Inkbunny

I guess you don't care about the actual children, do you?

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Neither do the women who murder their babies.

Bachri

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Just by that statement alone in response to mine, I evidently care more about the actual children than you do. Unless you have an actual reason for saying that other than a completely context-less bit of hyperbole.

matthegamer

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Then tell me, what should we do for these children when they are born? How does having parents suffer consequences for pregnancy supposed to help the kids?
It just sounds like an endless cycle of poverty.

Bachri

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Not relevant. That responsibility belongs to the parents who chose to create a child. If they can't manage that responsibility, then the failing is solely on them for doing so.

In other words, ask the parents why they decided to fuck up, not the state.

matthegamer

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Not relevant? Accidental conceptions happen all the time. The USA has the highest teen birth rate in the developed world, and many states use a sexual education system that's absence-based and refuses to teach students how to use condoms and birth control.
How does illegalizing abortion help with any of the country's problems? Can you cite any solutions?

Bachri

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

Not. Relevant.

Accidental conception is not relevant. When you choose to have sex, you choose to take an informed risk. Therefore, you choose the consequences of that risk. Full stop.

You want a solution? Fine then, here's one: Stop rewarding single mothers for becoming literal baby factories by giving them welfare at exponential rates per child so that they don't have to work.

As for the messed up education system, sure. Fix that. That's not worth killing a human being over, sorry.

Sendel

1 year, 11 months ago

link

So if a woman or teenage girl is like raped by her FATHER or BROTHER she should be forced to give birth to the little inbred mutant? THAT is what you are saying right? If a baby is going to be born with several medical problems in life she is not allowed to spare them the pain? People need to get the fuck over their so called morals, cause they are a point of view nothing more.

Why I bet you are just fine with it when pregnant women and their unborn babies from enemy nations are killed by US bombings (1945 ring any bells in that empty head of yours?) cause lol they shouldn't have chosen to be born not in the United corporations of Murica.

drakar2835

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I would argue that you are putting way too much "faith" in the average human group intelligence. Other than rape, the sad true is what you are proposing has not worked and has never worked period. It has given us the over population in the Third World, and poverty, and criminality in our countries. True, education about condom and birth control pills should be given in school, but even if it is given, we are still going to get unwanted pregnancy. I won't go into part of this that is caused by religion where in the name of life and God they are in reality only wanting more power through the increase birth rate that will give them new followers to indoctrinate and increase their flock.
I simply ask what could be worse than a woman giving birth to an unwanted child. I know you don't care and are saying that is their problem... I would tell you that it is very much your problem like it or not and will only get worse. The only solution to that is
1 Force sterilization.
2 Force birth control injection
4 Imprisonment in full sex segregation.
3 abortion...

Take your pick... I can tell you already that the first three are out of the question in most democratic countries, especially the USA.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Yes, we have acsess to a wealth of contraceptive and preventative measures to prevent an unwanted pregnency.

Also you could just not HAVE sex...

Contrary to popular belief you are not entitled to sex...and sex comes with the chance of consequences because the function of sex is reproduction.

to claim abortions should be allowed for anything other then saving the life of the mother (which is a very painful judgement call for most expecting mothers forced to make this choice) is deeply irresponsible, immature and immoral.

in the case of rape, it is a very small number compared to abortions of convenience, but lets address it.

it's a horrible evil thing to happen to a person and I understand the result of that can often be hard to deal with but we cannot denigh the baby is anything but innocent. that being said Carrying that child to term is one of the greatest moral goods and most selfless acts I can think of and any women in that situation who chooses to have the baby despite the horrible thing it's father did, is a god damn SAINT and should be celebrated.

it's down right heroic.

at the end of the day though most abortions are ones of convience, I dont want/cant deal with/ a baby right now, but would still like to have sex!

Haveing a doctor crush it with tongs and pull out body parts before sucking the juice out with a hose is my safety net!

Anybody who thinks abortion should be legal except in very specific circumstances really needs to reevaluate exactly what that means.

there is NO situation in wich abortion is a moral good, only areas were it may be regrettably necessary due to extream risk to the mother and often low chance of survival of the baby...so you have a good chance of losing both.

Sendel

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Morals are a point of view.

CaptainKenmason

1 year, 11 months ago

link

some points of view are more objectively correct than others.

soopakoopa99

1 year, 11 months ago

link

don't know how to tell you this, but most, if not all couples like to have sex, and not have kids, thats where the contraception, and condoms come in. as a side note, republicans want to ban those things too, which means they'd ban sex if they could.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

Nobody wants to ban contraception or sex..thats a crazy strawman. Most people who are pro life want responsible pregnancy or safe sex if your going to have it...with the understand that all sex even safe sex has risks. You don't get to murder the result becouse its incontinent but you want to keep fucking

Also your accounts like an hour old you get baned or something?

soopakoopa99

1 year, 11 months ago

link

https://americanindependent.com/roe-v-wade-republican-c...

and roarey is apparently not the biggest free speech guy since he likes to ban those with opinions he disagrees with.

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Nah, I ban people who stink up my comment sections with emotional manipulation and gaslighting. Simply disagreeing with me isn't the problem. But hey, it's typical of leftists to lie through their teeth, isn't it.

soopakoopa99

1 year, 11 months ago

link

that would be righties.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

2 things this is a WHAT IF opinion peace but lets assume that lawmakers DO try to ban contraceptives.

whatsh the fucking point? the OEVRWHELMING MAJORITY of people right OR left, have an issue with the abortion thing becouse depending on how you look at it it's fucking murdering a baby...

thats why it's controversial..

the overwhelming majority of americans dont fucking care fi you sleep around like a whore, those of us who care about pro life only care in so far as you understand the risks your takeing.

secondly..

if roary baned you from his page and your back on an alt thats against inkbunny's ToS and your risking a site wide suspension....to argue about roe v wade...

soopakoopa99

1 year, 11 months ago

link

people have a right to have sex, you can't stop the, nor should you. and protection sometimes fails, thats just a fact, and if i ever got a woman pregnant even though i was wearing a condom, and she was using birth control, we'd have a right to an abortion, if neither party wants a child.

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

No, sex isn't a right. How could it be? Then every person has a right to sex, yeah, which means, since they need someone to have said sex with, they have a right to fuck another person. That, naturally, means we wont have the right to refuse sex. You lefties never fucking think anything through in your lives.

soopakoopa99

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I'm talking about couples, or just 2 people who want to bang, as long as its consensual.

Bachri

1 year, 11 months ago

link

"	people have a right to have sex, you can't stop the, nor should you

Okay then, bend over, I have a right to have sex with you and you can't stop me, nor should you. It's not rape, I have the right to have sex.

"	and protection sometimes fails, thats just a fact, and if i ever got a woman pregnant even though i was wearing a condom, and she was using birth control,

That is the risk you choose to take when you have sex. No matter what precautions you take, sex always has the chance of resulting in conception. That is the risk. Accept it.

soopakoopa99

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I'm talking about consensual sex. if 2 people agree to have sex, they can.

Bachri

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Yes, they can. And that comes with all the risks, consequences and responsibilities involved in that decision.

Calbeck

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Just do what my parents did. Put the kid up for adoption. I'm quite happy to not be dead, thank you, even if I will never know my biological parents beyond the names John and Mary Doe.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

@ Calbeck

I agree. I don't think I'll ever fully understand why they don't all just put the kid up for adoption instead.

(I suspect that it has to do with perfectionism though they're so invested in doing things the "proper" or "responsible" way that they would rather fail at parenthood entirely than do it in what they perceive to be a half-assed way. Which is just one of the reasons why I despise perfectionists.)

Cigarskunk

1 year, 11 months ago

link

There are five million couples waiting to adopt a child.

Yiffox

1 year, 11 months ago

link

put the up for adoption.  you seem to be forgetting that option.  People have been going overseas to adopt babies for years because its difficult to adopt here and/or shortage of babies to adopt.

We have been killing about 1 million babies a year in the US for 50 years.  You want to talk about poverty?  This, coupled with lowering birth rates has caused a demographic collapse in the western world and even china, thanks to their one child policy which encouraged abortion and infantcide.  What this means almost all countries in the west, china, and japan are quickly going into a situation in the next decade where there not only won't be enough people to support the retired people in taxes, but there won't be enough child bearing age adults to replenish the population.

Japan's already been there for 10 years which is causing a lot of social problems.  One of the highest suicide rate in the world for one.  China is looking to lose half its population in the next 15-20 years.  Half a billion people.  This is part of the reason I think Europe is encouraging migration from 3rd world, even though it may destroy their culture.

What this means in the big picture is in the next 10-20 years, the majority of people will no longer be part of the worker (18-35) or consumer class (35-65) but non workers on a budgets.  You will have soaring labor costs, inflation, and ever increasing government debt to support the retired class.  This inevitably will lead to an economic collapse and extreme poverty.

so maybe stop worrying that some kids will be poor, when there is nothing wrong with growing up poor.  I can say from members of my family that had illegitimate kids, got married because of it, it made them grow up and become responsible.  My brother eventually became an electrician when he got a girl pregnant at 18 and went on to have 2 kids with no support from my parents.  and maybe start worrying about the bigger picture of coming economic collapse due to killing 1 million kids a year.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

I don't want people to abort their babies, buy I also don't want any of what you're selling either. The society you're advocating for is a blatant and unmitigated Ponzi scheme and the longer it goes on the worse it's going to be when it does finally collapse; the gradual tapering off of birth rates that we've seen is about the most promising situation that could have been hoped for in this regard.

