Colorado signs law allowing abortion at ANY POINT in PREGNANCY

[Trunkage]

Just to show you how far concern is about women's bodily autonomy has gotten after all of this: it now appears possible that investigators are going to be able to use period tracking apps as evidence for abortion-murder cases. Or at least, it's enough of a possibility to warrant an official White House warning.

White House says Americans should be 'really careful' about using period tracker apps | CNN Politics

The White House is warning individuals to be "really careful" when using phone apps that track users' menstrual cycles over fears that the data could be used against them if they seek abortions following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

www.cnn.com

Women dont have privacy mmmkay. In fact, it's best you forget the whole concept

Note: I very much doubt that's not the only app they are using data to track you

I'd also wonder why you'd need to worry about warrants. You have no privacy, so they shouldn't really be necessary anymore

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It does invalidate the law in the manner it was applied.

Only if a Supreme Court says so, and have you looked around lately?

More than you, who keeps the same people in power. I do what I can, you don't seem to do your part if you're voting for either party.

So zero then

I said it's somewhat similar to consequentialism because you are looking at what would happen, it's not in the same vein as consequentialism that looks at literally every single isolated action. Applying an extra circumstance to a rule doesn't turn deontology into consequentialism.

You just want to have your cake and eat it too. Read that link you provided maybe

Thus, 81% doesn't agree with you. I didn't say literally everyone else disagrees with you but every country as a collective whether 81%, 92%, or 51% disagrees with you.

You literally said that literally everybody else disagrees with me

I do read my sources, you just read some opinion on a source vs the source itself. Which is why more than half the time, I read the law and it doesn't say what you claim it says. Nor can you even copy/pasta the part of the law that claims what you said because it doesn't exist, and then give some bullshit excuss that's too long to copy/pasta.

Yeah, I post the opinions of lawyers and Poe ppl who work directly with lawyers. You're a STEM guy who doesn't realize that lawyers exist for a reason.

Why are you even on Twitter to begin with, it's a garbage platform.

Says the guy who gets his information exclusively from YouTube, lmao

No, you didn't.

I *literally* quoted an attorney, what more do you want? Do you actually read these responses?

The article says that laws WILL, let me know what they actually DO.

It's literally the first fucking post of the thread...

This law allows a woman to get an abortion literally the minute before she would give birth, which is pretty damn ridiculous.

YoU sAy WhAt ThE lAwS wiLl, LeT mE kNoW wHaT tHeY aCtUaLLy dO

Are people going to actually *do* that, Phoenix? You've already said you don't care if it doesn't actually happen, you want it banned anyway. Putting red tape in front of people to prevent a thing that doesn't not happen can *only* have the effect of tripping people up. You get that, right?

Besides, you've never put down an argument for *why* it's ridiculous, you've just said that other people don't do it and that your hilarious version of consequentialism disguised as deontology says it's bad except for when it isn't, which apparently means that the government should be in charge of determining when it isn't *I guess*, but you've never actually said *why* it's bad for the government to not be involved

 

[Cheetodust]

I said it's somewhat similar to consequentialism

Jesus fuck, can you even lie straight in bed?

You can kinda argue deontology is consequentialism.

Not "Similar to", "is".

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Only if a Supreme Court says so, and have you looked around lately?
So zero then
You just want to have your cake and eat it too. Read that link you provided maybe
You literally said that literally everybody else disagrees with me
Yeah, I post the opinions of lawyers and Poe ppl who work directly with lawyers. You're a STEM guy who doesn't realize that lawyers exist for a reason.
Says the guy who gets his information exclusively from YouTube, lmao
I *literally* quoted an attorney, what more do you want? Do you actually read these responses?

YoU sAy WhAt ThE lAwS wiLl, LeT mE kNoW wHaT tHeY aCtUaLLy dO

Are people going to actually *do* that, Phoenix? You've already said you don't care if it doesn't actually happen, you want it banned anyway. Putting red tape in front of people to prevent a thing that doesn't not happen can *only* have the effect of tripping people up. You get that, right?

