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

[Dark_Ansem]

A little off topic, but taxes are already too high

Maybe for common people. Millionaires and Billionaires should be taxed way more.

You & jonathan have failed in every single post to show any consideration.

Shhhh he's gonna accuse you of not providing "substance". As if incel like ramblings could or should be substantiated.

 

[KennyAtom]

"It's funny but true"

Because it's meant to be funny, but it has elements of truth, genius.

"It's not credible"
"It's satire!"

Of course satire isn't credible, if it was, then it would be called news.

Ok fine, it's satire. Still doesn't make it true, genius.

It has elements of truth, genius. The story itself is not true, but the elements within it are funny but have elements of truth.

It's one of the sites HeWhoPlacedMeUponHisIgnoreList tried pushing to prove his agenda. Apparently people don't understand that you can't quantify a small, specifically sought out portion of Americans and compare it to the ~4 billion women global wide without gross inaccuracy.

You do realize this isn't a stats site, it's a satire site, right? Or did you just ignore the entire article and try to make it look like it was more stats?

 

[tabzer]

There seems to be type of person here who "likes" anything pro-abortion but cares little about nuance. This type also appears to be the deadbeat dad type.

 

[Foxi4]

I do believe in freedom of speech, I am not going to have any of you idiots arrested for your views.

It seems you have a lack of understanding of what freedom of speech is. Which is unsurprising and also why it would be better, if you kept your mouth shut. Better to stay quiet and have people think you are stupid, than open your mouth and prove it.

More dodging. I’m not getting anything of value out of you, just more babble as you get increasingly flustered. Your attempts at insulting me won’t work - I asked you a simple question that you are unable to answer, and I’ve stated why you won’t answer it. In my estimation, you don’t want to put yourself in the shoes of someone with an opposing point of view (a prerequisite to having a mutual understanding) because either you’re completely unable to picture yourself as someone like that (indication of lack of imagination) *or* you think it would weaken your own argument (result of sly nature). That’s what I think, at least, and I know people fairly well. I can imagine why Pro Choice people argue the way they argue, and I understand their arguments, both good and bad. I understand where Pro Life people are coming from, I know why they think the way they think, and that helps me understand them. Without that, one can’t have dialogue. Your lack of interest in pursuing understanding tells me that establishing dialogue is not something you’re interested in. I know this because you’ve just said that people who are more than one standard deviation away from your own point of view are “unreasonable” and should be excluded from the debate entirely. That’s small-minded. Not much has changed since last time we’ve discussed a topic of national importance - you still think you’re smarter than you really are.

 

[KennyAtom]

You can have abortion, or high taxes.

Whatever happens, cutting abortion will increase taxes. It's the unintended consequences that get you.

i swear if taxes get raised more I'm going to commit literal tax evasion.

But in all seriousness though, taxes are already too high, but of course the bureaucrats in washington won't listen. I guess i now know how it feels to be a roe v wade supporter.

 

[smf]

person here who "likes" anything pro-abortion but cares little about nuance. This type also appears to be the deadbeat dad type.

Since when have your posts included nuance?

 

[smf]

Your attempts at insulting me won’t work

I get quite a few likes from other people, it seems to be working fine.
I'm not sure what you get out of insulting me however.

Your problem is you write huge walls of texts, that are just rants at me. You already admitted that you are trying to trap me.
If you could stop that then we might get somewhere.

I can understand view points from other people, but I'm not going to discuss them with you when you already have those views. If you want to discuss them, then you put them forward, otherwise we'll end up arguing about something neither of us believe in.

There is a difference between pro lifers, and those against abortion. Pro lifers are basically insane & puritanical. I have no time for them. Discussion with them is pointless as they aren't going to change their mind and you won't learn anything from them.

You seem to duck and dive on what you believe, or burying it in a wall of text that nobody is going to read. Have you not heard of paragraphs?

 

[Foxi4]

I get quite a few likes from other people, it seems to be working fine.
I'm not sure what you get out of insulting me however.

Your problem is you write huge walls of texts, that are just rants at me. You already admitted that you are trying to trap me.
If you could stop that then we might get somewhere.

I’m not insulting you. I’m just telling you that I’ve got your number.

 

[smf]

I’m not insulting you. I’m just telling you that I’ve got your number.

You say you have. I don't mind that you're wrong.

Do you have tourettes? I can't work out whether you are typing things accidentally, or whether you truly believe you haven't tried all this time to insult me with your comments.

Do you want to give your view points on this subject yet without a wall of text grumbling about how I won't give into your transparent demands?

 

[Foxi4]

You say you have. I don't mind that you're wrong.

I’m not sure how else I’m supposed to interpret your inability to say anything concrete. You’re either unwilling or unable, which is fair - you’re not being interrogated, you’re under no obligation to answer questions. I won’t comment on your inability to read a page of text either - seems like an excuse to me.

Do you have tourettes? I can't work out whether you are typing things accidentally, or whether you truly believe you haven't tried all this time to insult me with your comments.