Yiffox

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Again, you are not looking at the big picture, but concentrating only on elderly benefits.  It's much bigger than that.  Retirees in large numbers leaving the workforce and there not being enough younger people to fill their places.  The labor shortage alone will increase wages, which will increase inflation in a vicious cycle.  GDP will begin to retract as we produce less as well which will spark shortages and destabilize countries.  It will also spark a depression that we can't get out of for decades until the population stabilizes, which could trigger famine and wars.

It's funny tho I was reading about Bible prophecy about the end times, which has fascinated me since I was a child which repeatedly gives the same 4 signs for the beginning of the end times.  War and rumors of wars, food price inflation, and famine.  All of which seems inevitable.  The 4th is increasing number of earthquakes.  Fracking anyone?  When the end times starts, these will kill off 1/4th of the world population.  Nukes will probably be involved too, as it gives a weird phrase of silence in the heavens for 30 minutes, the time it takes for missles from russia to reach the US and visa versa.  Like I said, Ive always been fascinated by it.  As I've said before the Islamic version of end times says basically the same events happen, but the good and bad guys get flipped.  What's even weirder is the Bible tells about this.  The 2 jewish prophets (the muslims call them the dijjal) are said to be hated  by the world so much so that when the antichrist (the madhi) kills them, the world celebrates it to the point of giving gifts to each other.  Just liked to throw that bit in it as far as prophecies go.

If you want a deeper secular view on this, you can look up Peter Theihan on youtube, he uses population pyramid charts to help explain what I'm talking about.  Like I said, Japan has been going through this collapse for 10 years, but the rest of the world is still there to import from.  They've solved some of its problems by automation, but their GDP and per capita income has been relatively flat since 1995.  Member when people thought Japan would be a dominate world power in the 80s, so much so that movies like Blade runner depicted a Japanese owned US?  Well few countries are not in this demographic collapse that is coming, like India and the US.  The US is not in it, solely because of immigration.  The US is also the only one of these to be pretty self sufficient (or capable of) for food and oil.  We will still go into depression when this wave hits in the next decade due to global interconnection, but its not going to be as bad here as overseas, because frankly, we really don't need the rest of the world anymore.

so there's my global view on the effect of abortion.  A crash is coming due to demographics of our own making.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

Labor shortage? We still have 3.5% unemployment in the United States. That's like ten million people.

Plus a huge portion of the jobs that are currently filled by people are things that could reasonably be done by machines. I work in a shipping warehouse, I have literally the same job as a Coke machine - I'm given a series of numbers and letters that correspond to a location on a shelf, and my job is to grab the item from that location and hand it off to someone else. That is literally the same thing that a vending machine does.

Yiffox

1 year, 11 months ago

link

YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. I'm talking things that will happen in near future but definitely in next decade when the baby boomers start retiring by the millions. And I said that the US is in ok shape, most of europe, russia, china will be underwater. Japan has been underwater for 10 years+

Yiffox

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

do you the see the WILL be part? https://cdn.lecturio.com/assets/Population-pyramid-Germ...

there is a population pyramid chart for germany from 2016 so all those people have aged 6 years....can you SEE that huge chunks of their population will retire in the next 10 years? and like I said....there are not enough young people to fill their jobs, which tend to be higher skilled ones as well by the millions (its divided with females on one side and males on another) so double the differences....so everyone on there over 50 will be retired in 10 years. DO you see the problem now?'

and then there's not enough young people ti replace their jobs, so its a continuing problem into the next 50 years

by the way, we've removed 63 million people from the population by abortion in the US and their descendants as well.

Cigarskunk

1 year, 11 months ago

link

So cracking open a baby's skull and vacuuming its brains out right before it's born is caring?

I dread to think of what you classify as abuse.

soopakoopa99

1 year, 11 months ago

link

The VAST VAST majority of abortions are done well before even the first trimester when the fetus is nothing more than a lump of cells. and even then, if an abortion is done after that, it's because of medical reasons, the mothers life is at risk.

Cigarskunk

1 year, 10 months ago

link

Then none of these fetal heartbeat bills are a threat to the vast majority of abortions, so why all of the fuss?

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

He wants them to live, so he obviously cares about them more than you. All you seem to care about is making them comfortable if they do live.

Your concern for comfort and good living even to point of the exclusion of life is quite possibly the most immoderately shallow and sybaritic sentiment I have ever heard in my entire life.

I have a high tolerance for shallow and sybaritc, but this is beyond the pale

Snorbingle

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Careful now... you're getting dangerously close to the dreaded 'female accountability', and that's not how this nation works.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

This talk of consequences and responsibility is part of the problem; possibly the core of the problem.

I think a big part of the reason why many people are so keen on making abortion readily available is that it's never occurred to them that they can just keep drinking, keep smoking, and then give the kid up for adoption after the nine months are over. Instead they incorrectly see the pregnancy as a lifelong commitment, thanks in part to people like you.

Bachri

1 year, 11 months ago

link

"This talk of consequences and responsibility is part of the problem; possibly the core of the problem."

That is a very strange way of saying "the solution." You're never going to convince me that taking personal responsibility for one's actions is a bad thing.

"I think a big part of the reason why many people are so keen on making abortion readily available is that it's never occurred to them that they can just keep drinking, keep smoking, and then give the kid up for adoption after the nine months are over."

... Why are you saying that as though those are positive things? Why do you consider taking risks towards fucking up the child's life on their behalf as an inherent good?

"Instead they incorrectly see the pregnancy as a lifelong commitment, thanks in part to people like you."

Pregnancy is a lifelong commitment. I'm sorry that you're apparently so lost in vice and endorphin addiction that you would rather risk permanently destroying any potential future of the offspring, but attempting to displace that moral failing onto others does not excuse it or change it.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

It's exactly that kind of miserable perfectionism that makes people desperate enough to kill.

People quite rightly aren't going to take kindly to being restricted their entire life because of one innocent mistake; they're never going to accept it - NEVER - and they're always going to try to escape. The only question, the only issue, is whether they be allowed to walk away peaceably, or whether that escape need necessarily to involve bloodshed.

By not allowing them to freely walk away, you've essentially put them into a trap from a Saw movie, wherein the only way to save themselves is to kill. It's even complete with all of Jigsaw's insufferable sanctimony. I cannot accept that.

Bachri

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

"It's exactly that kind of miserable perfectionism that makes people desperate enough to kill."

Please elaborate on how asking adults to act like adults and take personal responsibility for one's choices qualifies as... "miserable perfectionism."

"People quite rightly aren't going to take kindly to being restricted their entire life because of one innocent mistake;"

People make choices that they regret all the time. That does not change the fact that they have made choices, nor does their regret absolve them of responsibility. The same can be applied to going to college, drinking and driving, murdering someone, all of which can have devastating life-long consequences regardless of whether they consider it a mistake or not. This line of reasoning is irrelevant.

"they're never going to accept it - NEVER - and they're always going to try to escape. The only question, the only issue, is whether they be allowed to walk away peaceably, or whether that escape need necessarily to involve bloodshed."

Their standing acceptance is not required; acceptance was already given when they took an action that would- or would likely- result in a pregnancy. The risk of this was noted and accepted. Therefore, finding it unacceptable at a later point is irrelevant. Also, are you suggesting that violence is an acceptable outcome?

"By not allowing them to freely walk away, you've essentially put them into a trap from a Saw movie, wherein the only way to save themselves is to kill. It's even complete with all of Jigsaw's insufferable sanctimony. I cannot accept that."

Ah, I see. You're insane. And certainly, you are not worth any more of my time. Goodbye.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

"	Bachri wrote:
	an action that would- or would likely- result in a pregnancy.

"would- or would likely-" is an extreme overstatement. "Could- or could theoretically-" would be more accurate, if they did things even remotely right

Legosi

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I'm mixed on abortion. On one hand I'm for killing babies, but I don't like the idea of giving women a choice.

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

How edgy of you.

Legosi

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Thank you. I'm very clever :3

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

we could just drop all pregnant women into a giant blender... that would would solve both problems along with eventually, the rest of humanities issues.

Soulfire

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

oooh a better plan than the Thanos Initiative i have been supporting! IT needs a catchy title tho. hmmm,

Snowpaw's Pregnant Slushie?
Blended Baby Bill?
The Snowpaw solution?
Female+1 Frappe?

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

@ Soulfire

"	The Snowpaw solution

I like that one, makes me sound far more like a mad and very evil scientist

Soulfire

1 year, 11 months ago

link

yes i can see that!

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Ok.. I cant actually believe i have to do this...but some rando just said I'm Disgusting for this comment. SO I guess i have to explain the joke...

this is DARK HUMOR!

I DO NOT want to drop women and babies into a giant blender!

If your so Damn incapable of spotting OBVIOUS Sarcasm that's THIS OBVIOUS You have no business on this or any other website that features adult content.

Bachri

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Someone actually thought this was serious? God, people are fucking losers these days.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I think it was more, deeply autistic (not even meaning that as an insult) and thus incapable of reading the social queues because that's the only way I can think that one would think I could be Pro life and in the same breath, suggest using a comically oversized blender to solve the problem by slowly dooming the human race...

