No evidence, but what is different this time is an actual legal complaint with the IG with a lot of info the public can't see. Grusch's claims are fantastic and sound down right crazy, but his story has stayed the same. Plus with him being an intelligence agent for years with multiple government officials saying he's been trustworthy in the past.
I look at it as either there's some faction if the government that for some reason wants us to believe there's aliens or he's not been fed lies and there's aliens and both are pretty interesting. It also was pretty bipartisan in the hearing, I was pretty surprised to see AOC there instead of just a bunch of right wing war mongerers looking to use it as an excuse to bump military funding a bit more, and she had some great questions for Grusch.
Unfortunately if everything he says is true it would be all classified so we wouldn't hear it yet anyway making it convenient to lie, but why have a legal complaint with the IG if he just wanted to lie for fame? We've seen other UFO grifters make tons of money from people with way less effort. It's far more interesting than the normal UFO stuff just because everything seems to be handled so properly for an absolutely insane claim and either way it's going to be interesting to see what is going on, if we ever do.
If I had to make a wild guess, i think this dude got a hold of a bunch of misinformation that was meant to get to the Soviet’s in order to scare them into behaving in certain ways during the Cold War. It was bullshit built for another audience and somehow he got it handed his way as though it was fact. He isn’t lying, he has bad info and the fact that the info is bad is VERY classified.
Is anyone from the CIA testifying, or is it all defense folks?
Yeah, I probably should be more up to date on what is being said before speculating. Not sure I have the patience but perhaps that means I should just keep my mouth shut.
Sure will be interesting to see where this ends though.
I can save you two hrs (though it is a very interesting hearing). There are basically 3 possible options, given the paper trail/witnesses.
1: There is a massive public/private embezzlement scheme going on, and “off the books” UAP funding is one of the many ways funds are embezzled
2: UAPs are alien craft, past and present, and the US has some forms of these craft (some very old, some shot down or crashed recently) and studies them off the books
3: There is a massive disinformation network that our own auditing got caught up in
All 3 are pretty wild stories, from a government-transparency/constitutional balance of power concern.
Pending evidence review in a SCIF (next hearings), it seems the most likely outcome is #1 or #2, both of which are fucking crazy and worth headlines.
#1 is hardly far fetched. Create an organization in the government with a top secret rating. Divert money. Avoid all questions or fake some answers occasionally. Grift for decades.
So real talk, VISA isn't much better - if you have a business selling tobacco, cannabis, or firearm related products you have a really hard time taking payments online. Most big vendors (like Paypal, Square, etc) won't work with you once you hit $5k to $10k a year in sales (for small businesses starting out you'll slip by for a few months until you grow big enough to get manually audited).
Then you need to find special card processing banks who are approved by VISA to work with tobacco/firearm companies and go through all sorts of review before your store will be approved for processing payments.
And that's just selling hardware like pipes and accessories. I'm not even talking about the raw material itself.
This sucks, but it won't stop anyone, they'll simply switch to another service. I bet VISA's stock will pop tomorrow because of this news if it hasn't already haha
This really isn’t that big of a deal anyways. Just deploy an ATM inside the shop as a courtesy. Bonus points if it’s a nice machine that can give customers amounts in increments as little as $5.
Since your business has cash as it’s main method of payment; it should be fairly simple to keep said ATM stocked up.
This at least would be the cheeky way to get around restrictions.
I highly doubt any sensible dispensary delivers their product! For obvious legal reasons, no, you have to go to their physical location and buy their product physically in-store so that they can make sure you’re:
Not two kids in a trench coat.
Not otherwise forbidden from buying cannabis by state law.
Not all cracked out.
Not buying in bulk amounts so that you can give/sell that good shit out to all your friends
Not a Federal Bikini Inspector or a Constantly Interjecting Asshole working with the Dipshits Eating Assoles who’s sole mission is to ruin everything for everyone
Obeying the laws of the state while buying the goods
Lol I'm not talking about dispensary businesses. I'm talking about online shops selling hardware like glass pipes and stuff. It's dumb, but it affects many small businesses in the USA.
Sadly there is no simple way to install a virtual ATM for payments on an online store
The messed up part is that while you can't do tobacco product sales using Paypal in the USA, if you're outside the USA paypal will totally take your business. As I've been told directly from Paypal's representatives - they want our business, but it's VISA putting down the rules about what merchant services can work with tobacco/firearm/cannabis sales - and there aren't many in the country (Paypal, Square, etc are not on that list).
The hardware isn’t illegal at any level, so it doesn’t really affect headshops. Just dispensaries that sell cannabis itself; because cannabis is still federally outlawed.
The way the dispensaries around me handle it is that they just do a cash withdrawal at the register as if I was using an ATM, so I pay the store in cash and the bank just sees it as getting cash back.
Acknowledging the weather would be start, they don’t even need to acknowledge climate change. Just realize that when it’s over 98 degrees and you plan on a full day of hiking in the wilderness…
Bring a bunch of water and take plenty of breaks in the shade.
Just make informed choices. Want to visit Death Valley! That’s great! It’s a beautiful park worth seeing. But don’t go in the middle of summer, go in fall or winter when the daytime peak temperatures will be much more comfortable.
If you MUST go in the summer, plan ahead. Bring several gallons of water with you per person, plenty of sunscreen, ideally a hat and sunglasses, and lightweight, breathable clothing that won’t trap your sweat and body heat. And on top of that, make sure your car is up to date with maintenance and can comfortably drive when the temperature outside is 110+. To have all bases covered, it would also be worth investing in a satellite phone- not all national parks have cellular coverage. In my experience, cell service is extremely spotty to non-existent inside of national parks.
I think education is important. I think they should force everyone to watch a 10 minute movie about how people die in parks. Make is very graphic to drive the point home. Like those drivers education movies.
I mean; that’s a sure fire way to have it all backfire isn’t it? When someone else tries to replicate it and it doesn’t work? And they all get called out for it being utter bullshit?
What is this absolute garbage take that scientists just making extraordinary claims for “prestige” or whatever? They’ll be laughed out of the profession if they’re intentionally lying in a paper.
Now, it could be that they think they’re on to something only to have it proven false for one reason or another (flawed experiment, incorrect hypothesis, unaccounted factors etc) but that’s more in line with how peer review works - it’s not the claim that makes you famous it’s the proof.
No, obviously not, it clearly states in the Official Rules of Science that only some forms of media are acceptable.
If they’re wrong they’ll be laughing stocks forever like the idiots who tried to have FTL neutrinos.
Let people read this stuff, it’s better than trying to hide it and having every redneck believe we have secret technology the government doesn’t share with you.
This is a preprint published on arXiv.org, which is as reputable as it gets before peer review (so no red flag but standard practice). But I agree that people shouldn’t place hopes in this before it’s been peer reviewed and replicated by independent researchers.
My comment was directed specifically at the parent’s comment about publishing (in general not in a reputable peer reviewed journal which arxiv isnt) being how peer review happens. Arxiv is a preprint server. There is no peer review and while many of the papers there have survived the peer review process, a paper being on that server doesnt really say anything about the quality of that paper. It could be a great paper, it could be garbage or somewhere in between the two extremes. In any case, the hype around this paper is concerning because it has not, as of yet, survived the scrutiny that is demanded by the claims it is making.
I think the question was “what’s the purpose of posting this on Lemmy?” (not arXiv) because that does nothing for peer review but a lot for stirring laypeople’s wild imagination.
I was having a really terrible day yesterday, the overblown hype about this was a bright spot for me. I don’t watch arxiv myself so I am happy to see this stuff.
I think he was found not guilty. Anyone that continues to demonize him should probably step up with more information than came out at the trial before they open their mouths again and ruin a man’s career.
I’m not sure where the first witch hunt came from, but I’d lay it at the feet of social media platforms like Reddit causing an echo chamber that drove it.
The fact that he was abandoned by the studios and the people he worked with said more about them than it does about him.
Even the career is not important, whole life is ruined. Just imagine family and friends all ar least asking about it and some leaving you.
