Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion

[Phoenixmgs]

"If you think it's okay to have vaccine mandates, why don't you also want to ban sugar water?" Fucking seriously with this shit? Covid is still killing more people in three weeks than get killed on motorcycles in a year in the US, fucking stop this.
Correct, video game developers also should not be exploited and certainly not enslaved. And if that means no video games until the situation is rectified then so be it? I don't even know why you'd *want* to buy video games that could only be made if the devs were exploited.
The religious hospital thing, the insurance thing, the inheritance thing...
The 13th and 14th amendments are significantly longer than one sentence, and that's not including the reams of paper worth of supporting laws
A) it was still an argument being made
B) you end with the best argument because it's the last one before deliberations begin
C) 4 justices still voted against it
Okay, so how do I prove "the government should not be allowed to steal your redundant organs" as the correct moral stance, Mr Philosophy? How is it even *possible* to find a correct morality?

For that matter, you can't find an actual *flaw* with this morality. You just talk around it without ever engaging like the moral coward you are
Anybody can support a child. Groups of people can support a child. Fucking hell, we have systems in place for when the original parent can't or won't support a child. You cannot do that with pregnancy. (Yet)
The same place where withholding a compatable kidney kills a person on dialysis, moron. Why does a fetus have the right to another person's body for 9 months? The right to steal resources and permanently alter that body? The right to put that body in mortal peril? And why doesn't literally anybody else have the same right to somebody else's body? Why is a fetus a special exception, what gives it that right over a full blooded human person?

What is your moral justification for that?
Correct, I do not respect their stance. And why should I, when their stance is "it was part of God's plan that the 10 year old was raped and impregnated, so we have to force her to have the rapist's child until it brings her to the brink of death"?
Damn, that a good comback to the "a significant number of people consider rape babies a punishment from god that children have to live with" argument. Especially when the GOP has made dozens of laws to that effect. Do you actually care about that or do you just want to ***** about Democrats some more?
And what right would that be? Does that right include using somebody else's body for survival without consent? Does everybody have that right?

Hey, if you can save 5 lives by murdering 1 person with healthy organs, is it morally right to do so?

You're the one saying the covid vaccine mandate is "just" because of the community benefit (while ignoring the community detriments). The community benefit of banning pop would be far greater than the covid mandate. That's your argument, not mine. How are you pro-Thing_X but then not pro-Thing_Y when Thing_Y has greater community benefit?

You're saying just the concept of prisoners working is immoral.

If marriage wasn't officially recognized, you'd have none of that.

The part that makes inequality unlawful is one sentence of the 14th amendment. The 13th amendment is one sentence basically if you don't include the standard other sentence about Congress having the power to enforce it that they all have.

A) Which is why it won't get overturned
B) You don't end with the best argument and I think you're confusing last argument with closing arguments
C) Because the quiet part was said loud and the loud part quiet

You prove how you stance is more ethical by showing how the consequences of your stance is better vs their stance (basically a moral cost-benefit analysis). You just listed a bunch of bad stuff, which the other side can do just the same. I agree with your points but they also don't prove your stance is morally better either.

We don't have a system in place to support children if you just allow parents give up a kid whenever they want, there is a max age for adoptive services.

Again, you not proving in any way that you're right. You're just listing things in question form now. I thought you're above this low level discussion that goes nowhere.

You can't see where another person is coming from and disagree with them and still respect them? And someone said I needed empathy here...

Someone has to try to even out all the lopsided shitting on republicans.

I'm not. I'm saying Capitalism greatly helps to systemically engrain it.

Being born is not a human right onto itself. It's the human right of the one pregnant to have the child if they so choose, it's not the human right of a child to be born. If it were we'd all be guilty for not constantly trying to procreate. Abortion is a basic human right because women suffer untold amounts more without it. That's your evidence right there as well. The only thing abortion goes against is religious beliefs. But the fact that you equate the right to abortion to morals says enough.

Any system without safeguards will systematically ingrain any prejudices.