Snorbingle

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Dark humor is like food in Communism. Not everybody gets it.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

im just really upset that I even half to point out that I am in fact, pro life and thus, am JOKEING when i say we should both kill babys and denigh women a choice at the same time.. with a giant blender... come on people...that is Snidely Whiplash levels of evil..

Snorbingle

1 year, 11 months ago

link

The first choice women make is to open their legs. There's this thing called Briffault's Law, which states it is the female, not the male, who controls access to sex and who decides whose children are created, carried, born, and survive. Anything else is a felony. Of course 99% of Leftists have never heard of it because they're married to the "patriarchy" mythology and the professional victimhood that comes from it.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

a male DOES play into the choice but your correct as a man I cannot compel acsess to sex, anymore then a women can compell me to drop my pants and give her a baby.

it takes two to tango though...problem is that doesnt go both ways once a pregnency occures. the women has all the rights. and while i understand she is the one who has to carry the child to term, the man should have SOME say in what is done with it. at the very least they should be able to protect a child from abortion if there willing to accept full custody. it makes any woman who does this to a man just becouse she doesnt want the child a peice of shit... but it at least gives the man the power to save there child if they do assume custody.

i would rather Abortions were only done for medical reasons though. You know, extremely rarely.

Snorbingle

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Funny you should mention that.

For some years now, I’ve challenged others with The Man’s Right to Decide. In this, I suggest that men, within the first three months (trimester) of discovering they’ve created a child, may pay a nominal fee and sever all social, financial and legal ties with and obligations to said child without the knowledge or consent of the female involved in the child’s creation. This is provoked by two feminist axioms: “My body, my choice!” and “Equal rights!” It’s based on the “Woman’s Right to Choose” dogma, which states that no woman should be permanently burdened with an unwanted child and the social, financial, and legal burdens which accompany that life-altering event. It’s exactly the same as “pro-choice”, but without terminating the fetus.

A few years ago I proposed this in a poli-sci class, after one of the flaming pro-choicers whined, "Why are the men so quiet?" as we were discussing aborting. So I explained my Man's Right to Decide plan, and expected to be praised for supporting feminist views.

Instead, the pro-choice crowd turned into a pack of wolves, howling for my blood. They shrieked that such a policy would only encourage men to sleep around, commit unspeakably trashy acts and take no responsibility for their actions—oddly these were the same arguments against Roe v. Wade in the early 1970s. Helpfully, a male classmate explained that he drove a friend to an abortion and the cost was a nominal $200, which gave us a baseline upon which to price the process. Oddly, this became "that's the price of a human life to you?"--in protest only to the Man's Right to Decide, even though it arose from the Woman's Right to Choose. Eventually the prof had to shut the conversation down because I wouldn't back down on what I believed (and still do) is a viable answer to the demand for "choice" and "equal rights" from women. So it’s interesting to see how “choice” is an inalienable human right for one demographic, but becomes an unspeakable wrong the moment the other party wants their human rights as well.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

I like the part were the pro choices were suddenly disgusted you valued human life at 200 usd in your hypothetical... so NOW its a human life? Ahh so there not realy interested in fairness just one sided misandry got it! Lol

Snorbingle

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Circa 1992 I was listening to an abortion advocate describe her disgust with an "Operation Rescue" (which was a thing back then) member who assailed a woman heading into a Planned Parenthood office, causing a miscarriage. I thought it odd that the abortionist was upset "he attacked a pregnant woman!" I think that was the first time, really, I began to understand how fluid the ethics on the Left can be. The Right is guilty as well (certainly in the 80s when I was young), but they currently lack the political power to do anything about it the way the Left does.

Sendel

1 year, 11 months ago

link

You can't be pro life and support owning guns.

CaptainKenmason

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Some lives are more valid than others.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I would like to point out this goober replied to me 3 separate times in this journal each time with some gotcha! Comment...then blocked me..
And yet his comments imply he was expecting a reply? Just block this troll he has no thoughts or opinions of his own let alone anything worth consideration

CaptainKenmason

1 year, 11 months ago

link

theyre still fun to dunk on if nothing else. gotta keep my roasting game medium-lukewarm somehow.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

It just frustrates me, its wasted potential. If things were different we might be friends but this ultra leftist cult crap means the moment I DONT share an opinion with him he has to make some snide, irrelevant comment and block me...its immature and sad :(

Snorbingle

1 year, 11 months ago

link

You can't be pro-choice and support confiscatory taxation to support the welfare state.

Yiffox

1 year, 11 months ago

link

please....go green, drop them into a volcano lair like the good old days and save the electricity.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Evil AND eco I like it

Yiffox

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

plus evil volcano lair...muahahahaha..the new planned parenthood

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Volcanos are VERY classic evil. I'm ok with this plus if you think about it, geothermal readily available. Death Ray's take a lot of juice and I can't afford a huge electric bill.

Yiffox

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

you just need a giant space mirror...i call it the jack parsons occult project dont look that up, just dont...its far too deep.... A RABBIT HOLE...i actually wrote that is the weirdest bit of true stuff that I have EVER come across....but dont look it up..it involves L ron Hubbard, but no.,..just dont, dont look it up

Yiffox

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

also today I came across a video where an island of women thru johnny bravo into their volcano....and it burped him out to land on the island of beautiful men and they invited him to go swimming with them..i'm sure I was totally missing the subtext

Sendel

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I bet you are okay with all the unborn babies that were killed when the US nuked Japan in 1945.

LongTom

1 year, 11 months ago

link

More people got killed in the Rape of Nanking BTW.

Soulfire

1 year, 11 months ago

link

i so totally use that one a lot :p

Calbeck

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Nice Dev quote.

matthegamer

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Then what are your thoughts on the following quote?
“Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to 9 months. After that, they don’t wanna know about you. They don’t wanna hear from you. No nothing! No neonatal care, no daycare, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re pre-born, you’re fine; if you’re preschool, you’re fucked.”

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I think that's a lie, to cover for the fact that being enthusiastically pro abortion is actually being pro murder. Conservatives are not pro child abuse and neglect, we believe parents should be responsible for their children and give them the best life achievable by those parents. When people conceive, carry to term and give birth to children, only to raise them in poverty and squalor, that is not the fault of conservative people who do not do this. The fact of the matter is that abortion is now so bad that in many cases it is being used as a form of contraception. I know people who work in abortion clinics. This revolting practice devalues our society as it devalues our appreciation and respect for the most vulnerable of our species. I subscribe to the safe, legal and rare philosophy, personally.

Anyway, this story isn't about abortion itself, it's about whether or not it is constitutional for federal law to prohibit any laws that outlaw abortion. It is not and never was constitutional, therefore the Roe v Wade decision should be overturned. The legality and extent of abortion should be a matter for voters and their representatives, in their areas. Not some court on high to pronounce it for everyone, outside their remit and outside valid argument.

matthegamer

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Can you site anything that you just said here? I don't see the majority of them trying to decrease poverty, improve education costs, or help give these children the stable upbringing they deserve.
How are they helping? Prove it.

alistair

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

Why is "helping" necessary beyond, you know, stopping the murder?  This is a ridiculous argument.  Allow me to demonstrate.

"Killing a person is bad."
"Oh yeah?  Well, are you sacrificing yourself to help that person do better in life?  Why aren't you doing everything you can to improve the lives of those who you stopped from being murdered?  How are you helping?"

Makes a person sound like a bit of a fool, no?  Especially when this is used to justify the murder itself.

Edit:   Seriously.  This is the argument you are putting forward, whether you realize it or not:
"No one will help this person in life, so it's moral and ethical to murder them."

alistair

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Oh shit, I just realized this might be the same kind of thinking that leads to situations like in China where people will "finish off" someone they hit with their car, because they're expected to become infinitely responsible for the person. Instead of doing that, they reverse and kill them, because it's cheaper.

The argument presented is that there is less cost in murdering the child, so arguing against murder becomes immoral. Somehow. Man, this is really fucked up when you dive into it deep enough.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

This is my view on the matter more or less exactly

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Personal responsibility has always been a primary concern of conservative philosophy. As in, don't go making children when you're broke, when you don't have a solid relationship with someone, when you aren't ready. Social programs are about picking up the pieces for peoples' bad choices, for the most part. I'm not anti-welfare by any means, but it is also abused by unscrupulous and irresponsible people who do terrible things and expect compensation for it. Why should someone get to kill a child in the womb without a really fucking good reason? Don't pretend you give a damn.

matthegamer

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I asked you to back up your claims. I'm not falling for rage bait.

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Explaining a philosophical standpoint doesn't have evidence to back up claims. You've asked me to provide you with data that conservatives are pushing for whatever lefty wank you believe they should be engaged in. Not going to provide it, can't be arsed spending the time on you.

matthegamer

1 year, 11 months ago

link

This form of debating is why you got banned on FurAffinity. Moderators despise having their sites used to stand above others and mess with them for personal enjoyment.
Both Inkbunny and e621 have offed many accounts for various reasons. The latter's base is very critical of you. These two domains are the only popular circles you have left. Keep that in mind. If you genuinely anger them, you're gone. I wouldn't be surprised either.

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

Nope. I'm not debating. You came to me and asked a question, which I answered politely. You then snottily demanded more information from me and I refused. Fuck you. You tried to justify what commie scum have done to me, so you're banned from my account. Disgusting arsehole.

