General US Politics

[Dr. Tarrasque]

3 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

This is literally the great replacement conspiracy theory.

Which alleges that it is intentionally engineered by Jews/Zionists often attributed to being the Democratic party. And yet, the believers of this conspiracy theory are likely to vote Republican, the very same party gutting government investment into anything that serves the public and not military and the rich.

Abortion shouldn't be a complicated issue in America but right-wing media like Fox News abuses the Freedom of Speech to frame the conversation in horrible ways. Most people that are pro-choice aren't happy about an abortion happening but we're also not keen on forcing a woman who believes she's not ready for the responsibility to carry that burden and ultimately even if she may be the most intelligent person when it comes to making that decision, she is still the best person to make that decision because it's her life. It gets even worse when it comes to rape cases which, as shown in previous posts, these "pro-life" nuts demand that the woman carry their rapists' child. Hell the Texas law causes problems for miscarriages.

Given the way they vote when it comes to child care and adoption related funding, it's easier to argue that "Pro-Life" politicians are really just "Pro-Birth" because they're sanctimonious pieces of shit that demand the woman give birth to the child but then shit on her for her poor life choices and kill any bill that would help her with the child. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of those fuckers vote on banning abortion simply out of spite and wanting less women in the workforce.

White birth rates are dropping but it's not necessarily because there's a conspiracy to do it, it's because White voters aren't driving the Republican party into extinction. No seriously, the key to improving most things in this country akin to what's done in Europe is to just end the Republican party and then a new party comes in without the baggage of the Southern Strategy campaign with more to offer than the weak Democrats.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Armchair General]

43 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Yes, because they've invested in their infrastructure far far more than we have. But we can't even get that.

This is partially from them being taxed at an higher rate than us, in addition to some other things. I'm still going through this (Apparently, the Nordic model might be the best way to go, but it comes  at the expense of everyone paying into it and the government actually providing these services.)

Edited July 1, 2022 by Armchair General

[Lord Raven]

1 hour ago, Armchair General said:

This is partially from them being taxed at an higher rate than us, in addition to some other things. I'm still going through this (Apparently, the Nordic model might be the best way to go, but it comes  at the expense of everyone paying into it and the government actually providing these services.)

I don't see the issue with this. We generate a lot of revenue as is, and if we had better wages and more affordable housing (other issues the US isn't solving due to congressional gridlock) then the amount of our salaries going to tax won't even matter as much. Affordable healthcare and preventative healthcare saves so much money in the long run and eases medical burdens to the extent that we end up with a happier, healthier, and more supported population.

Our wages haven't gone up in around 35-40 years. And again, our infrastructure is outdated, and red states have it the worst in this regard. And catastrophe ends up costing so much when it happens (not if). Look at the Texas power grid for a quick example.

Of course nobody reasonable is saying we should completely destroy and overhaul everything tomorrow. But the fact is that we have very few living advantages, and many disadvantages, over the average person in a lot of western European countries, which is the key reason why a) the birth rate is going down among whites and b) we have so many non-whites immigrating. If there was a great replacement, there is nobody to blame but the Republican party, who are simultaneously laying the ground work for declining birth rates while saying it is an issue.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Lord Raven

[Sunwoo]

They key problem will all of these issues is that, as a country, we do not collectively agree with what reality is. All the facts in the world will not change the minds of insane diehards whose position is basically "I am more important than you, and I should get more rights than you".

Because that's basically what it is. Certain Republicans and right wingers believe that the other side is not legitimate to hold power, and they don't care how much of hypocrites they have to be to twist and turn themselves into pretzels to justify having power.

[eclipse]

On 6/29/2022 at 3:11 PM, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Bad takes on these issues can only fester in a bubble where everybody parrots the same talking points. I'm not about to say I handled that situation well but banning serious discussions in Serious Discussion sounds like a whole lot less bubble popping. Besides how do you enforce a ban like that - other than coming in after the fact to delete more posts? Nothing changes. 

I'm gonna explain the logic of this to someone else a bit later.  Feel free to comment on that.