What official human right book are you pulling these human rights from? Everyone emotionally knows killing a fetus is wrong, why do you think you have such a different reaction to a death scene when a pregnant woman is killed vs a non-pregnant woman. Why is doing a "wrong" a basic human right? Because you said so? Just because there's more suffering (which no one has proved) doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Like Mysterious said above, is then killing a person to save 5 other people a basic human right because that causes less suffering?

And I couldn't care less about religious beliefs, I've never been to church in my life outside of being apart of the occasional mass during a funeral. If you're religious or not that scene of a pregnant woman getting killed hits you harder because we all know it's different.

But you said the argument was there in Obergefell. Now you're.... giving reasons why it's not there?



Firstly, it's the GOP that's trying its hardest to remove discrimination/criminal protections from Trans people. It's GOP policy that makes it as hard as possible for trans people to access lifesaving medication. So it's GOP policy that leads to more than bathroom and sports stuff; it's GOP policy that allows prejudicial hirings and firings, and opens the door for violent abuse, that exacerbates medical conditions.

Secondly, the GOP also hikes business rates, rent, mortgage payments etc, all while suppressing wages. So no, even if you resort to generic economic arguments, they're still not "better off" under the Republicans. Nobody is, except the rich.



Not "a bit badder". A fucking helluva lot badder.

But no, neither are good guys, which is why I didn't say they were.

As the 4th and final argument and not the main argument.

That just proves you don't get it, calling either party a fucking helluva lot badder means their game has worked wonders on you.

Immoral laws are not good laws.

But when the law has to be immoral because if allowed it's immoral and if not allowed it's immoral, then what is to be done? Maybe, you know, do what I said above?

I've never really said which is the morally better stance because I honestly don't really care that much to think about it much (and do the proof required) because that would be missing the forest for the trees. You give both sides a piece of the "win" and both are content enough, there is mutual respect, and whatever the next issue is where there is a rift in morality, you have fostered a better environment to work that out because polarization is bad and causes more harm in the long run than if either side wins abortion. It's the tagline from Alien vs Predator, Whoever Wins...We Lose.

 

[Casual Shinji]

What official human right book are you pulling these human rights from?

Empathy and common sense.

Everyone emotionally knows killing a fetus is wrong, why do you think you have such a different reaction to a death scene when a pregnant woman is killed vs a non-pregnant woman.

I don't. Context matters, but by default no, I don't. I'll have a different reaction to a heavily pregnant woman getting killed (in a movie) since physical disability plays a role, but a woman that's one month pregnant, why? The only other time is when someone really wanted to start a family (in a movie) and the death takes that future away.

And that last bit is what it's all about, and what makes forcing someone to carry a fetus to term just as bad as forcing someone to have an abortion when they don't want to; you're taking someone's future away.

Killing a fetus, as in having an abortion, is neither wrong nor right, it's a necessity for the one who's pregnant not wanting to be pregnant. You're equating abortions to people (having said abortions) just going 'eh whatever, I'mma just kill a fetus', when every woman who goes or has gone through this procedure knows how impactful and invasive it is.

Why is doing a "wrong" a basic human right? Because you said so?

Because you can't force someone who doesn't want to be pregnant to be pregnant. It's really that simple, no buts about it.

Just because there's more suffering (which no one has proved) doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Like Mysterious said above, is then killing a person to save 5 other people a basic human right because that causes less suffering?

It's already been stated multiple times in this thread what this suffering entails, factual stories that happened as a direct cause of Roe being overturned.

As for the killing one person to save five others... If it's a school shooter ready to walk into a classroom to kill five (or more) kids? Yes. Unless that's not the context you had in mind.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

You're the one saying the covid vaccine mandate is "just" because of the community benefit (while ignoring the community detriments). The community benefit of banning pop would be far greater than the covid mandate. That's your argument, not mine. How are you pro-Thing_X but then not pro-Thing_Y when Thing_Y has greater community benefit?