Soulfire

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

Yiffox

1 year, 11 months ago

link

It's not only not constitutional (otherwise show me where in the document does it say women have the right to kill their child?) but unconstitutional per 10th amendment that all actual rights not listed in the bill of rights are reserved to the states and the people. What does our other founding document, the declaration of independence, say? The summation of rights is LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Originally it was written as preservation of life. Your rights end when you infringe on the rights of others. aka you can't kill a baby for your pursuit of liberty or happiness.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Protecting quality of life is secondary to protecting life

Soulfire

1 year, 11 months ago

link

thank you George Carlin

Snorbingle

1 year, 11 months ago

link

"	matthegamer wrote:
	"No neonatal care, no daycare, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re pre-born, you’re fine; if you’re preschool, you’re fucked.”

Those things exist in the reddest of states. And FYI: there's one more thing not listed above. It's something that's been around since the dawn of time, but blithely ignored by 100% of left-wingers, replaced by the avalanche of government programs you've named here. If that one thing were involved, none of those would be necessary--but that's not how our nation has been set up since the 1960s.

Cigarskunk

1 year, 11 months ago

link

So you follow the Ginsburg school of killing poor people?

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-...

"	Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Being alive is more important than living well

GreenPika

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

Apparently condoms have mysteriously disappeared and/or no longer work. You know, after roughly 50 fucking years of everyone being told to buckle up, wear a helmet and use a condom. The whole thing would be a non-starter if these dumb bitches would just slap a condom over what ever it is going inside them. Hell slap 2 or 3 on that dick. Not like woman these days care what men feel anyway.

3 extra thick condoms would probably make him last longer anyway and *sarcasm *----> you know you aren't a REAL man if you can't hammer that mound for 40 minutes straight without jizzing. <----- *sarcasm *

*sracasm * -----> But Roarey don't you understand?! If they get rid of abortion, it automatically means gay sex between males will be illegal, as well as gay marriage. It totally does! <------ *sarcasm *

Fucking bloody hell I'm sick of the retardation in this society. >.>;

Snorbingle

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I used to volunteer with low-income and welfare-based families. You'd be surprised how many women breed explicitly so they can get on the dole--WIC, food stamps, CHIP, S8 housing, child support (from multiple men), Medicaid, and the constant stream of sympathetic dollars from local communities, churches, etc. And as Tommy Sotomayor has pointed out, a LOT of women get pregnant just to show that somebody wanted to screw them at some point. And why not? There's almost no oversight for single mothers' use of the fathers' money nor of the government handouts. Social workers are stretched thin and can't keep up with the sheer volume of whimpering demands of professional system surfers who claim more maladies than any doctor can disprove. Parasitism and "victimhood" have become lifestyle choices for women.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

i actualy work with a women who has 3 different kids from 3 different fathers and is dateing a 4th at this point...

to her credit shes doing her best to take care of the kids but damn...

I respect her for doing her best to give those kids a decent life but I just dont understand why people dont make use of contraception LIBERALY!!! if there going to be haveing sex...

Snorbingle

1 year, 11 months ago

link

"	KevinSnowpaw wrote:
	I respect her for doing her best to give those kids a decent life but I just dont understand why people dont make use of contraception LIBERALY!!! if there going to be haveing sex...

If she's breeding irresponsibly, then de facto she's not doing her best to give the kids a decent life.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

suppose your right though i think it's more like shes picking bad male partners who surpise surpise, leave after a while.

Snorbingle

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Drawing from my own experience: she's most likely choosing men with a physical quality or cluster of qualities in common as if that's all a good partner should be. Had one gal who'd open her legs to any man over 6' tall because her daddy issues compelled her to seek validation from someone to whom she could physically look up. Problem is, about 80% of women are seeking a tall male, so all those guys had no incentive to stay with her; they'd pump and dump, as they say. I encouraged her to seek quality men over tall, and she ignored me because her personal validation was more important than her kids' health and safety.

GreenPika

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

I would NOT be surprised. I grew up a block from the "low income housing" development. To realistically have that conversation though, you'd have to start talking about percentages of certain groups of people in a very politically incorrect way. The government creates these problems at tax payer's expense and then offers fucked up solutions. Wash rinse repeat.

the answer is simple, stop giving people financial incentive to create problems and wear a god damned condom.

Snorbingle

1 year, 11 months ago

link

The overwhelming majority of welfare queens with whom I was in contact during the 20+ years I worked with at-risk kids were white. Irresponsible is a mindset, not a skin color, and it appears in the trailer park, the ghetto, and the barrio.

However, immutable characteristics (skin color, height, ethnic background) are among the most primitive ways to get people on the same page, vis-à-vis a victimhood mentality. If a person has no control over the thing which is disqualifying him/her, then it's injustice. The key is to falsely attribute circumstance to the immutable characteristic and set the person on the wrong path, creating a feedback loop that'll keep up the status quo.

GreenPika

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I don't doubt your experience but nationally the percentage numbers of those who actively take advantage of the system, tell a story more akin to what it was like for me living in the big blue city. Lets just say, although poverty ran similarly across diverse groups, only a select few made up the majority waiting in line at the welfare office. No one's allowed these days to talk freely about it though.

Snorbingle

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I'm aware of the taboo against talking about blacks on welfare. Regrettably the knee-jerk reaction is to shriek WAYCESS! when in reality it's just a statistic.

GreenPika

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I am aware that statistics can hurt people's feelings with hard truths. I'm also aware that statistics can sometimes be manipulated for political gains.

My statistics come from decades of real life experience with a level playing field. I was a neutral 3rd party with no predetermined prejudges. My parents taught me to judge based on behavior not race or social class. That everyone should be given a fair chance to prove their character. I honestly believed in that and acted upon it in good faith. We had adequate representation of most every major racial group in the area. Wealth, or more to the point lack there of, was equally spread among the groups. Because of the state laws/programs, all groups had equal opportunity to advance. There were no excuses. In that situation you REALLY learn truths about the different groups since none of the common factors existed that can seriously throw off a social study. Turns out, each group's behavior in the situation was as different as their physical attributes. People can scream all they want. We are all not made the same. Should we all have equal rights? Of course. That doesn't make us all the same animal though.

Snorbingle

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Tell me about it.  One of the worst things one can do is invoke objective reality and observable patterns in such matters. Even those of us who've been in the helping professions have to deal with those who "want to get better" only if it involves others taking responsibility.  This crosses all social and racial lines.

Psychologists have a term, "locus of control" (LOC), which guides most of this.  A person with internal LOC understands that s/he controls much of what happens in life.  If a bad circumstance arises, it's my responsibility to deal with it or suffer the consequences.  If a good one, it's on me to make the best of it or miss the chance.

A person with external LOC blames the circumstances:  they did this to me and/or why weren't you there to help me when I needed you?  People with external LOC are easily manipulated because they will bless and welcome any explanation which relieves them of responsibility for their decisions and actions. They want the authority of men, the privileges of women, and the accountability of children. These are voluntary lambs to slaughter--and they are growing in number.

GreenPika

1 year, 11 months ago

link

It's not to say people can't legitimately be victims of a bad situation. The problem arises when people use it as an excuse to suck off the financial or even physical lifeblood of an innocent 3rd party. Essentially becoming the evil that wronged them in the first place. I learned that there are 2 types of people who suffer bad situations. Those who react to by wanting to be the opposite of the evil that wronged them, and those who react by joining the evil that wronged them.

"They want the authority of men, the privileges of women, and the accountability of children. These are voluntary lambs to slaughter--and they are growing in number."

You just said a mouthful for sure. The worst part is, they always find a way to drag everyone off the cliff WITH them.

Vexio

1 year, 11 months ago

link

As an atheist the way I've always seen it is there is a potential for a child not an actual child, so getting an abortion early in a pregnancy is no different from wearing a condom. Of course if you throw a soul into the equation it becomes murder really it just relies on your religious beliefs. Personally, considering the separation of church and state laws shouldn't be founded on religious terms by using souls in an argument. If an argument against abortion can't be made without religious texts, it doesn't belong in the courtroom.

alistair

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

"	As an atheist the way I've always seen it is there is a potential for a child not an actual child, so getting an abortion early in a pregnancy is no different from wearing a condom.

This is a reasonable position until one starts looking at things like, "when does the embryo possess a unique DNA identifier?" (answer: at conception). Or, "disregarding natural care, if otherwise left alone will the embryonic human grow into an adult human?" (answer: yes, excepting any number of possible tragedies. We don't tell a person they aren't a person just because eventually they'll die.)

Vexio

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Does a unique DNA identifier actually mean anything, it's a long string of code not a person just it's blueprints. And if you do nothing sure a child is born you know except shaping your life around keeping the growing child healthy avoiding rollercoasters, drinking, hot tubs, smoking ect... many of which can cause still birth or deformities. Just because something has the potential to grow into a human doesn't mean it holds the same weight as a human life. If you spill a soda on a canvas with a single brush stroke on it doesn't mean you've destroyed a master work, just because it could have become one. Without soul, it's just a cluster of cells and potential. And there is a big difference between destroying something and not having something ever exist to begin with.

alistair

1 year, 11 months ago

link

"	Does a unique DNA identifier actually mean anything, it's a long string of code not a person just it's blueprints.