Besides, you've never put down an argument for *why* it's ridiculous, you've just said that other people don't do it and that your hilarious version of consequentialism disguised as deontology says it's bad except for when it isn't, which apparently means that the government should be in charge of determining when it isn't *I guess*, but you've never actually said *why* it's bad for the government to not be involved

What was legally wrong with any recent SCOTUS ruling? I'm not a fan of the consequence of the Roe ruling but it was the right ruling just in terms of legality. The federal government currently does not have the power to make abortion law, it's a state's right. Not my fault, ya'll keep voting for people that don't care about actually doing things that would help people and just wanna use abortion issue to get votes vs actually doing anything about it.

I know the difference between the philosophies...

Why would I actually make the argument that literally no person on earth agrees with you? You know how phrasing works, right?

You're lawyer's opinion, "Laws will exist that ask [physicians] to deprioritize the person in front of them and to act in a way that is medically harmful." They are predicting laws will exist to do that but they don't now. I'm asking what current laws or current bills are actually doing any of what you claim?

Says the guy who gets his information exclusively from Twitter, lmao... I actually read the law when someone claims it does such and such thing that it usually doesn't do.

The Colorado law does actually do that, read the law, it does that. Someone in Colorado can get an abortion at 8 months just cuz. Regardless if anyone does do that, the law very much allows it.

You just proved that you don't read like anything I say. I've said that abortion should be legal (up until a certain week) because there's too much nuance with regards to it that it would be a massive waste of resources to ensure only ethical abortions take place. And you can use those resources for other better things.

Jesus fuck, can you even lie straight in bed?

Not "Similar to", "is".

I said "you can kinda argue deontology is consequentialism". How are you going to interpret that as me saying they are the same? You guys just like to disagree just to disagree instead of having an actual conversation.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

What was legally wrong with any recent SCOTUS ruling? I'm not a fan of the consequence of the Roe ruling but it was the right ruling just in terms of legality.

By definition, the Supreme Court cannot make a Legally Wrong decision (until a later Court reverses it) I also do not care

I know the difference between the philosophies...

You definitionally do not

Why would I actually make the argument that literally no person on earth agrees with you? You know how phrasing works, right?

It's what you fucking said, my dude. Which, even if you count governments only is incorrect, as *Colorado*, the state this thread is ostensibly about agrees with me

You're lawyer's opinion, "Laws will exist that ask [physicians] to deprioritize the person in front of them and to act in a way that is medically harmful." They are predicting laws will exist to do that but they don't now. I'm asking what current laws or current bills are actually doing any of what you claim?

A ten year old rape victim had to get an abortion in Indiana because physicians were unclear if she could get one in Ohio and didn't want to risk jail time.

Says the guy who gets his information exclusively from Twitter, lmao... I actually read the law when someone claims it does such and such thing that it usually doesn't do.

You are not a lawyer and have no experience with these laws. I'm gonna trust the people that deal with these laws on a regular basis and have legal training. Crucially, I'm gonna trust the assholes *making* these laws when they call them bans

The Colorado law does actually do that, read the law, it does that. Someone in Colorado can get an abortion at 8 months just cuz. Regardless if anyone does do that, the law very much allows it.

And it's right to because there's too much nuance with regards to it that it would be a massive waste of resources to ensure only ethical abortions take place. If there's some rash of murder-rush TikToks where bunches of people are being pregnant for 8.5 months to do a murder, we can revisit this I guess, but until this is a thing why bother spending the resources making sure only "ethical" abortions take place? Of course, then you're arguing for "ethical" forced births, which good fucking luck justifying those.

You just proved that you don't read like anything I say. I've said that abortion should be legal (up until a certain week) because there's too much nuance with regards to it that it would be a massive waste of resources to ensure only ethical abortions take place. And you can use those resources for other better things.

