I was just wondering, how many people would accept it if someone's life depended on your life, if they were hooked to you and sucking off your food and air and you had to carry them around with you to do anything or get anywhere or they would die?
I think you'd be willing to abort them in 10 minutes.
Abortion should be the woman's decision.
or are they anti war, or anti death penalty.
the funniest thing was all those US cardinals who denounced Biden, have support pro war pro death penalty republicans. hypocrites as usual
It's no wonder Americans are so psychologically traumatized ... all we hear are lies and nonsense, we never get close to anything truthful or real.
shareits a lot of things. but as a person from another countries and me being on the left, even the right wingers here laugh in embarrassment at American republicans, whether its on guns or abortion or vaccine conspiracies
shareHey don't you have enough problems with your PM in blackface then coming on an American board acting like you know the answers to life. Worry about the dictatorship in Canada. So fucking ball players can't play without a vax. Yet it's been proven it doesn't matter. Guess the Great North doesn't follow science any longer. Try and stay warm this winter with your green deal.
sharePeople believe in their own truth and lies these days. There is on consensus or baseline on truth anymore. You can tell people to research and make their own decisions but in the end, their bias will sink it sooner or later. This is why censorship is a powerful tool to control the people and have them stick to one thought and it works well, like in China and Russia. In the end if and when we eventually go to war with one of them, we'll see which method truly is better although I think Western Democracy will switch to censorship as well to fight the propaganda from them just like they did during WW2.
share> This is why censorship is a powerful tool to control the people and have them stick to one thought and it works well, like in China and Russia.
American brand of brainwashing is working quite well, in fact better than China and Russia.
In China and Russia they are concerned with covert operations like the US employed in Ukraine to coup the government and set up provocations to poke Russia. Because of US covert CIA operations any country not under the thumb of US, has to devote major resources to security and most are driven to repression. There is a long historical list.
In this Ukraine war I've never seen anything like the censorship and manipulations by the government through private industry before. It is a horrible development, so I agree with you.
> Western Democracy will switch to censorship as well to fight the propaganda from them just like they did during WW2.
Where we differ is that the US is not preventing propaganda from Russia or China ... it is preventing actual reporting from Americans and other Westerners on the war in Ukraine. Good reading on this is at Consortium News.
A good example is the banning of Scott Ritter from Twitter. ( hey that rhymes ) Scott was a marginal player with his little Twitter channel until the war on Ukraine where he had a lot of commentary, and as soon as he hit a certain level of followers Twitter banned him - without a reason. He explains that in a video on Consortium News.
And not only do we now ban people before they can be informatically infectious, we pay others like we do drone operators, to coordinate and operate sock puppets to manipulate public opinion ... as we have done in the third world to bring about revolutions.
The fact is that Russia and China propaganda is understood in those countries. People know they are getting the whole story, but they have some faith in their governments, deserved or not, because of improvements in their lives. That's more in China than Russia, but with Russia too since Putin throwing our the oligarchs and bringing them under control.
They systems are all a bit different, but they have to accomplish the same thing in every country, maintaining order and loyalty to the government. It's ugly, and even uglier here because Americans don't really see it, or they do not know how to analyze it or react to it.
All countries just want their citizens to work hard, produce, pay taxes and support their governments, and will make that happen one way or the other.
> In the end if and when we eventually go to war with one of them, we'll see which method truly is better
I don't really get why war would be the determinant of which system is better? Clearly the US system does not serve Americans any more, and is mostly focused on repressing our own people's economic yearnings and demand for equality. Something that Russians or Chinese would not really do. The difference as I said before is that Russia and China are both showing results for their people while the US is "3rd-worldizing" its people, while still accelerating economic benefits to the rich and powerful.
why do libturds wanna kill little innocent babies while protecting the rights of the worst death row criminals?!?
sharea clump of 5 cells is a baby? when are we charging you for murder for shaving?
shareif the cells have a new set of dna it is a new human. life starts at inception regardless of what u evil baby killing monsters think
shareagain so it isnt a "baby". is it a toddler? hahah do I have the right to use your body if my kidneys fail?
sharebaby means little human. abortion is murder.
share"baby means little human"
damn that sounds like a Merriam Webster definition and def not dumb as fuck.
oh wait heres the definition!