It means it is a unique life form.

"	And there is a big difference between destroying something and not having something ever exist to begin with.

But it does exist.  Otherwise it couldn't be murdered.  An embryo is not a random clump of molecules or cells, it is a structured entity that (genetically) is a human.

Look, I get your argument.  I understand your argument.  The problem is, it all collapses into a simple question:  At what point is a human a human?

The position you posit is that it is possible to define a point where the embryo is/isn't definitely human.  At that point, we start arguing about that dividing line.

Well, since we've established that there is an arbitrary line where we decide "yup, human" or "nope, clump of goo," it is just as valid to put the line at conception.

And this is the great divide.  One side sees abortion as murder, the other justifies abortion by defining away the human so that it is no longer murder.  The "it's murder!" side is absolutely genuine about this.  Ignore all the red herrings about "they just wanna control women!"  Those are lies, and a way to hand-wave away the fact that a child is being killed.

Vexio

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I still don't understand how being a unique lifeform is special, so are goldfish.

Yeah, I get your point about the arbitrary line at which it starts being considered a human, that is rather hard to pin down. The line may be vague, but it's not so vague as to encompass the whole pregnancy. The first few weeks in, it's just a cluster of cells hard to argue that's where we put the line I'd say about 6 weeks in myself when brain function starts developing. The standard is 22 weeks, which I agree is way too high.

alistair

1 year, 11 months ago

link

"	Lumocity wrote:
	I still don't understand how being a unique lifeform is special, so are goldfish.

Here's a thought experiment.  Imagine a chart of value, and somewhere on the chart is a goldfish.  Now take a human embryo and place it on the chart.  Does it go at the same place as the goldfish, or higher or lower?

I'm not looking for an answer here.  Just think it out yourself.  Where do you place the embryo?  Why?  Do you value the nascent human equal to the goldfish?  Why?  Do you value it less?  Why?  In either case, really think about it.  Whatever answers you find, think about those answers and the ramifications of actions taken based on those answers.  You might discover something about yourself you hadn't realized was there.

Or, do you value the embryo more than the goldfish?  In such a case, we've established that the human embryo is more than an arbitrary "clump of cells," and the "it's not special" justification no longer holds water.

The experiment is not about what value one "should" place, or what value a thing naturally has, it's about concretely establishing what one's own valuation is, and then considering the implications of choices made from that.

I've seen many people espouse views that have horrendous baked-in assumptions and principles that the people are clueless about, because they're just reciting the mantras and catechisms they learned from others.  Doing thought experiments like this can help identify when one might be being hoodwinked by ideology.

Vexio

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

Depends on the age of the embryo older than 6 weeks and its higher lower than 6 weeks it's the same, potentially lower if I particularly like the goldfish. A DNA sequence doesn't really have any value by simply being unique and human. It holds potential, sure, but potential for a child is very different from an actual child. Choosing to have a wank instead of fucking a woman, or just using a condom or using birth control, holds the same weight in the end. If we're talking about potential, you talk of this blurred line. Why do you place it at conception and not, before? By the same logic of placing it at conception, you could place it any time before that and use that same argument to ban condoms. How do you feel about deformed children, incest baby's and those doctors know will be born with horrendous crippling painful disorders. It's not right to bring them into the world beforehand they don't exist, they are but potential. No one is suffering when you end the pregnancy, but letting it go through now you've brought life into the world that will suffer its whole life. As humans, we like to assign magical values to things but in the end pregnancy can easily been seen in black and white issues most of the time. Say a woman has a 20% chance of death if she has a child, and it's detected 2 weeks in, well it's only the potential for a child so send her to an abortion clinic. A woman is about to have a rape baby, but it's been over 3 months I feel bad for the woman, but it's developed too far and needs to be brought to term.

One side of the coin neither side seems to think about is compromise. How the hell do you compromise on abortion laws, though? You can't half abort a child, after all. No, but technology has been improving with embryo freezing there was even a child in China born years after both parents death thanks to freezing and a surrogate transplant. If coming to term is a threat to a woman's life, the embryo can simply be removed and transplanted. If a child would be born with a disability, it can simply be left frozen and in storage until we as humans are able to genetically modify it to remove the disability, allowing it a much better life. Storage in this way is far better than adoption clinics since you don't have to raise parentless newborns in institutions, simply keep them stored as potential until would be parents wish to have one. With most accidental pregnancy's early in life that result in abortions, it's less about not wanting the child and more about not being ready for one. If you could put it off until you were ready, many mothers would still have the children, with the benefit of bringing them into far more stable homes. Is this solution without issue? Of course not, nothing is perfect, but I think it satisfies both sides at least to some degree. Hospitals would need storage units for frozen embryos with backup generators in the event of a disaster. We would also need to develop some kind of artificial womb for embryos that have been stored too long on ice or simply to remove the need for surrogates since acting as surrogate is a taxing job.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

What makes surrogacy so hard? To me it looks like a pretty good job that I definitely would consider if I was female. I ran the numbers and it pays about eight times as much per hour as my current job, assuming a payment of 50K (which is on the low end according to my research) and one hour a day being sick, one two hour doctor appointment per week, an additional two hour doctor appointment per month, and 30 hours with a morphine needle in my spine at the end, that comes out to about $128.20 per hour. That sounds pretty good.

LongTom

1 year, 11 months ago

link

People once thought athletes taking steroids to improve performance was good too, until the severe side effects were found out.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

I'm an atheist too and I strongly disagree. If you throw a soul into the equation than abortion wouldn't matter because they would continue on in Limbo. But without a soul you've robbed them of their one and only chance at life.

EDIT:
Souls might even make abortion a moral imperative if they existed, because when you get down to it Limbo is the best of the Christian afterlives; you're not on fire like you are in Hell and you're not forced to spend all of eternity dancing around the dictator of a bronze age authoritarian state chanting "holy holy holy" like you are in heaven

Vexio

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Except you can't steal something that's not real yet. You can't take a theoretical life also didn't you read my statement about embryo cryogenics being the future?

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

By that logic we might as well squander all of Earth's resources and completely trash the environment. Environmental collapse is by and large a problem for future generations. If potential future people don't count when determining the morality of an action than I shouldn't worry about leaving a habitable planet or usable resources for future generations.

Vexio

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Two issues with this statement. One, it's not an issue for future generation's climate problems and pollution is an issue for the current generation. Two the potential for a child to be born is different in that it may or may not happen and if it doesn't happen no one is around to suffer because they never existed. Meanwhile, pollution and burning of resources will cause suffering, It's something we know for a fact will happen. Again, please look at my argument for Embryo Cryogenics, since it's an argument against abortion without leaving mothers to suffer for it.

LongTom

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Whatever your views on abortion, one lawyer has said on the issue that the decision was on shaky legal ground.

Churchill

1 year, 11 months ago

link

@ LongTom

Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it, in fact.

LongTom

1 year, 11 months ago

link

@ Churchill

I was referring to a different lawyer, namely author Tom Kratman, but thanks for the heads up.

Cigarskunk

1 year, 11 months ago

link

@ Churchill

Actually, Ruth was in favor of repealing RvW, noting it -

"halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue."

With it being overturned, each state can now experiment and eventually find the happy medium.

SqueakyBlum

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Wow that is an energetic tuber. x3 I see what he's saying though.

moyomongoose

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I have a question that might shed some light here.

We all started out as unborn babies...Yes, that's how we all started out, unless you happened to be a creation of Dr. Frankenstein.
If it were possible to turn the hands of time back, how many of y'all would rather have been aborted instead of being born? ...Do we see any raised paws out there? ...Anyone? ...Hmmmm.

boardmindless

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I always heard Roe v Wade was legally weak, not surprising it looks like it will get overturned. Hopefully the US can get some healthcare (not just abortions...) added as an amendment, that would be fun.

Soulfire

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Honestly while i am all for people choosing to do whatever the F. i have a different POV. I would be glad to see this issue tossed back to the states. IT should have never been a Federal issue in the first place.

Honestly every fing year this issue gets talked about when presidents run, like really are there not other issues more important. The Government was not made to regulate what is essentially a moral/ religious / whatever issue.

Anyways we have too many people on this planet as it is. Support Plan Thanos for a brighter future!

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

@ Soulfire

this is 100% what killing roe v Wade would do.

it does not ban Abortion it simply makes it a STATE issue not a federal one.

Snorbingle

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I have no opinion on this one, because both sides have told me my opinion doesn't matter--conditionally.

The pro-lifers tell me I don't matter because "you've never carried a child you Evil Male!" and such blather. The pro-choicers tell me I don't matter because "you'll never be burdened with carrying a child you Evil Male!" and such. Neither side gives a thought to my tax dollars being seized to fund both their carrying and supporting.

Both reverse themselves immediately the moment I make a statement in support of their side, and usually forget their previous opposition in that moment as well.

As I'm simultaneously not allowed to hold an opinion while congratulated for echoing theirs, I've contented myself with finding the technical details and trolling the crap out of both sides. For instance, a potential cannot be an actual and one can find advocacy for child killing in the Bible; the numbers out of Planned Parenthood debunk most of the emotion-driven narratives they advocate.

And for some reason, "keep your legs shut" (AKA self-control) sends both sides into shrieking outrage. Reason and accountability seem to have no place in their behavior... it's like there's some kind of pattern.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

as a fellow evil male I can assure you that your opinion DOES matter!

it matters twice as much when people tell you that it does not. Never forget that.