And you have not said what that nuance is nor why there should be an arbitrary time limit, just that other people have them

 

[Phoenixmgs]

By definition, the Supreme Court cannot make a Legally Wrong decision (until a later Court reverses it) I also do not care
You definitionally do not
It's what you fucking said, my dude. Which, even if you count governments only is incorrect, as *Colorado*, the state this thread is ostensibly about agrees with me
A ten year old rape victim had to get an abortion in Indiana because physicians were unclear if she could get one in Ohio and didn't want to risk jail time.
You are not a lawyer and have no experience with these laws. I'm gonna trust the people that deal with these laws on a regular basis and have legal training. Crucially, I'm gonna trust the assholes *making* these laws when they call them bans
And it's right to because there's too much nuance with regards to it that it would be a massive waste of resources to ensure only ethical abortions take place. If there's some rash of murder-rush TikToks where bunches of people are being pregnant for 8.5 months to do a murder, we can revisit this I guess, but until this is a thing why bother spending the resources making sure only "ethical" abortions take place? Of course, then you're arguing for "ethical" forced births, which good fucking luck justifying those.
And you have not said what that nuance is nor why there should be an arbitrary time limit, just that other people have them

I know you don't care about things that you don't agree with. I know you don't care about people who disagree with you, you've made that abundantly clear. You're also never going to get through to anyone by treating them like that either.

I definitely do.

And the fact that you can only name like one place in the world that agrees with you is proof you're right?

What does the law actually say? Why can't you just copy/paste the problematic part of the law so it can actually be discussed? The person that told her that could be wrong, could be right. I'm gonna take the word of Ohio's AG on the law vs some healthcare worker prior to actually looking at it myself.

You don't have reading comprehension skills? Laws are not filled with tons of legalise, they are usually very to the point.

What ethical abortion "just cuz" can actually take place at 8.5 months? 81% of the US agrees with that IIRC.

There's tons of fucking nuance. The fact that you think a person becomes a person 1 second after exiting the womb but one second prior to that they are not a person. That's the most extreme example obviously but it demonstrates how dumb it is to say something magically changes in time period where it becomes not OK to kill them. I don't know when the "proper" time limit is nor do I claim to but the whole world agrees there should be a time limit.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I know you don't care about things that you don't agree with. I know you don't care about people who disagree with you, you've made that abundantly clear. You're also never going to get through to anyone by treating them like that either.

Yeah, funny how my morals don't actually care about the prevailing law of the land. What's right is right regardless of what the law says

I definitely do.

Deontology argues that lying is bad even if that lie would literally save a life from a murderer. It is diametrically opposed to consequentialism

And the fact that you can only name like one place in the world that agrees with you is proof you're right?

Not many places out there where 19% gets to both hold a government *and* isn't a theocratic nightmare. The idea that "you are right or wrong because other people agree with you" is a logical fallacy

What does the law actually say? Why can't you just copy/paste the problematic part of the law so it can actually be discussed? The person that told her that could be wrong, could be right. I'm gonna take the word of Ohio's AG on the law vs some healthcare worker prior to actually looking at it myself.

Regardless of what he says after the fact, the law was sufficiently unclear that doctors and lawyers didn't know how it would shake out in the moment and didn't want to roll the dice. You're going to take the word of Ohio's AG, a man that blatantly lied about getting a rape report to smear a 10 year old rape victim and then deleted the tweet without apology the next day? Why?

You don't have reading comprehension skills? Laws are not filled with tons of legalise, they are usually very to the point.

Lawyers *adore* people like you

What ethical abortion "just cuz" can actually take place at 8.5 months? 81% of the US agrees with that IIRC.

