US Politics 3

twitter.com/msn/status/1545387332915777536

I hope that banana split never gets a moment peace whenever he's out in public.

twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1545613631760506880

Nibble wrote:

twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1545613631760506880

Yes agree at 8.5 months its just a foetus, she should be able to abort if this wants. These pro-life monsters probably feel that this nearly formed being with some level of consciousness, a central nervous system which could survive outside of the womb should be given some sense of moral consideration - these prolifers probably think if she were to tragically lose her foetus[that I presume at this point she wants to keep and has an emotional attachment to] it would be a sad life event. It is just a foetus but she should also be allowed to drive in whatever lane this wants because it is her body, her choice she should be allowed to do whatever she wants wants with her body and anyone else's body because her freedoms totally exist in a bubble by enforcing traffic laws they are just trying to control women through their bodily anatomy.

I get it but her point would have worked better if she was 6 weeks rather than in the third trimester...it would still be a complete false-equivalence and strawman argument though obviously*

*Just to be clear I am pro-abortion and the over ruling of Woe vs Rade is appalling. I emphasize with both sides but the rhetoric from both sides is disgusting

Barnsy! wrote:

Nibble wrote:

twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1545613631760506880

Yes agree at 8.5 months its just a foetus, she should be able to abort if this wants. These pro-life monsters probably feel that this nearly formed being with some level of consciousness, a central nervous system which could survive outside of the womb should be given some sense of moral consideration - these prolifers probably think if she were to tragically lose her foetus[that I presume at this point she wants to keep and has an emotional attachment to] it would be a sad life event. It is just a foetus but she should also be allowed to drive in whatever lane this wants because it is her body, her choice she should be allowed to do whatever she wants wants with her body and anyone else's body because her freedoms totally exist in a bubble by enforcing traffic laws they are just trying to control women through their bodily anatomy.

I get it but her point would have worked better if she was 6 weeks rather than in the third trimester...it would still be a complete false-equivalence and strawman argument though obviously*

*Just to be clear I am pro-abortion and the over ruling of Woe vs Rade is appalling. I emphasize with both sides but the rhetoric from both sides is disgusting

If the point makes sense at 6 weeks, then it makes sense at 34 weeks.

Barnsy! wrote:

Nibble wrote:

twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1545613631760506880

Yes agree at 8.5 months its just a foetus, she should be able to abort if this wants. These pro-life monsters probably feel that this nearly formed being with some level of consciousness, a central nervous system which could survive outside of the womb should be given some sense of moral consideration - these prolifers probably think if she were to tragically lose her foetus[that I presume at this point she wants to keep and has an emotional attachment to] it would be a sad life event. It is just a foetus but she should also be allowed to drive in whatever lane this wants because it is her body, her choice she should be allowed to do whatever she wants wants with her body and anyone else's body because her freedoms totally exist in a bubble by enforcing traffic laws they are just trying to control women through their bodily anatomy.

I get it but her point would have worked better if she was 6 weeks rather than in the third trimester...it would still be a complete false-equivalence and strawman argument though obviously*

*Just to be clear I am pro-abortion and the over ruling of Woe vs Rade is appalling. I emphasize with both sides but the rhetoric from both sides is disgusting

Don't "both sides" abortion rights, jesus strawberry floating christ

Mfw I emphasise something when I meant to empathise with it

Tomous wrote:

Barnsy! wrote:

Nibble wrote:

twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1545613631760506880

Yes agree at 8.5 months its just a foetus, she should be able to abort if this wants. These pro-life monsters probably feel that this nearly formed being with some level of consciousness, a central nervous system which could survive outside of the womb should be given some sense of moral consideration - these prolifers probably think if she were to tragically lose her foetus[that I presume at this point she wants to keep and has an emotional attachment to] it would be a sad life event. It is just a foetus but she should also be allowed to drive in whatever lane this wants because it is her body, her choice she should be allowed to do whatever she wants wants with her body and anyone else's body because her freedoms totally exist in a bubble by enforcing traffic laws they are just trying to control women through their bodily anatomy.