Do you want to give your view points on this subject yet without a wall of text grumbling about how I won't give into your transparent demands?

I already told you that slipping edits in after the fact isn’t going to catch me off-guard. You’ve been told this not just by me, but by other people in this thread as well. I’m saying it how it is - if you find that insulting, I can’t really help you. If you’re unwilling to answer a fairly simple question, I can only speculate as to why. An educated guess will have to suffice.

 

[smf]

I’m not sure how else I’m supposed to interpret your inability to say anything concrete. You’re either unwilling or unable, which is fair - you’re not being interrogated, you’re under no obligation to answer questions. I won’t comment on your inability to read a page of text either - seems like an excuse to me.

I've already said what I have to say on the matter until you give your views.
The fact that you either don't understand, or they don't meet your requirement to be able to bully me is not my problem.

You don't seem interested in giving out any of your own views, only "disseminating" bad ideas. That sounds like a waste of time.

I'm not talking about pages of text, I'm talking about impenetrable walls of text.

Like this one: If I defocus my eyes, I think I can see a dolphin.

Maybe post it on https://www.magiceye.com/

More dodging. I’m not getting anything of value out of you, just more babble as you get increasingly flustered. Your attempts at insulting me won’t work - I asked you a simple question that you are unable to answer, and I’ve stated why you won’t answer it. In my estimation, you don’t want to put yourself in the shoes of someone with an opposing point of view (a prerequisite to having a mutual understanding) because either you’re completely unable to picture yourself as someone like that (indication of lack of imagination) *or* you think it would weaken your own argument (result of sly nature). That’s what I think, at least, and I know people fairly well. I can imagine why Pro Choice people argue the way they argue, and I understand their arguments, both good and bad. I understand where Pro Life people are coming from, I know why they think the way they think, and that helps me understand them. Without that, one can’t have dialogue. Your lack of interest in pursuing understanding tells me that establishing dialogue is not something you’re interested in. I know this because you’ve just said that people who are more than one standard deviation away from your own point of view are “unreasonable” and should be excluded from the debate entirely. That’s small-minded. Not much has changed since last time we’ve discussed a topic of national importance - you still think you’re smarter than you really are.

 

[smf]

I already told you that slipping edits in after the fact isn’t going to catch me off-guard.

I'm not trying to catch you off guard. If I change my mind after posting then I'm allowed to revisit the post, there is an edit button after all

If you calmed yourself down and didn't respond immediately then that would be great. It might actually help you not make a pratt of your self.

Thanks.

An educated guess will have to suffice.

Chance would be a fine thing, I don't know how many times I've said it. I'm ok with the status quo, but I'm not emotionally attached to it either way. You on the other hand have point blank refused to give any indication at all.

 

[Foxi4]

I've already said what I have to say on the matter until you give your views.
The fact that you either don't understand, or they don't meet your requirement to be able to bully me is not my problem.

I'm not talking about pages of text, I'm talking about impenetrable walls of text.

Like this one: If I defocus my eyes, I think I can see a dolphin.

That’s unfortunate. I hope your reading improves with practice.

In any case, my objective isn’t to bully you - I’m not particularly bothered by you, you’re not significant to my day to day life. We are, however, having a discussion. You said, in good faith, that liberals are open-minded and you can imagine them debating what the acceptable window should be. Since I am not a liberal, I am inquiring what arguments might pop up in that debate - in general, not necessarily ones you believe in yourself. I am trying to understand you (at my own peril, it seems - fragile is the human mind, I can only try for so long), but you’re making it very difficult. I would like to examine those arguments.

Is that concise enough?

 

[smf]

That’s unfortunate. I hope your reading improves with practice.

In any case, my objective isn’t to bully you - I’m not particularly bothered by you, you’re not significant to my day to day life. We are, however, having a discussion. You said, in good faith, that liberals are open-minded and you can imagine them debating what the acceptable window should be. Since I am not a liberal, I am inquiring what arguments might pop up in that debate - in general, not necessarily ones you believe in yourself. I am trying to understand you (at my own peril, it seems - fragile is the human mind, I can only try for so long), but you’re making it very difficult. I would like to examine those arguments.

Is that concise enough?

I don't care if you want to examine my interpretation of arguments that I am not making, especially those that require a level of medical knowledge that neither you or I have. You obviously have arguments that you believe in, which you have no intention of making, because you are scared to.

You seem pretty bothered by me. I can't think why you would repeatedly try to insult me into doing something which I've said I'm not going to do.

The ball is in your court, either you give a reasonable argument on a point and allow it to be discussed without you trolling or you don't.

 

[smf]

I am trying to understand you (at my own peril, it seems - fragile is the human mind, I can only try for so long), but you’re making it very difficult.

And yet you want me to forget that a while back you admitted that you were just trying to get me to make those kinds of arguments because you knew that it would undermine my argument.

As you've already made up your mind that it will, then you'll claim that it did have anyway. I'd be an idiot to actually give you what you want right now.