What version of sugar water do you stop with? Is it the carbonation? Are sports drinks and pedialite banned? Fruit juice?

You're saying just the concept of prisoners working is immoral.

If it's not voluntary or adequately compensated, yes. Slavery is immoral. Do I need a dead European asshole who made up a philosophy while his mom did his laundry to say so?

If marriage wasn't officially recognized, you'd have none of that.

I dunno how to tell you this, but if somebody gets seriously injured you need some method of transfering medical decision making

The part that makes inequality unlawful is one sentence of the 14th amendment. The 13th amendment is one sentence basically if you don't include the standard other sentence about Congress having the power to enforce it that they all have.

Lmao, explain the civil rights act of 1964 then, if one line in the 14th amendment was all that was needed

A) Which is why it won't get overturned
B) You don't end with the best argument and I think you're confusing last argument with closing arguments
C) Because the quiet part was said loud and the loud part quiet

lmao

You prove how you stance is more ethical by showing how the consequences of your stance is better vs their stance (basically a moral cost-benefit analysis). You just listed a bunch of bad stuff, which the other side can do just the same. I agree with your points but they also don't prove your stance is morally better either.

Then what the hell will? Seriously, steelman this for me, show me what format you want this discussion in.

We don't have a system in place to support children if you just allow parents give up a kid whenever they want, there is a max age for adoptive services.

...the maximum age for adoption is 21 years old, *and* you're just straight up ignoring the main point of anybody can take care of a child, it doesn't have to be a biological parent

Again, you not proving in any way that you're right. You're just listing things in question form now. I thought you're above this low level discussion that goes nowhere.

This isn't a discussion because you adamantly refuse to actually discuss. You are simply endlessly JAQing off while never putting your own ideas up for inspection

You can't see where another person is coming from and disagree with them and still respect them? And someone said I needed empathy here...

I know exactly where most of these fucks are coming from and that's why I can't respect them. Why do *you* respect people who believe child rape victims need to risk death to bear their rapist's child? Spell it out for me, Mr Empathy

Someone has to try to even out all the lopsided shitting on republicans.

Please stop, the devil doesn't need advocates and you are shit at it.

 

[Silvanus]

As the 4th and final argument and not the main argument.

So if you believe that "just because it should" is an argument that's present, then you should be able to point to where it is. As I asked you to originally.

Here's the majority opinion. So where is that argument, that it's there because it "should be"? That's not the "fourth" or the "final" argument in it. So where is it?

That just proves you don't get it, calling either party a fucking helluva lot badder means their game has worked wonders on you.

The party that removes workplace protections is worse than the party that votes against that happening. The party that votes to obstruct access to lifesaving medication is worse than the party that doesn't. The party that tries its hardest to suppress wages, and to allow discriminatory hiring practices, is worse than the party that doesn't do those grotesque things.

To buy into the "both sides" false equivalence bollocks proves their game has worked wonders on you. Well, either that or you don't feel the effects personally, and lack empathy for those who do.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

But when the law has to be immoral because if allowed it's immoral and if not allowed it's immoral, then what is to be done? Maybe, you know, do what I said above?

Did you have a stroke while you were writing that?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Empathy and common sense.

-

I don't. Context matters, but by default no, I don't. I'll have a different reaction to a heavily pregnant woman getting killed (in a movie) since physical disability plays a role, but a woman that's one month pregnant, why? The only other time is when someone really wanted to start a family (in a movie) and the death takes that future away.

And that last bit is what it's all about, and what makes forcing someone to carry a fetus to term just as bad as forcing someone to have an abortion when they don't want to; you're taking someone's future away.

Killing a fetus, as in having an abortion, is neither wrong nor right, it's a necessity for the one who's pregnant not wanting to be pregnant. You're equating abortions to people (having said abortions) just going 'eh whatever, I'mma just kill a fetus', when every woman who goes or has gone through this procedure knows how impactful and invasive it is.