7 hours ago, X-Naut said:

Yeah speaking of which:

SC Republican Party overrules Greenville County GOP, confirms Russo as primary winner (yahoo.com)

Saw this earlier and it looks like a small-scale practice run.

SHIT.  That's not how democracy works at all.

7 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

I'm also saying it's hypocritical to argue this while giving zero support to new parents (like how they voted against baby formula in lockstep) and only one Republican seems to have stood up for universal childcare, and even then Joe Manchin didn't want to renew it. Contraceptive access and sex ed also reduce the number of abortions by a good amount, yet Republican state legislatures and federal politicians want to ban or neuter these things. There is nothing about the pro-life stance as preached by the Republican party makes sense. I hate to say they are "pro-birth" after eclipse specifically warned us not to, but quite frankly I'm not actually sure what their position is because pro-life is not accurate.

The real reason is because white birth is decreasing and the future of America is Latino. This scares evangelical America. But I'm sure you know this.

There's a lot of emotional takes.  "Abortion is murder" doesn't allow for proper discussion, as it's an argument firmly rooted in emotion.  Invoking Christianity would also fall under that - Christians who feel that abortion is murder are free to not abort their own fetuses, but that belief ends with them.    Not everyone is Christian, so they shouldn't be bound to Christian doctrine.  Likewise, "pro-forced birth" looks like a logical conclusion, but then it devolves into an argument about semantics.  Nor do I think that the anti-abortion movement is solely about giving birth - ask why it's so important for that child to be born, wanted or otherwise.

It's possible to get to the heart of the issue by being smart about what you ask the other person, but it takes practice.  Usually, those that preach "abortion is murder" inevitably blame the woman for having sex (I've backed others into that corner before).  My take is that those on the "abortion is murder" side are unwitting pawns in a movement to restrict voting rights.  Unlike emotional takes, what I just said can be supported using some of abortion ban laws, some demographic data on abortions, and one other piece of data which I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.

If y'all want to talk about Thomas' "revisiting" of certain other cases, that's fair game as well.  I don't trust that guy's intentions.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

4 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Abortion shouldn't be a complicated issue in America but right-wing media like Fox News abuses the Freedom of Speech to frame the conversation in horrible ways.

You're telling me this AFTER I printed these new business cards that read "Forum-Verified Baby Killer" on them? 

Related philosophical quandary: If these people are so concerned about the loss of life, then do women kill a baby every month they're not pregnant? Do men kill thousands of unborn babies every time they have sex or masturbate? If your answer to those questions is "no, stupid, life begins at conception/heartbeat" then there's got to be a voice in the back of your mind that acknowledges the arbitrary nature of that answer. This living bundle of cells that came out of a sex organ is life while this other living bundle of cells that came out of a sex organ is not life. 

2 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Invoking Christianity would also fall under that - Christians who feel that abortion is murder are free to not abort their own fetuses, but that belief ends with them.    Not everyone is Christian, so they shouldn't be bound to Christian doctrine. 

I'll never understand how this became the Christian position in the first place. I know that doesn't come from the Bible. Life begins at a baby's first breath outside the womb - accepting his or her soul from God through the mouth. No more logically sound than the heartbeat answer, but it's in keeping with the sacraments. That baby will later accept God again through the mouth at their communion. 

 

[eclipse]

2 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

I'll never understand how this became the Christian position in the first place. I know that doesn't come from the Bible. Life begins at a baby's first breath outside the womb - accepting his or her soul from God through the mouth. No more logically sound than the heartbeat answer, but it's in keeping with the sacraments. That baby will later accept God again through the mouth at their communion.

It's a relatively new invention, linked with segregation of all things.  The SBC wasn't always against abortion!

[Armchair General]

24 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Related philosophical quandary: If these people are so concerned about the loss of life, then do women kill a baby every month they're not pregnant? Do men kill thousands of unborn babies every time they have sex or masturbate? 

Sperm cells generally don't live that long and even when they're used "the right way," only one or two out of half an billion actually gets to live afterwards. In the women's case, it's inevitable; but it's not her fault. Although, it's kind of chilling on how much control  politicians have over all lives, but here we are.

