Red Mosquito

elliseamos wrote:

JuanHamm wrote:Also people who believe in demons are really scary. It feels like they could very easily become serial killers.

Or just kill their families, bury them in South Dakota, and then fly off to Hawaii.

BurtReynolds wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

elliseamos wrote:When is it okay to pull the plug, Burt?

When they can no longer provide tax revenue to the state.

elliseamos wrote: The line that ends life should be the line that starts it.

If you say so!

I'm asking you if you'd agree to that. I'm saying I would.

No gotcha. No R vs. D. Just trying to break up your solo posting, really.

Well I used to be of the opinion that we should take the "better safe than sorry" approach, and draw the line at conception to avoid the possibility of accidentally killing a child (and since we can't really do anything about killing eggs or sperm anyway, there is no reason to worry about them).

But this is basically just Pascal's Wager. And Pascal's Wager has a lot of problems. So that doesn't really work, unless there is a God and he cares what we do, which as far as I'm concerned, we can't know.

So do we leave the decision up to the individual (in this case, women only I guess?) That appeals to the libertarian in me, at least until it's pointed out that women have no special knowledge of when something is a person, and if it is a person, then they also have a right to live, and no one has the right of choosing to kill someone for their own benefit. So that doesn't really work either...

So, is the framework wrong? Should we get rid of the whole concept of "human"? Should I look to my own experience and say that a self becomes a self around 2 or 3? (I can't remember exactly. It's foggy.) That's assuming there are other selves and they are like me and I'm not just floating alone in the void...

Of course that would mean you could kill infants, too. Something a lot of cultures did before...

So uh, maybe just whatever the date is that the earliest foetus survived outside the womb, minus a few weeks just in case...

tldr I don't know.

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Did anyone ever stumble across an objective, nonpartisan analysis of the Dobbs decision (overturning Roe)? Everything I've read seems to be an emotional appeal from one side or the other and not really cutting through the legalese of the opinions.

Stuff You Should Know just did an episode called “A Dispassionate Look at Roe v Wade.” At the end they talk about last week’s ruling. It’s a good listen.

thanks for being the adult in the room.

simple schoolboy wrote:

Dev wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Dev wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Dev wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Dev wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:I read an article about phoebe bridgers basically bragging about her abortion. People like her are every bit the cretin someone who wants to force an incest baby into the world is.

I paraphrased this post in a real conversation today as an example of the most awful right wing rhetoric out there.

Glad I could help

Please reevaluate your politics. The biggest problem in our population is not the woke left? Trust me the right wing status quo is not your friend. No policemen or entrepreneurs or even KKK guys would be your friend. They would look down on you. woke Dev was your buddy tho.

I just don’t get women wearing their abortion as a badge of honor, that’s all. Some of them talk about it like it’s acupuncture or something. Super weird.

I don't think they do tho. Find me an actual example.

Phoebe Bridgers

What video? But even if its really as bad as you say so what? It's anecdotal evidence. Why are you using the absolute worst example to define the left? And why don't you do the same when defining the right wing school of thought you are apparently a member of? And do you realize that social media is brainwashing you because it sends you the article about the worst example of left wing politics that it knows will provoke you and confirm your beliefs? You gotta be more objective, buddy. Because your politics have become inexcusable.

Was "shout your abortion" a fringe thing or did it get otherwise sane people to get onboard? Nutpicking is always a risk, but generally people on the right are better at explaining the actual views of people on the left than vice versa.

Bi_3 wrote:

Dev wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:
<snip>


If it was that simple we could solve it. A big issue is that both positions only come as part of a package deal. So if you want to vote for abortion you need to accept #Defund, open borders, equity over equality, criminals over victims, "it's an obscure legal theory not taught in schools", fuck whytee, fuck America, fuck Christians, fuck math and reading, fuck cars, fuck whytee again, fuck paying back loans, fuck businesses, weekly flag updates, someone sent your boss your old posts from alt.music.pearl-jam and now off to HR, puberty blockers for tweens, and keeping masks on toddlers during zoom school. Our culture needs to figure out a way to untangle these things if we want to keep abortion safe, private, and legal (and we most certainly do), because, as they say, support is a mile wide and an inch thick.

The problem is the right wingers who delusionally group this all together and reject it unequivocally

It's obviously hyperbole, but think about it for a second (trust me it won't hurt). Why is it that nearly 80% of American voters support access to abortion but it's not codified yet? Which candidate could someone vote for if they are pro-choice but against teaching anti-racism to kindergartners? Which candidate is pro-choice but against insanity like this? Which candidate would declare "defunding the police is a terrible idea" or "violent felons belong in jail"? Which candidate would stand up to the Biden admin's gender-affirming care directive? Which candidate would dare say that maybe our elite institutions should admit people based on merit and not their intersections?