-

Because you can't force someone who doesn't want to be pregnant to be pregnant. It's really that simple, no buts about it.

-

It's already been stated multiple times in this thread what this suffering entails, factual stories that happened as a direct cause of Roe being overturned.

As for the killing one person to save five others... If it's a school shooter ready to walk into a classroom to kill five (or more) kids? Yes. Unless that's not the context you had in mind.

So there's no empathy and common sense involved in those finding killing babies is wrong?

-

There's quite a different audience reaction to a pregnant woman getting killed regardless if she was super pregnant visually or it's found out after the fact that she was pregnant. You're an outlier for sure. And you just mentioned empathy a second ago...

-

You're pulling a Mysterious, the other side can make literally the same exact argument in reverse. Why should yours being any more respected than theirs?

-

Everyone is fully aware of the suffering incurred, nobody is saying there isn't (outside of probably some extremists). Suffering also exists in killing babies too. How are you gonna prove there's more suffering on either side? Because it's kinda impossible to values on these things.

Not the context I had in mind. Just merely a healthy person can save 5 people by say donating organs if you killed them. If you're going by we should do what causes the least amount of suffering as your moral justification, then killing that totally innocent person is the morally just thing to do.

What version of sugar water do you stop with? Is it the carbonation? Are sports drinks and pedialite banned? Fruit juice?
If it's not voluntary or adequately compensated, yes. Slavery is immoral. Do I need a dead European asshole who made up a philosophy while his mom did his laundry to say so?
I dunno how to tell you this, but if somebody gets seriously injured you need some method of transfering medical decision making
Lmao, explain the civil rights act of 1964 then, if one line in the 14th amendment was all that was needed
lmao
Then what the hell will? Seriously, steelman this for me, show me what format you want this discussion in.
...the maximum age for adoption is 21 years old, *and* you're just straight up ignoring the main point of anybody can take care of a child, it doesn't have to be a biological parent
This isn't a discussion because you adamantly refuse to actually discuss. You are simply endlessly JAQing off while never putting your own ideas up for inspection
I know exactly where most of these fucks are coming from and that's why I can't respect them. Why do *you* respect people who believe child rape victims need to risk death to bear their rapist's child? Spell it out for me, Mr Empathy
Please stop, the devil doesn't need advocates and you are shit at it.

The definition at this time doesn't really matter. Why would you be against banning sugary drinks when that would have a massive community benefit but be for the covid vaccine mandates (that have very little community benefit)? It doesn't make any logical sense.

Why don't you poll people to see if they think prisoners working in conceptually bad? If people actually felt this was slavery, where's some big movement or protest?

And what's stopping the medical decision making just to go to the whatever person that you write down like you do for say life insurance and put the beneficiary down? You can give anyone power of attorney and it overrides the spouse. I don't understand why you think there must be some official family structure in place in order to make medical decisions and whatnot. Spouses don't need to have any official recognition whatsoever.

And the Civil Rights Act wasn't unconstitutional because of what amendment?

It's really hard to prove, that's the point. The other side's reasoning for not wanting abortion is basically impossible to put a value on. It's like trying to put a value on how much a sentimental object is worth or how much money should be given when someone dies at say work because the proper safety procedures weren't in place. How do you put a value on a family losing say a father 20 years too soon? A baby that gets aborted could be someone like Nikola Tesla or a serial killer or a normal person. That's why I said I don't really care to because it will be too fucking hard and probably even impossible to do said moral proof. Acting like you're objectively in the moral right position and by on landslide on something like this is great hubris. That's why I'm not saying one side is indeed right or not because I don't know, I'm pro-abortion but I don't think I'm empirically right either, that's just my take/perspective.

There's a cap of age 4 for giving a up a child to adoption. There's not a system in place to take care of kids if parents are just allowed to give up their child when they feel like it. Sure, anyone can raise a kid but how are you gonna find someone that will take your 10 year old for example? Yes, in theory you can legally let someone else adopt a kid at any time, but you think that is readily available? Lots of things work in theory but not in the actual world.