While I agree there should be severe and swift punishment for sexual offences, there should be some punishment for false accusations. I know that sometimes is just not prooved and sometimes it is in legally gray area, so not automatic, but if it can be prooven that someone was intentional lying - then there should be consequences.
While I agree there should be severe and swift punishment for sexual offences, there should be some punishment for false accusations. I know that sometimes is just not prooved and sometimes it is in legally gray area, so not automatic, but if it can be prooven that someone was intentional lying - then there should be consequences.
But we actually have pretty clearly defined legal systems for slander, libel and defamation?
Unfortunately, in most cases, there’s no real-world way to punish false accusation. The bar of proof for that sort of thing is, and should be, extraordinarily high. You pretty much have to have a confession.
Also, charging false accusers has a chilling effect on victims. Think how manipulative abusers are. “See what happened to that chick on the news? Go ahead, call the cops. You got nothin’ you dumb bitch, 'cept maybe a future in a concrete and steel cage. Here’s the phone, I’ll dial for you.”
While I agree there should be severe and swift punishment for sexual offences, there should be some punishment for false accusations.
What are you talking about? There are punishment for false accusations. But that of course has the very same legal requirements of proven beyong reasonable doubt as any other accusation.
And no, just because someone is not proven guilty doesn’t mean that the accusation is false. It literally just means that, the court couldn’t prove the accusation and so couldn’t punish the accused.
Calling it a social media witchunt is a bit trite. A number of people came forward, detailing a history that spanned years. His claims that they were motivated ‘by money’ and painting it as ‘aspiring actors’ when we’re talking a group that includes professionals with their own VERY well established careers also reeks of the rear end of the equine.
Yeah, let's not confuse "not guilty" with "not a creepy old man". The bar for the state taking away your rights based on your activity is fairly high -- as it should be -- but not being able to produce sufficient evidence of acts that don't leave a whole lot of physical evidence behind doesn't make the accusations false.
It just makes them not enough.
And, I'm sorry to everyone out there who seem weirdly motivated to want to believe that accusers are overwhelmingly liars, but his hand-waving away of the accusations was not confidence inspiring.
A verdict in a court of law is based on what is presented, not on what happened. This is what makes it possible for people to commit a crime, and get away with it (or get framed for something that they didn’t do).
This is a question that I do not want you to answer here, but one to ponder:
If your son/nephew/younger was up for a part in a project that was directed by, and starring Kevin Spacey? What weight would you assign to that Not Guilty due to insufficient evidence verdict?
“Where does the judge say that evidence was insufficient for a verdict? I missed that part.”
The primary cause of your confusion is your insistence on missing the point.
“Also, are we going to start questioning every verdict as if any accusation was true, even when proved differently in court?”
Again, missing the point. Who is talking about every verdict, besides yourself? This is Kevin Spacey specific.
Do you believe that not getting convicted means that the accused did not do the thing that they are accused of?
Is it your personal belief that Kevin Spacey is completely harmless with respect to sexual predation? Does your confidence extend far enough that you would have no qualms about a young male relative of yours work on a movie with Kevin Spacey?
Reading you comment I searched for the differences between being “not guilty” and being “innocent” and boy I didn’t know enough about the US justice system. I thought a “not guilty” verdict was the same as “the guy didn’t do it”. I stand corrected, though. Thanks for your input.
Exaggerations like this end up hurting your cause rather than helping it. It shows that you need hyperbole to make your points, which just delegitimizes them. If you just stated things as they are, more people would appreciate your honesty and would be willing to consider your arguments. Banning abortion is authoritarian, harms women, and the bans don’t actually reduce abortion rates per the research. That’s all you need to say to have most people support you.
What else would you call women in this scenario? You’re literally worth less than a non-sentient proto-fetal clump. Even if that clump is going to kill you. Its like giving cancer the right to live and banning any attempts to remove it.
They’re literally forcing women to die. The intended effect isn’t to ban abortion, its part of a concentrated effort from far right christian white nationalists to reduce women to an enforced subservient breeding class. Have you ever paid attention to the rest of the shit these people say? They say loud and clear what they want all the time. They want to take away divorce rights, they want gender roles to become legally enforced in particular with regards to clothing and expression, they oppose women in politics and in the work force, they pathologically shame and degrade women based on perceived promiscuity or perceived lack thereof.
This isn’t a matter of just having people oppose abortion bans. If it was, we wouldn’t be here. If majority public opinion was what mattered, roe v wade would never have been overturned to begin with. Abortion bans are extremely unpopular even with many conservative voters. If you’re poor, you’re just fucked. You have no recourse whatsoever and a lot of people with complicated pregnancies will just die. If you can’t afford the cost of relocating yourself out of a red state then you have nothing. You have no alternative but to try an unsafe method in what is probably going to be a non-clinical setting. And even if you succeed and live you can be tossed in jail for having made a Google search and one family member who calls the police. These are laws meant to kill women. They are meant to cause widespread fear and suffering for women and girls. Legally women and girls are not equal to men, not in bodily autonomy or in health care or in human rights. These laws aren’t simply harming women, they’re murdering them.
And honest to God if someone is dissuaded from being pro women’s rights because they feel that a random person online has made an “exaggeration”, and so choose to instead support laws that murder women - then they’re a misogynist already in league with the fascists pushing these laws. You’re an enemy of women if for absolutely any reason you support a law that’s primary aim is to literally end women’s lives. Its time to stop dabbling in bullshit, the people who write the laws aren’t stupid they are 100% aware of what these laws do. They are aware of how it forces minors who have been r*d to carry pregnancies they are likely to die from. They know, the laws are written specifically so that will happen. There’s no ambiguity, there’s no exaggeration, these are laws written and created with the specific express intent to cause grievous bodily harm to, and outright murder, women.
What else would you call women in this scenario? You’re literally worth less than a non-sentient proto-fetal clump
Worth an equal amount as another human life, you mean?
You perverting the other sides argument doesn’t make you or your argument better, just makes you come off as stupid and lacking any understanding of the issue as a whole.
There is no other human life involved. Or did you forget to read the next thing I said, that it’d be like declaring a tumor a human life and forbidding people from removing them. A proto fetal clump isn’t a person. It’s not a baby. Its not a human. It’s a clump. It has no thoughts, it has no feelings, it is not self aware, it is not an independent organism and is in all senses of the word a parasite. You can screw off if you think that a parasitic tumor has the same worth as a woman, that it has the same worth as a human being. And you’re only proving my point by even trying to justify it.
I perverted not a single fucking thing. These laws result directly, not indirectly but literally directly, in the killing of women and girls. Its murder to deny someone life saving medical care. You’re a sick misogynist if you defend any part of that. And the people who write these laws are not stupid, they’re not unaware, the intention is to result directly in grievous bodily harm and inevitable death of women and girls. Its murder, they know what these laws do. They know these laws don’t prevent abortion, and every single one of them will ship their daughter or their wife down to Mexico to get one if they have to. They won’t hesitate. There is no moral reason for these laws. These laws relegate women to a subservient breeding class deprived of the most basic fundamental human rights.
You’ve already shown who you actually are so ill be perfectly honest I don’t give a fuck what you have to say. I dont fraternize with misogynists, and defending the murder of women and girls unequivocally makes you a misogynist. Nothing you have to say after that has any validity whatsoever.
I believe there is which is why we’re having this debate.
the intention is to result directly in grievous bodily harm and inevitable death of women and girls.
And I believe that what’s in their belly is a whole other person to consider their lives.
There is no moral reason for these laws.
If someone believes that a fetus is essentially the same as my 2 month old niece, wouldn’t there be a moral reason to not want to them?
I understand your argument despite the hostility, I think if you calmly thought about it, you would think that there could be some moral backing, not that you would believe it or anything, simply that you can see how it could be a moral dilemma.
In this case there absolutely was another human life involved- the twin that’s life was at risk because doctors couldn’t abort the fetus that was going to die within hours of birth anyway. You don’t seem to care about that life.
In this case there absolutely was another human life involved- the twin that’s life was at risk because doctors couldn’t abort the fetus that was going to die within hours of birth anyway. You don’t seem to care about that life.