"a very young child, especially one newly or recently born"
try not to make it so easy.
again do I have the right to use your body clown if my kidneys fail, without your consent? not letting me use your kidneys and body as a host is murder right?
shove ur libturd dictionary up ur ass bozo. if ur pro abortion ur pro murder not pro choice
shareyaa its upsetting when I use the correct usage of words. and your definition sounds like a small kid wrote it.
so again little pussy. man up. do I have the right to use your kidneys?
using the libturd approved definition doesnt make it "correct", idk what the fuck ur talking about with all this kidney shit?!?
shareMerriam websters a libturd source? are you this fucking stupid?
if you cant see where im going with the kidney thing you may be retarded. so again, do I have the right to use your body and organs to sustain my life without your consent?
And this is what passes for "logic" in the liberal world.
Abortion doesn't have a damned thing to do with women's rights. Women do not have the right to murder their unborn children because it's less inconvenient.
> Abortion doesn't have a damned thing to do with women's rights.
And that is true because imperious dictatorial commands are what passes for discussion in the Conservative world. And if you disagree, you get yelled down until the guns come out. FUAH
Dead babies, plain and simple.
shareDef. "Baby" - very young child, especially recently or newly born.
So, not, not a dead baby.
What seems plain and simple to you is ignorance, lying and being a troll.
It's always interesting how liberals rationalize and justify killing babies. Never effective but interesting.
shareIt's not a baby, but I'll grant you it is smarter than you.
shareIt is a baby, regardless of what mental gymnastics you're able to perform to convince yourself that it's not true. Dead babies. Not cool.
shareIf you call realizing that a clump of cells is not a baby mental gymnastics you are severely mentally impaired.
shareYou're a clump of cells, like that dump I just took.
shareSo, by your own values you admitted to murder.
Just one thing to notice ... Republicans simply cannot engage in a civil discussion, they always are insulting, lying, obscene or just plain ugly. They think talking about a dump they just took is an argument against abortion. You people disgust me.
Did you really just say that with a straight face? Nice deflection. Failed but nice try.
shareI support abortion rights. But your description of a woman's potential child growing in her womb just goes against all of nature and humanity. I also doubt most women who have abortions feel that way about the fetus.
C'mon, it's a natural process which goes along with life itself.
I would agree with you, but I am not trying to portray the situation fully or from the mother's point of view. The only issue here is why does certain people and our government being taken over and forced to push this action on women. Personally, I don't think it is something that is driven by women, I think there are women ringmasters, put out there by men for a male agenda. There is no reason to have a massive total ban on all abortions and criminalizing them as well ... that is Draconian, and it originates, in my opinion, from something far sinister rather than a reasoned concern and balance for life against personal rights.
shareAnd so what is it?
Again, I just don't believe it's any of my business, or within the government's jurisdiction, to tell a woman she must keep a fetus in her womb if she doesn't want it there.
But I do understand those who oppose abortion. They see it as a human entity, which it is, and they grant a right to life to anything human. We were all once fetuses. It's not as if we are talking about something alien to us. We've all been there. We all started out as a zygote in a womb.
I'm not sure what is this male agenda to ban abortion. Is the Pope against abortion because he wants to control women? I'm not so sure the Vatican or some Protestant fundamentalist only oppose abortion because they want to control women.
And even if we accept that the Christian hierarchy is some draconian force, what about the men who run Russia and run China? They're not exactly nice guys. And they support abortion. And China took it even further. They forced women to have abortions.
So you have a Pope who tells women they cannot have an abortion. And you have a Chinese dictator who tells women they must have an abortion.
What's the sinister force and what is its motive?
> They see it as a human entity
I disagree with that, and anyone who says they believe that in an unqualified way is an idiot that no one should pay any attention to. If you want to give credence to someone who says that the second an egg is fertilized it is a human being, that's your business. You say it's not, but then you argue the extreme pro-life side. I'm not interesting in bickering or jousting with you when you support a position you say you don't believe in.
What we see in today's anti-abortion insanity is nothing reasoned or reasonable, therefore it is not motivated by anything reasonable.
My feeling it is motivated by a desire to turn back society by beginning with disempowering women, ie. Conservatism gone berserk.
Notice that I didn't say it's a human being. But it's human by species. That's all I'm saying. It's not canine. It's not feline. It's not reptilian. I understand those who oppose abortion because they don't want to kill anything human. I don't believe it's a baby. It's not self aware. But it's Homo sapiens.