 

As for when life begins, it's kind of hard to say without making an shitshow out of it. I mean, the fetus is certainly isn't an mass of inactive cells; but I'm not exactly sure what's to gain by bringing in where it becomes conscious of it's surroundings.

Edited July 2, 2022 by Armchair General

[Lord Raven]

43 minutes ago, eclipse said:

My take is that those on the "abortion is murder" side are unwitting pawns in a movement to restrict voting rights.  Unlike emotional takes, what I just said can be supported using some of abortion ban laws, some demographic data on abortions, and one other piece of data which I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.

If y'all want to talk about Thomas' "revisiting" of certain other cases, that's fair game as well.  I don't trust that guy's intentions.

Yeah, this is exactly what it is, really. They managed to rile people up and now it's happening, and they're visiting a case to essentially reduce voting rights in states (like I linked earlier). They made it into a culture war and reaped the benefits because these people feel morally spurned against 'murder' without seeing the big picture. It's ugly and scary to them. I detest the state of things where Republican politicians put people on defense with anti-gay, trans, liberal culture war isms and force Democrats to take unpopular opinions defending those at risk. Then point the finger and say "see? They're way more focused on giving black people advantages over you, and those blacks will turn your child GAY and MEXICAN."

I genuinely don't think they'll realize how much strain is about to be on every single thing they interact with for 5-10 years.

I also said universal childcare, I meant child tax credits.

I otherwise agree that the choice of words is semantics -- it's better left to the campaign trail. The entire anti-choice vs pro-life ve pro-forced birth and pro-choice vs pro-abortion. I just cannot wrap my head around the logic aside from being a punishment for sex or something to that effect, because they don't even want contraceptives or sex ed. It reminds me of a few anecdotes I read the other day about teenage suicide attempts due to things like wet dreams and periods because they felt they were sinning and couldn't trust their creepy evangelical environment to do anything but punish them.

[eclipse]

2 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

I otherwise agree that the choice of words is semantics -- it's better left to the campaign trail. The entire anti-choice vs pro-life ve pro-forced birth and pro-choice vs pro-abortion. I just cannot wrap my head around the logic aside from being a punishment for sex or something to that effect, because they don't even want contraceptives or sex ed. It reminds me of a few anecdotes I read the other day about teenage suicide attempts due to things like wet dreams and periods because they felt they were sinning and couldn't trust their creepy evangelical environment to do anything but punish them.

There's a lot of different possible reasons.  One is purity culture at work, where pregnancy is the punishment.  Someone else floated a theory that it's to adopt then indoctrinate kids.  This one was supported by the fact that newborns are in high demand while teenagers in the foster system aren't.  Another theory is that it's to keep a large, poor, uneducated work force.  Regardless, this is something that needs to be asked of those that believe it.  Even if it means some prodding to get to the actual reasons.

The roots of the evangelical anti-abortion movement are not pretty.  Archive link.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

I personally don't think that distinction of when life begins is even all that necessary, given how the same folks pushing to ban abortion tend to be in favor of the death penalty. Birth is the start of the baby as a physically separate being, there's no disputing that.

Banning abortion would make more sense if the people pushing for those bans would actually enact policy to help the baby but they just don't. As Raven said, it's as if it's all just to punish women for having sex.

26 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

I otherwise agree that the choice of words is semantics -- it's better left to the campaign trail. The entire anti-choice vs pro-life ve pro-forced birth and pro-choice vs pro-abortion. I just cannot wrap my head around the logic aside from being a punishment for sex or something to that effect, because they don't even want contraceptives or sex ed. It reminds me of a few anecdotes I read the other day about teenage suicide attempts due to things like wet dreams and periods because they felt they were sinning and couldn't trust their creepy evangelical environment to do anything but punish them.

Some, because of that replacement conspiracy theory and we, the US, gotta have white couples "make 14 babies and invade Mexico".

Some, because they're afraid that the second coming of Christ may be one of those aborted babies.

