Alabama R's tried to make all abortion a felony to force a SCOTUS decision

[s_bushido]

Yup, women want to control other women because they hate women, you figured it out, you won the argument you totally changed peoples minds.

Literally no one thinks you would ever change your shtick mind.

[Flower Milk]

Yup, women want to control other women because they hate women, you figured it out, you won the argument you totally changed peoples minds.

Only 21% of the US supports overturning Roe v. Wade, that means 4 out of 5 people in the US support Roe. Who is this imaginary majority of women (or anyone, for that matter) that support overturning Roe that you're talking about? They don't exist.

[zenkai]

Literally no one thinks you would ever change your shtick mind.

Actually I do change my mind about things but the main point is you suck at detecting sarcasm.

[Belize]

The fact that this has passed is just a big shitty stain on women's rights. Absolutely fucking disgusting.

TBF Alabama is basically a third world country.

Even so, I've been to 3rd world countries with a more progressive mindset.

[Endus]

Yup, women want to control other women because they hate women, you figured it out, you won the argument you totally changed peoples minds.

Getting angry at people because they expect rational consistency in your arguments and you refuse to offer them any is not really the strong stance you think it is.

Pro-life stances are almost invariably held by people who also oppose social support systems for (among others) young mothers and their children. So when you say "it's about protecting innocent lives", but don't actually support those lives after they're born, it becomes clear the first statement is a calculated lie.

[Flower Milk]

Actually I do change my mind about things but the main point is you suck at detecting sarcasm.

Be honest with us, do you think you'd ever change your mind on abortion staying legal?

[Orbitus]

This argument, that is common made is either dishonest or ignorant, if you don't think people hold different values on an innocent life vs a murder than all I can do is pat you on the head and smile.

Except it is fucking true. But, it isn't surprising you are the ignorant one here, not me.

[kail]

This is an ignorant viewpoint, prolifers view an unborn child as an innocent life, it isn't about controlling women. That's just a dishonest ignorant opinion that you use to bully people into your viewpoint instead of having an intellectual conversation.

It's both because they go hand in hand. Is an innocent life's right to live higher than someone's right to a basic freedom?

[Felya]

Actually I do change my mind about things but the main point is you suck at detecting sarcasm.

In no way, shape or form, can what you said be sarcasm. Who are you trying to mock by saying women are controlling other women? That’s just plain ignorance, it’s not sarcasm.

- - - Updated - - -

It's both because they go hand in hand. Is an innocent life's right to live higher than someone's right to a basic freedom?

It’s not both... you just have to remind the idea of the welfare queen popping out babies to stay on government assistance.

- - - Updated - - -

I really need to know how man’s rights activist feel about this. Bitching about not having a choice when a woman chooses to keep the baby in spite of the father, to this taking that choice away completely.

[zenkai]

Getting angry at people because they expect rational consistency in your arguments and you refuse to offer them any is not really the strong stance you think it is.

Pro-life stances are almost invariably held by people who also oppose social support systems for (among others) young mothers and their children. So when you say "it's about protecting innocent lives", but don't actually support those lives after they're born, it becomes clear the first statement is a calculated lie.

Getting angry? I'm laughing at the ignorance in the replies. Instead of arguing your points logically you make up arguments. How do you expect to win someone over to your side of thinking when you fail to address their argument and make up your own.

"Dur it's not about protecting life it's about telling a woman what she can't and can do" It's a bullshit argument, it's not surprising you think this way.

If I were to say "I don't buy peanut butter because it's expensive"

You would say "You don't like peanut butter because you're racist"


- - - Updated - - -

It's both because they go hand in hand. Is an innocent life's right to live higher than someone's right to a basic freedom?

A person who lost their basic freedom chose to do so by not following the rules of the land.

[Endus]

Getting angry? I'm laughing at the ignorance in the replies. Instead of arguing your points logically you make up arguments. How do you expect to win someone over to your side of thinking when you fail to address their argument and make up your own.

"Dur it's not about protecting life it's about telling a woman what she can't and can do" It's a bullshit argument, it's not surprising you think this way.

That is literally your position.

You cannot claim that you're trying to "protect life" when you also support removing policies that protect and support that life, social welfare and other support programs.

And anti-abortion platforms such as yours are inherently about denying women basic human rights. That's what you're arguing for. Not "that life should be protected", but "that women should not have the right to control the use of their own bodies". It's an argument that their value is as brood mares for society, rather than as people.

You probably find that an unacceptable way to phrase it, but the problem is that it is an accurate way to phrase it, and you don't have a counter to properly reframe it, and you know this, so you act aggrieved when it gets pointed out, because you've got nothing else to defend it with.

Opposing abortion rights is an extremist, radicalist point of view.

[-Nurot]

Yup, women want to control other women because they hate women, you figured it out, you won the argument you totally changed peoples minds.

I thought all 25 of the state senators who voted for this were men.

That would be correct. The Alabama Senate has 35 seats. 8 of them Democrats who voted against this. 27 of them Republican and all white men. 2 of them didn't vote, the other 25 white men voted for it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...en-republicans

[zenkai]

That is literally your position.

You cannot claim that you're trying to "protect life" when you also support removing policies that protect and support that life, social welfare and other support programs.

