Or he thinks, as you often give the impression of, that you engage entirely in bad faith and relying on flimsy opinions masquerading as facts for the only purpose of having a "gotcha" moment.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision
- Thread starter Ericzander
- Start date
- Views 74,655
- Replies 1,931
- Likes 9
jesus christ, these articles are pissing you off so hard it's so unreal.
I never meant them to prove my point, I meant them to laugh at stupid liberals. Apparently, you're on the left side, if you're so angry that you think I'm attempting to use these as proof rather than making fun of abortionists.
That's a biological function, not the biological function. If we are going by how it's used >99% of the time, then the main biological function is pleasure and social bonding, not reproduction.
Plenty of people who have had sex have never had sex with the purpose of it being reproductive.
It's consent to the pregnancy risks (assuming the sex was consensual in the first place), but it isn't consent to get pregnant. There's a difference. When I get in a car, I acknowledge the safety risks, but that isn't consent to get hit by another car.
They created the kid who needs an organ transplant with a life contingent upon the resources of another body, just like they created a fetus that is contingent upon using the resources of another body. They're comparable, and you don't appear to have thought this through. Hell, we could make the ailment genetic (not that we need to for the analogy to work).
Be sure to let me know when you can, in good faith, acknowledge that a pregnancy has a nearly 100% chance of altering one's body permanently, carries very real health risks, and carries very real mortality risks.
I could vaguely describe a situation about blocking access to abortion and a situation involving compulsory organ donation, and you wouldn't know which was which. Your rebuttals are as bad as they were before.
And let me know when you aren't going to disingenuously suggest we're talking about assisting someone in the pursuit of an abortion vs. merely having legal access to abortion.
An appeal to nature fallacy. Cute.
You can mount an argument that a sick person is in deservement of medical treatment. I’m not sure the same applies to a healthy person. You need a different argument to justify the necessity of an otherwise elective procedure.
At the point of 6 - 8 months, I'd ban abortion completely, since if you've carried it this far, you don't get an out now.
If it'd kill the mother that's a different story, but at this point, if you were a rape victim, I'd say you should have aborted it earlier.
Pregnancy can result in permanent changes to the body, discomfort, serious health risks, and even death.
Pissing me off? Not really. I just don't understand how people can choose to be so uneducated and self absorbed.
You laugh at stupid liberals, but then sit there with your "fetuses=babies" ideology.
It's cute to see you think you're getting under my skin. I encourage you to try just a little harder.
Which is funny because the articles make fun of anti-abortionists and hypocritical Republicans.
Those are arguments for medical care, they’re not necessarily arguments for abortion specifically.
Late term abortions are rarely performed outside of immediate necessity. A majority of abortions happen within the first trimester, almost a month or two after conception.
You know. When it's just cells. According to widely accepted science.
Hey now. He tried really hard to find and share that article. You can't expect him to read it too.
Explain how exactly I'm uneducated and self absorbed. Just because I don't like babies murdered doesn't mean that I am those things.
You have to admit though, those liberals sure are stupid. Also, I might be a little wrong, fetuses don't equal babies until a heartbeat is detected. Probably should have clarified that.
Nah, I don't try to purposefully get under people's skin, I'm better than that. It's cute you think that I'm trying to do that on purpose though.
They can be. I guess that choice would have to be up to the woman and her doctor.
If there's one thing I've learned on this here site, is that I should stick to talking about games, memes and tech in here, since the bad faith, ingenuity, or unwillingness to concede of some people's arguments on some subjects, on all sides, are way too zany.
For this one in particular I've seen:
Equating pregnancy to disease, non-sentience to worthlessness, embyros to cancer/not-humans.... roflmao.
Either way, it's kinda amusing to follow through reading it, so keep it up.
For this one in particular I've seen:
Equating pregnancy to disease, non-sentience to worthlessness, embyros to cancer/not-humans.... roflmao.
Either way, it's kinda amusing to follow through reading it, so keep it up.
The exact reason why his ability to answer simple questions is impaired doesn’t change the calculus here. It’s a shame, because I’m genuinely interested in the results of that poll, particularly because it seems that they’re repeatable, even in the wake of a possible Roe v. Wade repeal. It’s probably the best time to have these kinds of discussions since the original ruling.
You keep saying babies are being murdered, despite knowing actual science exists that states otherwise. That's uneducated.
You feel abortions, which generally exist in a "female" body (personal feelings toward gender labels put aside), should be subject to the rules and regulations of literally anyone else except the woman involved, yet you have no respect for the woman or the trauma the forced birth would entail for any party, child or otherwise. That's being self absorbed.
Some liberals are stupid. As are some Republicans. And some Democrats. And just people in general. I'm glad we can agree on that.
I do appreciate you clarifying your stance a little better. That helps.
Hey, you're the one who originally thought I was getting angry. If you weren't trying to do that on purpose, why bring it up at all? Doesn't matter if I or anyone else gets angry, it's an internet forum. What am I gonna do, angrily give women abortions in a back alley?
Science changes sometimes. I might be wrong now, but I might be right later.
I'm going to be completely honest, I have respect for anyone who can squeeze an entire human out their vagina or allow their stomach to be ripped open to get their baby out. I just don't exactly like it when abortion is used as sex control.
Every political party is stupid, with stupid people. I can agree with that.
I agree that it doesn't matter, it just felt weird how you thought I was genuinely trying to make someone angry. I was probably going too far, and I'm sorry for doing that. My stance won't change too much, but I do respect you.
I have lots of things I "don't exactly like." Is that a reasonable justification for taking away people's rights, particularly their right to bodily autonomy?
I would love for him to elaborate on that part of the post, it’s genuinely surprising and interesting, but we can’t always have all the nice things we want. Maybe he didn’t want to say it and it slipped out, but that’s my read also. It’s hard to be 100% on-board with either side of the abortion debate, both of them get into ethical extremes. Most people sit somewhere in the nuanced middle, but by God, it’s hard to get them to admit where.
depends.
if it's for killing babies in the womb over 6 weeks? yes. If it's someone beating you in mortal kombat or some shit? no.
Similar threads
-
- Locked