If they say a fetus is a baby, they're idiots. But if they say it's human and we can't kill it, I disagree. But I respect their position.
> If they say a fetus is a baby, they're idiots.
Well, wrong anyway.
> But if they say it's human and we can't kill it, I disagree.
Human in this context can have lots of meanings. A baby born without a brain is human, so I strongly disagree, and anyone who supports this reasoning loses the ability to be taken seriously on anything by me anyway.
> But I respect their position.
I don't and cannot respect willful ignorance.
Human in this context can have lots of meanings. A baby born without a brain is human, so I strongly disagree, and anyone who supports this reasoning loses the ability to be taken seriously on anything by me anyway.
Okay, if you want to fine tune it. I respect those who believe a fetus which will grown into a viable human being has a right to life.
But in my opinion the right of a woman to control her womb trumps viable potential human life.
My point here is people can agree to disagree on abortion and neither side is sinister or Draconian.
We agree on your first comment, but
> My point here is people can agree to disagree on abortion and neither side is sinister or Draconian.
This is confused. There are indeed sinister and draconian actors in this policy operation, I proved it above if you'd been reading for comprehension, or maybe you just missed it or didn't argue it.
There are good people who oppose abortion. It's silly and counterproductive to always paint the other side as monsters.
shareI don't believe there are good people who support this extremist abortion legislation. If there are they are misguided. Anyone who supports an undemocratic change like this, rammed through by stacking the supreme court without regard to where the public stands on an issue is certainly not a good citizen.
Someone very close to me has 9 children, and she does not believe in abortion because she believes an embryo is her potential child. She is a good person. She endured much pain and inconvenience to carry 9 children because she does not believe in abortion.
Both sides become politically polarized and lose site of each others humanity. I support abortion rights but I believe it's bullshit to vilify all those who disagree with you.
> Someone very close to me has 9 children, and she does not believe in abortion because she believes an embryo is her potential child. She is a good person.
She "seems" like a good person, like Typhoid Mary probably seemed like a good person, but when you add up the sum effects of her life, that would not be my opinion. If she has the time, money and intelligence to raise 9 children, that's good, but I still it is majorly selfish, and also YOU CANNOT USE ONE SINGLE PERSON/EXAMPLE TO PROVE A GENERALITY.
I also don't feel like I am "vilifying" anyone, I am just being honest about how I view the effects of their actions ... after all that's what makes up our world - the sum of people's actions.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” -- Edmund Burke
When good people are stymied, or do nothing, like Americans who have allowed our system to become corrupt and broken you get the triumph of evil ... i.e Trump. It grows like a cancer until the only thing that can end it is its own destruction of itself. That does not make any particular person evil, but some are.
> Both sides become politically polarized and lose site of each others humanity.
I don't know how old you are, or when or why you framed your political point of view, but Conservatives/Republicans/Elites have never had a vision of the vast American citizenry has being human. After all, aside form the party switch with Lincoln, it's been the elites that supported genocide, slavery, inequality, and have morphed into a money driven army of think tanks that feed media, also owned by the same elites, their propaganda messages that justify dehumanizing people.
It is not equal, in order to maintain power elites must stomp on a growing number of people in order to prevent them from demanding change and to economically exploit them.
I was just wondering, how many people would accept it if someone's life depended on your life, if they were hooked to you and sucking off your food and air and you had to carry them around with you to do anything or get anywhere or they would die?
I think you'd be willing to abort them in 10 minutes.
I'm about as pro-life as "don't use elective surgery as a form of birth control".
Personal
Fucking
Responsibility
Don't want a baby, keep your pants on....both parties.
Life begins at conception. If we can call a micro protozoa on Mars "Life"....then a fetus is also a "life".
Not good at dealing with reality, you'd rather live in the Fuhrer fantasies in your head, where logic fears to tread.
shareIf we're talking about the rare example where rape results in pregnancy, I'm 100% in favour of abortion. However your example implies that the woman who got pregnant is unaware how it happened.
share> your example implies that the woman who got pregnant is unaware how it happened.
That is your own mental association, not any implication of anything I said.
But, your first comment about rape, or I suppose incest results in pregnancy shows you are at least slightly more reasonable than your fellow right-wing wing nuts.