Agreed! There were 3 lives. I wasn’t really talking about this case, more in general.
That user said simply because someones pro-life, that I want to enslave women. That’s not true at all, and I’m just saying that’s strawmanning our argument, that if you understand it, you would think that morally there could be a question.
Once again, and I’m downvoted to shit because people strawman the argument, I understand your side - do you understand my side?
Okay this argument is hypocritical AF. First, your two month old niece isn’t about to risk killing you and then die. Second, if she was going to die without you giving her an organ transplant, do you think it’s okay for the government to force you to do that surgery against your will? What about if it wasn’t your niece? What if you’re 10?
You don’t respect the autonomy of a woman if you believe in forcing decisions on them about their body, hard stop. There is no wiggle room for you to argue that the fetus matters, because you wouldn’t apply that to any other situation in life. Stop acting like it’s the moral choice when it’s literally forcing woman to risk their lives against their will. Those women are already alive, why don’t their rights and lives matter to you?
Okay this argument is hypocritical AF. First, your two month old niece isn’t about to risk killing you and then die. Second, if she was going to die without you giving her an organ transplant, do you think it’s okay for the government to force you to do that surgery against your will? What about if it wasn’t your niece? What if you’re 10?
I’m not arguing in the case that this post is of.
I was simply saying that no, it’s not my goal to enslave women. I just think the fetus is a human life that should be protected.
If you think “The fetus is a human life that should be protected” by the government, my reply would be exactly the same. It’s no different. The government protecting a fetus is the government taking away a woman’s right to her own life and body. Whatever grey areas exist in the debates that have gone on over the decades, this is not grey area. It’s black and white.
If I told you I wanted the government to protect homeless people’s right to live by forcing you to donate blood, I’m putting the homeless person’s rights above yours. If you want the government to force women to literally risk their lives for 9 months you’re putting a pile of cells’s rights above a woman’s. There is no fallacy here, there is no “but what about”, it’s plain and simple. Either you see women as humans with equal rights and value as yourself, or you believe a fetus has more rights than a woman. The only other possibility is you are the type who actually does want the government to force people to donate blood and organs. I met one once, quite the lunatic.
The government protecting a fetus is the government taking away a woman’s right to her own life and body.
One could easily argue that the government letting the woman end the fetus’ life is ruining the fetus’ right to his/her own life and body.
If you want the government to force women to literally risk their lives for 9 months you’re putting a pile of cells’s rights above a woman’s.
the likelihood of a life risking event is fairly rare, and I’m for exceptions to that
Your first sentence says that even if I believe the fetus is a human life that should be protected, your reply would be the same, so why’d you switch your terminology back? You should have said “You’re putting a human life that should be protected above a woman’s” - once again, you try and pull this emotional terminology rather than being consistent.
Either you see women as humans with equal rights and value as yourself, or you believe a fetus has more rights than a woman.
I think all 3 have equal rights, and that none of us should be able to end the life of the others.
The only other possibility is you are the type who actually does want the government to force people to donate blood and organs
I agree, it’s a tough moral dilemma, which makes it hard to have honest conversations about this. That’s the biggest argument on the pro-choices corner, in my opinion. But the fact that it’s the mothers intentional actions that brought the life to the world makes me lean towards the pro-life side. Contraceptives are easily accessible, I’m for policies that make them available freely to all women. I’m for policies that increase sexual education on pregnancies. I’m for increased funding to the adoptive care system along with foster care systems. I’m for policies ensuring proper healthcare for pregnant women.
I wish more republicans will say this - if we want to be pro life - reduce unwanted pregnancies, provide care to pregnant women and fund options for the baby if they want to provide that baby to a more willing family.
One could easily argue that the government letting the woman end the fetus’ life is ruining the fetus’ right to his/her own life and body.
No, not really. Unless you’re going to argue some stranger on the street who needs an organ donated to live is having their rights infringed by the government not forcing you to give them your organs to save them. The only difference is the location of the “human”. Also, regardless, if you are making this argument, then either you’re still saying the fetus has more rights than the woman, or the government shouldn’t intervene because both have equal rights.
Your first sentence says that even if I believe the fetus is a human life that should be protected, your reply would be the same, so why’d you switch your terminology back? You should have said “You’re putting a human life that should be protected above a woman’s” - once again, you try and pull this emotional terminology rather than being consistent.
I don’t believe a fetus is a human. But sure, put the word human there instead, because if your argument is that this unborn human’s life should be protected above a woman’s, you’re still taking away that woman’s rights.
I think all 3 have equal rights, and that none of us should be able to end the life of the others.
The fetus can not live on its own. Saying an abortion is ending the life of the fetus is like saying taking someone off life support is ending their life. While technically true, are you the type of person that would also argue the government should disallow the removal of life support?
But the fact that it’s the mothers intentional actions that brought the life to the world
I’m sorry, but if you honestly think it’s up to a woman whether or not she gets pregnant, you’re incredibly out of touch with reality. Contraceptives aren’t 100% effective. Rape is a thing. Hell, humans make mistakes sometimes. Women don’t just go around getting abortions because they felt like it, it’s not a fun procedure and it’s not without risk. The biggest factor that makes this an irrelevant argument is there is literally no other example of a policy you would support that would infringe on someone’s rights in the same way. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of examples where people put other people’s lives in danger but they still have rights. Why focus on this one specific issue when there are so many others? The only answer is sexism. Not respecting Women’s rights. There are zero implemented policies that would force someone to feed someone else who’s dying, shelter them, donate blood to them, or do anything that would keep them alive. And I doubt you would argue for them if there were.
I wish more republicans will say this - if we want to be pro life - reduce unwanted pregnancies, provide care to pregnant women and fund options for the baby if they want to provide that baby to a more willing family.
This is fine, but what’s not fine is supporting government policies that force the decision on women. Especially blanket ones with no exceptions.
I mean literally. I don’t know how you can sit here and say ‘okay, well someone might believe that it’s a human life in the womb, but absolutely no way in hell could they argue that a woman ending it’s life could be wrong!!’ - if you can’t grasp a basic concept that ending a human life could be considered immoral, we shouldn’t continue this conversation.
I don’t believe a fetus is a human.
Once again - you’re the one that said ‘even if I believe the fetus is a human life that should be protected’ - so I don’t care if you actually believe it or not, you set that up to be the basis of your argument.
because if your argument is that this unborn human’s life should be protected above a woman’s, you’re still taking away that woman’s rights.
My argument is they are equals, and ending either life is something that is a moral question, not an objective answer like you portray it to be.
The fetus can not live on its own. Saying an abortion is ending the life of the fetus is like saying taking someone off life support is ending their life. While technically true, are you the type of person that would also argue the government should disallow the removal of life support?
No, but I think that there should be some sort of consent (generally a medical POA would suffice) necessary to have someone make the decision to remove life support. If you can get a medical POA from the fetus, then I would buy into this argument.
I’m sorry, but if you honestly think it’s up to a woman whether or not she gets pregnant, you’re incredibly out of touch with reality.
It actually is. the vast vast vast majority of adults know that if they have sex, there’s a risk of pregnancy. You know this, right? That’s like me walking up at softball and swinging, hitting the ball and getting pissed because I didn’t know that swinging could end in the possibility of me hitting the ball.
Contraceptives aren’t 100% effective.
99.9% effective for some, and combining contraceptives makes the rates extremely small.
Rape is a thing.
I’m for exceptions in the case of rape.
Hell, humans make mistakes sometimes.
Sure, but that doesn’t give one the right to end another’s life.
Women don’t just go around getting abortions because they felt like it, it’s not a fun procedure and it’s not without risk.
Did I say that?
The biggest factor that makes this an irrelevant argument is there is literally no other example of a policy you would support that would infringe on someone’s rights in the same way. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of examples where people put other people’s lives in danger but they still have rights. Why focus on this one specific issue when there are so many others? The only answer is sexism. Not respecting Women’s rights.
There’s an argument that abortions don’t respect the babies lives, male or female.