Some, are incels that would jump at the notion of punishment women for having sex, as you said, for petty revenge. "How dare they get sex when I don't get any".

Some, want the handmaid's tale to be a reality.

Some, probably just want to keep people uneducated.

Edited July 2, 2022 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Lord Raven]

6 minutes ago, eclipse said:

There's a lot of different possible reasons.  One is purity culture at work, where pregnancy is the punishment.  Someone else floated a theory that it's to adopt then indoctrinate kids.  This one was supported by the fact that newborns are in high demand while teenagers in the foster system aren't.  Another theory is that it's to keep a large, poor, uneducated work force.  Regardless, this is something that needs to be asked of those that believe it.  Even if it means some prodding to get to the actual reasons.

The lack of a unifying goal is what makes anti-choice decision and legislation even more dangerous. It feels like the anti-choice demographic doesn't excel in second order thinking.

5 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Some, because they're afraid that the second coming of Christ may be one of those aborted babies.

These people need to watch It's Always Sunny. If that aborted fetus were Christ, he'd manifest no matter what, and probably as Charlie Kelly.

That and they seem like miserable fucks who could use a little humor in their lives. Often times It's Always Sunny teaches life lessons like, being a horrible one track bigot that tries to do shitty things to people will inevitably end in cycles of shitty things happening to you.

Edited July 2, 2022 by Lord Raven

[Sunwoo]

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

The lack of a unifying goal is what makes anti-choice decision and legislation even more dangerous. It feels like the anti-choice demographic doesn't excel in second order thinking.

No, no they don't. As I've posted earlier in the thread these are usually the same people who don't realize that schools are made up of more than just kids and that school doesn't exist in a bubble, don't seem to realize why Putin would invade Ukraine while Biden is president but not when Trump was, and don't understand the action/reaction relationship between "precautionary measures during a pandemic" vs. "how badly this country is doing".

Basically, the big picture issue behind the anti-choice demographic is because as a whole this group isn't good at seeing anything beyond what's right in front of their face. For whatever reason, they seem to be incapable of that next level thinking.

I imagine it's something on this level. Some guy decides to chop down a tree, angry because a cat scratched them and run up said tree, and they are incapable of climbing said tree. Their only thought is to get at the cat one way or another, and since they can't get up the tree, the tree has to come down along with the cat. And when the tree finally gets chopped down, it falls on the guy's car and destroys it because the tree was next to their car. In other words, complete inability to see beyond their initial instincts. It's like dealing with children who haven't learned how to reason yet.

[XRay]

Been a bit busy, so finally got enough time to think and write my responses.

On 6/28/2022 at 8:26 AM, Shoblongoo said:

Like the Philippines and Brazil weren't "following our lead" there...Duterte and Bolsonaro just so happen to be shitters cut from the same political cloth as Trump... 

Rightwing authoritarians the world over exhibit the same leadership traits + make the same bad policy choices. 

If Trump was not so dumb to begin with, he could have influenced other leaders to take similar stances as him. If Trump actually did his job, there is a much higher chance that other right wing leaders would be less hostile to strict COVID policies.

On 6/28/2022 at 1:42 PM, Etrurian emperor said:

I think that's an oversimplification. Trump badly mishandled Covid but it didn't happen because of Trump, and it would have happened regardless of him. Even countries with decent leaders who knew what they were doing had a hard time tackling covid.

On 6/28/2022 at 2:05 PM, Sunwoo said:

Yeah, I don't think any world leader can be blamed for COVID existing. Not even Xi (although if he'd been more transparent about what was going on maybe things wouldn't have gotten out nearly as bad but I digress). But a lot of the things that did happen in the U.S. specifically after it already showed up here can be blamed on Trump. For example, most of the stuff in the red states.

He did not cause COVID, but he did prolonged its spread and existence to the point where it is endemic like the flu. America had the resources and influence to shut it down, but fuck it because the White House got infected with the homegrown "hur dur muh freedom" virus.