Snorbingle

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Au contraire, mon ami! I rather enjoy being excluded from this thing as it makes my commentary all the more delightful. They have told me my opinion doesn't matter--so I bludgeon them with publicly verifiable evidence instead. XD

ZwolfJareAlt306

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Here’s where I’m at on abortion currently:

Through the first trimester (12 weeks) I’m okay with it. Three months is enough time for somebody to decide if they want a kid.
After that if the mother’s life is in danger.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

@ ZwolfJareAlt306

reasonable restrictions...

im not sure were I'm comfortable with it, IF it's a more complex organism then a cluster of dividing cells the idea of aborting it for any reason other then an extream one makes me deeply uncomfortable so i try to error on the side of caution and say just dont get pregnant if at all possible unless thats your goal.

ZwolfJareAlt306

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Yep, for sure. My stance is really more from a libertarian position than an absolute pro-choice one.
And I do think that condoms and all other conception preventives should be available free of charge.

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

@ ZwolfJareAlt306

There's nothing free in manufacturing products, so the taxpayer would be paying for contraception instead of the individuals making use of those products. I think people already have to fund other peoples' shit more than enough as it is XP.

Vexio

1 year, 11 months ago

link

If abortion rights do go out the window, there does still need to be in increase of taxes to support the social services industry. Since the number of children being brought into the system will likely go up. It's an odd statement to take otherwise, since you're arguing we must protect their birth but not their well-being after the fact. So certainly some funds need to be at the very least redirected towards child poverty and orphanages at least. Honestly, a small tax increase seems more appropriate.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

abortion "rights" are not going anywhere

you do not have a "right" to an abortion something is not a "right" unless it's an unalianable thing confired on you at birth that cannot be taken away.

ALl people should be free, thats a right, ect. You dont have a right to suck out a fetus with a hose and forceps.

that being said you DO have the option to, and thats another can of worms for another time, all roe v wade does is make it a federal issue that states you cant make abortion illegal before a serten trimester. 3rd i think.

if it goes away it makes it a STATE by STATE issue, even then it was never your right. the argument that a women has the right to an abortion becouse it's there body is ludacris.

that argument is 100% the abdication of responsibility, you forfited that right when you choose to have sex, just like the men you had sex WITH is ALSO on the hook for this. you can have court ordered child support payments made. ect.

if a women decides to kill her baby the man cant step in and say "no, have it and i'll take full custody" either.. so we have a long way to go when it comes to reprodctive rights just not in the way some leftists would like.

on the rare ocationals of rape based pregnency you could argue your rights have been violated and your being forced to carry a baby you never agreed to and that would be accurate, but thats one of the reasons rape is a crime. IMO the baby is not at fault there...

regardless this femanist argument of how a fetus is just a parasite thats liveing rent free in a womens womb is nauseating and if somebody feels that way I advise them to have a medical professional sterilize them.

Vexio

1 year, 11 months ago

link

This entire post is a response to my grammar. It doesn't touch on the issue I actually brought up, I get your offended but like you know what I mean by right I just meant law.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Im not offended I promise ^^ just passionate allow me to apologize I know it seems like semantics but theres a huge differance between a right and a law and it's often argued, often by bad actors, that abortion is a right. So You can probobly see how I might have taken that wording incorrectly.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Personally I think they should give out contraceptives AND increase social services. I'm not cheap like the rest of these people.

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Very generous. With other people's money.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

And you're very generous with other people's blood. If we can commandeer people's bodies for the greater good (which I agree with you that we can) than we can certainly commandeer something as trivial as their money.

What both sides of the argument seem to continually miss is that pro-life only makes sense in the context of socialism and the redistribution of resources from those who can spare them to those who need them.

Vexio

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I don't see how pro-life only works with socialism, you can still be capitalist with social welfare programs. I think folks can afford their own condoms. And if you can't anal sex works just as well for pleasure with no chance of pregnancy. Still, The system is already struggling to a degree with the current number of children, so it will need some beefing up a tiny bit when population growth increases.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

What I'm saying is that it follows from the methods of socialism and makes little sense if you reject those methods. At its heart it is simply a form of redistribution of wealth from those who can spare it to those who need it to survive, the only twist is that in this case instead of being money, that wealth takes the form of the blood that feeds the placenta.

(On an tangential note, I have in fact long advocated that all the issues of fairness and sexism surrounding pro-life could be easily resolved if we simply required everyone else who isn't pregnant to give blood in the conventional way)

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

No...not at all... You dont have to be Pro socialism to say "Hey, killing babies, is kinda uhhhhh murder...which is like bad and stuff..."

this entire issue goes away if people would stop fucking like there entitled to it but I digress...

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

You do have to be pro-socialism to support the redistribution of wealth though, and like it or not, using the mother's body to bring the fetus to term is a form of redistribution of wealth. If you don't accept wealth redistribution than in order for your views to be self-consistent you need to accept forms of abortion that expel the unviable fetus without directly damaging it

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I don't support killing unborn babies....this has nothing to do with socialism or the outrages strawman argument your trying to build up here.

besides your making the assumption that a person is entitled to sex simply by stateing not allowing most abortions, is some how redistrabution of wealth. (dispite the fact that most abortions would be carried out on the tax payers dime if the lefties get there way)

your also making the assumption that human beings have some inherit monetary value you can attribute to wealth. humans have no value they are priceless.

Women do not own there babies, that's the entire fucking point, killing the child is just that, killing a baby.

I don't have to be Pro socialism, to see the inherent Moral evil that abortions of convenience represent!

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Blood? You're a fucking socialist, don't talk to me about blood.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

No more than with my own. I pay my taxes.

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

You are one person, arguing that the taxes of a few hundred million people should be partially used to assist people fucking. That doesn't make you generous, it makes you ridiculous. Sex isn't a disability, it isn't a crisis, it is either procreative or recreational. The former requires no contraception, the latter is for fun. Wasting money from taxpayers is already a serious problem, without funding an industry of products and all the countless jobs associated with making them, just so promiscuous people can fuck at someone else's expense and have even less responsibility for their actions.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

If I've already rejected the shallow argument "My-Body-My-Choice" as invalid, why would you think for even a moment that I would accept the monumentally shallower argument "My-Wallet-My-Choice"

Vexio

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I think you're linking two very different arguments together, and it's a real hard stretch. The real thing about the two arguments you can link is the respect for life. If you want to protect the embryos, fine, but ignoring them once they're born because it will cost you just baffles me. At that point, it's not pro-life, just pro-birth.

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I don't care what you reject if there's no point to go with it.

ClayMongoose

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Preach on, Razor.

Kittzy

1 year, 11 months ago

link

You may like this video from Dr. Steve Turley https://youtu.be/oLzzQxr1qAc
Roe V wade was the issue that made me move over to the right about 8 years ago and now hopefully Roe is dead

Churchill

1 year, 11 months ago

link

@ Kittzy

Maybe you should hear what Roe (Norma McCorvey) had to say before she died: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urRuJYLy09M

Cigarskunk

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Real simple - if you have to lie in order to make your argument then your argument isn't valid.

The pro-death folks are lying like mad about this - repealing RvW does NOT ban nor end the "right" to murder unborn children, instead, it simply returns the 10th Amendment right of the states to regulate abortion themselves.

As such, repealing RvW will NOT stop CA from passing the bill they're currently working on which will allow a child to be murdered up to seven days after birth, although ironically enough, the 14th Amendment could very well be used to ban that abortion law.

Staying focused though, all overturning RvW does is allow the states to choose.

As for all of those screaming "my body, my choice" - you said the government has the right to force people to get vaccinated so that means that the government also has the right to ban abortions.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

"	Cigarskunk wrote:
	As such, repealing RvW will NOT stop CA from passing the bill they're currently working on which will allow a child to be murdered up to seven days after birth, although ironically enough, the 14th Amendment could very well be used to ban that abortion law

I have to belive deeeeeeep down in the pit of my soul that this, wich i have herd before, is infact a gross misrepresentation of how that law is intended to function...

I HAVE to belive this...

because if it's true and were to the point were it's ok to just literally murder infants then we either need to Tell California to FUCK OFF or God needs to send another Asteroid...

Cigarskunk

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Not being liberal, I can be fair, so I will expand upon what I'm betting the real purpose behind this law is - to protect abortion mills.

Since the people working at abortion mills either aren't real doctors or are individuals who graduated at the bottom of their class or from third world country medical school, a common problem with third trimester abortions is that the child is accidentally born alive before it can be murdered.

Federal law says that once the child is 100% out of its mother that it is a person and therefore killing the child is now considered murder by the government - hence the reason for partial birth abortions keeping 10% of the child inside its mother.

Most abortion mills ignore the law, with the staff either murdering the child themselves or leaving it somewhere to die on its own due to not getting any medical attention.

However, there's still the risk of prosecution and every once in a great while we'll see a news article noting that abortion workers are being prosecuted for doing so.

As such, the law allowing the child to be murdered even after it is born is primarily intended to protect big abortion from prosecution when an abortion is screwed up and a live birth occurs, rather than simply allowing women to change their mind and have their children murdered a few days after birth.

There's probably a secondary intent - which will be the one they claim is the primary intent - to allow children who are born with undetected birth defects to also be killed.

