ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

There is probably some small subset of people who would want parts of what you're saying, but generally there is no conspiracy against religion and guns.

Translation: there probably is a conspiracy against religion and guns, but because a majority of those on the Left are not a part of said conspiracy, I'm going to ignore it.

Real translation: I don't believe this is a genuinely held position at all, but if you bring up proof of anyone having this position it is so fringe that I would not bother disputing whether or not it is a troll.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Now suggest to a "Woman's right (to eschew responsibility for her child)" proponent that you want to kill a puppy because raising it is too much bother, and watch their head explode. =9[.]9=

The fantasy of "watching heads explode" is rarely the reality. When confronted with even severe cognitive dissonance, skeptics are surprisingly resilient, often unphased by attacks that would seem overwhelming to believers; that's because the human mind is built to use facts as a defense for one's positions, not as an attack upon them. Fear is a far more persuasive tool when it comes to people who disagree with you, and the visual of a dog being killed (shot?) is a massive persuasion error in your argument. You should acknowledge that the lack of a good visual for an unborn baby is a key defense in using a fear offense against it.

I'm basically just paraphrasing Scott Adams' Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter here.

I never specified how that puppy was to be killed. The greatest fears arise from our own imaginations. =^[.]^=

Seems like a lot of men in here like to govern how women manage their bodies. Pretty weird if you ask me.

On as side note, my wife used to work at Planned Parenthood. When this discussion came up between us, she had told me that most of the clinics she has worked at won't even perform abortions in the third trimester at all AND second trimester abortions must be performed by/under the consultation of the patients primary OBGYN doctor for a life-threatening emergency for either the baby or the mother or both. There was 1 facility in all of Texas that did later abortions and that was literally emergency related stuff.

They really only performed these operations on < 1.5-2 month pregnancies and the MAJORITY of the patients literally came in asking about the "morning after" pill and not even looking for an abortion.

She worked there for the better part of 4 years and said they turned away EVERY case where parents came asking for late abortions.

The right severely misinterprets Planned Parenthood as some sort of baby killing factory. The interest of the people that work there is to help people not to hurt them.

The amount of misinformation that goes around about these types of facilities propagates some really fucked up righteousness and hysteria among people of the right.

The protesters outside of my wife's work (at the time) said some nasty stuff to her... would throw garbage at her... just ridiculous shit until they finally called cops to police the area so she could actually go to work.

There can absolutely be a middle ground to abortions. I, however, do not agree that RELIGION should have any say in what the fuck those rules should be. Fuck religion. This is a scientific and biological issue... it should use those methods to determine a set of metrics that can make the abortion decision binary.

"

Xavderion wrote:

I think abortion is murder and I'm not very religious. It's about morality. There are some cases where abortion, despite being murder, is a valid choice. These cases make up maybe 1% of all abortions. Most baby murdering happens out of (in)convenience. And no, not allowing a woman to kill a baby is not putting the baby's life over hers, what kind of argument is that? If she really doesn't want the baby, she can give it up for adoption.

Only a very small percentage of infants 'given up for adoption' are actually adopted. Almost no children given up for adoption past the age of infancy are adopted. If it becomes known that a woman "GAVE UP HER OWN CHILD (!!!)" for adoption - regardless of her circumstances - that woman suffers brutal stigma for the rest of her life for Being A Bad Person(C). A woman who doesn't sacrifice her own life, her own career, her own relationships and privileges and joys - who doesn't drop everything to be a stay-at-home housemama for her brand-new kid, no matter her circumstances or situation - is made out to be a monster.

Explain how this is fair, hm?

"

Raycheetah wrote:

The deliberate extermination of a viable member of the human species, who will, without interference, become a distinct, independent individual, runs counter to any set of ethics which holds that murder is wrong. To say that it's nothing more than "removing a blob of cells" is like saying that it's okay to pull the plug on someone in a coma, even though you know they will recover in a few months.

Now suggest to a "Woman's right (to eschew responsibility for her child)" proponent that you want to kill a puppy because raising it is too much bother, and watch their head explode. =9[.]9=

Deliberately allowing a woman who is already a distinct, independent member of the human species to die because of avoidable complications from pregnancy is a far more obvious case of 'murder' than any level of abortion. Suggest to a "Babies are sacred!" proponent that you want to watch a woman die in pain and misery - knowing that she doesn't have to do so - from blood poisoning or similar issues from being forced to carry a baby she physically cannot carry to term. Watch them backpedal their asses off and go "well OF COURSE we're not trying to murder mothers! if the baby will kill the woman then that's a different thing entirely!"