Obama shutdown Ebola and the swine flu. I was too young to remember much of Bush and SARS, but it was clearly contained and handled well enough that I do not hear about it anymore. Being as good as Bush is not a fucking high bar to clear, and Trump could not even do that. Trump deserves to receive most of the blame as he is the one with the most resources and means to stop it.

Pandemics are hard. I get that. But the hard part of handling the pandemic is being handled by people who know what the fuck they are doing. All Trump has to do is move his obese ass out the way, make some speeches, open up the treasury, and we could be singing kumbaya by now.

On 6/28/2022 at 4:08 PM, Jotari said:

The US leads the world only in the sense that it can involve itself in the affairs of any nation it wants and is beyond reproach for any missteps it makes.

If the US can rally most of the world to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine and keep the democratic world united, getting everyone to move against COVID should be a no-brainer easy-peasy piece of cake. Trump for fuck's sake was even able to thaw relations a bit with North Korea, so if he could manage that as a complete dumbass, COVID should be a rare instance where the whole world agrees to cooperate and tackle it together.

On 6/29/2022 at 12:30 PM, Armchair General said:

The US leads the world only in the sense that it can involve itself in the affairs of any nation it wants and is beyond reproach for any missteps it makes.

Ha! Nice of you to think we actually vote. We do not even fucking vote. California's turnout for the primary is 39.97%, so we did not even make 40%, let alone 50%. Sometimes I think Americans deserve to live in a shithole country due to how lazy and dumb we are.

— — — — — — —

As for the abortion thing, it is hard to have a dialogue. I remember hearing on the radio (I could not find that specific segment, so if you want to listen to it, you will have to dig a bit deeper with Google or something) a few nights ago when I was driving home about the Common Gound Network, and how it is trying to foster two sides to talk with each other. The purpose of the dialogue is not to change anyone's minds, but to come to some sort of understanding and diffuse tension. I can sort of understand why anti-abortionists are the way they are, and I can see from their point of view that every life is precious, but listening to them talk makes me want to bash my head against the steering wheel from time to time.

Anyways, one quick explanation that one of the proabortionist made that I really like is that if we do not force people donate blood and organs to save people's lives, it is kind of absurd that we force women to donate their womb and time to carry a baby.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, XRay said:

If the US can rally most of the world to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine and keep the democratic world united, getting everyone to move against COVID should be a no-brainer easy-peasy piece of cake. Trump for fuck's sake was even able to thaw relations a bit with North Korea, so if he could manage that as a complete dumbass, COVID should be a rare instance where the whole world agrees to cooperate and tackle it together.

 

Once again, a completely Amercian centric way of viewing things. The US did not rally most of the world to condemn Russia. The majority of the world has been sitting waiting to see what will happen. The majority of countries who voted to suspend Russia from the convention of human rights were European countries who obviously have their own concerns with Russia that are completely irrelevant to the US. And there's no evidence that any nations outside of Europe that voted against them were directly swayed by the US. Because sovereign countries have their own ability to make decisions and condemn an unprovoked invasion. And if the US is to be credited for rallying the world against the Russian invasion then they did a shit job of it as half the world is sitting back and waiting to see what happens without providing even nominal support (and if we factor in actual tangible military support then the number dwindles to almost nothing).

[Tryhard]

If you want to know how much Republican states actually care about "exceptions," there was this story out of Ohio:

https://www.businessinsider.com/10-year-old-girl-travel-out-state-ohio-restricts-abortion-2022-7

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by Tryhard

[Armchair General]

37 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

If you want to know how much Republican states actually care about "exceptions," there was this story out of Ohio:

https://www.businessinsider.com/10-year-old-girl-travel-out-state-ohio-restricts-abortion-2022-7

 

I'll doubt if they'll actually care about cases like these, considering how all it would have took to fix it was adding a few more paragraphs to the abortion ban.

 

Hopefully, the guy who got her pregnant is in prison, by now.

[AnonymousSpeed]

I have attempted to write a post several times and each time there is an error which deletes half my draft. Perhaps it is God letting me know that a long response to this thread is an ineffective use of my time.

On 7/1/2022 at 8:54 PM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Some, probably just want to keep people uneducated.