These are all things that the general public fucking hates about the blue team. And so we must ask ourselves if in a month will voters really care about abortion over all of these other things (and that doesnt even include the economy). Because if they don't, something is gonna have to give in order to bring Roe back into law.

Spoiler: show

Let's try an answer other than "filibuster"

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:We’ve probably lost GH and 4/5 forever now that dev has taken control of this thread

Yeah, someone send out the B signal and get this content moved.

Mickey wrote:Weird, when I click on that link it says Bari Weiss.

Dev wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

elliseamos wrote:When is it okay to pull the plug, Burt?

When they can no longer provide tax revenue to the state.

elliseamos wrote: The line that ends life should be the line that starts it.

If you say so!

I'm asking you if you'd agree to that. I'm saying I would.

No gotcha. No R vs. D. Just trying to break up your solo posting, really.

Well I used to be of the opinion that we should take the "better safe than sorry" approach, and draw the line at conception to avoid the possibility of accidentally killing a child (and since we can't really do anything about killing eggs or sperm anyway, there is no reason to worry about them).

But this is basically just Pascal's Wager. And Pascal's Wager has a lot of problems. So that doesn't really work, unless there is a God and he cares what we do, which as far as I'm concerned, we can't know.

So do we leave the decision up to the individual (in this case, women only I guess?) That appeals to the libertarian in me, at least until it's pointed out that women have no special knowledge of when something is a person, and if it is a person, then they also have a right to live, and no one has the right of choosing to kill someone for their own benefit. So that doesn't really work either...

So, is the framework wrong? Should we get rid of the whole concept of "human"? Should I look to my own experience and say that a self becomes a self around 2 or 3? (I can't remember exactly. It's foggy.) That's assuming there are other selves and they are like me and I'm not just floating alone in the void...

Of course that would mean you could kill infants, too. Something a lot of cultures did before...

So uh, maybe just whatever the date is that the earliest foetus survived outside the womb, minus a few weeks just in case...

tldr I don't know.

I really hated this post. I hated it so much I haven't forgotten about it in days.

Debating when life begins is the biggest waste of time. We already had ethical standards for abortion. It's not just about when life begins and saving life vs. killing life or whatever crop burt got into. it's about the choice to not bring unwanted babies into this world and the ethics surrounding. It's about giving women dignity. Fuck a dispassionate view on the subject. There is no such thing. Christians are scum.

spike wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Any news yet of a pro-choice crypto network? Feels inevitable

Dev wrote:You right wing apologists are ushering in a new wave of real evil and suffering into the world. This isn't a joke. This isn't a thought experiment. Wake the fuck up.

Dev wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Dev wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:
<snip>


If it was that simple we could solve it. A big issue is that both positions only come as part of a package deal. So if you want to vote for abortion you need to accept #Defund, open borders, equity over equality, criminals over victims, "it's an obscure legal theory not taught in schools", fuck whytee, fuck America, fuck Christians, fuck math and reading, fuck cars, fuck whytee again, fuck paying back loans, fuck businesses, weekly flag updates, someone sent your boss your old posts from alt.music.pearl-jam and now off to HR, puberty blockers for tweens, and keeping masks on toddlers during zoom school. Our culture needs to figure out a way to untangle these things if we want to keep abortion safe, private, and legal (and we most certainly do), because, as they say, support is a mile wide and an inch thick.

The problem is the right wingers who delusionally group this all together and reject it unequivocally

It's obviously hyperbole, but think about it for a second (trust me it won't hurt). Why is it that nearly 80% of American voters support access to abortion but it's not codified yet? Which candidate could someone vote for if they are pro-choice but against teaching anti-racism to kindergartners? Which candidate is pro-choice but against insanity like this? Which candidate would declare "defunding the police is a terrible idea" or "violent felons belong in jail"? Which candidate would stand up to the Biden admin's gender-affirming care directive? Which candidate would dare say that maybe our elite institutions should admit people based on merit and not their intersections?

These are all things that the general public fucking hates about the blue team. And so we must ask ourselves if in a month will voters really care about abortion over all of these other things (and that doesnt even include the economy). Because if they don't, something is gonna have to give in order to bring Roe back into law.

Spoiler: show

Let's try an answer other than "filibuster"

It's hard to take seriously the way you think. Actually for me it's impossible.

But yes, there is a huge populous movement in america which shares all your regressive beliefs, and doesn't want anti-racism, and doesn't want to defund the police, and doesn't want gender affirming care, and probably lot's of you don't even believe in abortion. Honestly, I am afraid you guys are going to win. Seems like support for this evil is only growing.