think of anything else relevant to respond to the source material with. If you have to take those as wins to make yourself feel better as a person, well .. I can't help with the kind of trauma you suffered as a child that led you to needing to distort facts to boost your confidence and moral value.
> 
> Please explain how abortion leads to control of anything except women their own bodies. The only excuse I can think of is the elimination of potential heirs, the only reason why it was even important in the Christian Bible or throughout kingdoms as a whole. The only reason why pro life capitalists care about having abortions abolished is because every abortion performed takes more potential earnings out of their pockets. Capitalists equate people with products, nothing more.


The black population is the same percentage today as it was pre-Roe. It’s called population control. 70 million black babies have been aborted, making sure that blacks remain a minority and never gain any power at all. Abortion and all of its proponents are racist, starting from the beginning with Margaret Sanger. Once again, just because history hurts your feelings is irrelevant. The people are waking up to the truth and are uniting. That is what those who are currently in power fear the most. That is what the left fears the most. It’s why all of you are crying over child sacrifices and the sale of fetal organs. Rest assured, this is just the beginning of the left’s gnashing of teeth and seething. I look forward to watching the left over the next six months.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 10, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Abortion and all of its proponents are racist.


It isn't racist to want all women to have bodily autonomy rights, but it is sexist to want to take these rights away.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 10, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> The black population is the same percentage today as it was pre-Roe. It’s called population control. 70 million black babies have been aborted, making sure that blacks remain a minority and never gain any power at all. Abortion and all of its proponents are racist, starting from the beginning with Margaret Sanger.



Ok now we're getting somewhere fun. So I firmly believe abortion rights exist for what most people...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pb...rturning-roe-was-more-about-politics-than-law

...seem to be at least a necessity, if not a morally correct thing to have. However, I can't necessarily disagree with your reasoning behind this. 

I don't believe abortion rights, and by extension the argument for bodily autonomy, was created as a racist tool for population control. However, as quite a lot of other things America has fought for and implemented to some degree, it's been politicized and used to fan the flames of separation. Hatred. Racism, in this case particular. 

Pro life advocates usually have a hard time arguing outside of religious background, whether because they don't understand it or the person they're arguing with didn't have religious backgrounds being irrelevant, and as we've seen since Roe v Wade, the legality of it seems to be losing steam as well. As such, it's been used to fan the theory of racism, when in fact multiple studies have been done that disproves it. Ask for links and I'll give them. 

The fact of the matter is, *if* your reasoning is correct, *if* your statistics were accurate, who's forcing them to have abortions? How are abortions being used as population control? If black people are using abortion clinics to cut back on repopulation, wouldn't that be a result of how badly America is treating them as a nation? And regardless of the reasoning, why should it matter to alt right Republicans, or Democrats for that matter, if both parties have such disdain for the black race running rampant through there platforms?

I could believe to some extent that particular conspiracy, because the Tuskegee Experiments and Mk Ultra definitely happened. But it seems backward to abolish something those you hate use to control their own population.

The last issue with your argument is, even if it was true, that only reinforces the idea that people are products. The most glaring comparison? How do you keep the items you're selling from fluctuating in profit during tumultuous times? Inventory control. Order a lot when demand is high, pull back in supply when demand is low. How do you ensure that the people you're indebting, exploiting, lording over and controlling never lose value?

Population control. 



TraderPatTX said:


> Once again, just because history hurts your feelings is irrelevant.



Your constant attempts at altering history to prove your point without any adequate proof are irrelevant.



TraderPatTX said:


> The people are waking up to the truth and are uniting. That is what those who are currently in power fear the most. That is what the left fears the most. It’s why all of you are crying over child sacrifices and the sale of fetal organs. Rest assured, this is just the beginning of the left’s gnashing of teeth and seething. I look forward to watching the left over the next six months.



Hopefully it's not these folks:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/02/republicans-100-far-right-candidates-2022

...because evidently a lot of them are related to extremist groups, like the Proud Boys. If that's the case, maybe you people should secede, because right now

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/registered-voters-by-party

...republicans account for roughly a little over 10% of the current American population, of which both Democrats and Independents control little more than 70% combined. So unless you guys can induct at least the remaining 20% by election time, your civil war isn't going to last long. 

Especially not if these Republican politicians keep aborting their babies:

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/w...ons-for-ex-wife-and-mistress-is-running-again

https://www.thecut.com/2018/08/orr-head-scott-lloyd-helped-ex-pay-for-abortion.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...eek-re-election-after-report-on-abortion-requ

"Look Mommy, those are RINOs"


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

Bodily autonomy is a human right and anyone who claims to be a libertarian or ultimately for liberty but is suddenly in favor of preventing people from choosing what to do with their wombs either because they think it "owns the libs" or because they genuinely only believe in bodily autonomy when it comes to them is both a coward and weak.

Also hello I am back to make all threads on this site objectively worse. Apparently a joke reply to a janny is worthy of a ban, as if that would stop me from making them.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

Lacius said:


> It isn't racist to want all women to have bodily autonomy rights, but it is sexist to want to take these rights away.


It's racist when 70 million black babies are killed. One could call that genocide.

Do you even know the divorce rate of black couples before the 1960's? Do you know what it rose to after the 1960's? Do you know what big change happened in the 1960's that affected divorce rates for black couples?

Also, your rights stop where somebody else's begins. The right to life tops all other rights. If it didn't, your other rights wouldn't really have meaning.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It's racist when 70 million black babies are killed. One could call that genocide.
> 
> Do you even know the divorce rate of black couples before the 1960's? Do you know what it rose to after the 1960's? Do you know what big change happened in the 1960's that affected divorce rates for black couples?
> 
> Also, your rights stop where somebody else's begins. The right to life tops all other rights. If it didn't, your other rights wouldn't really have meaning.