It's because we know that unborn people are people. Sorry guys. It really is that simple.

On 7/1/2022 at 7:58 PM, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Related philosophical quandary:

Sperm and ovum are unfertilized haploid cells. They do not possess a full set of human DNA, and cannot develop into infants when not removed from the womb.

Edited July 3, 2022 by AnonymousSpeed

[Dr. Tarrasque]

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

It's because we know that unborn people are people. Sorry guys. It really is that simple.

Maybe it is to you personally and that's fine, you can cast your vote against abortion all you like but It's just really not that simple. The women bearing the kids are also people but apparently that doesn't seem to matter to the lawmakers in power and the unborn life is more precious. If there is concern for people, then why are these laws so simplistic that they're causing problems for miscarriages? Why did the Republicans have to rig the Supreme Court to get their way? I know the answer, do you?

Maybe instead of rigging Supreme Court nominations to bring such an unpopular policy, Republicans should make policy to actually improve the country instead of enriching themselves and their donors.

If all you got is "unborn people are people" then you've got nothing because the same folks that argue they're "pro-life" also tend to be in favor of the death penalty so that crowd is perfectly fine with life being taken away but they'll try to claim the moral high ground by arguing the baby is innocent. Is there really concern about life when that concern appears to end after the baby is born? Is there a shortage of orphaned kids who want to be adopted? Will the babies born to mothers that can't afford it even live long enough to make it worth the loss of the woman's future, specially in if the pregnancy was from rape? Are you sure there aren't "pro-lifers" that aren't just vindictive pieces of shit that see the unwanted pregnancy as a mistake that they want to make sure women suffer for? Where's the concern for mother and baby that couldn't attain sustenance because the mother was no ready for a child? 

The misguided attempts at simplifying the issue can create problems in turn, here's an example: White Supremacists want women to have babies to "protect the white race from the great replacement" but if most abortions are by low-income people and whites aren't the majority of that batch, then they're inadvertently increasing the disparity between whites and non-whites that they fear so much.

Many of the "pro-life" folks also use religion as their reasoning behind their stance... how do they know their god actually has such a problem with abortion when supposedly, said god used abortion to punish infidelity. Is there god a vengeful one that deems the woman bear her child even if she's not ready or is her perhaps a forgiving one that would grant a woman's request to abort a baby she's not ready for?

I'll believe that lawmakers pushing these overly excessive abortion bans are more concerned with getting less women in the workforce sooner than believing they care about the number of kids that live. There's little to no nuance from the Republican side on the issue and it would be marvelously delicious if this crusade is what drives the Republican party to its end. Seriously, we as a country should end that fucking party so we can go back to having elections where the point is to offer solutions to the problems the country faces as opposed to one side looking to troll the libs and the other trying to play fair with crooks and backing down on issues people supported them for.

 

Edited July 3, 2022 by Dr. Tarrasque

[AnonymousSpeed]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Maybe it is to you personally and that's fine, you can cast your vote against abortion all you like but It's just really not that simple.

  It really is, though. "Is a fetus alive?" If yes, abortion is murder. If not, it's not.

11 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

I know the answer, do you?

Because people don't like it when they see holes in the law which make it legal to commit what they see as murder. There does not have to be some ulterior motive to explain this.

13 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

If all you got is "unborn people are people" then you've got nothing because the same folks that argue they're "pro-life" also tend to be in favor of the death penalty so that crowd is perfectly fine with life being taken away but they'll try to claim the moral high ground by arguing the baby is innocent.

I don't really see your argument here. Yes, we don't support the same punishment for people who have done nothing as we do people who have committed serious crimes.

This isn't even a good pro-choice argument, because somebody could be both pro-life and against the death penalty.

You're taking the word "life" here and plastering on additional meanings which nobody was actually referring to. "Pro-life" doesn't mean the maximum number of people being alive. It means not taking away the life of the unborn because they are innocent of any wrongdoing, and we typically don't support terminating the lives of such people.

28 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Is there really concern about life when that concern appears to end after the baby is born?