Any of them. Not wanting to be pregnant anymore is justification in and of itself. But even in your fucked up imagination, people don't fucking *do* that. So any law out there pretending otherwise merely puts roadblocks in front of people who need to "justify" their abortion and you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that

There's tons of fucking nuance. The fact that you think a person becomes a person 1 second after exiting the womb but one second prior to that they are not a person. That's the most extreme example obviously but it demonstrates how dumb it is to say something magically changes in time period where it becomes not OK to kill them. I don't know when the "proper" time limit is nor do I claim to but the whole world agrees there should be a time limit.

So you can't actually make an argument for ethical forced birth then. You believe what you believe because other people believe it and that's that.

Not surprising.

 

[Cheetodust]

I said "you can kinda argue deontology is consequentialism". How are you going to interpret that as me saying they are the same? You guys just like to disagree just to disagree instead of having an actual conversation.

Because saying a thing is another thing is saying they're the same. "You can kind of argue they're the same" is you arguing that they're the same. Right you're either thick or this is on purpose either way done with talking to you.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Because saying a thing is another thing is saying they're the same. "You can kind of argue they're the same" is you arguing that they're the same. Right you're either thick or this is on purpose either way done with talking to you.

I'm done talking to you too because you don't understand basic things and call other people thick for no reason yet think you're actually going to get through to them...

I didn't try to argue they are same, but merely understanding how someone might say that. You know, understanding another person's point of view that just about everyone here seems to lack the ability to do.

Yeah, funny how my morals don't actually care about the prevailing law of the land. What's right is right regardless of what the law says
Deontology argues that lying is bad even if that lie would literally save a life from a murderer. It is diametrically opposed to consequentialism
Not many places out there where 19% gets to both hold a government *and* isn't a theocratic nightmare. The idea that "you are right or wrong because other people agree with you" is a logical fallacy
Regardless of what he says after the fact, the law was sufficiently unclear that doctors and lawyers didn't know how it would shake out in the moment and didn't want to roll the dice. You're going to take the word of Ohio's AG, a man that blatantly lied about getting a rape report to smear a 10 year old rape victim and then deleted the tweet without apology the next day? Why?
Lawyers *adore* people like you
Any of them. Not wanting to be pregnant anymore is justification in and of itself. But even in your fucked up imagination, people don't fucking *do* that. So any law out there pretending otherwise merely puts roadblocks in front of people who need to "justify" their abortion and you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that
So you can't actually make an argument for ethical forced birth then. You believe what you believe because other people believe it and that's that.

Not surprising.

Deontology says lying is bad because of what would happen if everyone did it so it is concerned with the outcome, just not the outcome of every single instance. That's why I said you can KINDA argue it is consequentialism to a degree. It's a different way of looking at the consequence. You can add in caveats to things in deontology as I explained already.

Was the law unclear, what is the law? Why can't you actually copy/paste the problematic part of the law and discuss it. You act like I've look thoroughly into this case and not all the details. Generally if an AG says that law says this vs what someone that is not lawyer said, I'm going to side with the AG's opinion until I know more because that person should know more. You want actually post the part of the law that is unclear and actually talk about it. Instead you are trying to discredit someone else vs talking about the actual issue and law.

You don't get it. Can you not understand both sides can be right in there own way? Each side merely prioritizes one moral over another in the instance of abortion. If any issue involves 2 conflicting morals, you're going to say the "moral" thing in that situation is the moral you put more priority towards. If someone puts the other moral as higher priority, you both will disagree. That's the abortion debate in a nutshell, that's why like everything place in the world has reached a compromise on the issue vs complete ban or no restrictions whatsoever because you can win over the other side.

The moral matrix that influences the way people vote

Moral Foundations Theory shows that deep divides between Liberal and Conservative voters may rest on differences in how they prioritise moral issues

www.theguardian.com

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Deontology says lying is bad because of what would happen if everyone did it so it is concerned with the outcome, just not the outcome of every single instance. That's why I said you can KINDA argue it is consequentialism to a degree. It's a different way of looking at the consequence. You can add in caveats to things in deontology as I explained already.