So if you believe that "just because it should" is an argument that's present, then you should be able to point to where it is. As I asked you to originally.

Here's the majority opinion. So where is that argument, that it's there because it "should be"? That's not the "fourth" or the "final" argument in it. So where is it?



The party that removes workplace protections is worse than the party that votes against that happening. The party that votes to obstruct access to lifesaving medication is worse than the party that doesn't. The party that tries its hardest to suppress wages, and to allow discriminatory hiring practices, is worse than the party that doesn't do those grotesque things.

To buy into the "both sides" false equivalence bollocks proves their game has worked wonders on you. Well, either that or you don't feel the effects personally, and lack empathy for those who do.

My fault I was reading the majority opinion where they broke down their reasons and got that switched in my head with that being the plaintiffs arguments because that's what I was searching for. However, there is the actual arguments that you can read and listen to and in part 1 at least, the argument doesn't even come up over economic inequality. The argument opens arguing that gay people don't have equal dignity that they can't marry. At one point a plaintiff is saying the marriage allows for an enduring bond... And, why does marriage make your bond any more enduring than just being together and loving each other? 2 people deciding to live their life together is the important part and the actual marriage only legally entwines you together, you really don't need the latter. The arguments are really weak.

Where's actual enforcement of workplace protections? There's a Ford plant close to me (in south Chicago) and I, of course, know people that work there and that place is not at all safe to work at (cancers and all that) and OSHA doesn't fucking care. You think the republicans are the only ones suppressing life saving medicine? You think republicans are why Americans spend way way way more on medicine than any other developed country in the world? Funny how Trump wanted to lower insulin prices and DeSantis is suing the FDA to get drug prices lower. Republicans are trying to suppress wages when you can wash cars for $16/hr in a fucking red state? Your view on actual reality is so fucking skewed.

Did you have a stroke while you were writing that?

Regardless of what the abortion law is, it will be immoral, can you comprehend that better? Because the initial wording is just fine.

 

[Silvanus]

My fault I was reading the majority opinion where they broke down their reasons and got that switched in my head with that being the plaintiffs arguments because that's what I was searching for. However, there is the actual arguments that you can read and listen to and in part 1 at least, the argument doesn't even come up over economic inequality. The argument opens arguing that gay people don't have equal dignity that they can't marry. At one point a plaintiff is saying the marriage allows for an enduring bond... And, why does marriage make your bond any more enduring than just being together and loving each other? 2 people deciding to live their life together is the important part and the actual marriage only legally entwines you together, you really don't need the latter. The arguments are really weak.

Legally being together conveys several benefits: the ability to visit the partner in hospital when only the closest "kin" or family are allowed, for instance; and the legal right to make decisions on the partner's behalf that comes with that. Elements of inheritance are assumed when the two partners are married, in addition, which are not at all assumed when they are together but unmarried (I know people personally who chose not to marry, and whose inheritance was more costly and complicated as a result).

Where's actual enforcement of workplace protections? There's a Ford plant close to me (in south Chicago) and I, of course, know people that work there and that place is not at all safe to work at (cancers and all that) and OSHA doesn't fucking care. You think the republicans are the only ones suppressing life saving medicine? You think republicans are why Americans spend way way way more on medicine than any other developed country in the world? Funny how Trump wanted to lower insulin prices and DeSantis is suing the FDA to get drug prices lower. Republicans are trying to suppress wages when you can wash cars for $16/hr in a fucking red state? Your view on actual reality is so fucking skewed.

Once again, what you're doing is just talking about generic arguments that have nothing specific to do with trans people. We're talking about medicine available to trans people. The Republican party stands in the way of hormonal blockers, gender reassignment surgery, oestrogen and testosterone for people who're working through hormonal development that's not normative. This is despite the fact that gender-affirming therapies have the highest satisfaction rate, and the greatest improvement of quality-of-life, of all therapeutic or medicinal approaches.