There are zero implemented policies that would force someone to feed someone else who’s dying,
If you have 1 year old baby and you don’t feed him and in result they die, do you not think there’s a policy that punishes you for this?
This is fine, but what’s not fine is supporting government policies that force the decision on women.
They didn’t force women to have sex. They didn’t force women to get pregnant. They are simply saying that if a human life is created, that it has inherent value and with such there’s a moral question on whether ending a human life without their consent is wrong.
Especially blanket ones with no exceptions.
I’ve already mentioned multiple times about exceptions. If you want to keep bringing this up, you can. My answer has stayed consistent.
I mean literally. I don’t know how you can sit here and say ‘okay, well someone might believe that it’s a human life in the womb, but absolutely no way in hell could they argue that a woman ending it’s life could be wrong!!’ - if you can’t grasp a basic concept that ending a human life could be considered immoral, we shouldn’t continue this conversation.
I don’t believe a woman aborting a fetus is ending it’s life any more than refusing to feed someone starving on the street. Maybe you could debate that, but it’s so cut and dry to me that it’s just so hard to see the other arguments as compelling.
It actually is. the vast vast vast majority of adults know that if they have sex, there’s a risk of pregnancy. You know this, right? That’s like me walking up at softball and swinging, hitting the ball and getting pissed because I didn’t know that swinging could end in the possibility of me hitting the ball.
Awful analogy. Your intention in softball is to hit the ball. The intention in sex is to follow your human instinct and desire towards pleasure.
99.9% effective for some, and combining contraceptives makes the rates extremely small.
There are 175,000,000+ women in this country. 0.1% of that is 175,000. That’s a lot of women you’re saying intentionally got pregnant.
Did I say that?
You say you believe in having exceptions for specific cases like rape. I’m guessing you would put nonviable pregnancies in there too. The thing is, almost every single abortion performed fits into an exception category. So by arguing in favor of more restrictions, you are indeed saying that.
There’s an argument that abortions don’t respect the babies lives, male or female.
Okay, but that argument isn’t in a vacuum. By forcing the decision, you’re choosing which life you respect more. The baby or the woman carrying. If I truly believed a fetus was a human, I would still say the government doesn’t get to choose who’s rights are more important. Also, as a matter of opinion I would still say the woman who is actually alive and has an actual brain and memories and experience should actually have more rights than the fetus.
If you have 1 year old baby and you don’t feed him and in result they die, do you not think there’s a policy that punishes you for this? Actually good counterpoint I hadn’t thought of. In my opinion it’s still different and a very special case because you’re the legal guardian in that case. If someone drops a baby off at your doorstep and you don’t feed it and it dies, there aren’t legal protections there.
They didn’t force women to have sex. They didn’t force women to get pregnant. They are simply saying that if a human life is created, that it has inherent value and with such there’s a moral question on whether ending a human life without their consent is wrong.
Then why aren’t republicans fighting to stop people pulling the plug on life support? Every day thousands of people who can’t consent are taken off life support because they’re brain dead or because their insurance won’t pay for it any more. Yes, that moral question is valid to ask. What’s not valid is forcing the choice on others based on your own personal beliefs, especially if you acknowledge that the topic is debatable.
I’ve already mentioned multiple times about exceptions. If you want to keep bringing this up, you can. My answer has stayed consistent.
I thought you had, but I couldn’t find it for some reason so I went under the assumption you thought otherwise. Here’s the thing about this though, we already have term limits and restrictions pretty much everywhere. Banning abortions with exceptions is already a won battle. There are so many other issues, the very fact that people care so much about this one particular issue is sexist on its own. No republican is talking about water supply quality, about domestic terrorism, about the atrocities being committed at our borders, homelessness, police brutality, school shootings, veterans being denied healthcare they were promised, companies extorting people with things like insulin prices or healthcare costs in general, climate change, asbestos, literal slavery in our prisons, actual Nazis rallying, the fact that the people died in the insurrection. They’re focused on ruining the lives of women over clumps of cells that don’t even have brains.
I don’t believe a woman aborting a fetus is ending it’s life any more than refusing to feed someone starving on the street.
Wouldn’t it be more akin to feeding your own 2 month old? Do you think parents have an obligation to feed their child?
Awful analogy. Your intention in softball is to hit the ball.
In my scenario, I clearly didn’t.
here are 175,000,000+ women in this country. 0.1% of that is 175,000. That’s a lot of women you’re saying intentionally got pregnant.
The way the %'s work with contraceptives is if someone is consistently sexually active and reasonable pregnancy age. Simply taking a % of total women in the united states is a huge misstep in your calculation. Woman past the age of 40 have 1/6 of the chance of pregnancy as a 30 YO, is it fair to represent the 175m woman as prime pregnancy age? only 65m are between age 15-44. 30% of people haven’t had sex in the last year. So right off the bat, you drop 175m women to some 40m. It would reduce further if you included women who don’t have consistent sexual activity.
If you have a good argument, you don’t need to misrepresent facts.
You say you believe in having exceptions for specific cases like rape. I’m guessing you would put nonviable pregnancies in there too. The thing is, almost every single abortion performed fits into an exception category.
Okay, but that argument isn’t in a vacuum. By forcing the decision, you’re choosing which life you respect more.
Once again, the vast majority of abortions are ‘choosing between the life of the mother and kid’ - it’s simply that the baby is ‘undesirable’ to the mother. I don’t think killing my twin brother simply because I don’t desire him is a morally acceptable situation.
Then why aren’t republicans fighting to stop people pulling the plug on life support?
Because of medical POA’s, or other legally recognizable authority given by the person on life support, to another individual. I’ve given my parents the right to decide what happens to me in such an event. A baby doesn’t given that consent, to my knowledge.
Banning abortions with exceptions is already a won battle.
It’s clearly not. In some states, women can get abortions freely until birth. To some that matters, to me I see it as a states rights issue and they can have that if they’d like.
No republican is talking about…
I agree. there are a billion issues we can talk about and I think they’re too stuck on stuff like abortion and would like them to focus on other problems too. That doesn’t change the fact that me being pro-life doesn’t mean i simply want to enslave women.
I had a whole lot to say, but I’ll just reply to the last point, at this point we’re disagreeing on the same things on repeat anyway.
I agree. there are a billion issues we can talk about and I think they’re too stuck on stuff like abortion and would like them to focus on other problems too. That doesn’t change the fact that me being pro-life doesn’t mean i simply want to enslave women.
I wouldn’t go as far as saying slavery, especially since we do have forced prison labor protected by the constitution. But it is stripping women of many of their rights. I don’t think holding pro-life beliefs is a bad thing, or makes you a bad person. I do think holding the belief that the government should enforce your religious beliefs on others is pretty awful though. I’m making the assumption that it’s religious, because I have never heard of someone thinking a fetus is a human before it has a brain who wasn’t also religious. Apologies if I’m wrong on that. But I firmly, strongly, without a doubt believe that a woman should have the right to make the choice for herself, and that your beliefs shouldn’t prevent her from having her own beliefs, or her doctors from having their own beliefs.
I realized something recently, too. Conservatives aren’t anti-government like they claim they are. They’re anti “not-their-government”. Conservatives don’t care if state governments stomp all over the constitution, they only care if the Federal government does. As a leftist, I don’t want any government stepping on anyone’s rights, state or Federal, and I believe the rights guaranteed by the constitution are above state law.
Dang I’ve had that a few times, it sucks. I thought we actually were getting a bit closer.
I responded to a lot of your points with statistics, and other solid arguments, I don’t thinbk it’s fair to continue a convo at this point where my criticisms to your points are all ignored now (due to a deleted comment, not blaming you), and instead reducing the conversation to that very last subjective point.
Wouldn’t it be more akin to feeding your own 2 month old? Do you think parents have an obligation to feed their child?
I wouldn’t say that, because there’s a guardianship responsibility there. When the choice has been made to have a child, there is legal responsibility.
In my scenario, I clearly didn’t.