That is not how philosophy works. If one philosophy says the end justify the means and the other philosophy says the ends never justify the means, then they are not "kind of the same" even though they both have ends and means. This shit's getting embarrassing

Was the law unclear, what is the law? Why can't you actually copy/paste the problematic part of the law and discuss it. You act like I've look thoroughly into this case and not all the details. Generally if an AG says that law says this vs what someone that is not lawyer said, I'm going to side with the AG's opinion until I know more because that person should know more. You want actually post the part of the law that is unclear and actually talk about it. Instead you are trying to discredit someone else vs talking about the actual issue and law.

The actual issue and law is that multiple medical professionals, hospitals, and medical legal teams are saying this law is vague nonsense. I'm going to believe them over multipled elected anti-abortion AGs who jumped at the chance to smear a 10 year old rape victim and her doctors.

You don't get it. Can you not understand both sides can be right in there own way? Each side merely prioritizes one moral over another in the instance of abortion. If any issue involves 2 conflicting morals, you're going to say the "moral" thing in that situation is the moral you put more priority towards. If someone puts the other moral as higher priority, you both will disagree. That's the abortion debate in a nutshell, that's why like everything place in the world has reached a compromise on the issue vs complete ban or no restrictions whatsoever because you can win over the other side.

Fuck's sake Phoenixmgs, I *know* that there are competing moral stances. I know why there's a debate. Judging by how you are dancing around the issue, I probably know my opponents stances better than you do.

I believe my opponents are wrong and have clearly said why multiple times.

Can you make an argument for why they are right or for why compromise and occasional forced birth is a good thing or not?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That is not how philosophy works. If one philosophy says the end justify the means and the other philosophy says the ends never justify the means, then they are not "kind of the same" even though they both have ends and means. This shit's getting embarrassing
The actual issue and law is that multiple medical professionals, hospitals, and medical legal teams are saying this law is vague nonsense. I'm going to believe them over multipled elected anti-abortion AGs who jumped at the chance to smear a 10 year old rape victim and her doctors.
Fuck's sake Phoenixmgs, I *know* that there are competing moral stances. I know why there's a debate. Judging by how you are dancing around the issue, I probably know my opponents stances better than you do.

I believe my opponents are wrong and have clearly said why multiple times.

Can you make an argument for why they are right or for why compromise and occasional forced birth is a good thing or not?

Literally both philosophies are about the ends making the action moral or immoral. They are similar. You're acting like they are opposites when they ain't.

So you ain't gonna actually talk about the law and what the unclear part is I assume? You're just gonna beat around the bush instead of actually having a conversation.

I've made my stance pretty clear on abortion, I'm not dancing around much of anything. The only thing I've said that I'm not concrete on would be the time limit, but there needs to be one. They are right for the same reason you are right, both things are bad, it's what you consider the greater evil, and that's not something you can persuade people to change their opinion on. It's why like every country (even very progressive countries) have abortion laws, both sides get like half a win.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Literally both philosophies are about the ends making the action moral or immoral. They are similar. You're acting like they are opposites when they ain't.

Deontology says that lying is bad even if it's to save a life from a murderer. That's the literally opposite of making the ends justify the means

So you ain't gonna actually talk about the law and what the unclear part is I assume? You're just gonna beat around the bush instead of actually having a conversation.

What could I possibly say that multiple doctors, administrative staff, advocates, and lawyers haven't already said. Do I need a youtuber named the Reasonalist Drinky Lawyer to say so?

I've made my stance pretty clear on abortion, I'm not dancing around much of anything. The only thing I've said that I'm not concrete on would be the time limit, but there needs to be one. They are right for the same reason you are right, both things are bad, it's what you consider the greater evil, and that's not something you can persuade people to change their opinion on. It's why like every country (even very progressive countries) have abortion laws, both sides get like half a win.