I get it but her point would have worked better if she was 6 weeks rather than in the third trimester...it would still be a complete false-equivalence and strawman argument though obviously*

*Just to be clear I am pro-abortion and the over ruling of Woe vs Rade is appalling. I emphasize with both sides but the rhetoric from both sides is disgusting

Don't "both sides" abortion rights, jesus strawberry floating christ

I am pro-abortion rights but would hope most people 'both sides' with abortion. At a certain point abortion could be seen as immoral but we should make abortion safe and accessible as possible. The people attending abortion rallies or picketing abortion clinic represent the lunatic fringe and most extreme views on both sides normal people shouldn't want to align themselves with either group. I don't like either side but both sides have a point, the healthiest individual view point is to fall somewhere between prochoice and prolife. It is exceptional cruel and inhumane to force a person to carry an unwanted baby to term, but if the prolifers truly believe a aborting an embryo at a couple of months is equivocal to killing a baby, then you can understand some of their behaviour. Personally I believe that non-conscious, non-sentient unborn beings should have some rights but the foetus rights do not outweigh the living person carrying that foetus rights. It is absolutely has to be 'their body (that they have been irresponsible with and it is a sad indictment on them that the state has to intervene in governing their body) their choice' but I recognise this is a tragedy that the extremely important decision of whether or not to keep a baby has to be made by those least equipped to make important decisions, considering all the ways there are to not become pregnant or deal with it shortly after becoming pregnant at this time, but it is incredibly unfair for a mistake to define (ruin?) a persons life.

The pro-lifers always bring up rape and incest but aren't most abortions for people of age having sex consensually? There is a point where aborting a foetus is taking a life, neither side is the party of science a lot of it comes down to what feels rights and is just driven by raw emotion, which is why I find it sad how much both dehumanise the other, neither side really has enough empathy for the shame, guilt and heartache the person aborting the foetus is feeling.

Barnsy! wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Barnsy! wrote:

Nibble wrote:

twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1545613631760506880

Yes agree at 8.5 months its just a foetus, she should be able to abort if this wants. These pro-life monsters probably feel that this nearly formed being with some level of consciousness, a central nervous system which could survive outside of the womb should be given some sense of moral consideration - these prolifers probably think if she were to tragically lose her foetus[that I presume at this point she wants to keep and has an emotional attachment to] it would be a sad life event. It is just a foetus but she should also be allowed to drive in whatever lane this wants because it is her body, her choice she should be allowed to do whatever she wants wants with her body and anyone else's body because her freedoms totally exist in a bubble by enforcing traffic laws they are just trying to control women through their bodily anatomy.

I get it but her point would have worked better if she was 6 weeks rather than in the third trimester...it would still be a complete false-equivalence and strawman argument though obviously*

*Just to be clear I am pro-abortion and the over ruling of Woe vs Rade is appalling. I emphasize with both sides but the rhetoric from both sides is disgusting

Don't "both sides" abortion rights, jesus strawberry floating christ

I am pro-abortion rights but would hope most people 'both sides' with abortion. At a certain point abortion could be seen as immoral but we should make abortion safe and accessible as possible. The people attending abortion rallies or picketing abortion clinic represent the lunatic fringe and most extreme views on both sides normal people shouldn't want to align themselves with either group. I don't like either side but both sides have a point, the healthiest individual view point is to fall somewhere between prochoice and prolife. It is exceptional cruel and inhumane to force a person to carry an unwanted baby to term, but if the prolifers truly believe a aborting an embryo at a couple of months is equivocal to killing a baby, then you can understand some of their behaviour. Personally I believe that non-conscious, non-sentient unborn beings should have some rights but the foetus rights do not outweigh the living person carrying that foetus rights. It is absolutely has to be 'their body (that they have been irresponsible with and it is a sad indictment on them that the state has to intervene in governing their body) their choice' but I recognise this is a tragedy that the extremely important decision of whether or not to keep a baby has to be made by those least equipped to make important decisions, considering all the ways there are to not become pregnant or deal with it shortly after becoming pregnant at this time, but it is incredibly unfair for a mistake to define (ruin?) a persons life.

The pro-lifers always bring up rape and incest but aren't most abortions for people of age having sex consensually? There is a point where aborting a foetus is taking a life, neither side is the party of science a lot of it comes down to what feels rights and is just driven by raw emotion, which is why I find it sad how much both dehumanise the other, neither side really has enough empathy for the shame, guilt and heartache the person aborting the foetus is feeling.

Your "both sides" argument collapses because nobody is suggesting aborting at any stage of pregnancy (unless there are good medical reasons).

You complained about false equivalence earlier, but your posts are full of them.

Barnsy! wrote:I am pro-abortion rights but would hope most people 'both sides' with abortion. At a certain point abortion could be seen as immoral but we should make abortion safe and accessible as possible. The people attending abortion rallies or picketing abortion clinic represent the lunatic fringe and most extreme views on both sides normal people shouldn't want to align themselves with either group.