But you don't care about black people beyond using FBI crime stats to vaguely gesture at conclusions like phrenology or biological essentialism. So I think you can quit virtue signalling.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Also, your rights stop where somebody else's begins. The right to life tops all other rights. If it didn't, your other rights wouldn't really have meaning.



Better be prepared to give up your guns and wear a mask then. Children in schools and grandmas in public's rights to life supercede all others.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Better be prepared to give up your guns and wear a mask then. Children in schools and grandmas in public's rights to life supercede all others.


"Your rights end where lives end!"
Same guy, in various other threads
"No I won't wear a mask or get vaccinated, that violates my bodily autonomy!"

l
m
a
o


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> But you don't care about black people beyond using FBI crime stats to vaguely gesture at conclusions like phrenology or biological essentialism. So I think you can quit virtue signalling.


Only the right brings up the weekly massacres of black people in major cities. The left only brings up mass shootings committed by "white supremacists", because they are trying to push a narrative. 

Imagine thinking using FBI crime stats as being a bad thing. That's where the left is right now. Official numbers bad, emotion good.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Sometimes crazy shit happens when you resist arrest. I've been arrested before, and I lived to tell the tale. You know how I managed that feat? Because I complied with the officer's orders and dealt with it in court like an adult.


Your personal experience doesn’t really invalidate a larger issue. There are countless examples of people complying with the police and still getting shot
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/07/us/oklahoma-lpd-officers-shooting-manslaughter.html
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...e-shot-man-seconds-after-order-to-raise-hands
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Charles_Kinsey
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/1101496374/chicago-police-13-year-old-shot-lawsuit
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/christian-hall-pennsylvania-police-shooting-video-rcna5626
These are just some of the more infamous cases.
There’s also quite a number of cases where police use a gross amount of excessive force on victims 
Just be easier to reference with a Wikipedia list
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Your personal experience doesn’t really invalidate a larger issue. There are countless examples of people complying with the police and still getting shot
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/07/us/oklahoma-lpd-officers-shooting-manslaughter.html
> https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...e-shot-man-seconds-after-order-to-raise-hands
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Charles_Kinsey
> ...


Police work is hard. Probably one of the hardest jobs in the country. I'm sure defunding them so they train less than they already do will be just what the police departments need to improve things.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Only the right brings up the weekly massacres of black people in major cities. The left only brings up mass shootings committed by "white supremacists", because they are trying to push a narrative.



Yeah? Care to provide some or is this more of your hollow "whataboutism" arguing?

You also seem to forget that BLM a movement *originally* created to fight systemic racism, especially at the hand of trigger happy racist cops, existed to fight this kind of crime, and has been demonized by the Republicans since it's inception. 

So which is it? Do Republicans love black people or hate them? 

And what in the world does this have to do with abortions?



TraderPatTX said:


> Police work is hard. Probably one of the hardest jobs in the country. I'm sure defunding them so they train less than they already do will be just what the police departments need to improve things.



Hey, check this out:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Tl;Dr?

Basically it states that their job is not to protect you, a citizen, from any situation that could involve the harming of an officer, unless it's in regards to someone in custody.

Aaaaaand, they can no longer be sued for not reading someone their Miranda Rights, which sounds trivial until you realize that a cop can now essentially arrest you for any reason, offer no protection until you're actively in custody, and not be sued for any of it. 

Hard? I've seen 15 years working harder jobs at fast food joints. I wish I could be a glorified ticket taker in a vehicle with $20,000 in military equipment they don't need to not protect the innocent. 

Isn't the police force usually backed by government? State at the state level, federal agents by the federal government, yada yada yada. It's almost like you demonize people who are supposedly for big government in one post and then lick boots in the next. 

You better give me something good this time. I *wasted* all that time in my  second to last response to you, and it was beautiful. 

Notice me, senpai


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Yeah? Care to provide some or is this more of your hollow "whataboutism" arguing?
> 
> You also seem to forget that BLM a movement *originally* created to fight systemic racism, especially at the hand of trigger happy racist cops, existed to fight this kind of crime, and has been demonized by the Republicans since it's inception.
> 
> ...


All that BLM has accomplished is making the founders of the organization rich. They have never given back to black communities. They also do not care about black on black inner city crime. All that BLM has done is destroy black neighborhoods and businesses.

https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse-khan-cullors-real-estate-buying-binge/

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/12/9018...tests-come-at-great-cost-to-black-owned-busin


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> All that BLM has accomplished is making the founders of the organization rich. They have never given back to black communities. They also do not care about black on black inner city crime. All that BLM has done is destroy black neighborhoods and businesses.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse-khan-cullors-real-estate-buying-binge/
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2020/08/12/9018...tests-come-at-great-cost-to-black-owned-busin


Oh right, because all political dissent comes exclusively from the organization. What is it with you weirdos on the right and exclusively thinking in terms of corporate power and organizations?? Anti-police brutality movements have always come from grassroots "boots on the ground" protesting and approaches. Sorry that you're too delusional to recognize history.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> All that BLM has accomplished is making the founders of the organization rich. They have never given back to black communities. They also do not care about black on black inner city crime. All that BLM has done is destroy black neighborhoods and businesses.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse-khan-cullors-real-estate-buying-binge/
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2020/08/12/9018...tests-come-at-great-cost-to-black-owned-busin



Didn't the office that killed George Floyd recently getting imprisoned? That seems like a pretty big accomplishment. 

It's pretty naive to think people who organize and execute these kinds of ideas won't profit in some way. If you're spending all your time fighting for civil rights and worthy causes you're not going to have time to hold down a full time job. We can argue the ethics behind how much they earned and what they deserve all you want, but that doesn't excuse the fact that it's normal and it's like that in just about everyone movement. Leaders get idolized and treated like royalty.

The difference here is, regardless of who profited from it, it made racism a topic that needed dealt with, again. We shouldn't be having systemic racism in 2022 in a country that's been operating for 300 years. The fact that you align yourself with these alt rights is disheartening; I mean, it's in their name: conservative. They don't like change, and they've been big mad for centuries that anyone outside an old white man is finally getting closer to the same status they are.