I still don’t get the analogy. People have sex to have sex, not to get pregnant. Animals have sex too, and they’re likely unaware of the consequences. It’s natural. It feels good. It brings people closer together. If you’re batting at softball and don’t want to hit the ball, swing somewhere random?
The way the %'s work with contraceptives is if someone is consistently sexually active and reasonable pregnancy age. Simply taking a % of total women in the united states is a huge misstep in your calculation. Woman past the age of 40 have 1/6 of the chance of pregnancy as a 30 YO, is it fair to represent the 175m woman as prime pregnancy age? only 65m are between age 15-44. 30% of people haven’t had sex in the last year. So right off the bat, you drop 175m women to some 40m. It would reduce further if you included women who don’t have consistent sexual activity.
I used simple numbers out of laziness/simplicity. But you’ve also simplified your numbers. The probability applies to every time birth control is used, not just how many people use it. So let’s say it’s 30,000,000 instead of 175,000,000. If all of them had sex with protection exactly once you would be taking away the rights of 30,000 women. Average sex frequency is about once a week, which boosts that number to 1,560,000. Let’s say the average is heavily skewed, cut the number in half, every year you’re taking the choice away from 780,000 women who did not intentionally get pregnant.
According to some quick sources I googled, only 12% of abortions are because of health complications.
<pre style="background-color:#ffffff;">
<span style="color:#323232;">Okay, but that argument isn’t in a vacuum. By forcing the decision, you’re choosing which life you respect more.
</span>
Once again, the vast majority of abortions are ‘choosing between the life of the mother and kid’ - it’s simply that the baby is ‘undesirable’ to the mother. I don’t think killing my twin brother simply because I don’t desire him is a morally acceptable situation.
If the mother doesn’t have the means to take care of the kid, that kid is going to have an awful life, and so is the mother. If there is a man supporting the woman and he’s threatening to leave, it’s an even worse situation. You act as if the choice is as simple as “Oh, I don’t really feel like having a kid right now” but in reality it’s "Do I want a chance to live a comfortable life with food and housing, or do I want to bring a baby into the world right now and be struggling for the rest of my life, both to support the baby, take care of the baby, and raise it. Growing up in poverty fucking sucks, because Republicans keep gutting aid to these people. Your take on “It’s simply that the baby is ‘undesirable’ to the mother” is an incredible over simplification that leads me to believe you’re either affluent or have no idea what it takes to raise a child.
It’s clearly not. In some states, women can get abortions freely until birth. To some that matters, to me I see it as a states rights issue and they can have that if they’d like.
I was surprised to find that there are states that don’t have term limits. My personal position is the government doesn’t have any business interfering with this, so it’s not a state right one way or the other. People used to also debate the death penalty as a state right, and many republicans said “The federal government should ban abortions” while simultaneously saying “States should be allowed to choose the death penalty”. I’m not saying you feel that way, but I strongly believe it’s not any of your business to choose what decision a doctor and a patient make about their own lives, and it goes against everything conservatives claim they stand for.
<pre style="background-color:#ffffff;">
<span style="color:#323232;">No republican is talking about…
</span>
I agree. there are a billion issues we can talk about and I think they’re too stuck on stuff like abortion and would like them to focus on other problems too. That doesn’t change the fact that me being pro-life doesn’t mean i simply want to enslave women.
That’s the thing with exceptions. They’re very hard to legislate.
Rape exceptions might as well not exist. Laws I’ve heard on this require the rape to be proven in the court of law. Even putting aside the fact that most rape cases are never processed and prosecuted, there’s a very low likelihood that the case will conclude before the pregnancy does, thus rendering the exception useless.
Exceptions for medical complications are also very hard to legislate because you have to decide when is the woman dying enough to be able to save her life. Is it when we are losing her now? When she’ll die tomorrow? Next week? Dying now means risking that she won’t survive the treatment or if she does, that she’ll lose her fertility in the process. Is that acceptable? The much higher chance of, in your view, losing two lives rather than one? I would argue no. This is exactly what led to these situations: women forced to endure trauma because doctors are terrified of life in jail if someone decides that the woman wasn’t in “enough danger” or “in danger at all”. I don’t see any way around this outcome.
Third, I’ve only seen one state that allowed an exception for nonviability of a fetus. In all the other states I’ve seen, women have to carry doomed fetuses who will die shortly after birth. I can’t imagine the trauma of that. Isn’t it more merciful to allow those women to abort?
I think you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater then.
Laws I’ve heard on this require the rape to be proven in the court of law.
I’m not too knowledgeable about the language of rape exceptions in many states. My state is pretty liberal, so that’s not something I have in my state. I, along with others, think a good alternative could be that any woman who had a rape kit, or reported a rape (which I believe is the law in some states?). I’d even go 1 step further, I’d say that any woman that claims the baby is a result of rape, is allowed to have an abortion (up to some, fairly liberal point in the pregnancy, say 20 weeks for examples).
Exceptions for medical complications are also very hard to legislate because you have to decide when is the woman dying enough to be able to save her life.
I agree, it’s a tough line! if there’s a 1% chance, is that high enough? 2%? 20%?
A lot of law says ‘reasonable persons’ - I think if a reasonable person would think there would be a high enough threshold of risk to the mothers health, that’s fine. It’s up to a jury of her peers, and court precedence. Many items in our law have these as gauges of what’s ‘reasonable.’
Third, I’ve only seen one state that allowed an exception for nonviability of a fetus. In all the other states I’ve seen, women have to carry doomed fetuses who will die shortly after birth. I can’t imagine the trauma of that. Isn’t it more merciful to allow those women to abort?
I don’t know enough about the states laws, that sounds wrong to me, but maybe it’s right. I disagree with that, if the baby is already dead, there’s no reason for a woman to endure the pregnancy further.
I appreciate your reply, but I was talking about his things actually played out. But the idealized version where every exception case is allowed. This is how it’s played out. This article forcing people into traumatic experiences. I was talking about how it’s really hard to legislate for, not the most idealized version. Please, recognize that banning abortion unduly hurts people rather than actually saves people. Exceptions aren’t really exceptions with the real, current requirements to take advantage of them. They are just lip service and a shield to hide behind.
You act like just because a couple words are related it’s a ‘gotcha’ I can run with individual rights or human rights, or I can argue that definitions of words have no meaning besides conveying information, and they are actually fluid (see how the definition of ‘woman’ has changed).
Congratulations, add context and nuance to the list of words you have no comprehension of. Your words have no meaning so I have interpreted them to say that you agree that you stance is inviable.
Someone doesn’t understand the words “non-viable”. You really should start by reading a dictionary before you start redefining words like fetus, life, and enslave.
Funny how you only care about the dead unborn child, not the living one or the mother.
I’m fine discussing viability, but don’t be rude when that wasn’t the topic in the comment you’re responding to.
Funny how you only care about the dead unborn child
The comment you’re responding to, I even said that I’m not arguing about the article, I’m saying more in general. My response was to someone saying I want to enslave women, because I’m pro-life.
In the specific case of the article, I agree with you, and this is an good scenario which many pro-lifers see an exception for.
If you’d like to converse, all I ask is that you’re not hostile. You can state your case and I can state mine, without being a dick.
What a good way to shut down conversation. I think that’s what’s wrong with the political climate now days, you get in an echo chamber and any deviation from your echo chamber and you shut down conversation saying that any deviation from you is ‘inherently dickish.’
If you’d actually like to discuss, I’m here.
If you can’t help but to be a dick in your comments, I won’t care to discuss.
What’s been explained? That you refuse to discuss this with me because you’re always 100% right and that any other argument that deviates from yours is inherently ‘dickish’? You’ve made that known.
Once again, I’d love to discuss if you’d like. Having an unpopular opinion really helps me engage with the other side and know where they’re coming from. I think sometimes you should give that liberty to someone you disagree with.
Once again, I’d love to discuss if you’d like. Having an unpopular opinion really helps me engage with the other side and know where they’re coming from. I think sometimes you should give that liberty to someone you disagree with.
Ok, I’ll engage you on this one, your position at least seems internally consistent.