But if you insist on just talking about generic economic arguments: no, Trump did not intend to lower the cost of Insulin. What he did was add an insulin cost-ceiling to premium-rated private insurance schemes. Insulin actually became more expensive for the average consumer during Trump's tenure. So he was trying to shunt people onto more expensive overall private insurance plans, while the prices continued to rise for the poorest.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The definition at this time doesn't really matter. Why would you be against banning sugary drinks when that would have a massive community benefit but be for the covid vaccine mandates (that have very little community benefit)? It doesn't make any logical sense.

Then sure, in your world it makes sense to ban fruit juice.

Why don't you poll people to see if they think prisoners working in conceptually bad? If people actually felt this was slavery, where's some big movement or protest?

As we all know, something is only right or wrong if the majority of people think so. That's why interracial marriage was only morally correct beginning on the '90s.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/06/19/13th-amendment-prisons-juneteenth/

And what's stopping the medical decision making just to go to the whatever person that you write down like you do for say life insurance and put the beneficiary down? You can give anyone power of attorney and it overrides the spouse. I don't understand why you think there must be some official family structure in place in order to make medical decisions and whatnot. Spouses don't need to have any official recognition whatsoever.

Because Religious Freedom exemptions.

And the Civil Rights Act wasn't unconstitutional because of what amendment?

14th, which had to be added in later

It's really hard to prove, that's the point. The other side's reasoning for not wanting abortion is basically impossible to put a value on. It's like trying to put a value on how much a sentimental object is worth or how much money should be given when someone dies at say work because the proper safety procedures weren't in place. How do you put a value on a family losing say a father 20 years too soon? A baby that gets aborted could be someone like Nikola Tesla or a serial killer or a normal person. That's why I said I don't really care to because it will be too fucking hard and probably even impossible to do said moral proof. Acting like you're objectively in the moral right position and by on landslide on something like this is great hubris. That's why I'm not saying one side is indeed right or not because I don't know, I'm pro-abortion but I don't think I'm empirically right either, that's just my take/perspective.

So you are asking me to prove an impossible thing in service to not wanting the government to force people to remain pregnant. So Mr Pro-Abortion, what's your criteria for forcing somebody to remain pregnant? You never actually articulate your stance here, other than abortion becoming immoral and tantamount to murder at some undefined point.

What moral weight are you assigning a possible future for a child that's worth crassly violating the bodily integrity of another person for, thereby irrevocably changing *their* future against their will? How come its only the fetus's future potential that counts? Just writing off huge sections of humanity because they got pregnant? Can't help but notice most of the people who's future you're writing off are poor women

There's a cap of age 4 for giving a up a child to adoption. There's not a system in place to take care of kids if parents are just allowed to give up their child when they feel like it. Sure, anyone can raise a kid but how are you gonna find someone that will take your 10 year old for example? Yes, in theory you can legally let someone else adopt a kid at any time, but you think that is readily available? Lots of things work in theory but not in the actual world.

That's an easily fixed thing which makes it a fantastically stupid analogy for forcing actual human people to remain pregnant. Fucking hell, *the point* was that a person outside the womb can be taken care of by basically anybody, which makes it much, *much* different than the state forcing somebody to be medical equipment.

What part of the "it's god's plan to have a child be raped and die in child birth so the government should force it" stance do I have to remain respectful of? You seem to have skipped that entire part conversation when you admonished me for not being empathetic.

 

[Baffle]

Did you have a stroke while you were writing that?

Pretty sure I had one reading it.

 

[Casual Shinji]

So there's no empathy and common sense involved in those finding killing babies is wrong?

There's quite a different audience reaction to a pregnant woman getting killed regardless if she was super pregnant visually or it's found out after the fact that she was pregnant. You're an outlier for sure.

And?

You're pulling a Mysterious, the other side can make literally the same exact argument in reverse. Why should yours being any more respected than theirs?