"I do not want to give you taxpayer dollars" should not invalidate "I do not want you to be killed".

15 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

The misguided attempts at simplifying the issue can create problems in turn, here's an example: White Supremacists want women to have babies to "protect the white race from the great replacement" but if most abortions are by low-income people and whites aren't the majority of that batch, then they're inadvertently increasing the disparity between whites and non-whites that they fear so much.

So the white supremacists lose?

16 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Many of the "pro-life" folks also use religion as their reasoning behind their stance... how do they know their god actually has such a problem with abortion when supposedly, said god used abortion to punish infidelity.

Supposedly is a keyword here. Numbers 5 is about induced barrenness, not an induced miscarriage.

However, I have only ever seen abortion advocates say that abortion is a religious argument. I have never actually seen a pro-life person, no matter how religious, whether they were Catholic or Protestant or Muslim, say that abortions should be banned or regulated because they are against their religion.

31 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Is there god a vengeful one

*their

[Tryhard]

37 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

However, I have only ever seen abortion advocates say that abortion is a religious argument. I have never actually seen a pro-life person, no matter how religious, whether they were Catholic or Protestant or Muslim, say that abortions should be banned or regulated because they are against their religion.

I don't think you've been looking very hard.

I'm not saying that it is the only argument, since I have seen both pro-choice Christians or religious people, and pro-life non-religious people, but many times when people open their mouths to justify their pro-life position, they will talk about God.

And I have also seen pro-life people remark that on seeing the aforementioned pro-choice Christian say, many times, "you cannot be pro-choice and a Christian."

Anyone who says the above is basically making it very clear that religiosity is their sole reason for their position.

And if you haven't seen that... well, I don't know what to say, because I have.

 

37 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Supposedly is a keyword here. Numbers 5 is about induced barrenness, not an induced miscarriage.

I would also say so, but the truth is the Bible mentions virtually nothing about abortion directly, either favourably or unfavourably, and this is maybe the only passage that talks about anything similar.

Trying to use it either way on abortion seems pretty inconclusive.

Edited July 3, 2022 by Tryhard

[AnonymousSpeed]

12 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

And I have also seen pro-life people remark that on seeing the aforementioned pro-choice Christian say, many times, "you cannot be pro-choice and a Christian."

I generally appreciate your post. It was a nice change of pace. However, if you'll allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment (and I say that with full appreciation for the irony), you wouldn't say "you cannot be pro-murder and a Christian" was a religious argument against murder any more than you would say any moral argument was religiously-based (which itself depends somewhat on how you define religion). Not saying abortion is murder, per the previous rulings by the moderators, but from the perspective of the hypothetical speaker, of course.

[Tryhard]

26 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I generally appreciate your post. It was a nice change of pace. However, if you'll allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment (and I say that with full appreciation for the irony), you wouldn't say "you cannot be pro-murder and a Christian" was a religious argument against murder any more than you would say any moral argument was religiously-based (which itself depends somewhat on how you define religion). Not saying abortion is murder, per the previous rulings by the moderators, but from the perspective of the hypothetical speaker, of course.

I'm not 100% sure I follow but I would say the phrase "you cannot be X and be a Christian" is implying that you cannot be a Christian because X is prohibited in the religious text or tenets of that religion. Even if people agree that murder is bad for non-religious reasons that particular phrase is specifically calling into consideration the prohibition of X in Christianity.

(and of course they think abortion = murder, which is why they say it)

[AnonymousSpeed]

Just now, Tryhard said:

I'm not 100% sure I follow but I would say the phrase "you cannot be X and be a Christian" is implying that you cannot be a Christian because X is prohibited in the religious text or tenets of that religion. Even if people agree that murder is bad for non-religious reasons that particular phrase is specifically calling into consideration the prohibition of X in Christianity.

(and of course they think abortion = murder, which is why they say it)

Yeah, that's fair. I think that most religious people, if they are really and truly religious, reflect that in their ethical views as a whole. It would not just be their view on specific issues, but on all issues that their religion would be influential. Which, you know, maybe just means that it's all religious reasons. I wouldn't be opposed to that conclusion at all.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

48 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

  It really is, though. "Is a fetus alive?" If yes, abortion is murder. If not, it's not.