*Why* does there need to be a time limit? *Why* is compromise inherently better?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Deontology says that lying is bad even if it's to save a life from a murderer. That's the literally opposite of making the ends justify the means
What could I possibly say that multiple doctors, administrative staff, advocates, and lawyers haven't already said. Do I need a youtuber named the Reasonalist Drinky Lawyer to say so?
*Why* does there need to be a time limit? *Why* is compromise inherently better?

1) It doesn't have to
2) It's because it looks at the consequence of all lies
3) It's just another way of looking at the consequence as consequentialism is too much about predicting the future

Literally copy/paste the problematic part of the law and talk about it. How hard is that?

I explained why there has to be a time limit multiple times. Compromise is better because when you have an issue where you can't persuade the other side, having one side as the loser is just not good at all, they don't feel like their position has been listened to or respected. So when you have to come back to them for whatever is the next issue, it's gonna be even worse. This is why the US is so polarized because nobody listens to anyone or acknowledges they have a point (even if a minor point) and they just try to push through policy that's only left or right ignoring the other side completely. Diversity is getting people with different perspectives because they will have a point that you didn't realize, but diversity has just become about race/gender/etc and kicking out everyone that doesn't agree with you.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

1) It doesn't have to
2) It's because it looks at the consequence of all lies
3) It's just another way of looking at the consequence as consequentialism is too much about predicting the future

Yes, you've correctly identified deontology and consequentialism as sets of *ethics*. This does not mean they are even remotely similar. In fact, they are diametric opposites.

Literally copy/paste the problematic part of the law and talk about it. How hard is that?

And why, precisely, are you more willing to listen to me, random forum guy who is not a doctor, lawyer, politician, or administrator over people who are smarter than me and happen to be some or all of those things? Why don't *you* post the relevant portions of the law and argue they're clear cut? How many more stories of doctors and hospitals hesitating do you need before you might begin to believe that they happen to know what they're talking about?

I explained why there has to be a time limit multiple times.

Only in the sense that other people want them, not why they're good in a vacuum

Compromise is better because when you have an issue where you can't persuade the other side, having one side as the loser is just not good at all, they don't feel like their position has been listened to or respected.

Welcome to the American left for the last 50 years. Compromise has gotten us nothing but strong shift-ward right

So when you have to come back to them for whatever is the next issue, it's gonna be even worse. This is why the US is so polarized because nobody listens to anyone or acknowledges they have a point (even if a minor point) and they just try to push through policy that's only left or right ignoring the other side completely. Diversity is getting people with different perspectives because they will have a point that you didn't realize, but diversity has just become about race/gender/etc and kicking out everyone that doesn't agree with you.

Neat. So what's the reasonable argument for time limits? For forced pregnancy and birth?

"Other people want worse" is not an argument for compromising with them, especially when Colorado law is sitting exactly where I want it to be. Why should *I* compromise when the right only does so do to a lack of power? They have no interest in compromise, what is inherently good about compromising anyway? There is zero level of compromise acceptable to them, particularly in this debate, short of getting everything they want

How much is consensus worth to you in regards to your other ethics and morals?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Yes, you've correctly identified deontology and consequentialism as sets of *ethics*. This does not mean they are even remotely similar. In fact, they are diametric opposites.
And why, precisely, are you more willing to listen to me, random forum guy who is not a doctor, lawyer, politician, or administrator over people who are smarter than me and happen to be some or all of those things? Why don't *you* post the relevant portions of the law and argue they're clear cut? How many more stories of doctors and hospitals hesitating do you need before you might begin to believe that they happen to know what they're talking about?
Only in the sense that other people want them, not why they're good in a vacuum
Welcome to the American left for the last 50 years. Compromise has gotten us nothing but strong shift-ward right
Neat. So what's the reasonable argument for time limits? For forced pregnancy and birth?