Alt rights are pathetic. Plain and simple.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Oh right, because all political dissent comes exclusively from the organization. What is it with you weirdos on the right and exclusively thinking in terms of corporate power and organizations?? Anti-police brutality movements have always come from grassroots "boots on the ground" protesting and approaches. Sorry that you're too delusional to recognize history.


You managed to avoid my entire argument.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> You managed to avoid my entire argument.


You don't have one. The corruption of a corporation doesn't devalue the authenticity of protesting racial injustice.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> You don't have one. The corruption of a corporation doesn't devalue the authenticity of protesting racial injustice.


It does when it is enriching people and not helping those they supposedly support. You overlook it because you support them. That's on you, not me.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> It does when it is enriching people and not helping those they supposedly support. You overlook it because you support them. That's on you, not me.


Because the BLM "organization" is the only group, ever, in the history of the world, to financially support anyone.

You. Do not. Have. An argument.


----------



## appleburger (Jul 11, 2022)

BLM is decentralized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Because the BLM "organization" is the only group, ever, in the history of the world, to financially support anyone.
> 
> You. Do not. Have. An argument.


Even blue states like Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey and New Mexico have revoked their charitable registration with California and Washington threatening them.

I'm pretty sure the problem is not that I don't have an argument, it's that you can't defend your position.

https://nypost.com/2022/02/06/black...a-lesson-about-causes-deemed-beyond-question/

Aaaaaaaand she resigned. Totally on the up and up.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57277777


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

appleburger said:


> BLM is decentralized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter


Sure it is. 

https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Even blue states like Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey and New Mexico have revoked their charitable registration with California and Washington threatening them.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the problem is not that I don't have an argument, it's that you can't defend your position.
> 
> ...





LainaGabranth said:


> Because the BLM "organization" is the only group, ever, in the history of the world, to financially support anyone.
> 
> You. Do not. Have. An argument.


----------



## AdamCatalyst (Jul 11, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Wisconsin, South Dakota, West Virginia, and more to follow.



I only asked for one, because I only have time to look up the laws for one. I liked up the first one you provided me Missouri. The current law clearly states that abortion is legal in Missouri. In fact, it is more legal and readily available than virtually all of Europe.

If I research the other states, will I find that abortion is legal there as well? Where, exactly, are you getting your information about laws from? It seems like you are making some highly inflammatory false statements here. Are you aware that you are spreading false information?


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Police work is hard. Probably one of the hardest jobs in the country. I'm sure defunding them so they train less than they already do will be just what the police departments need to improve things.


Where in my post did I bring up defunding the police? Please quote that part for me


----------



## appleburger (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Sure it is.
> 
> https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/


That's not even the only blm organization.  There's more than one, and this isn't new with movements, Civil Rights movement had multiple groups as well, but the movement overall is decentralized.  It's clearly defined and recorded as such.

It's not up for debate.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

appleburger said:


> That's not even the only blm organization.  There's more than one, and this isn't new with movements, Civil Rights movement had multiple groups as well, but the movement overall is decentralized.  It's clearly defined and recorded as such.
> 
> It's not up for debate.


That is the official organization that received millions in funding. That is the one that is in trouble and one of the founders was forced to step down. You trying to make excuses for it just shows how partisan you are. Corruption is corruption. It's not up for debate.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> You managed to avoid my entire argument.





SyphenFreht said:


> Ok now we're getting somewhere fun. So I firmly believe abortion rights exist for what most people...
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pb...rturning-roe-was-more-about-politics-than-law
> 
> ...






SyphenFreht said:


> Yeah? Care to provide some or is this more of your hollow "whataboutism" arguing?
> 
> You also seem to forget that BLM a movement *originally* created to fight systemic racism, especially at the hand of trigger happy racist cops, existed to fight this kind of crime, and has been demonized by the Republicans since it's inception.
> 
> ...



Bruh...

It's nothing but one hypocritical statement after another with you. No wonder everyone laughs at Republicans. You're a dying breed, and y'all are dying quickly. The world will be a better place without you people constantly subjugating and oppressing.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Where in my post did I bring up defunding the police? Please quote that part for me


So you want to play coy.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Bruh...
> 
> It's nothing but one hypocritical statement after another with you. No wonder everyone laughs at Republicans. You're a dying breed, and y'all are dying quickly. The world will be a better place without you people constantly subjugating and oppressing.


We are dying so much that voter registration in Florida just flipped from majority Dem to majority Rep. Ok champ. You can sit there and believe your own lies, but I don't have to.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> We are dying so much that voter registration in Florida just flipped from majority Dem to majority Rep. Ok champ. You can sit there and believe your own lies, but I don't have to.



That still only accounts for 10% of the overall population. That was proven in the links you skipped. You can believe the lies corporate media feeds you but we don't have to.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> So you want to play coy.


Don’t try to gaslight me. I didn’t not even imply that was my position in that post. My actual position on police reform is far more nuance and not relevant to my original post nor even this thread.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> That still only accounts for 10% of the overall population. That was proven in the links you skipped. You can believe the lies corporate media feeds you but we don't have to.


Tell me more how we are a dying breed.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article255575861.html

https://wset.com/news/local/virginia-democrats-republicans-battling-over-house-control-11-03-2021

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/14/texas-special-election-tx-34-mayra-flores-dan-sanchez/

So I share links from leftwing sources and you say the corporate media is feeding me. I share links from center right sources and I get accused to spreading fake news from biased sources. Maybe I should just make shit up and personally attack you like you do towards me. Would that make you happy?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Don’t try to gaslight me. I didn’t not even imply that was my position in that post. My actual position on police reform is far more nuance and not relevant to my original post nor even this thread.