And anti-abortion platforms such as yours are inherently about denying women basic human rights. That's what you're arguing for. Not "that life should be protected", but "that women should not have the right to control the use of their own bodies". It's an argument that their value is as brood mares for society, rather than as people.

You probably find that an unacceptable way to phrase it, but the problem is that it is an accurate way to phrase it, and you don't have a counter to properly reframe it, and you know this, so you act aggrieved when it gets pointed out, because you've got nothing else to defend it with.

Opposing abortion is an extremist, radicalist point of view.

This is dishonest, it's about protecting innocent life. If anything you made the argument for me, if people are so against social programs, why would they rather see a child survive on welfare than die before they where born? Sound's pretty counter productive, it seems like the heartless Republicans would love to have pro-choice, it means less welfare babies.

[Zaydin]

This is dishonest, it's about protecting innocent life. If anything you made the argument for me, if people are so against social programs, why would they rather see a child survive on welfare than die before they where born? Sound's pretty counter productive, it seems like the heartless Republicans would love to have pro-choice, it means less welfare babies.

Why do conservatives want to create more Kermit Gosnells?

Because outlawing abortion will do just that. Outlawing abortion won't end abortion; it will just end SAFE abortions.

[Flower Milk]

This is dishonest, it's about protecting innocent life. If anything you made the argument for me, if people are so against social programs, why would they rather see a child survive on welfare than die before they where born? Sound's pretty counter productive, it seems like the heartless Republicans would love to have pro-choice, it means less welfare babies.

Are you ever going to reply to this?

Be honest with us, do you think you'd ever change your mind on abortion staying legal?

[zenkai]

Why do conservatives want to create more Kermit Gosnells?

Because outlawing abortion will do just that. Outlawing abortion won't end abortion; it will just end SAFE abortions.

This is like saying, outlawing murders won't stop murders, it will just make more messy ones.

[Endus]

This is dishonest, it's about protecting innocent life.

Then why does the concern for that life stop at birth?

Also, the method you use to "protect innocent life" is by attacking the basic human rights of women, so don't try and brush over that.

If anything you made the argument for me, if people are so against social programs, why would they rather see a child survive on welfare than die before they where born? Sound's pretty counter productive, it seems like the heartless Republicans would love to have pro-choice, it means less welfare babies.

Why are you asking me? I both support abortion and strong social support networks.

Ask the anti-abortion types why they're inconsistent on basic concepts, not me. That contradiction is my point, since it demonstrates that their actual position is signficantly different from the one they try and use to defend their stance.

[zenkai]

Then why does the concern for that life stop at birth?

It doesn't, who the fuck says it does? Do you see pro lifers out there murdering children, refusing to adopt children? This is a bullshit argument.

Also, the method you use to "protect innocent life" is by attacking the basic human rights of women, so don't try and brush over that.



Why are you asking me? I both support abortion and strong social support networks.

Ask the anti-abortion types why they're inconsistent on basic concepts, not me.

I see you didn't have good response to why if pro lifers are so anti social networks they are against something that would reduce the burden on social networks. I understand why you don't have an answer, because it is a bullshit argument that doesn't make sense.

[Endus]

It doesn't, who the fuck says it does? Do you see pro lifers out there murdering children, refusing to adopt children? This is a bullshit argument.

I see those pro-lifers arguing vehemently against programs that provide support to young mothers, arguing against health care coverage for them and their children, yes. Constantly. Loudly. Proudly.

Pro-life views are far-right, almost exclusively, and have a strong correlation with opposing social support systems. The same people who are pro-life, will oppose welfare.

Simple shit.

I see you didn't have good response to why if pro lifers are so anti social networks they are against something that would reduce the burden on social networks. I understand why you don't have an answer, because it is a bullshit argument that doesn't make sense.

The question doesn't even make sense.

First, it isn't "social networks"; we're not talking about things like LinkedIn. It's welfare and other social support systems.
Second, they oppose the existence of those networks, because they don't want to spend taxpayer money alleviating hardship. It isn't about reducing the reliance on them, it's about cutting those who need that support off from it.

That pro-life people have a high correlation with those who oppose social welfare is an observable fact. Are you really contesting this?

[zenkai]

I see those pro-lifers arguing vehemently against programs that provide support to young mothers, arguing against health care coverage for them and their children, yes. Constantly. Loudly. Proudly.

Pro-life views are far-right, almost exclusively, and have a strong correlation with opposing social support systems. The same people who are pro-life, will oppose welfare.

Simple shit.

Reducing social programs is not the same as getting rid of them. Let's not forget many religious organization full of pro lifers often help out their local community's poor.

The question doesn't even make sense.

First, it isn't "social networks"; we're not talking about things like LinkedIn. It's welfare and other social support systems.
Second, they oppose the existence of those networks, because they don't want to spend taxpayer money alleviating hardship. It isn't about reducing the reliance on them, it's about cutting those who need that support off from it.

That pro-life people have a high correlation with those who oppose social welfare is an observable fact. Are you really contesting this?

I did use bad choice of words, I meant a social network of programs, but knew this but instead, you harp on a non point in order to derail the argument because you are dishonest in your arguments. Either that or you didn't have the capacity to understand I was talking about social programs, either scenario looks bad on you.

so tell me, if pro lifers are against social programs why would they want someone to birth a welfare baby when it's easier just to kill them? Could it be because they value human life before birth?

Naw it can't be that! /s