I was referring to the intense demonization of people who have a different opinion.We're both mammals?
None of you have made any reasonable argument on this topic in a very, very long time. All you have is name-calling. I can handle the anti-choice half of the debate, but the pro-choice side is honestly embarrassing here. You all simply believe there's nothing to argue, so you don't know how to form the argument.I see we're just glossing over the bit where t stopped even pretending to make pro "forced birth for rape victims" arguments and is just whining that people don't like forced birthers.
None of you have made any reasonable argument on this topic in a very, very long time. All you have is name-calling. I can handle the anti-choice half of the debate, but the pro-choice side is honestly embarrassing here. You all simply believe there's nothing to argue, so you don't know how to form the argument.
I'm fully aware of that, but the plaintiffs weren't arguing that for some reason when that should be the main thing to argue, objective inequality vs some dignity or enduring bond BS that doesn't matter legally at all.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).
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.
Not what I asked. Why would YOU be for mandating something that provides basically no community benefit (and disproportionately kicks minorities out of society) but be against something that would provide tremendous community benefit?Then sure, in your world it makes sense to ban fruit juice.
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.
14th, which had to be added in later
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
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.
Yawn, indeed, because you're making the same bottom tier arguments the other side makes.View attachment 6908
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.
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.
The community benefit is fewer dead and dramatically sick people. But you want to ban soda pop and not, like, sports drink and fruit juices because the carbonation is apparently what's bad, hilarious.Not what I asked. Why would YOU be for mandating something that provides basically no community benefit (and disproportionately kicks minorities out of society) but be against something that would provide tremendous community benefit?
I keep forgetting you think a majority of people have to think a thing before it's true. If you're enslaved at home, you should try contacting the FBIAnd where is that amendment currently sitting? And where are there actually people protesting prisoners working? I see absolutely no problem with having prisoners work, why should they have to do less work then I have to do at home?
Apparently yes, given how that shook out during the AIDS crisis.Do religious freedoms exemptions work for power of attorney?
Who the fuck was saying otherwise, fucking hell?So then we agree that the constitution can do things?
You are the one who brought up morals, asshole. I'm the one saying shit like "government mandated organ harvesting is bad". That's *ethics* you should get pretending to argue about, not morals. As in "when is it ethical for the government to force ten year old rape victims to remain pregnant"I'm not asking you to prove a moral thing, you're the one claiming you are indeed morally right and since you are, you kinda have to prove your right. When someone claims something, it's on them to prove it, not on others to disprove it. That's why I haven't taken a moral side on who's right because I know it's basically impossible. I'm not writing off anything, I agree with most of your points (I am pro-abortion) which I've said several times. The problem is you can't objectively assign moral weight to these things to show the scales tipping in your favor because it's probably impossible to assign values to such things.
What the entire fuck are you talking about? You don't have to be a woman to feed an infant, what the fucking hell are you talking about? Nurses aren't fucking enslaved hereIt's still forcing a woman to use her body to support another body.
Do you have a serious, non-religious argument for the government forcing child rape victims to stay pregnant? Or anybody?What does god have anything to do with any of this? You can make all these arguments without any sorta of religious argument, I'm not religious at all.
No, you're right. We'll write off anybody that gets pregnant and have the government force them to give birth on the off chance that they birth the next Nikolai Tesla. Hopefully the next Nikola Tesla isn't a woman who gets unexpectedly pregnant, 'cause we'll just throw them under the buss for the *next* Nikola TeslaJust about any law disproportionately affects poor people....Where would the world be without Nikola Tesla for example?
Would be helpful if you could actually define when a fetus becomes a person. You always demand other people prove they aren't. 1 second before birth? 1 hour? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? 3 months? 6 months? What the fuck is it, Pheonix? At what point does your allegedly pro-choice stance become pro-forced birth?So there's no death in killing a baby? So a baby 1 second out of the womb is a person and 1 second before leaving the womb is not a person? When does a baby magically become a person? I'm trying to go well past this surface level arguments.
That's because that's the only kind of arguments the otherside deserves at this point. But that's only if you consider calling people assholes for not respecting womens bodily autonomy bottom tier.Yawn, indeed, because you're making the same bottom tier arguments the other side makes.
So there's no death in killing a baby?