Ahh... the famous nuance argument that nobody on the right could possibly understand. Bringing out the big guns now, aren't you?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 11, 2022)

AdamCatalyst said:


> I only asked for one, because I only have time to look up the laws for one. I liked up the first one you provided me Missouri. The current law clearly states that abortion is legal in Missouri. In fact, it is more legal and readily available than virtually all of Europe.


Abortion is illegal in my home state of Missouri in just about all cases.
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.017



AdamCatalyst said:


> Are you aware that you are spreading false information?


Considering the above, lol.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Tell me more how we are a dying breed.
> 
> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article255575861.html
> 
> ...



The first link hides behind a paywall, so if you wanna just summarize it I'll take that at face value.

The second and third links only cover two states in particular, which is fine, however there are still 48 other states to remember that exist, and altogether there are over 300 million Americans living here, of which only about 10% are registered Republican. 

So yes, dying breed. I posted my relevant link in one my posts you ignored. 



TraderPatTX said:


> So I share links from leftwing sources and you say the corporate media is feeding me. I share links from center right sources and I get accused to spreading fake news from biased sources. Maybe I should just make shit up and personally attack you like you do towards me. Would that make you happy?



You're choosing both left-wing and center right sites and wonder why you're being called these things?

It's because political analysis shouldn't be biased. Of course that's almost impossible, but consistently trying to get closest to the truth by inferring facts from unbiased news sources should be the goal, not further indoctrination by being so close minded you can only see down your tunnel, not everyone else's.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

"Maybe I should just make shit up and personally attack you like you do towards me. Would that make you happy?"
Wait, you WEREN'T doing that before? Lmfao.

I guess it doesn't count as you making shit up if your corporate overlord makes it up first.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> The first link hides behind a paywall, so if you wanna just summarize it I'll take that at face value.
> 
> The second and third links only cover two states in particular, which is fine, however there are still 48 other states to remember that exist, and altogether there are over 300 million Americans living here, of which only about 10% are registered Republican.
> 
> ...


So you are whining because the links I share are diverse? Why do you hate diversity so much?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> So you are whining because the links I share are diverse? Why do you hate diversity so much?



Diversity is great, bias is bad. 

I can't break this down any further. If you can't understand that then that's an issue with your education and I'm not qualified to handle all that.


----------



## appleburger (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> That is the official organization that received millions in funding. That is the one that is in trouble and one of the founders was forced to step down. You trying to make excuses for it just shows how partisan you are. Corruption is corruption. It's not up for debate.


Reading comprehension -1. All I did was Google and correct an observably false claim you made. BLM is decentralized whether you kick & scream about one of the groups or not. I didn’t even comment anything else regarding them - yes I’ve heard every point you’re poorly attempting to make before, no I’m not further interested behind my simple correction.  You can assume I’m another copy paste “lib” and go down the talking point tree all you want lmao. Have at it.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Ahh... the famous nuance argument that nobody on the right could possibly understand. Bringing out the big guns now, aren't you?


Guys like you make me regret being bisexual. I am glad there are still men out there who aren’t trying to gaslight random users on a gaming forums, unlike you


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Guys like you make me regret being bisexual. I am glad there are still men out there who aren’t trying to gaslight random users on a gaming forums, unlike you
> View attachment 317573


It's posts like his that make me hold the opinion all males are dumb until proven otherwise. Maybe we should outlaw testosterone and just put everyone on estrogen, to make the world a cooler and smarter place.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Diversity is great, bias is bad.
> 
> I can't break this down any further. If you can't understand that then that's an issue with your education and I'm not qualified to handle all that.


Bias is why I post links from both sides. It helps even it out and you whine about it. Make it make sense.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Guys like you make me regret being bisexual. I am glad there are still men out there who aren’t trying to gaslight random users on a gaming forums, unlike you
> View attachment 317573


Don't blame me for how you feel about yourself. Be an adult and take responsibility for yourself. That's what's wrong with the left.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> It's posts like his that make me hold the opinion all males are dumb until proven otherwise. Maybe we should outlaw testosterone and just put everyone on estrogen, to make the world a cooler and smarter place.


Bruh, I literally just stopped being a woman too!


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

appleburger said:


> Reading comprehension -1. All I did was Google and correct an observably false claim you made. BLM is decentralized whether you kick & scream about one of the groups or not. I didn’t even comment anything else regarding them - yes I’ve heard every point you’re poorly attempting to make before, no I’m not further interested behind my simple correction.  You can assume I’m another copy paste “lib” and go down the talking point tree all you want lmao. Have at it.


But you didn't correct anything. I proved you wrong. BLM is a charitable organization registered in many states. That requires a centralized organization. This is not a hard concept to grasp.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Bias is why I post links from both sides. It helps even it out and you whine about it. Make it make sense.



Bias has never evened anything out unless you look at it objectively, which you don't, because you're adamantly pro life and alt right. It'd be different if we were all foreigners and debating how effective these strategies might be, but you in particular have a rich hard on for Republican conservatism, so every time you post a biased article you bolster the same fires you try to fan. 

Diversity comes from differing objective views. You should try it sometime.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Don't blame me for how you feel about yourself. Be an adult and take responsibility for yourself. That's what's wrong with the left.


No.

So Texas threatens to succeed from from the union every time it does not get its way.
Forgetting that it looses everything federally funded and controlled.
Say goodbye to the military and protection for your boarders.
Also don't forget that America likes to invade oil rich countries.
Adults act like children all the time to get their way.

That's why saying Fuck Off is a first amendment right.

All males are not dumb by design.
That is just fucking stupid.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Bias has never evened anything out unless you look at it objectively, which you don't, because you're adamantly pro life and alt right. It'd be different if we were all foreigners and debating how effective these strategies might be, but you in particular have a rich hard on for Republican conservatism, so every time you post a biased article you bolster the same fires you try to fan.
> 
> Diversity comes from differing objective views. You should try it sometime.