People attending abortion rallies and fighting for women's rights are not the lunatic fringe

Barnsy! wrote:I don't like either side but both sides have a point

Nope. Only one side has a point.

Barnsy! wrote:The healthiest individual view point is to fall somewhere between prochoice and prolife. It is exceptional cruel and inhumane to force a person to carry an unwanted baby to term, but if the prolifers truly believe a aborting an embryo at a couple of months is equivocal to killing a baby, then you can understand some of their behaviour.

The only way to properly understand their behaviour is understand that they hate women and want to punish them. They don't care about the baby at all once they are born, the baby is on its own and they will vote and fight against support being available.

Barnsy! wrote:Personally I believe that non-conscious, non-sentient unborn beings should have some rights but the foetus rights do not outweigh the living person carrying that foetus rights. It is absolutely has to be 'their body (that they have been irresponsible with and it is a sad indictment on them that the state has to intervene in governing their body) their choice' but I recognise this is a tragedy that the extremely important decision of whether or not to keep a baby has to be made by those least equipped to make important decisions, considering all the ways there are to not become pregnant or deal with it shortly after becoming pregnant at this time, but it is incredibly unfair for a mistake to define (ruin?) a persons life.

The woman gets to make the decision and she is absolutely the most equipped to make that decision.

Barnsy! wrote:The pro-lifers always bring up rape and incest but aren't most abortions for people of age having sex consensually?

Don't call them pro-life because that is such a loaded term. They're not pro-life at all, again they don't care about the baby once it is born. They're anti-abortion. But i assume you mean pro-choices here, and I don't know stats but it doesn't matter at all, because abortions should be available to all women regardless of situation.

Barnsy! wrote:There is a point where aborting a foetus is taking a life, neither side is the party of science a lot of it comes down to what feels rights and is just driven by raw emotion, which is why I find it sad how much both dehumanise the other, neither side really has enough empathy for the shame, guilt and heartache the person aborting the foetus is feeling.

No one is arguing for abortions to be available at every stage of the pregnancy except in circumstances where the mother's life is at risk.

The 2 sides here are people fighting for women's rights v religious fascists trying to force their views on everyone.

It is not at all sad that religious fascists are dehumanised, strawberry float them to hell and back.

I don't think Barnsy has said anything disagreeable other than it not really reflecting the reality of where abortion rights are in the US. The "middle view" he is describing is the pro-choice side, while the anti-abortion lobby is extremist. You can't say the best outcome is "in the middle" when the struggle is currently between the middle and the extreme of one side.

This is how the far right succeeds in ratcheting up far right politics, by exploiting the centrist's tendency to always look for compromise. On a scale of 0-100, if one side is campaigning for 0 and the other 50, the centrist concludes 25 is in the middle. It's not and you shouldn't frame it like it is.

I think it’s very disagreeable to suggest women seeking an abortion have been “irresponsible with their body”.

OrangeRKN wrote:I don't think Barnsy has said anything disagreeable other than it not really reflecting the reality of where abortion rights are in the US. The "middle view" he is describing is the pro-choice side, while the anti-abortion lobby is extremist.

To be "the middle" it would need another side.

Anti-abortion in any circumstance

Pro abortion under a certain term length/for medical reasons

Pro abortion at any term length for any reason

The problem is, there is nobody in the third category. So there isn't a middle way.

DP!

OrangeRKN wrote:I don't think Barnsy has said anything disagreeable other than it not really reflecting the reality of where abortion rights are in the US. The "middle view" he is describing is the pro-choice side, while the anti-abortion lobby is extremist. You can't say the best outcome is "in the middle" when the struggle is currently between the middle and the extreme of one side.

This is how the far right succeeds in ratcheting up far right politics, by exploiting the centrist's tendency to always look for compromise. On a scale of 0-100, if one side is campaigning for 0 and the other 50, the centrist concludes 25 is in the middle. It's not and you shouldn't frame it like it is.

I'd deeply curious what rhetoric from the pro choice side is 'disgusting', in his both sidesing.

I mean is as disgusting as, say, his position that anyone undergoing an abortion feels guilt and shame?

Or that a a women seeking an abortion must have been "irresponsible with her body"
Or is someone "least equipped to make important decisions"

Tomous! wrote:

Barnsy! wrote:The healthiest individual view point is to fall somewhere between prochoice and prolife. It is exceptional cruel and inhumane to force a person to carry an unwanted baby to term, but if the prolifers truly believe a aborting an embryo at a couple of months is equivocal to killing a baby, then you can understand some of their behaviour.