Mind you, this doesn't make the law any less evil, but knowing a person's motives/reasoning is just as important as having your own ducks in a row when discussing/debating something with them.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Ok first off....

Thanks for bringing me up to speed on this i might have to do my own research here...not becouse I don't belive you, but brcouse I find the existence of that to be so horrible I NEED it to be right wing propaganda.

Secondly

FUCKING EWWW DX I don't support violence but CHRIST if thus shits real I can understand the mentality behind violent anti abortion activists

Cigarskunk

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I'm not a liberal so I am 110% kewl with folks doing their own research and confirming their own facts - please doubt me and everyone else, then confirm for yourself.

I understand where you're coming from about it being too horrible - I had done a journal before the great IB purge of non-liberals noting how people find it so difficult to accept that there truly are evil people in the world of that caliber.

Ironically enough, it's an empathy problem - empathy being the ability to understand that other people have different tastes, wants needs and desired from yourself.

Non-liberals can empathize with others to a certain degree but eventually the wants, needs, desires and motivations of someone they encounter are so extreme that they are simply incapable of relating to and understand where that person is coming from.

So while I can understand why, say, someone might think vixens are cuter than skunkets, I simply can't understand the vore fetish because the concept of cannibalism as a fetish is too far out of my box.

Evil is no different - we can understand some evil but eventually we come across evil which is just too evil for us to grasp as normal, sane and moral people.

That someone would pass a law legalizing the murder of children who survived abortions to protect those who perform abortions from murder charges is clearly a horror that is outside your box.

That's not an insult - be happy you can't imagine evil like that - I couldn't imagine and didn't want to accept it either, but then again, thinking about the actual process of a partial birth abortion, I can't imagine what sort of person could murder a baby in such a manner.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

im being Hyperbolic somewhat I very much CAN imagine that level of evil... I just REALY fucking dont want to!

and i absolutely understand were your comeing from about differents tastes wants and needs and the ability to understand them.

I mean..

There are people out there who think rabbits are NOT the most adorable things on the planet... I mean the fucking cheek!

Cigarskunk

1 year, 11 months ago

link

"	KevinSnowpaw wrote:
	im being Hyperbolic somewhat I very much CAN imagine that level of evil... I just REALY fucking dont want to!

I understand and I'm fully with you on that as I see evil of such magnitude sometimes and really wish that it was fake news, propaganda or a wild conspiracy theory.

But it isn't...

"	and i absolutely understand were your comeing from about differents tastes wants and needs and the ability to understand them. I mean.. There are people out there who think rabbits are NOT the most adorable things on the planet... I mean the fucking cheek!

I fully agree as I'm with Sam Gamgee on rabbits -

"	“What a hobbit needs with a coney,” he said to himself, “is some herbs and roots, especially taters—not to mention bread. Herbs we can manage, seemingly…a few bay leaves, some thyme and sage will do—before the water boils.”

Just teasing - bunny babes are definitely cute.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I strongly agree with overturning Roe V. Wade but strongly disagree with the specific details of the way they're doing it, and in particular the fact that Texas basically legalized vigilantism, and the line in the draft of the SCOTUS opinion that said that Americans have no right to privacy

LongTom

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Right to privacy? A family friend of ours told us years ago that privacy is an illusion.

Think I'm kidding? People want to find out about you, they will. They don't need to look in your sock drawer. They can see where you come from and where you go, and when, what you carry, who you talk to. In WW2, the Allies could tell Japanese military activities simply by seeing what kind of ships went where. They didn't even need to rely on any spies.

Jack

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Every time Roarey posts a journal it just turns into an echo chamber of conservative morons. Can you stop sharing your garbage thoughts and go back to just posting porn? Christ.

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

No. Try having the maturity to avoid things you don't like instead of expecting others to suppress who they are and how they feel for your comfort. Fucking prick.

DiogenesShandor

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

Hey. I'm here too. I oppose abortion and I'm a socialist atheist whose anti-abortion stance is based on total contempt for traditional values. Abortion seems a lot less important once you realize that there's nothing forcing you to make lifestyle changes during the pregnancy and nothing stopping you from giving the child up for adoption once it is born. There's thousands of gay couples out there looking to adopt kids; if you don't want to take care of a child they're waiting right there in the wings to do it for you

Vexio

1 year, 11 months ago

link

If you don't like it being an echo chamber, then speak up and make your case. Bitching and moaning about it just makes you a fucking wanker.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

here here!

Bachri

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

If you don't want it to be an echo chamber, make a counter-point. If that counter-point has any merit to it, it'll be talked about.

Insulting everybody in the room that you happen to disagree with is more than likely to get you thrown out, and congratulations, that's what creates echo chambers. But hey, considering you decided to open with insults, I'm going to respond in kind and say that it's for the better anyway that it went this way, because you leftoid fucks are all enemies of humanity; fuck off.

LongTom

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Nobody is asking you to post here or even read opinions you don't like. We don't like poo flingers like you.

Snorbingle

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Stop clicking on the links if you recognize the pattern.

Discord8000

1 year, 11 months ago

link

https://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ayn_Rand_Abortion.htm

Thought it might be a good idea to post this here, a couple of quotes from Ayn Rand on the topic of abortion

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

@ Discord8000

I don't think it matters who says an argument or makes a point, but rather what is being said. Those quotes are awful, in that they set up a case for taking something fundamental to our existence, one of the greatest and most beautiful things people can do, and removing it from the moral sphere. I don't think our societies have much of an ethical future if we can define our unborn in sterile, clinical terms laced with bitter invective like "protoplasm" or "parasite".

Discord8000

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I'm sorry if it's upsetting for you but pregnancy isn't a guarantee. Miscarriages happen too and I sympathize with every person who feels sad when that happens, but I still stand by the right to an abortion if one needs or so chooses it

https://youtu.be/4196WvmEcYM?t=203

Perhaps these words instead?

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

Wrong post

bbbuuu

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Omg, you like Razorfist too?! That's awesome XD more people should watch his stuff, he's great.

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

@ bbbuuu

He is yeah XP.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

@ bbbuuu

Pro Razer Force!

joemama10101

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Oooh, Roarey, you like Razorfist too? Glad to hear.

I recently had a few IRL friends ban me from their servers and block me on social media because I disagreed with their stances on abortion. I don't like killing kids. According to them, I 'hate women having a choice' - I mean, I hate anyone having a choice, if that choice is 'hey, let's kill babies' so that's a load of shit.

alistair

1 year, 11 months ago

link

@ joemama10101

Ain't it fun learning people you thought were friends are actually just ambulatory ideologies who will exile you the instant you gainsay them? I think it's fun. (No, I don't. It's very sad.)

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

@ joemama10101

Yeah I like Razor a lot, and indeed, many people have left my life over the years due to my opinions. Ah well XP.

Sendel

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Pro life logic: Dont abort babies you never know who they might grow up to be...

Ted Bundy, Jeff Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Trump, Putin....

LongTom

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Ever heard the Beethoven story?

Sendel

1 year, 11 months ago

link

@ LongTom

lol So?

LongTom

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Is that a yes? Because a baby can grow up to be anybody. Even with good or bad parents.

CoffeehoundJoe

1 year, 11 months ago

link

@ LongTom

You missed the point entirely. The overwhelming majority of babies (well over 99.9%) should be aborted because:
1) the planet cannot sustain the number of humans currently residing on its surface;
2) most babies grow up to be functionally (and otherwise) illiterate sheeple shills like yourself who contribute nothing to society.
So give me one good reason why abortion shouldn't be mandatory for all pregnant women (and no, generalizations and blanket statements don't count!).

CaptainKenmason

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

>most babies grow up to be functionally (and otherwise) illiterate sheeple shills
>generalizations and blanket statements don't count

ingot grade irony.
not that i'd expect much else.

LongTom

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Because sometimes they crawl back out of the toilet, which is your story.

Bachri

1 year, 11 months ago

link

@Sendel
https://inkbunny.net/j/451768#commentid_2471246

Since I can only assume you've blocked me- as I am unable to respond to this comment, nor any of your comments, directly- I am going to respond in this manner.

"	So if a woman or teenage girl is like raped by her FATHER or BROTHER she should be forced to give birth to the little inbred mutant? THAT is what you are saying right?

Not only are you objectively wrong about what I've said, you have reached this conclusion through a massive strawman. Let's take a look at what I've said.

"	As far as I'm concerned, if you choose to have sex, you choose to accept the consequences of having sex.

"	That responsibility belongs to the parents who chose to create a child.

"	When you choose to have sex, you choose to take an informed risk. Therefore, you choose the consequences of that risk.

I'm going to need you to tell me how insisting that people accept the consequences of their choices equates to justifying rape, which is inherently not a chosen action. Please, I really am curious. How does insisting that people should have a choice equal forcing women to accept the consequences of something they did not choose?

"	People need to get the fuck over their so called morals, cause they are a point of view nothing more.

Sure. And your point of view is wrong.

"	Why I bet you are just fine with it when pregnant women and their unborn babies from enemy nations are killed by US bombings (1945 ring any bells in that empty head of yours?) cause lol they shouldn't have chosen to be born not in the United corporations of Murica

Irrelevant.