Because they're forcing women to be pregnant. Forcing physical and mental ailment and possibly death. Not the death of an unaware clump of cells, death of a person. Anyone trying to both-sides this can eat a nice steaming pile of shit. So can those trying to escribe personhood to a fetus.

Everyone is fully aware of the suffering incurred, nobody is saying there isn't (outside of probably some extremists). Suffering also exists in killing babies too. How are you gonna prove there's more suffering on either side? Because it's kinda impossible to values on these things.

No actually, it's very easy, one just needs to be educated and not be a giant asshole. Both things the GOP is highly allergic to.

 

[tstorm823]

No actually, it's very easy, one just needs to be educated and not be a giant asshole.

I've never seen a sentence so efficiently attack its own author. "Just don't be an asshole like those uneducated swine who disagree with me."

 

[Casual Shinji]

I've never seen a sentence so efficiently attack its own author. "Just don't be an asshole like those uneducated swine who disagree with me."

Well actually it's 'don't be an asshole like those uneducated swine who force pregnancy onto women'. That's not me attacking myself, that's me attacking pro-lifers, because they're uneducated swine. Although that's an insult to swine.

 

[tstorm823]

Well actually it's 'don't be an asshole like those uneducated swine who force pregnancy onto women'. That's not me attacking myself, that's me attacking pro-lifers, because they're uneducated swine. Although that's an insult to swine.

I really hope you've got like 10+ years of higher education, because I know a lot of pro-life people who are both kinder and waaaay more educated than you otherwise.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I really hope you've got like 10+ years of higher education, because I know a lot of pro-life people who are both kinder and waaaay more educated than you otherwise.

I'm sure you do.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I know a lot of pro-life people who are both kinder and waaaay more educated than you otherwise.

Well, if they're in the crowd who are demanding that women carry dead fetuses and that ten-year-old girls be forced to give birth to rape babies, then "kind" isn't the four-letter word I would use to describe them.

 

[Trunkage]

I really hope you've got like 10+ years of higher education, because I know a lot of pro-life people who are both kinder and waaaay more educated than you otherwise.

Maybe you should get them out and talking about pro-life arguments then

 

[immortalfrieza]

Well, if they're in the crowd who are demanding that women carry dead fetuses and that ten-year-old girls be forced to give birth to rape babies, then "kind" isn't the four-letter word I would use to describe them.

Or smart for that matter. Just because someone is capable of quoting Plato or has an IQ or 200 or has PHDs or any other "this is what a smart person does" thing doesn't mean they are unable to be really stupid. All it means is that they are technically intelligent and are good at some subjects. Believing abortion is a bad thing and isn't a basic human right particularly in the cases where it's on the basis of "cuz religion" makes one an idiot no matter how well they do on an IQ test. Besides, anyone can find someone even several people who are technically smart and yet still believes in nearly anything no matter how beyond idiotic if one digs hard enough.

These people are "kind and intelligent" solely because they agree with tstorm, not because they genuinely are.

 

[tstorm823]

These people are "kind and intelligent" solely because they agree with tstorm, not because they genuinely are.

You are quite shamelessly attempting to flip this on me, but I am not the one saying everyone who disagrees with me is an uneducated asshole. The goodness of a person is not dependent on whether they agree with me or not. Barrack Obama is an educated man. He seems, from my limited perspective, to also be a kind man. I disagree with many of his policy positions. That does not make him an uneducated asshole.

Don't project onto me the attitude I'm complaining about.

 

[Kwak]

You are quite shamelessly attempting to flip this on me, but I am not the one saying everyone who disagrees with me is an uneducated asshole.

Everyone who disagrees with me, being disagrees with the fact that forced birth for rape victims is wrong, absolutely is a fucking shameless arsehole and should be fired into the sun.

 

[tstorm823]

Everyone who disagrees with me, being disagrees with the fact that forced birth for rape victims is wrong, absolutely is a fucking shameless arsehole and should be fired into the sun.

Do you not see the resemblance between yourself and those who might call you a baby-murderer?