Let’s play out this example - your 2 year old niece is sick, and so are you. You recently found out that she even exists - you didn’t know you had a sister until CPS told you she’s your responsibility.
An action that risks your life could possibly save her… Let’s say a liver transplant. It has to be you, you’re her only living family member. And because of that, you’ll also be responsible for her - you can put her up for adoption when this is all over, but you’re still on the hook for the medical bills whether this works or not.
She’s guaranteed to die if you don’t give her the transplant, and you would almost certainly recover quickly on your own.
If you go through with the transplant, she has a slim chance to live, and an even slimmer one to have a decent quality of life.
But in your current state, the transplant is very risky - at best you’ll see a lengthy and expensive recovery, after missing months of work you’ll be tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Complications could see you paralyzed or in lifelong pain, and it’s very possible both of you die on the table - maybe even likely.
The doctors are telling you it’s a terrible idea to go through with this, that the risk is unacceptable and it would be a mercy to just let her pass, but they’re obligated to go through with it if you insist.
Now, no one is stopping you from going through with it - if you want to put your life on the line for another, that’s your decision to make. You’re her guardian now, so it’s your decision if she should have to go through the pain for the chance at life, no matter how small.
That’s all well and good - I’ve seen enough to know that death is often a mercy, but if you believe otherwise there’s not much to say
Now, here’s my question - should the government be able to force you to attempt the transplant?
Some of these details might seem weird, but I was trying to stick the metaphor as close as possible to a very real scenario with a dangerous pregnancy. The only difference is - the doctor is performing an action here, but withholding one with the pregnancy.
You’re not though - pregnancy is not a lack of action. It’s an enormous commitment, especially when it’s atypical. It can even be a practically guaranteed death sentence - if the fetus implants in the fallopian tubes, it’s already not viable - at best you’re waiting for the fetus to grow big enough to rupture them, and hoping the bleed that causes doesn’t do too much damage before you can get help.
Not to mention if a fetus dies in the womb after it gets to a certain size, it rots and leads to sepsis - unclear laws and harsh punishments have already led to situations where doctors refused care for both of these life threatening cases, and in both these cases the odds aren’t slim, they’re none. In the second the fetus was already gone… Sometimes when they induce labor the fetus isn’t even in one piece… It’s pretty grisly
I don’t agree with your belief that a potential life is the same as a life, but let’s set that aside - I can respect that as a belief
So… My root question to you is - Should you be able to force someone to risk their own for someone else?
If so, how sure do you have to be that the other person will die no matter what you do before you’re released from the compulsion to put your own health on the line?
There’s always at least some risk of pregnancy turning fatal for the mother. How much danger do you have to be in for the math to check out?
And also, to what point should politicians with little understanding of medicine be able to deny you care?
Let’s play out this example - your 2 year old niece is sick, and so are you.
My actions didn’t bring her into this world. That’s a huge difference.
But in your current state, the transplant is very risky
I agree there should always be exceptions for cases like these.
I don’t agree with your belief that a potential life is the same as a life, but let’s set that aside - I can respect that as a belief
You see it as a potential life, I see it as a whole life. I thank you for understanding that it’s reasonable one might have this believe.
Should you be able to force someone to risk their own for someone else?
See my response above.
There’s always at least some risk of pregnancy turning fatal for the mother. How much danger do you have to be in for the math to check out?
In law there’s a lot of ‘reasonable’ language - would a reasonable person think this is a likely event. In general, pregnancies aren’t life risking to mothers.
And also, to what point should politicians with little understanding of medicine be able to deny you care?
If I brought in my twin brother to a doctors office and said ‘hey, this guy is really making me sick, can you kill him for me?’ I think a reasonable law maker can determine whether that’s right or wrong. To some people, there’s no difference between the life of you and I, and a fetus.
You saying that you don’t bring your niece into this world sounds a lot like the responsibility argument, aka “you had sex and got pregnancy and this is your consequence or punishment”. You really seemed to side step the entire analogy by saying you aren’t the parent. Neither exceptions nor saying that you believe every fetus is the same as a fully formed human answer the question.
How would you feel and react if the government forced you until a dangerous medical procedure to potentially save the life of someone else? Please, don’t side step again. Please, don’t give me “it’s not my fault they’re here, they had sex, therefore they have to do it”. Please, don’t give me “but I think the fetus has rights too”. How would you feel?
“you had sex and got pregnancy and this is your consequence or punishment”
If an individual does the only action that would cause a human life to be created, I don’t think they get to kill that being just because it’s inconvenient. It’s about preserving a human life, not about punishment.
You really seemed to side step the entire analogy by saying you aren’t the parent.
I showed how your hypothetical and where it doesn’t apply. If you’d like to use a different hypothetical, I’m fine with that. Why not use my child? If I have a 1 day old child, is it my responsibility to make sure my baby is fed and doesn’t die of starvation?
How would you feel and react if the government forced you until a dangerous medical procedure to potentially save the life of someone else?
If that’s the only information about the situation that I have, I wouldn’t like it.
If you instead word the same exact situation like ‘do you have a responsibility to your child to keep them alive’ I would say yes.
If that child, really fetus, is inside your body, no, I don’t think you have to continue letting the fetus use your body. Because that’s what it is. No one would force a woman to breastfeed. No one would say you legally have to use your boobs no matter what to feed this child. That’s what being pregnant is.
And no, you are continually side stepping and not telling me how you’d feel. How would you feel?
If that child, really fetus, is inside your body, no, I don’t think you have to continue letting the fetus use your body. Because that’s what it is. No one would force a woman to breastfeed. No one would say you legally have to use your boobs no matter what to feed this child. That’s what being pregnant is.
You’re talking about me avoiding questions, which I answered already, but you ignored mine: If I have a 1 day old child, is it my responsibility to make sure my baby is fed and doesn’t die of starvation?
And no, you are continually side stepping and not telling me how you’d feel. How would you feel?
I answered that above, if you want me to expand on it I can, but I did answer it. I said:
If that’s the only information about the situation that I have, I wouldn’t like it. If you instead word the same exact situation like ‘do you have a responsibility to your child to keep them alive’ I would say yes.
Not one of your sentences began with “I would feel”, contained the word “feeling”, or mentioned any emotion. I asked how would you feel.
Yes, you do have a responsibility to feed and care for a child. Do you have a responsibility to use your body to do so? No. Do we have laws requiring women to breastfeed? No. Are people arguing for such laws? No. That’s the equivalency of pregnancy. Not are you required to keep your kid alive. But are you required to use your body to do so. Everyone would think it’s a violation of bodily autonomy to require breastfeeding. Requiring continuation of pregnancy is no difference.
This is the actual Republican platform. The guy you’re arguing with doesn’t actually believe that protofetuses are worth trying to keep them alive. He just wants to be able to tell you what to do, and guess what? If he can force you to die over a nonviable protofetus, that means he has power over you, which is the entire point. He doesn’t care about you, save that he doesn’t want you to be able to keep him from killing you over a nonviable protofetus. In the pursuit of the ‘right’ people telling the ‘wrong’ people what to do, and in the pursuit of keeping the ‘wrong’ people from telling the ‘right’ people what to do, anything goes. Hypocrisy, lies, crime, election fraud, subverting courts, coups, false patriotism, false piety, terrorism, even outright murder… anything goes.
Know the enemy, spread the word to your friends and family (and maybe further).
Women in the U.S. now have fewer rights to their bodies than do corpses. So, unfortunately no, we aren’t worth the same as another human life or even a human death for that matter.
In this specific case, I agree, it’s a hard moral question with the twin involved which makes it harder.
I’m not speaking on this specific case, and most pro-lifers are open to exceptions, this being a prime example of where I think there should be. but the more broad statement that simply because I’m pro-life, means that I want to enslave woman, is absurdly wrong and simply perverting and strawmanning a fairly reasonable argument that a human life in the womb has inherent human life value.
I did and came across this definition: ‘of or for a particular person.’
My niece, Amber, is a particular person, whether she was just birthed, or it was 20 minute earlier when she was in the womb and the doctors were telling my sister to push.
