They are people, you can't run from this. Future generations will look at you with disgust for continuing to pretend otherwise in the age of modern medicine.
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
If you just take it to its most extreme, almost nobody agrees that a fetus isn't human. Probably 99.9% of people would be disgusted on an abortion purely out of choice of a 9 month pregnancy. Thus, that proves there's at least a line where it's immoral/unethical. Then, where should we put that line at as a society?
Actually, I believe him. That he used a formulation that allows for the interpretation of referring to the mothers I attribute to the fact that everyone can make a mistake.
Man...even the Transgender politician couldn't wait to throw the T from the LGBT away as soon as it was politically convenient...
I'm so very tired of being correct with my predictions all the time
Why is this a question? The line is "never choose to kill." There's not a point where it becomes immoral, that choice is always immoral.
"I run the largest left-wing network and a Democratic leader has NEVER asked me that question".
Why should they? You're a media personality, not a policy expert or authority on the topic.
Are we doing a strawman speedrun here? You must not be very confident in your positions if you have to make up arguments to beat. I don't blame you, "yes we want to kill people" is a tough position to defend honestly.
This has my wife extra freaked out 'cause she's part of the backend of Medicaid in my state.
This is definitely her moment of a stopped clock being right.
Even if she thinks that Dems have enough dirt on them to scare them away from doing it MAD-style so it's safe to call for.
He literally seems to draw his appointments from three lists:
- Republicans with lots of media experience.
- The Project 2025 author of the relevant section.
- People plausibly accused of being Russian assets.
A lot of folks will take being lied to or paid lip service by a politician over being disregarded and ignored.
The part you keep skipping is defining "people". "Every sperm is sacred" may be a parody, but it's one worth pointing at - why is a clump of say 16 diploid human cells definitely a "person", while the moment before the two haploid cells joined to start that diploid cell line neither gamete was a "person"? The gametes are still alive and still human, after all. Should every girl between menarche and menopause be charged with a crime every month she doesn't make a good faith effort to get pregnant, because that egg is a "person" that's been killed by not introducing it to a sperm?
That's what most of society agrees that there should be a line. The fact that nobody would agree with the most extreme case is proof that just stating a fetus is not a human or a baby or a child is a bullshit argument.
It's bad.
Because one is a unique individual, and the other is a piece of a whole. If I cut off your finger, you could say I killed that finger, but you are not dead. Cells of your body aren't alive in the sense of an organisms. A fetus is not a part of you, it is a unique individual, and therefore alive distinctly.
Most of society used to be cool with infanticide. It was still the wrong answer. There are infinite evils that society can agree upon, it will never make evil good.
And this my friends is why we lost 2024 elections. The republicans fight for republicans on social annd increased economic issues and the democrats can’t explain their policy which is pushed by upper income costal elites. This by the way is Colombian Law School educated Cenk Uygur who has repeated echoed popular policies backed by policy research like a public option which would reduce admin costs for healthcare, Medicare to negotiate the price of drugs which would decrease drug prices overall and decrease the deficit. Paid family leave which would mean more children in a birth rate crisis which could mean a pension crisis. Take your elitism and lose it like the how the democrats lost the election over economic issues.
A republican saying this means the Overton window has been shifted I see it all the time with republicans being more and more anti military which I being a natural contrarian are against that.
Oof, that report must be BAD bad if it's getting even this dude to back down now...
It might be, but that's not the likely thing happening here. Most likely this is "the Senate is going to vote against me 80-20 and end my career in politics, so I won't give them the chance."
Almost like there's some kind of child sized dark cloud over his head
You know what would clear that right up though? Some kind of report that would show that he is innocent of all of these nasty rumors!!!
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,607
- 3,132
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
I wonder why they would vote against him 80-20 and end his career in politics. Is it perhaps that he's a known pedophile and sex pest and the house ethics report getting released would show beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's even worse than what people think?
He's trying so hard to bury this report that he's willing to take a massive hit to his political career to do so.
Again, maybe, but it's not indicative of that. The man pisses everyone off everywhere he goes, you don't need a pedophile party ring conspiracy to justify voting against him.