OK, so how about this. There is a test that can determine by looking at fetal cells whether a baby is mentally viable of not. Like Mongoloid, or Down's Syndrome and will have to be taken care of all her life. Do you think abortion should be available to parents, or a single parent who does not have the mental or economic resources to care for a child like that?
Just to remove the suspense, I do.
The broader point being that there are a lot of reasonable reasons to get an abortion and for society to make it legal, and the mindless claim that it is sacred human life that is murder if destroyed is insane.
For example ... a science fictiony example. Say a virus comes about that affects fetuses and rots their brains out before they are born. Through medical tests they can determine whether any one baby will be affected, but it is a world-wide pandemic and 30% or so, or any percentage number are being affected, and are totally useless to themselves or society. Do you allow abortion in that case?
That is your own mental association, not any implication of anything I said.
you are at least slightly more reasonable than your fellow right-wing wing nuts.
There is a test that can determine by looking at fetal cells whether a baby is mentally viable of not. Like Mongoloid, or Down's Syndrome and will have to be taken care of all her life. Do you think abortion should be available to parents, or a single parent who does not have the mental or economic resources to care for a child like that?
For example ... a science fictiony example. Say a virus comes about that affects fetuses and rots their brains out before they are born. Through medical tests they can determine whether any one baby will be affected, but it is a world-wide pandemic and 30% or so, or any percentage number are being affected, and are totally useless to themselves or society. Do you allow abortion in that case?
> Me being right-wing is your own mental association, not any implication of anything I said.
Your claim is noted, but I am extremely skeptical. At the least there is some right wing inconsistencies in your ideas.
> You said: "would accept it if someone's life depended on your life, if they were hooked to you and sucking off your food". Unless it's rape, they knew the consequences of having sex whether by carelessness or accident.
You, here, for instance are using the primitive right-wing device of lumping everyone into one of your preconceived categories to vilify all. This is unacceptable to intelligent people because it is so easily differentiated, broke down and disproven.
Not all people know the consequences of having sex. A lot of women are on birth control which fails - so the willful act or "what" what is it you are even accusing these people of doing ... creating a person willfully so they can murder them? Something really wrong with your thinking - I just think you say that shit for negative attention.
> But why would anyone want to abort a baby just because they're disabled?
Again dishonest. Not disabled, though if I knew in advance I would want to abort a child that was disabled ... you are using rhetorical BS trickery to lump everyone into a single category of disabled. You people are just mentally incompetent.
My specific example of a baby born without a brain, or lots of other conditions ... if there is one condition that justified abortion to someone, then the absurdity of all anti-abortion extremist who want to outlaw abortion is proven to not be about the sanctity of life - it is something else. Mostly in the case of your undeclared right wingers it is more tricks to own the libs, what you live for.
At the least there is some right wing inconsistencies in your ideas.
You, here, for instance are using the primitive right-wing device of lumping everyone into one of your preconceived categories to vilify all.
Not all people know the consequences of having sex. A lot of women are on birth control which fails
Not disabled, though if I knew in advance I would want to abort a child that was disabled
My specific example of a baby born without a brain, or lots of other conditions ... if there is one condition that justified abortion to someone,
> Yeah, it's called being in the middle.
Your claim does not match my perception of your writings.
> Do you think you're aware that birth control can fail, but women aren't?
So does that mean you think that women should never have sex, ever, or be prepared to accept unconditional state mandated motherhood?
> So you personally don't think a disabled child is worth having?
I'll tell you why you are an asshole, because you spend a big portion of your energy trying to deliberately misinterpret people's comments in the most offensive way. Why do you do that instead of just trying to have a normal discussion?
I don't think you understand how communication and discussion is supposed to work, or you just have a formula given to you or an algorithm about how to fuck up democracy and the marketplace of ideas online.
Your claim does not match my perception of your writings.
So does that mean you think that women should never have sex, ever, or be prepared to accept unconditional state mandated motherhood?
I'll tell you why you are an asshole, because you spend a big portion of your energy trying to deliberately misinterpret people's comments in the most offensive way. Why do you do that instead of just trying to have a normal discussion?
Not all people know the consequences of having sex. A lot of women are on birth control which fails - so the willful act or "what" what is it you are even accusing these people of doing ... creating a person willfully so they can murder them? Something really wrong with your thinking - I just think you say that shit for negative attention.
The fact that you view an unborn child that way confirms that you are truly evil.
share