But in the situation where a mother is not ready to have her child and they both die due to her being unable to find and starving to death, isn't the ban that forced her to have the child in turn taking 2 lives instead of 1?

53 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Because people don't like it when they see holes in the law which make it legal to commit what they see as murder. There does not have to be some ulterior motive to explain this.

If that were true then why such bans that force the woman to carry the baby even if it's rape and if it endangers their life?
The answer is because they're sanctimonious pieces of shit who think what they believe must be and think the end justifies the means, know they couldn't make it happen via the legislative branch and know they can use the Filibuster to prevent Democrats from doing it. The Supreme Court nomination process was objectively rigged and if you're ok with Republicans packing the courts, you have no right to complain about Democrats doing so if they ever bother to. Personally I'd rather see the Supreme Court abolished if we're resorting to nominating partisan judges.

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I don't really see your argument here. Yes, we don't support the same punishment for people who have done nothing as we do people who have committed serious crimes.

This isn't even a good pro-choice argument, because somebody could be both pro-life and against the death penalty.

You're taking the word "life" here and plastering on additional meanings which nobody was actually referring to. "Pro-life" doesn't mean the maximum number of people being alive. It means not taking away the life of the unborn because they are innocent of any wrongdoing, and we typically don't support terminating the lives of such people.

My argument is that I don't buy "pro-lifers" being as concerned about life as they claim to be. They're just pro-birth because they think it's the right choice (as well the other stupid reasoning previously mentioned) and with what little regard they have for the children post-birth, it's nonsense to say they're incapable of accepting the death of an unborn, specially when rape or other stipulations that are harmful exist.

"Tend to be" is not an absolute, I'm aware it's a generalization and I'm well aware that you can be Pro-birth and against Capital Punishment.

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

"I do not want to give you taxpayer dollars" should not invalidate "I do not want you to be killed".

"I believe abortion is murder" should not invalidate a consensus and the generally considered valid reasons even among Republican voters for why an abortion had to happen.

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

So the white supremacists lose?

Yes.

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Supposedly is a keyword here. Numbers 5 is about induced barrenness, not an induced miscarriage.

However, I have only ever seen abortion advocates say that abortion is a religious argument. I have never actually seen a pro-life person, no matter how religious, whether they were Catholic or Protestant or Muslim, say that abortions should be banned or regulated because they are against their religion.

Depending on the translation, the result of the woman's infidelity is indeed the miscarriage. The point is that because of differing translations and the tendency religious people have of picking and choosing what things to follow from religious literature and teachings, it just isn't credible and should stay away from the legislative process.

In most cases that does appears to be the case because a lot of people do in fact turn to saying "it's against my religion", "God would want that" or something similar to that Charlie Kirk tweet. You wanna blame someone for making the issue religious, blame the religious people that attached their religion to the issue.

And again, if your reasoning is simply as you put it

It's because we know that unborn people are people. Sorry guys. It really is that simple.

cast your vote as is but the matter is just not that simple and if leaders are elected democratically, you shouldn't  just brute-force your opinions/beliefs into law when it's an unpopular stance which just so happens to be what politicians sharing your stance are doing. There's a myriad of scenarios one could give for cases where abortion is and isn't acceptable but to impose the blanket bans that have been going on just says "nuts to that, I'm gonna have my cake and eat it too".

I'm a dude so abortion has little to no bearing on me personally and part of my being pro-choice is due to the actions and arguments of "pro-lifers". Most discussions on the subject will have them guilt trip or imply that those of us who are pro-choice are giddy about the prospect of an unborn baby being aborted. We're not, we think it's a bad thing too but we also acknowledge the nuance that comes with differing situations for why the abortion happens and instead of forcing women to give birth and take away her agency to carry on with a life she can manage or carry the burden, we think it's better to address the issues that create the situation in which a pregnancy is unwanted. Banning abortions doesn't get rid of those issues, it's only going to make them worse.