Yeah, nice try, but I'm not arguing that when talking about abortion and neither are you. We're talking about abortion, the vast, vast, vast majority of which occur within the first two months of a pregnancy. Particular people always love to bring this up; 'well, what if it's 1 minute before birth, should a woman be allowed to have an abortion then', as if that ever fucking happens. 'If gays are allowed to get married, then people will start to marry animals!' Classic conservative bullshit.So a baby 1 second out of the womb is a person and 1 second before leaving the womb is not a person?
They're "surface level arguments" because it's really fucking simple; trust the one pregnant what to do with their own body.When does a baby magically become a person? I'm trying to go well past this surface level arguments.
Again, it's sad I have to keep pointing this out.So there's no death in killing a baby? So a baby 1 second out of the womb is a person and 1 second before leaving the womb is not a person? When does a baby magically become a person? I'm trying to go well past this surface level arguments.
I agree with this assessment. The movement to protect the rights of the unborn is a progressive movement.In this case, the actual conservative position, the position supported by tradition and societal convention for hundreds of years, is that personhood begins at birth.
That would be because a lot of Constitutional language itself concerns vague moral terms such as "liberty and the pursuit of happiness", as well as "dignity" etc. Legal cases against race issues were settled on these grounds. It's done.I'm fully aware of that, but the plaintiffs weren't arguing that for some reason when that should be the main thing to argue, objective inequality vs some dignity or enduring bond BS that doesn't matter legally at all.
The data is very much settled on the fact that gender-affirming medications dramatically improve quality of life and lower the suicide risk. And lowering the suicide risk is indeed life-saving, in a literal sense.You didn't mention trans in your reply so I thought you were talking about drug prices as a way to suppress life-saving medicine. Any of those things you just mentioned are "life-saving"? I don't think that applies to kids for showing the greatest improvement. Also, the science isn't settled on that for adults either.
They're not going to do much. They're shit.So he helped a very limited amount of people and did nothing to fix the actual system in place much like, I don't know, Biden's cancelling of $10k student debt that also doesn't help the people that most need help? What are democrats doing to actually fix healthcare that isn't just merely a slap on the wrist at worst?
If tstorm had any self awareness whatsoever they would have admitted they were wrong after having been proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt long ago instead of steadfastly refusing to and continuing to spout the same incorrect stuff long afterward and still continuing to.All without a single ounce of self-awareness.
"Proven" is a stupid standard in most cases, but particularly in a discussion like abortion. Even with completely agreed upon factual premises, there is still an open discussion of subjective concepts and societal priorities. You can't prove a position on abortion.If tstorm had any self awareness whatsoever they would have admitted they were wrong after having been proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt long ago instead of steadfastly refusing to and continuing to spout the same incorrect stuff long afterward and still continuing to.
Hence why I recommended everybody ignore them completely. There's no point in talking to them if they're not going to be reasonable.
It's a reactionary movement, which is infinitely, infinitely worse than merely being conservative.I agree with this assessment. The movement to protect the rights of the unborn is a progressive movement.
You are characterizing as reactionary the faction trying to reform society from the abortion status quo you are aware is the conservative position. The people trying to make abortion more legal are the reactionary party on this issue, pushing spitefully in the opposite direction of those who want progress.It's a reactionary movement, which is infinitely, infinitely worse than merely being conservative.
Why do you think the definition of progress includes your specific theological views? Why do you think being against abortion requires one to be anti-secular? Are you aware the pro-life movement originated out of medical science, and the framework of Roe v Wade was built around millennia old ideas of when the soul entered the body?You can't be progressive and anti-secular. That's quite fundamentally not how it works.
Immediately. I answered the question. A fetus is a living homo sapien from the moment it comes into existance.Noone on this planet actually knows at what point a fetus becomes a human. That is not a question any human is actually capable of answering.
Nobody knows what is a human, or what life is. These are nebulous things we describe with a dripping pen that we ascribe increasingly complex but never all-encompassing characteristics to, and they are definitions that are bound to be updated as we learn more about the universe and reality and ourselves, so to expect a clear-cut answer here doesn't make any sense.It's a reactionary movement, which is infinitely, infinitely worse than merely being conservative.
You can't be progressive and anti-secular. That's quite fundamentally not how it works.
Noone on this planet actually knows at what point a fetus becomes a human. That is not a question any human is actually capable of answering. The difference between a progressive and a reactionary isn't in how they personally would answer that question, but in how they respond to the conditions under which we have to answer it at all.