The only way to properly understand their behaviour is understand that they hate women and want to punish them. They don't care about the baby at all once they are born, the baby is on its own and they will vote and fight against support being available.

Genuine question I keep reading pro-lifers 'hate women' - does anyone really believe that? You can disagree with anti-abortion laws (as I do) - but does anyone really believe it is about punishing women and wanting to inflict suffering on them. I can see that restricting safe and accessible abortions for unwanted pregnancies DOES punish and inflict suffering, but no one wants to be the bad guy and this isn't the point of their actions. They've misjudged the hierarchy of rights between a pregnant person and a clump of cells, if they're convinced down to the foundation of their soul that having an abortion is morally the same as killing a baby, surely they just see their actions as giving voice to something that can't defend itself, the problem is they go about it a shitty way.

I'm very open to be corrected but isn't it about that they are concerned for the foetus rather hating women? Like I say genuine question.

Barnsy! wrote:

Tomous! wrote:

Barnsy! wrote:The healthiest individual view point is to fall somewhere between prochoice and prolife. It is exceptional cruel and inhumane to force a person to carry an unwanted baby to term, but if the prolifers truly believe a aborting an embryo at a couple of months is equivocal to killing a baby, then you can understand some of their behaviour.

The only way to properly understand their behaviour is understand that they hate women and want to punish them. They don't care about the baby at all once they are born, the baby is on its own and they will vote and fight against support being available.

Genuine question I keep reading pro-lifers people 'hate women' - does anyone really believe that? You can disagree with anti-abortion laws (as I do) - but does anyone really believe it is about punishing women and wanting to inflict suffering on them. I can see that restricting safe and accessible abortions for unwanted pregnancies DOES punish and inflict suffering, but no one wants to be the bad guy and this isn't the point of their actions. They've misjudged the hierarchy of rights between a pregnant person and a clump of cells, if they're convinced down to the foundation of their soul that having an abortion is morally the same as killing a baby, surely they just see their actions as giving voice to something that can't defend itself, the problem is they go about it a shitty way.

I'm very open to be corrected but isn't it about that they are concerned for the foetus rather hating women? Like I say genuine question.

You're giving way, way too much benefit of the doubt to religious fascists. Christian fundamentalists are extremely misogynist, of course it's about punishing woman.

Why are they restricting abortion in cases of rape? Incest? When the mother's life is at risk? Why do they only care about the baby when it is unborn? Because it's about punishing and controlling women.

I'm sorry, but you really don't understand the side you are defending here.

Barnsy! wrote:

Tomous! wrote:

Barnsy! wrote:The healthiest individual view point is to fall somewhere between prochoice and prolife. It is exceptional cruel and inhumane to force a person to carry an unwanted baby to term, but if the prolifers truly believe a aborting an embryo at a couple of months is equivocal to killing a baby, then you can understand some of their behaviour.

The only way to properly understand their behaviour is understand that they hate women and want to punish them. They don't care about the baby at all once they are born, the baby is on its own and they will vote and fight against support being available.

Genuine question I keep reading pro-lifers 'hate women' - does anyone really believe that? You can disagree with anti-abortion laws (as I do) - but does anyone really believe it is about punishing women and wanting to inflict suffering on them. I can see that restricting safe and accessible abortions for unwanted pregnancies DOES punish and inflict suffering, but no one wants to be the bad guy and this isn't the point of their actions. They've misjudged the hierarchy of rights between a pregnant person and a clump of cells, if they're convinced down to the foundation of their soul that having an abortion is morally the same as killing a baby, surely they just see their actions as giving voice to something that can't defend itself, the problem is they go about it a shitty way.

I'm very open to be corrected but isn't it about that they are concerned for the foetus rather hating women? Like I say genuine question.

You can tell they don't care about the fetus by the way they couldn't give a gooseberry fool about it the second the baby is born.

Some of the ordinary people will genuinely believe it's killing a baby of course. But that's because they've been fed a pack of lies by the monsters (political and religious) who just want to control other peoples bodies. Look at how the same political and religious leaders act with trans people, gay people etc etc.

Tomous wrote:I'm sorry, but you really don't understand the side you are defending here.

If I had to guess - himself.

It'll be a right leaning voter, who while he doesn't agree with the right on this issue, will still vote for them. I mean after all, both sides are pretty bad, so what's the problem?

Lol at the guy defending pro-lifers from accusations of misogyny after describing women who need abortions as having been "irresponsible with their body."

Maybe you've got a bit of a blind spot?