Roe V Wade has been repealed

[Deleted member 546149]

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.
[/QUOTE

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.

I would but it's a lot to uncover


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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

I would but it's a lot to uncover

he won't believe anything you show him, so what's the point.

 

[Lacius]

no i don't

Then you are against state abortion bans.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

Again, this isn't the vaccine thread. It's the Roe thread.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.


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.

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]

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.

WHAT!?

What?

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.

Is it up your ass because you won't abort it?

Better than having my head up my ass like you

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.

"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.

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.

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]

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

 

[Deleted member 586536]

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]

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 inentionally sabtages the contraceptive in order to force the other person into a relationship through pregnancy.)

Uh Huh, respond back to me when you can read better

 

[Deleted member 586536]

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]

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