"Other people want worse" is not an argument for compromising with them, especially when Colorado law is sitting exactly where I want it to be. Why should *I* compromise when the right only does so do to a lack of power? They have no interest in compromise, what is inherently good about compromising anyway? There is zero level of compromise acceptable to them, particularly in this debate, short of getting everything they want

How much is consensus worth to you in regards to your other ethics and morals?

No, they're not.

You're the one so concerned with this law. Post the fucking law and talk about it. I doubt you even read this law that you're so angry about. Doctors and hospitals are gonna hesitate because if there's even a 0.1% chance that they will get in trouble, then they won't do it. That doesn't mean the law is unclear, it's just them waiting to see how the 1st case plays out so they are sure they have precedent before doing anything.

The US has moved right in the last 50 years? That's a big pile of bullshit right there. The fact that if you think abortion is fine at any point and think that killing a baby one second after birth is murder, then you believe that a person is not a person even one second before birth. That right there is something no one believes and thus why there has to be a time limit.The problem with abortion isn't just a single moral, it's competing morals that are both valued by both sides.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

You're the one so concerned with this law. Post the fucking law and talk about it. I doubt you even read this law that you're so angry about. Doctors and hospitals are gonna hesitate because if there's even a 0.1% chance that they will get in trouble, then they won't do it. That doesn't mean the law is unclear, it's just them waiting to see how the 1st case plays out so they are sure they have precedent before doing anything.

IF THEY CANNOT PREDICT THE PRECEDENT, THAT MEANS IT IS UNCLEAR

The US has moved right in the last 50 years? That's a big pile of bullshit right there.

Democrats are claiming how much they liked Reagan and are firmly neo-liberal, so yeah, we're way to the right of 50 years ago in most regards

The fact that if you think abortion is fine at any point and think that killing a baby one second after birth is murder, then you believe that a person is not a person even one second before birth. That right there is something no one believes

Not even myself. Should I post the hilarious Tim Pool clip where he proposes that that's people's stance to have a laugh?

and thus why there has to be a time limit.

At what point do you believe a fetus is a person and therefore gets to grossly violate the bodily autonomy of another conscious person?

The problem with abortion isn't just a single moral, it's competing morals that are both valued by both sides.

Neat. Basically nobody holds an opinion that they think is wrong, that's a null argument. I believe they're wrong though and I see no value in compromising my opinion that a pregnant person should never have to be used as medical equipment against their will

 

[Phoenixmgs]

IF THEY CANNOT PREDICT THE PRECEDENT, THAT MEANS IT IS UNCLEAR
Democrats are claiming how much they liked Reagan and are firmly neo-liberal, so yeah, we're way to the right of 50 years ago in most regards
Not even myself. Should I post the hilarious Tim Pool clip where he proposes that that's people's stance to have a laugh?
At what point do you believe a fetus is a person and therefore gets to grossly violate the bodily autonomy of another conscious person?
Neat. Basically nobody holds an opinion that they think is wrong, that's a null argument. I believe they're wrong though and I see no value in compromising my opinion that a pregnant person should never have to be used as medical equipment against their will

No it doesn't.

No we're not, why do you make such ridiculous statements?

That's the only way you'd have the stance of literally no time limits.

I said I didn't know what the proper time limit should be, just that there should be one.

What about when there's a similar situation concerning another issue where your team isn't in the majority and you get absolutely zero of what you want?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

No it doesn't.

Thank you tech bro, I'll let the lawyers, hospitals, doctors, politicians, and advocates know

No we're not, why do you make such ridiculous statements?

Literally every democrat in my state ran on that, and the national organ recently back an anti-choice candidate in Texas

That's the only way you'd have the stance of literally no time limits.

False. I've given my reasoning in that very post and personhood had nothing to do with it

I said I didn't know what the proper time limit should be, just that there should be one.

So you know there should be limits, but you don't have a ghost of an idea what they should be nor *why* they should be, but *I* have to compromise with that vague nonsense and accept government forced births?