Suddenly - ALL A'SUDDEN - circumstances matter again, huh?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I don't hold life to be sacred. I hold it to be valuable, but not of insurmountable or irreplaceable value. There are things in this world that are more valuable than one single human life. There are, in fact, many things that are more valuable than one single human life. Especially a theoretical human life, such as an early-gestation fetus. One cannot make a 100% ironclad universal value judgment one way or another.

Circumstances. Matter. 'Pro Choice' is the stance that says "circumstances are different for every woman with a baby in her belly, and the only realistic, viable way to do this is to allow those circumstances to impact each decision." 'Pro Life' is the stance that says "You WILL carry that goddamned baby to term, and you WILL raise it as a good God-fearing Christian child, no matter if doing so will destroy your body, your relationship, your (pre-existing) family, or your life, because you dared to have sex the one time and that means your life no longer belongs to you. And if you die trying to do it, well then that's what God decided and you have no right to fight it."

Which of those sounds reasonable and realistic to you?

"

Prizy wrote:

Seems like a lot of men in here like to govern how women manage their bodies. Pretty weird if you ask me.

Stopped reading after this. Identitarian censorship is a strong indicator of the absence of merit.

As a father, I have the right to an opinion regarding anything relating to my child, even while it is in my wife’s body. She chose to receive me as much as I chose to enter her.

As a taxpayer, I have the right to an opinion about how the fruits of my labor are allocated.

As a member of a species in which men and women must coexist, I have the right to an opinion about how we may cultivate productive relationships.

Try not to open with such bigotry, kthx?

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

Prizy wrote:

Seems like a lot of men in here like to govern how women manage their bodies. Pretty weird if you ask me.

Stopped reading after this. Identitarian censorship is a strong indicator of the absence of merit.

As a father, I have the right to an opinion regarding anything relating to my child, even while it is in my wife’s body. She chose to receive me as much as I chose to enter her.

As a taxpayer, I have the right to an opinion about how the fruits of my labor are allocated.

As a member of a species in which men and women must coexist, I have the right to an opinion about how we may cultivate productive relationships.

Try not to open with such bigotry, kthx?

[Removed by Support] Judging books by their cover is so 90s lol.

As a father you have the right to an opinion regarding anything relating to YOUR child. AGREED.

Taxpayer? Fruits of your labor? You pay taxes to an assumed, fairly-elected group of officials that manage your money to the best interests of the country. Simple as that. You don't dictate shit to where exactly your dollars go. If I could, then I wouldn't give a single dollar to the military industrial complex that has ruined governments across the world in the name of "freedom". You basic premise is flawed.

You have the right to an opinion on "how we may cultivate productive relationships" but do not have a right to forumulate and enforce a LAW that tell how other people should cultivate productive relationships.

Sorry bub, you ain't the only father on the planet with opinions... and although I respect them, they have nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

[Removed by Support]

:)

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

Prizy wrote:

Seems like a lot of men in here like to govern how women manage their bodies. Pretty weird if you ask me.

Stopped reading after this. Identitarian censorship is a strong indicator of the absence of merit.

As a father, I have the right to an opinion regarding anything relating to my child, even while it is in my wife’s body. She chose to receive me as much as I chose to enter her.

As a taxpayer, I have the right to an opinion about how the fruits of my labor are allocated.

As a member of a species in which men and women must coexist, I have the right to an opinion about how we may cultivate productive relationships.

Try not to open with such bigotry, kthx?

Counterpoint: the idea that women should not be allowed an opinion of what is or is not done with their own bodies is as repugnant as stating that a father has no right to an opinion over a child he sired. You're not the one at risk of death from complications, or at risk of lingering medical conditions resulting from said pregnancy. The human body is very poorly designed for this task; a significant percentage of women suffer lasting, irreparable damage from even a single pregnancy.

As a taxpayer, your right to an opinion about the fruits of your labor are allocated is represented by your vote. Don't like what your politicians are doing? Vote in different ones. If your choice is overruled in a manner you feel is unfair, you can join the rest of us disillusioned jackwads calling for radical system reform so we never get stuck with a Donald Fuckmothering Trump again.

As a member of a species in which the genders must coexist, you are indeed entitled to an opinion about how we may cultivate productive relationships. That does not mean your opinion is correct, or to be taken as gospel. You can absolutely discuss it, but people are going to call you out as being incorrect, and one of the reasons they're going to do so is that it's super easy for the male of the species to get all high-and-mighty about how Babies Are Precious and every single one of them deserves to be born and given a chance.