Yeah, my views differ from yours and you hate it. You hate diversity. Thanks for clearing that up for everybody.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Bruh, I literally just stopped being a woman too!


based


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> No.
> 
> So Texas threatens to succeed rom from the union every time it does not get its way.
> Forgetting that it looses everything federally funded and controlled.
> ...


Texas already does not have protection on the border. That's why all the border counties are calling it an invasion now.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/nat...cle_ad51a1aa-fcab-11ec-baa3-efde00c6e94a.html


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Don't blame me for how you feel about yourself. Be an adult and take responsibility for yourself. That's what's wrong with the left.


Dude, you still haven’t quoted the part where I said we should defund the police. You also ignore any part of any post that effectively counters any of the nonsense you post. All you’ve done since joining the conversation is talk down on people and try to gaslight them.


LainaGabranth said:


> based


Being a femboy > being a woman


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Dude, you still haven’t quoted the part where I said we should defund the police. You also ignore any part of any post that effectively counters any of the nonsense you post. All you’ve done since joining the conversation is talk down on people and try to gaslight them.


The right consistently cannot argue against anything people actually say, they just watch nonsense mainstream media groups like Fox News tell them what to think and they just argue the strawmen from there. Very insane behavior imo.


----------



## MicroNut99 (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Yeah, my views differ from yours and you hate it. You hate diversity. Thanks for clearing that up for everybody.


I'm Pro-Life but support Pro-Choice.
Its the right thing to do.

So by your definition any women who thinks she might be pregnant gets to use the carpool lane?


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Dude, you still haven’t quoted the part where I said we should defund the police. You also ignore any part of any post that effectively counters any of the nonsense you post. All you’ve done since joining the conversation is talk down on people and try to gaslight them.
> 
> Being a femboy > being a woman


Femboys cannot create life. Only women can. That is their superpower that you will never have.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

MicroNut99 said:


> I'm Pro-Life but support Pro-Choice.
> Its the right thing to do.
> 
> So by your definition any women who thinks she might be pregnant gets to use the carpool lane?


WTF are you talking about a carpool lane? 

You do know that when a pregnant woman is murdered, the suspect is charged with double homicide, right?


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Femboys cannot create life. Only women can. That is their superpower that you will never have.


If I wasn’t born sterile, I would have been able to produce life as well. Me being a femboy has nothing to do with my inability to produce life because I didn’t learn about that until well after I came out as trans.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Yeah, my views differ from yours and you hate it. You hate diversity. Thanks for clearing that up for everybody.



That's very sad you're the only one who surmises this from my responses. Is it lonely there, surrounded by your own echo chamber? 

What's ever more sad is that I feel like a lot of our views align, you're just too miserably wrapped up in appealing to your Republican god-politicians to see it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> WTF are you talking about a carpool lane?
> 
> You do know that when a pregnant woman is murdered, the suspect is charged with double homicide, right?



https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/11/us/pregnant-woman-hov-lane/index.html

Well then it seems carpool lanes are a go then. Also, some the fetus has rights, it should be able to buy guns and vote, right?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> If I wasn’t born sterile, I would have been able to produce life as well. Me being a femboy has nothing to do with my inability to produce life because I didn’t learn about that until well after I came out as trans.


The creation of life is overrated anyways. I sure as fuck don't plan to use it.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> The creation of life is overrated anyways. I sure as fuck don't plan to use it.


If I cared about the production of life, I probably would have realized I was sterile like a decade ago. So yeah, not really in the business for caring about doing that


----------



## Valwinz (Jul 11, 2022)

is funny how  the reaction to this ended up been weak almost like the majority of people don't care

We were told countless protests and that life as we know it would come to a hold.

Yes it seems people ended up caring more about the economy lol


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> is funny how  the reaction to this ended up been weak almost like the majority of people don't care
> 
> We were told countless protests and that life as we know it would come to a hold.
> 
> Yes it seems people ended up caring more about the economy lol


GBAtemp was better when you were banned


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> GBAtemp was better when you were banned


I'm honestly just convinced at this point by the weakness of the right's bait on these threads that they just want to fling shit instead of having an honest debate without bad faith or disingenuous pepe-posting. If their positions were so great they could defend them sincerely.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I'm honestly just convinced at this point by the weakness of the right's bait on these threads that they just want to fling shit instead of having an honest debate without bad faith or disingenuous pepe-posting. If their positions were so great they could defend them sincerely.



Well as we've seen with 
@TraderPatTX 
@BitMasterPlus
@XDel
@mrdude
And @Valwinz, 

They routinely have no points to argue and quickly resort to hurling insults and misinformation to compensate.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Well as we've seen with
> @TraderPatTX
> @BitMasterPlus
> @XDel
> ...


Don’t forget changing the topic, creating strawman arguments, and just making shit up. Seriously, @TraderPatTX still hasn’t quoted the part of my post where I mentioned defunding the police. I know he can’t but it’s impressive how he decided that was my position on the topic because I needed a 45-year-old guy to mansplain his perspective on my position that I didn’t even bring up.
Kind of annoying that the staff just kind of ignores reports about these members but gotta keep that illusion of equality while they ignore the transphobic attacks that caused a good chunk of the actual helpful community to leave. This section is a cancer on the site and I wish the staff would admit that.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 11, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> is funny how  the reaction to this ended up been weak almost like the majority of people don't care
> 
> We were told countless protests and that life as we know it would come to a hold.
> 
> Yes it seems people ended up caring more about the economy lol


Just another pathetic distraction and wedge issue trick that Biden admitted on live TV is a desperate grab for votes. At least it's funny to see happen.


----------



## XDel (Jul 11, 2022)

The Wise King​BY KAHLIL GIBRAN
Once there ruled in the distant city of Wirani a king who was both
mighty and wise.  And he was feared for his might and loved for
his wisdom.