KevinSnowpaw

1 year, 11 months ago

link

He commented at a few of us then I assume blocked us all so we couldn't reply..this invalidates his opinion entirely lol. Its not like we wouldent have gladly discussed it with him. Several of his assumptions about my position are wrong for example though something tells me he doesn't really care...he just wants to cry nazis sob into his hands and shit in his diaper...children are not allowed on this site I wonder if hes aware of this rule?

CoffeehoundJoe

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I need to vent something, and, spoiler alert, this will no doubt make a lot of people feel really uncomfortable. I know this is in really bad taste (to say the very least!), but today I was thinking of drawing a picture of an angry pregnant woman raising her fist and wearing a dress with the words "Make Abortion Mandatory Again" (ironically spelling "MAMA") written on it. I know, cringy and edgy, especially given today's political climate and most especially seeing as today is Mother's Day, but it was extremely tempting for me to draw and upload, even though I did neither.
I will always regret that my own mother chose not to abort me. What do you think?

Cigarskunk

1 year, 11 months ago

link

"	I will always regret that my own mother chose not to abort me. What do you think?

The fact that you haven't corrected what you view to be a mistake on her part tells us you aren't sincere.

CoffeehoundJoe

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Whatever.

Cigarskunk

1 year, 11 months ago

link

You asked - don't get grumpy when folks answer.

CoffeehoundJoe

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Also, weren't you banned for violating fA's policies against threatening people and shit?
https://www.furaffinity.net/journal/9776163/

CaptainKenmason

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

CS was banned for posting too many anti-leftard journals, dumbfuck

CoffeehoundJoe

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

Care to prove it, or are you just going to mindlessly parrot conspiracy theories as usual?

CaptainKenmason

1 year, 11 months ago

link

care to get off your candy ass and point out where the journal you linked said anything about "muH thReAts"?

CaptainKenmason

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

...so i'll take that as a solid 'no'.

you're just chucking baseless dogshit like you do anytime you show up to flap your hands about politics. kindly fuck all the way off and maybe learn to keep your emo bitch promises if you aren't going to make half a brain cell's effort to learn why you're wrong.

NilsAllershausen

2 months, 2 weeks ago

link

Exactly. They (FA) hate when someone disagrees

Cigarskunk

1 year, 11 months ago

link

No, I was banned because the open minded and tolerant folks were too close minded and intolerant to handle different opinions.

What does that have to do with you hating your mother though?

Sendel

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Alot of you should have been aborted by your parents.

Cigarskunk

1 year, 11 months ago

link

As with everything else liberals support, they only want others - not them - to be subjected to it

Some animals are more equal than others.

CoffeehoundJoe

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I should have been aborted too. Make Abortion Mandatory Again (MAMA)!

cremep0pz

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Ah, so you're a pro-lifer. I don't know what I expected; "better", perhaps. I don't want to say it's disappointing, but...it's disappointing.

Bachri

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Ah, so you're a pro-killer. I don't know what I expected; "sane," perhaps. I don't want to say it's disappointing, but... it's murder.

cremep0pz

1 year, 11 months ago

link

lol good one

Bachri

1 year, 11 months ago

link

It's not a joke. It's an attempt to make you understand that what you've said has no value to it. Anybody can say what you've said with some key words being replaced and it has the exact same value in a conversation: None at all.

cremep0pz

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Sure, call it what you want. I'm not looking for a debate; this man goes on these rants like every few weeks, so I comment in hopes that it may show that such rants are not good for him.

Bachri

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

Of course you're not here for a debate, you're here only to talk down to people. Nothing more. You would be here for a debate were you capable of holding an opposing opinion that had any legitimate merit, but as it stands, since the opinions you do hold lack that merit, all you can do is get angry that someone you disagree with speaks their mind and attempt to belittle them for doing so with no intent on holding reasonable debate.

We know your tricks.

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Good. It is a moral imperative to be disliked by leftists.

cremep0pz

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I'll say this every time: i don't dislike you. you are very much a competent artist, but you're not quite well-respected, and for good reason. Your whole schtick is to toss out right-wing talking points just to get left-leaning folks to respond, in order to respond yourself with some pseudo-intellectual prattle and then—as the kids are saying these days—"thinking you ate". People don't generally think poorly of you because of your political views, it's because of your attitude.
Thus the disappointment I express is less of dislike, and more of pity. I still do indeed see the good in you, but time and again you choose the path of outrage and instigation.
This can't be good for your mental health. I very much encourage you to look after yourself; if it's at all possible to do so while also expressing conservative viewpoints, then I'd say go for it.

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

What you call talking points are facts. You'll notice the people who accept those facts like my attitude. So no, this is not about me, with your fucking ad hominem tripe, this is about what is said. I'm only nasty to people who fuck with me or try to emotionally manipulate me, using my mental health to eat into my content. Like you're doing, you revolting little shit.

cremep0pz

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Oop, see, there you go again already. I didn't even detail my own viewpoints; I just expressed concern, and then you interpreted that as an attack.

All these other niggas who "accept those facts"? They're sycophants. You only see it as "support" because they happen to share several opinions with you. You've created this echo chamber in which you can never be incorrect on a topic, so whenever someone well-intended is even the slightest bit left-leaning, you malfunction and immediately go on the defensive. It reminds me of that line from Marriage Story: "You’re so merged with your own selfishness, you don’t even identify it as selfishness anymore".

I don't even think you actually read my comments carefully; you probably just scan over them to cherry-pick that which does not align with your viewpoint. If this were not true, then you might actually have made an attempt to understand the points I'm trying to get across. I don't come here to argue, I come here to offer a unique perspective, something you are very much in need of.

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Not interested in communicating with manipulative people.

Bachri

1 year, 11 months ago

link

"	All these other niggas

Oh my, how edgy. Well, thank you for proving my point in another comment line.

"	all you can do is get angry that someone you disagree with speaks their mind and attempt to belittle them for doing so

ZwolfJareAlt306

1 year, 11 months ago

link

So you’re in favor of free speech until someone says something you don’t like?

cremep0pz

1 year, 11 months ago

link

@ ZwolfJareAlt306

Incorrect.

ZwolfJareAlt306

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Then what?

JunkBox

1 year, 11 months ago

link

I still wonder where my position, Pro-contraception, falls in this argument.

https://youtu.be/yI5_t8jzfCM

moyomongoose

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

Footage 6:41 on the video...Perjury is a felony.

soopakoopa99

1 year, 11 months ago

link

https://youtu.be/hzUGFXKj7hM

this sums up what i think. people also have a right to have sex, and to have sex using protection, and contraception, and if those precautions happen to fail, they have a right to an abortion. like it or not, abortion rights are womens rights.

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Ha, therein lies the rub. It isn't women's rights, it's the rights of the child growing inside them. And "like it or not"? Yeah, that's not an argument but a statement of ones stance. The feeling is mutual, so "like it or not" women shouldn't have the right to kill.

soopakoopa99

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

except, it isn't killing when its done before the first trimester when the fetus is just a lump of lifeless cells, which is when 99% of abortions are performed, NOT a fully formed baby.

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link

That is merely a point of perspective, but in any case present pro-choice campaigns and proposed bills want to extend the time limit at which termination is acceptable. Then there is the morally bankrupt perspective that views the unborn as parasites in their mothers' wombs, entirely dependent upon the mothers' personal perspective. It is not conducive to healthy ethics and societal development to consider the most vulnerable of us as expendable depending on mood. Nor is it promoting healthy values that promote humanity and our betterment to consider abortion as a form of contraception, so a life is snuffed out because the parents couldn't be bothered having sex with all the various forms of contraceptives that exist. You can get technical if you like, but human beings are not logic-machines, we are more complex than that, and perspective matters a great deal. I have been pro-choice all my life until the past few years, because I have watched people become more and more misanthropic, viewing the yet to be born as interlopers, viewed with hatred and contempt, because they dare to exist inside their mothers.

Abortion, in my view, doesn't need to be illegal, but it DOES need to come with stigma, it does need to be taken seriously, so abortions should be rare. I know a nurse who works in abortion clinics and I've known for years from multiple sources that there are huge numbers of women out there who have many abortions just because they prefer sex without condoms. This is morally sick. Until pro-choice starts becoming pro-humanity as well, their desires and demands are to be resisted. This isn't a simple matter of whether abortion should be legal or not, but to what degree and under what circumstances it should be acceptable.

soopakoopa99

1 year, 11 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 11 months ago by Owner

the claim that anyone looks at fetuses, or babies with disgust, and contempt is pure emotionally driven opinion. no one i have ever known looks at unborn babies in such a way. pro-choicers like myself want abortion to be as rare as possible, that is why pro-choicers push for the wider availability of contraception, condoms, and education. but in the events that woman, or a teen girl, or younger is raped, and gets pregnant, she should have the readily available option to get an abortion. but we also understand that science has determined that a fetus that is 15 weeks old or less is not a baby, or even alive, and thus does not feel pain, so it better to just give all women the right to an abortion on demand. but republicans want to ban abortion in all cases, and the corporate wing of the democratic party is indifferent, and won't fight for anything. and i can't stress enough how important it is for new mothers and fathers to get assistance from the government to raise a child, whether or not they wanted to be a parent before hand. there are plenty of people who want kids, and tried to prepare, and yet still struggle to raise the child. that is why ALL parents should get government support for newborns, because to think otherwise is just ludicrous.

RoareyRaccoon

1 year, 11 months ago

link