That’s called cherry picking. It’s intellectually disingenuous, not that you’d understand that concept given your displayed levels of reading comprehension, but ignoring the core definitions of the word to play gotcha games with a secondary definition of ‘person’ which you are also intentionally misrepresenting the definition of doesn’t make you right, it just reinforces that your intentionally malicious attempts to circumvent agreed upon language conventions and collective are necessary for you to even pretend like you have a leg to stand on in the conversation.
You literally cannot hold or present your position without first bastardising any attempt to communicate in good faith by arbitrarily redefining words.
In other words, you’ve proven yourself either disingenuous or stupid, which one comes down to your actual cognizance of your actions.
Doesnt stop you from being wrong because you lack the basic understanding of the concepts.
So you think your argument is 100% factually correct, despite it clearly being an opinion.
I can admit that pro-choices have a reasonable argument, even though I don’t subscribe to that opinion. If you refuse to see any other argument on a divided issue, I suggest you learn about the other sides argument, and it either strengthens your position or gives you more nuance on the division. Wanna know why politics is so divided? It’s because people 100% think they’re right and they won’t listen to the other argument to understand it. You share that quality with the MAGA folks, I hope you learn to not have that awful quality.
If self-awareness was a disease you’d be the healthiest person alive.
It’s funny you say this when the comment you responded to, I literally said “I can admit that pro-choices have a reasonable argument, even though I don’t subscribe to that opinion.”
Can you say the same about the other ‘sides’ argument?
This guy is a nutjob. I argued with him yesterday in a post about England forcing teachers to notify parents if a child mentions anything about their gender identity and they kept referring to teachers as “servants” who should do as they say because they had some tax money taken from their check, referred to kids attending school as “forced government institutionalization,” believe children are their property, and said a bunch of other right wing anti-government rants/conspiracy theories.
I wouldn’t bother replying to them any further because they will also do a complete 180 on their supposed beliefs if it suits their current comment.
They belong in whatever facility they use to deprogram ex cult members.
You’ll get downvoted because Lemmy appears as left wing as reddit, but it’s true.
Y’all saying that all we want is to control women and enslave them is bullshit, they know our concern is about the life in the womans stomach, but always try to strawman that shit like we’re just heartless woman haters.
As a conservative, why would I ever want to discuss and come to the table to discuss hard issues like these, when I just get called shit like I see in this thread. And people thinking I’m a literal nazi for considering the life of the baby?
Then they have the audacity to ask why we’re so divided in this nation.
How is it a straw man? Regardless of what your “intended concern” is the result is control over a woman’s body autonomy. How can you not see that reality?
How is it a straw man? Regardless of what your “intended concern” is the result is control over a woman’s body autonomy. How can you not see that reality?
Do you think because I believe the life in a womans belly has inherent value, that I literally want to enslave women?
If you think that, that’s the the exact problem in our politics. You take things to the extremes and don’t actually want to have conversation, you want to dominate and have your way. I understand the argument that women have a right to make choices on behalf of their bodies and what’s best for it. Do you understand my argument?
They can survive outside the womb at 6 months with the right kind of medical care (very high mortality rate, though) and the previous cutoff for abortion was around 5 months, so, yeah I guess someone did say that very thing at some point.
I’m asking you, we don’t need to get into the sticks, just say the day of viability is at the 6 month mark. That’s the exact point you would say “okay, no more killing this being”?
Yeah, unfortunately, I think it’s just bad law. I think it’d be okay legislatively, which is why it’s sooooo incredibly odd that the democrats didn’t codify RvW despite having many many many opportunities. But ultimately, I think it was a terribly ruled case that I think the SC was right to overturn. Fun fact, RBG also shares my belief.
They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.
They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.
Where are the dozens of times that Democrats have had the majority Senate, House, and the presidency? You said specifically dozens, therefore there must have been dozens of democratic presidents who had a full democratic Congress. Who were all of these presidents?
You said specifically dozens, therefore there must have been dozens of democratic presidents who had a full democratic Congress.
Not necessarily, it could be 10 times over 2 years.
Regardless, I’ve listed at least 12 years that democrats had a president and majorities in senate and congress - yet, not once did they enshrine what you argue is a human right. Either they didn’t think it’s a human right, they didn’t want to codify it, or it’s just not high on their priority list. They’ve had plenty of opportunities, you only got the dems to blame.
I was unaware that the entirety of Obama’s had a democratic majority both houses of Congress. Gonna check into that along with the other presidents. It would be pretty incredible for all three presidents to have a democratic majority in both houses for the whole presidency.
They didn’t actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it’s terrible that it isn’t enshrined in law, but no. Don’t blame Democrats when they didn’t have near as much chance as everyone claims.
No, I don’t understand, because I dont respect your argument. The argument that women have a right to their bodily autonomy, is enough. Show me a problem in the argument before I care about your argument. When you realize the argument is successful, then you will give up on your own argument and become pro-choice. Asking me to consider your argument is exactly how you remain pro-life. To examine your argument is to pause consideration of my own, and to waste my time inspecting yours. You will never accept any flaw in your argument. Asking me to examine it is completely pointless. That is the conservative way, in essence. I can only ever fail, either fail to convince you or fail by erroneously becoming convinced. In the same way that you can walk East-West and never set one foot North-South, examining your argument has nothing to do with my own. If you want to convince me, convince me why I should not be pro-choice. The right to abortion seems like my own right to bodily autonomy. I see no reason why anyone should have any say over whether I choose to give from my body. Demonstrate why I should think it is so.
he argument that women have a right to their bodily autonomy, is enough.
Well sounds like you already decided your argument is right and every other argument is wrong, so we don’t need to discuss any further. I would implore you to explore multiple sides of an argument, so even though you may not agree, much like I disagree with your side, you can understand it, much like I understand your side.
I refuse to consider your argument until you’ve considered mine. There’s no point otherwise. Your invitation to consider your argument, is an invitation to distract and waste my time. You will never accept any flaws in your own position, that’s why you invite me so openly. The only possibility by accepting, is that I lose. You will mistakenly become convinced that you have a strong argument, when your strategy leads yet another pro-choicer to fail to change your mind, because you won’t change your mind.
That’s why, like I said, the only thing I care about, is if you can convince me that *I’m * incorrect. Abortion should be legal because of our right to bodily autonomy. There is no other argument that needs to be considered.
Why don’t you believe the woman has inherent value and rights then? Even if I did think a lump of cells had human rights, nobody has the right to force a human to risk their lives for another human outside the womb, so why do you believe the government should force a human to risk their lives for an unborn one in the womb?
It’s heavily implied in the context. It’s okay for people to be morally opposed to abortion, but the moment it becomes about making the decision for someone else, the conversation is no longer about the fetus, it’s about the woman carrying it and her rights as a human.
All human lives start out as piles of cells… but not all piles of cells can become human lives.
This is my one concession to contributing to this argument. There are pregnancies that aren’t viable. For some fetuses, there is literally no way to make it so that those fetuses can live to become infants. Therefore, these fetuses literally objectively don’t have inherent value.
Everybody who’s downvoting you, is downvoting you because you are advocating to kill mothers over fetuses that already cannot be kept alive. You’re not saying it outright, but by god, you’re implying it, because that is what is going to happen if those policies are implemented.
Unfortunately, it is very hard to believe that you are concerned first and foremost with a human life and not with controlling women. And that is because conservatives are usually vocal in their opposition to abortion, but you rarely (almost never?) hear them being as vocal in their support for low-income families with children. In other words, it seems as if you only pretend to care about the unborn life, but once it is born, you don’t care anymore. So how could anyone believe that this is all about life in general and not just about control?
rarely (almost never?) hear them being as vocal in their support for low-income families with children. In other words, it seems as if you only pretend to care about the unborn life, but once it is born, you don’t care anymore. So how could anyone believe that this is all about life in general and not just about control?