 

[appleburger]

Alright @KennyAtom, I'm back with my line of questioning I had for you - I almost forgot to revisit this point:

That makes sense. Does this also apply to the rape victims?

I'd say yes, since rape is a traumatic thing to go through, and you shouldn't be forced to hold a reminder of it at all, especially in cases of 12 - 17 year olds who shouldn't be a mother yet.

So, this is interesting, and in one aspect makes you more pro choice than me, which I didn't see coming (I would only support a late term abortion in the event that the mother could be killed for giving birth). Not trying to throw you shade, just continuing the line of logic we've established to pick your brain and help me understand.

If you feel a late term abortion due to rape should be legal, then when should it become illegal to have that child killed, and why?

To summarize, we've established together for sake of argument, that according to your views and my definition of the word 'baby':

1. A baby doesn't exist until there is a heartbeat for the fetus.
2. Aborting a baby is not morally permissible, can be considered a killing, and therefore should be illegal, with exceptions (rape victim; mother could die).
3. These exceptions, while still in conflict with your moral views, should be legal, despite them being killings, because it is preferable to the alternative outcome of the mother dying or being reminded of her rape.

By this logic, it would seem you would find legal grounds to kill the baby, moral incompatibility aside, so that would apply to postpartum without adding more specifics or drawing a new line. If that's not the case, then what about birth changes the morality/legality of it for number 3?

 

[smf]

If you feel a late term abortion due to rape should be legal, then when should it become illegal to have that child killed, and why?

To summarize, we've established together for sake of argument, that according to your views and my definition of the word 'baby':

1. A baby doesn't exist until there is a heartbeat for the fetus.
2. Aborting a baby is not morally permissible, can be considered a killing, and therefore should be illegal, with exceptions (rape victim; mother could die).
3. These exceptions, while still in conflict with your moral views, should be legal, despite them being killings, because it is preferable to the alternative outcome of the mother dying or being reminded of her rape.

By this logic, it would seem you would find legal grounds to kill the baby, moral incompatibility aside, so that would apply to postpartum without adding more specifics or drawing a new line. If that's not the case, then what about birth changes the morality/legality of it for number 3?

Yeah, I'm pro choice, but I don't get his reasoning behind this. It's like rape changes reality.

I'm not particularly sure what you mean by late term abortion though. If someone turned up at 8.5 months, then I'm not sure how I'd deal with that. Whatever happens, they are going to be delivering & it's viable.

 

[Foxi4]

And yet you want me to forget that a while back you admitted that you were just trying to get me to make those kinds of arguments because you knew that it would undermine my argument.

As you've already made up your mind that it will, then you'll claim that it did have anyway. I'd be an idiot to actually give you what you want right now.

Oh lord, this is giving me a headache. From the top, I’ll even give you nicely-spaced chunks of text. Here we go!

I told you precisely what I’m doing - I browse this thread for my own amusement. I pick and choose ideas from both sides and discuss the ones *I* find silly. I like to know why people think the way they think, and what makes them tick.

I also told you why I *think* you won’t share your “forbidden knowledge” with me. Either you can’t imagine being someone who’s against the current status quo *or* you believe it would undermine your own argument, so you’re unwilling to share for fear that it would be used against you.

There is a third option, one that’s become a growing concern in your camp. Perhaps you don’t want to say anything concrete so as to not seem insufficiently woke to your compatriots. It’s easy to say the wrong thing when everything is fluid. I don’t think that’s it though.

That’s what *I think*, it’s up to you to confirm or deny, prove me right or prove me wrong. I have no plans for you besides extracting interesting information that moves the conversation forward. If you don’t want to play along then that’s fine, I don’t really care.

 

[appleburger]

Yeah, I'm pro choice, but I don't get his reasoning behind this. It's like rape changes reality.

I'm not particularly sure what you mean by late term abortion though. If someone turned up at 8.5 months, then I'm not sure how I'd deal with that. Whatever happens, they are going to be delivering & it's viable.

Right, and the term is vague - in this case I'm trying to steelman his argument and go strictly with the logic, so here it would be after where he draws the line, after a heartbeat is detected.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Because it's meant to be funny, but it has elements of truth, genius.

Of course satire isn't credible, if it was, then it would be called news.

It has elements of truth, genius. The story itself is not true, but the elements within it are funny but have elements of truth.

You do realize this isn't a stats site, it's a satire site, right? Or did you just ignore the entire article and try to make it look like it was more stats?

So what you're telling me is, that you have so little credible sources to back up any claim you've made thus far, so you're using a satire site that takes very little truth and blows it out of proportion, because you think it's an effective way to prove said point?

Well I think all women should be the only ones to regulate their bodies, and if you don't agree with me, I have several stand up comedians that prove my point with tongue in cheek comments based off a thin slice of truth.

Why don't you go back to your standpoint of "I believe abortion is murder" and just stay there? Posting irrelevant articles because they mean something to you doesn't help your argument.