Now, in the heart of that city was a well, whose water was cool and
crystalline, from which all the inhabitants drank, even the king
and his courtiers; for there was no other well.

One night when all were asleep, a witch entered the city, and poured
seven drops of strange liquid into the well, and said, “From this
hour he who drinks this water shall become mad.”

Next morning all the inhabitants, save the king and his lord
chamberlain, drank from the well and became mad, even as the witch
had foretold.

And during that day the people in the narrow streets and in the
market places did naught but whisper to one another, “The king is
mad.  Our king and his lord chamberlain have lost their reason.
Surely we cannot be ruled by a mad king.  We must dethrone him.”

That evening the king ordered a golden goblet to be filled from the
well.  And when it was brought to him he drank deeply, and gave it
to his lord chamberlain to drink.

And there was great rejoicing in that distant city of Wirani,
because its king and its lord chamberlain had regained their reason


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

Daily reminder that monarchy is only appealing to you if you're too dumb to think for yourself.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> Just another pathetic distraction and wedge issue trick that Biden admitted on live TV is a desperate grab for votes. At least it's funny to see happen.


Regular reminder that this user is still an exposed neo-Nazi


XDel said:


> The Wise King​BY KAHLIL GIBRAN
> Once there ruled in the distant city of Wirani a king who was both
> mighty and wise.  And he was feared for his might and loved for
> his wisdom.
> ...


The fuck this have to do anything?


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Regular reminder that this user is still an exposed neo-Nazi
> 
> The fuck this have to do anything?


Neonazi? Interesting. What'd they do lmao


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Neonazi? Interesting. What'd they do lmao


Just from what I’ve encountered; he has a history of sharing neo-Nazi/White Nationalist conspiracies like White Genocide, he’s posted antisemitic comments, and posted outright neo-Nazi slogans like 1488. This is just from shit I’ve caught him doing


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 11, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Just from what I’ve encountered; he has a history of sharing neo-Nazi/White Nationalist conspiracies like White Genocide, he’s posted antisemitic comments, and posted outright neo-Nazi slogans like 1488. This is just from shit I’ve caught him doing


Ah, yeah. Outright nazi shit. Disgusting. Well in that case, I won't value his opinions.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/11/us/pregnant-woman-hov-lane/index.html
> 
> Well then it seems carpool lanes are a go then. Also, some the fetus has rights, it should be able to buy guns and vote, right?


Congratulations. You found one story and you treat it like there is some lobby trying to get pregnant women to use the HOV lane. This is a very desperate look, even for you.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> Don’t forget changing the topic, creating strawman arguments, and just making shit up. Seriously, @TraderPatTX still hasn’t quoted the part of my post where I mentioned defunding the police. I know he can’t but it’s impressive how he decided that was my position on the topic because I needed a 45-year-old guy to mansplain his perspective on my position that I didn’t even bring up.
> Kind of annoying that the staff just kind of ignores reports about these members but gotta keep that illusion of equality while they ignore the transphobic attacks that caused a good chunk of the actual helpful community to leave. This section is a cancer on the site and I wish the staff would admit that.


Do you know how often people assume I watch Fox News? Most of the time, I ignore it because it isn't worth the time. It's hilarious that the left always assumes that everybody they disagree with watches Fox News all day.

It's kind of annoying when the left encounters differing viewpoints, their first instinct is to censor. And you have the gall to call the right authoritarian neo-Nazis. This is why nobody takes you seriously anymore. All of the name calling of racists, sexists, homophobes, Nazis, fascists, etc, and you people piss your pants when you get called out on it.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Congratulations. You found one story and you treat it like there is some lobby trying to get pregnant women to use the HOV lane. This is a very desperate look, even for you.



Not really. You seemed ignorant of the carpool reference, I delivered the relevant story, and then used said story as a jumping point to get the topic back on track. 

Did you drop out of school at an early age? You seem to have trouble with your comprehension skills.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 11, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Not really. You seemed ignorant of the carpool reference, I delivered the relevant story, and then used said story as a jumping point to get the topic back on track.
> 
> Did you drop out of school at an early age? You seem to have trouble with your comprehension skills.


But nobody cares about carpool lanes as a policy. And how is this back on track? Now we are talking about carpool lanes, not Roe v Wade.

And the personal attack that seems to describe you better. Project much?


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Ah, yeah. Outright nazi shit. Disgusting. Well in that case, I won't value his opinions.


And this is why I always call out his posts, people need to know the kind of company this section harbors.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> Do you know how often people assume I watch Fox News? Most of the time, I ignore it because it isn't worth the time. It's hilarious that the left always assumes that everybody they disagree with watches Fox News all day.
> 
> It's kind of annoying when the left encounters differing viewpoints, their first instinct is to censor. And you have the gall to call the right authoritarian neo-Nazis. This is why nobody takes you seriously anymore. All of the name calling of racists, sexists, homophobes, Nazis, fascists, etc, and you people piss your pants when you get called out on it.


My post didn’t say you watch FOX news, please harass that person. And he is a neo-Nazi, he’s literally been exposed for being a neo-Nazi. You weren’t there in that thread, so your opinion on the topic doesn’t matter


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> But nobody cares about carpool lanes as a policy. And how is this back on track? Now we are talking about carpool lanes, not Roe v Wade.



Holy f*ck.

If fetuses are people then pregnant mothers should be allowed to use the carpool lane. Hardly the biggest concern in the grand scheme of things, but you would think you could use that as an arguing point for your cause. Do we really have to argue both sides of the fence? Or rather, I shouldn't have to argue better points for you to argue with than what you've come up with on your own. 

I'd be better off arguing with myself at this point. Try to keep up. 



TraderPatTX said:


> And the personal attack that seems to describe you better. Project much?



When have I resorted to personal attacks that weren't as a rebuttal to your personal attacks? Find one and I'll apologize profusely.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 11, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> They routinely have no points to argue and quickly resort to hurling insults and misinformation to compensate.