After all, the males aren't the ones on the hook for producing these things within their own bodies, or the ones on the hook for parenting them when they get done squirting out. The guys get to breeze off and say "thanks for the good time, sweetheart!" and at worst just chuck child support payments through the mail once a month. Sure sure, some guys are deeply interested in and committed to being good fathers, but that's a choice they make.

Women don't get a choice - if they get pregnant they're expected to deliver that baby, and then they're expected to parent that baby, no matter what. They're on the hook. Men aren't. So yeah - the opinion of the male of the species does not have the same level of primacy as the female of the species on this particular subject because the female is the one doing all the bloody work.

The Patriarchy makes for a fine strawman, when excusing the mass murder of helpless human beings because their existence inconveniences the women who carry them. =9[.]9=

"

Prizy wrote:

Well since you are the ignorant person that "stopped reading after this", I don't know whether debating anything with you is valuable anyway lol. Judging books by their cover is so 90s lol.

Nah man. Censorship is so the zeitgeist, it’ll haunt us for generations. When you start with “men shouldn’t have opinions lol” my immediate response is “oh, one of those people.” Sorry if you wrote something more, but I felt you nailed it so good with the first line I just didn’t have to read any more.

"

As a father you have the right to an opinion regarding anything relating to YOUR child. AGREED.

I also have insights into parenthood and have the right to share them regardless of my audience’s desire to hear them. This is the least of my merits.

"

Taxpayer? Fruits of your labor? You pay taxes to an assumed, fairly-elected group of officials that manage your money to the best interests of the country. Simple as that. You don't dictate shit to where exactly your dollars go. If I could, then I wouldn't give a single dollar to the military industrial complex that has ruined governments across the world in the name of "freedom". You basic premise is flawed.

Flawed premise? You just made my argument for me. I’m not dictating shit, I’m expressing an opinion. Mind you, as of right now I’m still under the impression you’re one of those “words are violence” people.

Also, that’s an incredibly naive take on governance, but that’s another conversation.

"

You have the right to an opinion on "how we may cultivate productive relationships" but do not have a right to forumulate and enforce a LAW that tell how other people should cultivate productive relationships.

This is in direct contradiction to your last statement, so which is it? Srsly, I’m not forming a law, I’m expressing an opinion. I don’t understand how someone’s mind could become so warped as to not distinguish the two.

This is the greatest of my merits. I require no further identity badges than “member of species” to express an opinion about how we may pilot this ship away from ruin and towards prosperity.

"

Sorry bub, you ain't the only father on the planet with opinions... and although I respect them, they have nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

Hollow words, as you’ve already demonstrated otherwise. Censorship is not respect.

"

Prizy wrote:

Seems like a lot of men in here like to govern how women manage their bodies. Pretty weird if you ask me.

"

1453R wrote:

Counterpoint: the idea that women should not be allowed an opinion of what is or is not done with their own bodies is as repugnant as stating that a father has no right to an opinion over a child he sired. You're not the one at risk of death from complications, or at risk of lingering medical conditions resulting from said pregnancy. The human body is very poorly designed for this task; a significant percentage of women suffer lasting, irreparable damage from even a single pregnancy.

Who are you even arguing with? I’ve not expressed that opinion. I’ve not seen anybody here express that opinion. For all I know you just made that up. If that opinion even exists, it is by such a fringe minority that their relevance begins and ends with the same breath.

Also, the human body is so well designed, it is able to push a tiny human out of a hole that is typically just wide enough to receive and stimulate a penis (much smaller than a tiny human), and suffer relatively minor, mostly temporary damage. Sure, exceptions exist, but you’re generalizing so I’m generalizing.

"

As a taxpayer, your right to an opinion about the fruits of your labor are allocated is represented by your vote. Don't like what your politicians are doing? Vote in different ones. If your choice is overruled in a manner you feel is unfair, you can join the rest of us disillusioned jackwads calling for radical system reform so we never get stuck with a Donald Fuckmothering Trump again.

“Join us where your only way to exercise free speech is with a vote” no thanks. I’ve been disillusioned for decades. Since I was like twelve, for real. See, I can also express my opinion in.... conversation... without...... an elector holding my hand... yeeesh. Reality check: my vote doesn’t matter, yours does. I create waaaay more value by convincing you to vote on my behalf, than I do by quietly voting myself. No wonder ya’ll are trying so hard to silence people.

"

As a member of a species in which the genders must coexist, you are indeed entitled to an opinion about how we may cultivate productive relationships. That does not mean your opinion is correct, or to be taken as gospel. You can absolutely discuss it, but people are going to call you out as being incorrect, and one of the reasons they're going to do so is that it's super easy for the male of the species to get all high-and-mighty about how Babies Are Precious and every single one of them deserves to be born and given a chance.