I agree, it’s one of my huge criticisms to the R’s, and that’s what makes the whole thing more frustrating with these establishment politicians. We have to have better ways to take care of the basics kids need, make sure our people are fed, the foster care system needs a drastic overhaul and a very simple way is for both republicans and democrats to provide actual tax breaks for charitable contributions. We need to be a giving nation to charities that help people directly and efficiently.
I can’t do much except for trying to say that conservatives aren’t inherently bad because we share a few loosely related world outlooks with Republicans, who I rarely consider being actually conservatives.
Okay this argument is hypocritical AF. If this was about the fetus not the women, you wouldn’t support an outright ban. Twins are being killed because of you. Children are being forced to carry because of you. Women are dying because of you. In some cases you are forcing women against their will to attempt to save a lump of cells that is already dead. If the government forced you to risk your life for an unborn child that wasn’t attached to you, you would flip shit. If the government forced men to take responsibility for an unborn fetus in any way, you would flip shit.
You don’t respect the autonomy or rights of a woman if you believe in forcing decisions on them about their body, hard stop. There is no wiggle room for you to argue that the fetus matters, because you wouldn’t apply that to any other situation in life. Stop acting like it’s the moral choice when it’s literally forcing woman to risk their lives against their will. Those women are already alive, why don’t their rights and lives matter to you?
I’m happy to explain to you why you’re wrong to be anti-choice. Don’t pretend like conservatives don’t love to shit talk about liberals. I’ve seen it too. If you have something you want to talk about, then talk. Don’t ask me to feel sorry, unless you’re going to feel sorry for me, first.
I’m happy to explain to you why you’re wrong to be anti-choice
I’m open to hearing your argument, but as you can imagine, as a conservative on lemmy/reddit I’ve heard every argument, and it’s made me more refined in my belief, and more able to argue my belief well.
Don’t pretend like conservatives don’t love to shit talk about liberals.
I didn’t. but generally no, I don’t see conservatives talk trash about liberals, nor liberals conservatives. I see Republicans and Democrats talk trash, but I don’t equate them to conservatives and liberals.
If you have something you want to talk about, then talk.
Okay. I’m pro-life, you calling me anti-choice is an absurd mischaracterization of my argument, and you know it. You just try to name call instead of actually put forward your position. If you have a good argument, you don’t need to resort to such childish and rude comments.
Additionally, my argument is, just because I’m pro life doesn’t mean I want to enslave women.
If you’d like to discuss either of these in good faith, and without being a dick, I’m down.
I called you anti-choice because it’s accurate. It would be inaccurate to call you pro-life when we do not agree, yet I myself am in favor of life and living. It misrepresents my position when I agree to call you pro-life. It gives the impression that I am not pro-life because I am opposed to your position. So, I choose to label you accurately. If I’m pro-choice, that makes you anti-choice. If I’m pro-autonomy, you’re anti-autonomy. Which do you prefer?
Additionally, my argument is, just because I’m pro life doesn’t mean I want to enslave women.
That’s not an argument. Also, it doesn’t matter about your feelings about whether your actions are good or not. What matters is the impact it has, in reality. In reality, your positions have the effect of harming women. It matters not at all, that you want to pat yourself for believing you don’t want to enslave women. You don’t have to believe you are enslaving women to do harm. You just have to actually enslave them, which, in effect, you are supporting.
It’s more accurate to call me ‘pro-baby lives,’ which would make you ‘anti-baby lives’ which is a bold stance. If you want to play dumb games like that instead of civilly discussing, I’m fine with that. But I won’t converse with someone that continues to be this uncivil and rude.
You don’t civily discuss. I’ve asked you to tell me what is wrong with the argument from bodily autonomy. You will not. I’ve had, I think, 4 replies with you since then. Just like I thought, just like the other conservatives, you will not discuss. You have no discussion. You have no argument. Your tactics are manipulation and misdirection. That’s why you have words and words to say about every little tangential topic, but nothing to say about bodily autonomy.
As a conservative, why would I ever want to discuss and come to the table to discuss hard issues like these
Why would we want you to? Nobody’s changing their mind. And frankly I’ve seen conservatives engage in bad faith arguments so many times I no longer consider honest discussions a possibility.
I think that’s the problem. I’ve listened to each of the lefts arguments, it’s unavoidable for someone young and on social media.
But the minute I speak up, saying I can be pro-life and not pro-slavery, I get 60 downvotes. Not that I care about the votes, more of the symbol of, what did I say that was controversial? That being pro life isn’t comparable to slavery? That’s not controversial to anyone, we all know it. But I’m a conservative, so downvote away.
Look, I get that you think your logic is sound and that you don’t like being called pro-slavery. I guess in your head “saving a baby” cannot equate to “enslaving women”, right? The unfortunate truth, as this post shows, is that these laws and these concepts you support are indeed enslaving women. It doesn’t really matter if you don’t like it, or if you don’t want that. The fact of supporting these laws makes it an automatic consequence. The fact is, the US government is now forcing women to give birth. If you can put aside for an instant the fetus, baby, whatever, that is what’s happening. I’m not sure you can imagine all the possible psychological and physical consequences of giving birth. Now it’s forced on women. Can you imagine if for 9 months you were forced to do something that you don’t want, that has lifelong consequences and may put your life at risk? And this not only for adults, but also minors. Let’s bring it close: imagine you have a 13yo daughter. She is in school and may not have understood all of the sex ed that I’m sure you and the school system has given her yet. Her cycle has already started. Then she’s maybe r*ped maybe not and now she’s pregnant. Would you let her go through with the pregnancy, the trauma of it and the risks? It’s a 13 yo. What if it’s ectopic and she dies? What if she gives birth and she dies?
In conclusion, it’s a lot like treating women like cattle. Also please don’t reply with anything like “but the baby”. A 13yo is a baby.
This is the state treating women as property. People are not comfortable with the word “slavery” and won’t even use it to describe the “forced labour” in Xinjiang. I think that’s fuck up and due to America’s influence. There’s nothing wrong with calling this slavery.
The women in the court? Not sure who you’re referring to or maybe I’m missing some information here. I thought they were women who became pregnant, were denied abortions, went through some heinous shit, and are suing the state in protest of a law that most people already don’t agree with. Kind of missing the ‘nutjob’ part of your thoughts…
She wasn’t a protestor, she vomited while recounting being forced to carry a miscarriage and nearly dying as a result. She was just one of 3 who had similar stories who testified. Texas republicans are moving to dismiss their concerns. Not really a “both sides” situation.
Hello! Your title might not match the title of the article you linked! Could you please double check, and edit your post title if it indeed does not match? article title: “‘Era of global boiling has arrived,’ says UN chief as July set to be hottest month on record” (Similairity: ~38%).
BEEP BOOP this action was performed automatically by a bot approved by the mods (:
Can you imagine how much damage can be done in 4 days though? Also, 4 business days is quite different from 96 hours which would still be quite long in terms of cyber attacks.
By making this argument you appear to be supporting those who are sending the death threats. That’s not a good look. In every conflict in history between those who used racism as a reason to do things and those who oppose them, the racist people happened to be the bad guys. Probably not a good idea to align yourself with racists…
You’re being disingenuous. Violence doesn’t have to be a physical threat to be considered violent. If colors, coughing, and arguments can be described as violent, hate mail most certainly can. Especially if it’s threatening someones life or livelihood.
US Department Of Justice:“The “crime” in hate crime is often a violent crime, such as assault, murder, arson, vandalism, or threats to commit such crimes. It may also cover conspiring or asking another person to commit such crimes, even if the crime was never carried out.”
Do you need me to post the definition of argument and denunciation too? I mean it’s right there. In the definition I posted. Maybe you personally believe words can’t be violent, but that doesn’t change that they can be.
No point debating dumbasses that try to “gotcha” about semantics. Like you said, disingenuous. Troll. Edgelord maybe. Hopefully he’s not actually this stupid.
It’s just such a myopically ignorant thing to say. According to mental health professionals the effects of verbal abuse can cause a slew of issues both mental and physical, and we know bullying can lead to suicides, swatting people is literally using your words to invoke violence. Three ways words can be violent just off the top of my head. Words can absolutely cause violence, what a shitty take.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.