If you want to mitigate the problem, you can refrain from engaging with the trolls. They can't derail threads if everybody ignores their ranting.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 11, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> If you want to mitigate the problem, you can refrain from engaging with the trolls. They can't derail threads if everybody ignores their ranting.



Well, you're not wrong. Sometimes I let my pettiness take the wheel.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> If you want to mitigate the problem, you can refrain from engaging with the trolls. They can't derail threads if everybody ignores their ranting.


Honestly, I think the best way to deal with this problem is for the staff to actually clean up the thread and properly monitor it. The political section really just becomes one big derail because the moderation in this section is kind of lackluster.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 12, 2022)

If you were an unpaid volunteer, would you want to spend your time cleaning up the refuse in this forum section? The lack of moderation isn't very surprising; the staff needs somebody who likes spending time debating politics and can tell the difference between a good- and bad-faith argument.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 12, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> If you were an unpaid volunteer, would you want to spend your time cleaning up the refuse in this forum section? The lack of moderation isn't very surprising; the staff needs somebody who likes spending time debating politics and can tell the difference between a good- and bad-faith argument.


Actually, yes, yes I would because I already do that outside of the Temp.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 12, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> And you have the gall to call the right authoritarian neo-Nazis. This is why nobody takes you seriously anymore. All of the name calling of racists, sexists, homophobes, Nazis, fascists, etc.


If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jul 12, 2022)

If a pregnant woman in these states is condemned to prison, can she be imprisoned? They'd be imprisoning the baby too, and the baby is innocent. Should we just let murderers and thieves roam around freely because they're pregnant?


----------



## tabzer (Jul 12, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> If a pregnant woman in these states is condemned to prison, can she be imprisoned? They'd be imprisoning the baby too, and the baby is innocent. Should we just let murderers and thieves roam around freely because they're pregnant?


The baby isn't innocent if it is violating her bodily autonomy.  It needs to serve a separate sentence.



Lacius said:


> If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...



Could be an ugly duckling. Wonder what that story was about.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jul 12, 2022)

tabzer said:


> The baby isn't innocent if it is violating her bodily autonomy.  It needs to serve a separate sentence.



So you don't know. Like me, you're caught in the paradox.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jul 12, 2022)

Beyond bigotry by some against white ethnicity, the majority is simply glad because the decline is a sign that people of different races are getting along and building lives together. It's not space telescope science.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 12, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> And you have the gall to call the right authoritarian neo-Nazis. This is why nobody takes you seriously anymore. All of the name calling of racists, sexists, homophobes, Nazis, fascists, etc, and you people piss your pants when you get called out on it.









https://dailycaller.com/2022/01/18/...axxed-third-lose-custody-children-poll-finds/


----------



## Lacius (Jul 12, 2022)

@NoobletCheese Can you articulate a point?


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Jul 12, 2022)

I did the usual to check if a news is true or false. I checked the potential bias of the publication, the sources and also their potential biases. A right-wing propaganda website with a sweaty Hunter Biden in today's headline is quoting a poll conducted by two conservative "pollers" and "think tanks" with a lack of credibility.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 12, 2022)

Lacius said:


> @NoobletCheese Can you articulate a point?



"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck"


----------



## Lacius (Jul 12, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck"


You literally aren't articulating a point. Be sure to tag me if you decide later to do so.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 12, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck"



"I don't know what a Nazi is but I hate them!"


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 12, 2022)

Lacius said:


> You literally aren't articulating a point. Be sure to tag me if you decide later to do so.



You said if it walks like a duck it quacks like a duck, so I showed you some people walking and quacking like ducks.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 12, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> You said if it walks like a duck it quacks like a duck, so I showed you some people walking and quacking like ducks.


Pretending that's what you did, you lazily posted images without articulating a point, and it would be whataboutism regardless. I've also been trying to get you to articulate a specific point, and you still haven't really done that. You should be embarrassed.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 12, 2022)

Lacius said:


> it would be whataboutism



The whataboutism fallacy-fallacy is when people falsely accuse others of committing the whataboutism fallacy.

The form of the fallacy usually goes something like:

Person A: Stop running so many stop signs.
Person B: You run them all the time.
Person A: Whataboutism!

In this case Person B isn't trying to argue that it's ok to run stop signs -- they're simply saying that a person who runs stops signs cannot tell others to not run stop signs, otherwise they would be a hypocrite.

A whataboutism fallacy would be if Person B said "you run stop signs too, therefore it's ok to run stop signs".

In other words: "you're a hypocrite, therefore some other unrelated proposition is true".

I don't believe I've accused you of being a hypocrite with regards to "if it walks like a duck then it's probably a duck".

All I've done is shown other instances of people walking like a duck -- you haven't actually said whether you think they are probably ducks or not.

If you say they walk like a duck but probably aren't ducks, then I _would_ accuse you of hypocrisy, but I _wouldn't_ use your hypocrisy to conclude "therefore white genocide is true". I would have to use other evidence to support that, such as people celebrating or encouraging decline of white population etc.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 12, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> The whataboutism fallacy-fallacy is when people falsely accuse others of committing the whataboutism fallacy.
> 
> The form of the fallacy usually goes something like:
> 
> ...


Whataboutism is when you respond to an accusation by making a counteraccusation. It doesn't matter if the counteraccusation is true, since it's irrelevant to the accusation itself.

I normally like to respond to and quote relevant pieces of a post, but I wanted to immortalize the entirety of your post. The blatant incorrectness makes me smile.

Edit: For example, if I condemned Person A for always snatching purses, someone else condemning Person B for doing the same thing is whataboutism and irrelevant to whether or not Person A did something wrong.