Not entitled, it’s a god given right to exercise my yap muscles at my sole discretion. Gubment didn’t give me that, being born with yap muscles did. And again, I’ve never asserted any gospel-level rightness, only enough self confidence that I’m willing to stand my ground and debate. Competition is a viable form of conflict resolution. If any so called high and mighty males start espousing their so called superiority, I’ll call them out with as much hesitation as I’ll call out spineless commies. Haven’t seen that yet either (edit: male superiority, that is; the commies are everywhere).

See, what you’re doing here is taking a viable argument (life has worth) and arguing around it by dissecting 100% arbitrary identities. Nazi! Racist! Nazi! Nazi! Uhhh sexist! Uh nazi!

"

After all, the males aren't the ones on the hook for producing these things within their own bodies, or the ones on the hook for parenting them when they get done squirting out. The guys get to breeze off and say "thanks for the good time, sweetheart!" and at worst just chuck child support payments through the mail once a month. Sure sure, some guys are deeply interested in and committed to being good fathers, but that's a choice they make.

We have child support for that; you make way to much light of how serious those words are. And you can fuck right off with that marginalization post generalization. I sacrificed easily five years off the end of my life to provide for my wife and daughter so they could spend her formative years together, at home. That’s right, I’m probably going to die younger now than I would have otherwise. My choice, 100%, just like it was my wife’s choice. What you’re describing is arbitrary equity, not equality. Again, no thanks.

"

Women don't get a choice - if they get pregnant they're expected to deliver that baby, and then they're expected to parent that baby, no matter what. They're on the hook. Men aren't. So yeah - the opinion of the male of the species does not have the same level of primacy as the female of the species on this particular subject because the female is the one doing all the bloody work.

Wheeeeeeeew. Okay there, Mr White Knight. My wife would take issue with the victim status you’re trying to assign her. She’s not helpless, fuck, she’s stronger than I am. She definitely had a choice. Already answered the rest of this brain vomit in the previous bits.

Hugs and kisses <3

"

Prizy wrote:

Seems like a lot of men in here like to govern how women manage their bodies. Pretty weird if you ask me.

There is no such thing as a pregnancy without a male contribution, therefore there is no such thing as a pregnancy that is the sole property of a woman by right. (The man is still free to concede his share, either voluntarily or as legal punishment for a crime such as rape.)

"

Prizy wrote:

On as side note, my wife used to work at Planned Parenthood. When this discussion came up between us, she had told me that most of the clinics she has worked at won't even perform abortions in the third trimester at all AND second trimester abortions must be performed by/under the consultation of the patients primary OBGYN doctor for a life-threatening emergency for either the baby or the mother or both. There was 1 facility in all of Texas that did later abortions and that was literally emergency related stuff.

They really only performed these operations on < 1.5-2 month pregnancies and the MAJORITY of the patients literally came in asking about the "morning after" pill and not even looking for an abortion.

She worked there for the better part of 4 years and said they turned away EVERY case where parents came asking for late abortions.

The right severely misinterprets Planned Parenthood as some sort of baby killing factory. The interest of the people that work there is to help people not to hurt them.

The amount of misinformation that goes around about these types of facilities propagates some really fucked up righteousness and hysteria among people of the right.

I was previously aware that about 90% of abortions are first-trimester, about 10% are second-trimester, and third-trimester abortions are extremely rare. Of the second-trimester abortions, about 30% are elective, 60% due to concerns for the child's health (ex: birth defects), and only about 10% due to concerns about the mother's health. As I explained earlier, I'm for elective first-trimester abortions and for second-trimester abortions that threaten the life of the mother (provided she was screened during the first trimester), and I'm kinda undecided on the birth defects issue, so I only support outlawing about 3-9% of abortions, so roughly 20,000-60,000 out of the ~660,000 occurring nationwide annually.

I'm honestly not sure if that makes me pro-choice or not. I'm okay with over 90% of abortions and I wouldn't advocate abolishing Planned Parenthood (kind of like how a moderate lefty doesn't want to pull an Ocasio-Cortez and abolish ICE). On the other hand, I feel like some abortionist somewhere in the US is getting away with (what should be) the crime of murder once every half hour of every day, and I definitely believe Planned Parenthood would need to undergo reforms, under the threat of withdrawal of funding if need be. I guess I'm not hardcore pro-life, but I certainly seem to be more pro-life than status quo.