Nah.

What about when there's a similar situation concerning another issue where your team isn't in the majority and you get absolutely zero of what you want?

Lmao, fucking look around my dude. "My team" is in the majority basically no where. You don't win by shooting for a compromise, you push as far as it'll go, and when you get a concession you don't let up. That's how the GOP gets what it wants even when the Dems have control of everything, it works both ways. Shooting for a compromise just lets the other side pull you their way

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Thank you tech bro, I'll let the lawyers, hospitals, doctors, politicians, and advocates know
Literally every democrat in my state ran on that, and the national organ recently back an anti-choice candidate in Texas
False. I've given my reasoning in that very post and personhood had nothing to do with it
So you know there should be limits, but you don't have a ghost of an idea what they should be nor *why* they should be, but *I* have to compromise with that vague nonsense and accept government forced births?

Nah.
Lmao, fucking look around my dude. "My team" is in the majority basically no where. You don't win by shooting for a compromise, you push as far as it'll go, and when you get a concession you don't let up. That's how the GOP gets what it wants even when the Dems have control of everything, it works both ways. Shooting for a compromise just lets the other side pull you their way

Since when do what politicians run on mean that's what they think or want to do. Democrats run on tons of things they never do like affordable housing.

It's a pretty bad reason. Forcing someone to do something natural is worse than murdering someone?

I've told you why many times.

The country is more progressive than conservative. A republican has only won the popular vote once since 1988. And, again, like I mentioned many times, you're all voting for the same team, the democrats and republicans are the same team. All the high level stuff you want to change isn't gonna change because they both want those same things. What's something like gay marriage even accomplishing when looking over the entirety of everything? Gay people just get some tax breaks, they'd still be living together and having the same family and everything without gay marriage being legalized. Little things like that are just a distraction so you think you won something major.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Since when do what politicians run on mean that's what they think or want to do. Democrats run on tons of things they never do like affordable housing.

Lmao, k. That's 1/4

It's a pretty bad reason. Forcing someone to do something natural is worse than murdering someone?

Yes, especially when it's not something we wouldn't even force on corpses. Organ donation requires consent, so should pregnancy. What is your ethical and moral reason for forcing somebody else to be and stay pregnant, and why should there or shouldn't there be exceptions for rape, incest, and health?

For that matter, at what point is an abortion "murder" in your eyes? And be specific, we're writing laws now. (I do not have to consider when it would be "murder", as it never is, even if the person is 6, 12, 23, 38, or whatever. It is never right for the government to force you to use your body to keep or save a life)

I've told you why many times.

"Other people think so" is not a reason, lest you start jumping off of bridges because other people are doing it.

The country is more progressive than conservative. A republican has only won the popular vote once since 1988. And, again, like I mentioned many times, you're all voting for the same team, the democrats and republicans are the same team. All the high level stuff you want to change isn't gonna change because they both want those same things. What's something like gay marriage even accomplishing when looking over the entirety of everything? Gay people just get some tax breaks, they'd still be living together and having the same family and everything without gay marriage being legalized. Little things like that are just a distraction so you think you won something major.

...Gay marriage lets gay people visit their dying long term partners in hospitals, get covered on their spouses insurance, and automatically leave property to their spouses and next of kin instead of frequently hateful families. To be able to love your partners without going to prison for sodomy. This is absolutely massive in the wake of being denied literally *all* of those things during and after the AIDS crisis. You are fortunate enough to never worry about that, to never have to worry about that.

This shit is all living memory for me. You literally have zero goddamned clue what's at stake.

And you're right: the mainstream democrats wouldn't hesitate to burn that down if sufficiently desperate. Because they're more than happy to shift to the right in a futile attempt to appeal to the non-existent centrist voter because we have two right wing parties, unlike the past. And taking a long shot at winning the presidency anytime a billionaire libertarian gets a wild hair up his ass gets antsy isn't gonna change that.