In your own example, Person B running stop signs is still wrong for running stop signs.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 12, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Whataboutism is when you respond to an accusation by making a counteraccusation. It doesn't matter if the counteraccusation is true, since it's irrelevant to the accusation itself.
> 
> I normally like to respond to and quote relevant pieces of a post, but I wanted to immortalize the entirety of your post. The blatant incorrectness makes me smile.
> 
> ...


I'll be honest with you, did you expect a fruitful conversation with someone stupid enough to believe in the white genocide meme?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 12, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> I'll be honest with you, did you expect a fruitful conversation with someone stupid enough to believe in the white genocide meme?


Of course not.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 12, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Of course not.


LMAO
Love the energy.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 12, 2022)

Lacius said:


> Whataboutism is when you respond to an accusation by making a counteraccusation.



That's far too broad a definition.  For example if you accused me of some wrongdoing, I could make a counteraccusation that your logic is flawed for any number of reasons which aren't fallacious.  



Lacius said:


> In your own example, Person B running stop signs is still wrong for running stop signs.



Yeah that's what I said:



NoobletCheese said:


> A whataboutism fallacy would be if Person B said "you run stop signs too, therefore it's ok to run stop signs".


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 12, 2022)

Lacius said:


> For example, if I condemned Person A for always snatching purses, someone else condemning Person B for doing the same thing is whataboutism and irrelevant to whether or not Person A did something wrong.


That's not quite whataboutism. In order for it to be whataboutism, the second accusation must be unrelated to the first:

Person A: Trump took classified documents from the White House! That was bad!
Person B: What about Hunter Biden's laptop?! That was also bad!

Improper handling of classified documents has nothing to do with potential malfeasance in the Biden family, so it's whataboutism. Compare this to:

Person A: Hillary's private e-mail was bad!
Person B: What about Colin Powell? He used private e-mail, too!

It's not really whataboutism, since both people are accused of the same kind of supposed wrongdoing, so the question is actually relevant to the original accusation, rather than a deflection tactic intended to change the subject.


----------



## tabzer (Jul 12, 2022)

Lacius: You shouldn't run stop signs.
Person B: You run stop signs all the time
Lacius: That's whataboutism.  I'm am saying that you shouldn't run stop signs.

Am I reading the little tyrant correctly?


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 12, 2022)

A person who runs stops signs forfeits their ability to tell others not to run stop signs, because to do so would make them a hypocrite, and being a hypocrite is not a justifiable position.

I think you would have to specify that the person running stop signs doesn't actually believe it's ok to run stop signs.  But if that were true, they probably wouldn't be running stop signs in the first place, so it's an unlikely assumption that they are running stop signs while believing it's a bad thing.  

On the other hand you could have an alcoholic who tells others not to drink, because in this case the alcoholic is addicted and doesn't actually think it's good to drink alcohol.

Again, the form of whataboutism fallacy is: "you're a hypocrite, therefore some other unrelated proposition is true".

eg. "you're a hypocrite with regards to running stop signs, therefore it's okay to run stop signs".

or "you're a hypocrite with regards to drinking alcohol, therefore it's ok to drink alcohol".

Whether some person is a hypocrite or not, has no bearing on whether it's okay to run stop signs or drink alcohol.  There is no logical connective and that's why it's a fallacy.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 12, 2022)

The abortion thread is now about "stop signs" because some weirdo got called out for doing whataboutism. This is why the right can't win debates.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Jul 12, 2022)

NoobletCheese said:


> A person who runs stops signs forfeits their ability to tell others not to run stop signs, because to do so would make them a hypocrite, and being a hypocrite is not a justifiable position.
> 
> I think you would have to specify that the person running stop signs doesn't actually believe it's ok to run stop signs.  But if that were true, they probably wouldn't be running stop signs in the first place, so it's an unlikely assumption that they are running stop signs while believing it's a bad thing.
> 
> ...



You guys are confusing things. 

Whataboutism is misdirection, at it's core. You can make whataboutism statements with hypocrisy, but whataboutism is not defined by such.


----------



## AleronIves (Jul 12, 2022)

SyphenFreht said:


> Whataboutism is misdirection


Yes, @NoobletCheese's examples are not whataboutism. His examples are just accusations of hypocrisy: "You do bad thing X, so you can't criticise me for doing bad thing X!"

Whataboutism takes the form: "You say I did bad thing X, but you did bad thing Y! What about that?!" Whataboutism involves the introduction of a new accusation unrelated to the original accusation, in order to deflect attention from the original accusation.


----------



## NoobletCheese (Jul 12, 2022)

AleronIves said:


> Whataboutism takes the form: "You say I did bad thing X, but you did bad thing Y! What about that?!"



The bit in red is said hypocrisy.  The bit in orange is the proposition which doesn't logically follow from the fact that a person happens to be a hypocrite.


----------



## XDel (Jul 12, 2022)

In response to Wimp Lo's comment that Jesus was a communist or what ever...

First I begin by quoting a story from Matthew 20:1-16, a story not about equity, but of grace and a reminder not to fall to jealousy and greed; to be happy for another's good fortune.

 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Secondly doesn't the  10 commandments say not only not to covet, but to also not steel, and also not to sleep with married people. These are three references to property.

 Lastly, Eden wasn't a communism, if it has been the Adam and Eve would have been automatons and would have been incapable of falling from grace and  thus ever being banished from paradise. Good will, unconditional love, charity, etc. Are options of our free will rather than an enforced law. Though of course if one does not live in accord with these natural laws or Edicts of Eden if you will, one will suffer from it. I.E. it does not pay to live a selfish and narcissistic life, it is preferable to be selfless, humble, and thoughtful of others.  This was in part the Truth that Jesus came to restore before giving himself up to suffering, humiliation, and eventually death so as to over come it.  Though of course you don't believe that, so I am unsure why you use the Bible to argue when you clearly don't respect or care for what the Bible says.


----------



## Veho (Jul 12, 2022)

This thread has stopped being about Roe VS Wade 50 pages ago.


----------

