SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Endus]

Terrorist threats and child porn soliciting is not the same as calling someone a derogatory term or preaching racist ideals. As unpleasant as they might be people have the right to be bigots as long as they're not indicating violence.

Where did I say "terrorist"? I mean things like "I'll fucking kill you, I'll stab you right in your face". That's just "hurting feelings", right? There's no actual stabbing.

And yes; it's pretty much the same as pushing hate speech. Harm principle in both cases. You're being wildly inconsistent because you don't actually believe your own principles.

[Varx]

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/idaho-...ry?id=96363578

Letting women pointlessly suffer for literally no reason whatsoever, leaving them likely to die needlessly, one woman at a time.

At least discuss the effects of all these laws Republicans push, as the continue to push for even more restrictive laws with greater penalties.

You're so pessimistic....

Women have sooooo many services to support them and their babies. You're fear mongering.

[Edge-]

You're so pessimistic....

Women have sooooo many services to support them and their babies. You're fear mongering.

You didn't even bother reading the article, rofl.

Stay in your plastic-wrapped bubble dude, wouldn't want even the mildest of brushes with actual reality to tear that shit up.

[Endus]

Guys I'm not going to sumerize Kristan Hawkins. I linked that vid as reference so you can watch on your own leisure. Hopefully being exposed to more conservative perspective will change the minds of those in this thread who might have some doubts.

Saving one life at a time.

That video has convinced me (and apparently pretty much everyone else) that you and Hawkins really don't bring anything new to the table and it's still the same old emotional wharrgarbling nonsense that pro-life arguments have always been. I even looked up her website to double-check, see above. To change our minds, you'd need to have an actual, rational argument, and neither you nor Hawkins have any such thing.

It's insulting that you'd think it would be convincing. Just demonstrates you have no idea what the pro-choice position even is, or what principles it's based upon.

[Varx]

Where did I say "terrorist"? I mean things like "I'll fucking kill you, I'll stab you right in your face". That's just "hurting feelings", right? There's no actual stabbing.

And yes; it's pretty much the same as pushing hate speech. Harm principle in both cases. You're being wildly inconsistent because you don't actually believe your own principles.

"I'm going to kill you" is considered a terroristic threat and this illigal.

You're a "racist term" is just a mean comment that does not solicit physical harm.

- - - Updated - - -

That video has convinced me (and apparently pretty much everyone else) that you and Hawkins really don't bring anything new to the table and it's still the same old emotional wharrgarbling nonsense that pro-life arguments have always been. I even looked up her website to double-check, see above. To change our minds, you'd need to have an actual, rational argument, and neither you nor Hawkins have any such thing.

It's insulting that you'd think it would be convincing. Just demonstrates you have no idea what the pro-choice position even is, or what principles it's based upon.

You're clearly dead set on your liberal views, and that's okay. I don't expect to change the minds of those who are far gone. Just those that are still unsure

[Endus]

"I'm going to kill you" is considered a terroristic threat and this illigal.

That's not what "terrorism" is defined as, dude. Absolute nonsense.

And you're right; it's illegal, and it should be. Because of emotional harm and distress that it inflicts on the target.

You're a "racist term" is just a mean comment that does not solicit physical harm.

Neither does the violent threat above. Why can't you stay consistent on your own supposed base principles?

[Varx]

You didn't even bother reading the article, rofl.

Stay in your plastic-wrapped bubble dude, wouldn't want even the mildest of brushes with actual reality to tear that shit up.

I've been exposed to plenty of pro choice content. It doesn't matter.

As long as liberals.dont view fetuses as living human beings then it'll just be like yelling at a wall.

That's where the pro choice movement stands, in the belief that a fetus isn't a person. When that belief finally dies, so does the movement. RvW is just the beginning.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not what "terrorism" is defined as, dude. Absolute nonsense.

And you're right; it's illegal, and it should be. Because of emotional harm and distress that it inflicts on the target.



Neither does the violent threat above. Why can't you stay consistent on your own supposed base principles?

Christ....

I'm not talking about terrorism, like attacks on civilians and shit

Physical threats are legally considered "terroristic threats" since your telling someone you are going to harm them. That is ILLEGAL

Making fun of someone or being a bigot does not solicite physical harm. All you have to do is ignore them

[Endus]

You're clearly dead set on your liberal views, and that's okay. I don't expect to change the minds of those who are far gone. Just those that are still unsure

I literally went looking for more information to see if she had any kind of argument. If I were so "dead-set", I wouldn't have. I constantly challenge my own views because if my views won't hold up to analysis, I shouldn't keep upholding them.

Your attempts to challenge those views just fall well short of being remotely convincing. They're just retreads of the same old dishonest bullshit that was already well-debunked decades ago. It can't convince me because I already considered those views decades back when I developed my current position on abortion, and discarded them as the dishonest manipulations they were. They haven't magically become meaningful over time. You'd need something new, which actually holds up to scrutiny.

My mind absolutely can be changed. I used to be tentatively pro-death-penalty, but after seeing a few really solid arguments against that, I changed my position and oppose it universally.

[Edge-]

"I'm going to kill you" is considered a terroristic threat and this illigal.

Fucking rofl. It absolutely is not.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment...5/true-threats

It's hilarious how little understanding conservatives have of the topics they love to discuss with such confidence.

[Endus]

I've been exposed to plenty of pro choice content. It doesn't matter.

As long as liberals.dont view fetuses as living human beings then it'll just be like yelling at a wall.

Wherein you admit that you are "dead-set" in your pro-life views, which you apparently thought was enough of a negative to accuse me of the reverse.

That's where the pro choice movement stands, in the belief that a fetus isn't a person. When that belief finally dies, so does the movement. RvW is just the beginning.

False. Fetal personhood is 100% irrelevant to the pro-choice movement. We could concede that point* and it would not change the landscape for supporting abortion rights in any appreciable manner whatsoever. You don't even understand the position you're arguing against.

*We don't, though. It's ridiculous emotional straw-manning.

[Edge-]

I've been exposed to plenty of pro choice content. It doesn't matter.

It's not a "pro choice" thing.

Read the fucking article. Or don't and make it even more clear that like the Republican party writ-large, your primary concern over women's health and bodily autonomy is to ensure that the state exerts control over it.

[Varx]

Wherein you admit that you are "dead-set" in your pro-life views, which you apparently thought was enough of a negative to accuse me of the reverse.



False. Fetal personhood is 100% irrelevant to the pro-choice movement. We could concede that point* and it would not change the landscape for supporting abortion rights in any appreciable manner whatsoever. You don't even understand the position you're arguing against.

*We don't, though. It's ridiculous emotional straw-manning.

Okay, well the life of an innocent human being trumps your need for bodily autonomy when you consent to an act that you knowingly results in potential pregnancy.

Whether you agree with that is up to you, but what's morally right based on consent and basic understanding of biology is what's, well, right.

- - - Updated - - -

Fucking rofl. It absolutely is not.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment...5/true-threats

It's hilarious how little understanding conservatives have of the topics they love to discuss with such confidence.

You don't think "I'm going to kill you" is a true threat? I mean obviously depending on the context of course and if you can prove intent.

[Edge-]

You don't think "I'm going to kill you" is a true threat? I mean obviously depending on the context of course and if you can prove intent.

The Supreme Court doesn't think that it is.

If you need help moving those goalposts let me know though, we wouldn't want to get in trouble with OSHA.

[Elder Millennial]

How about freedom of speech.

When was the last time the government passed laws or prohibitions banning conservatives from doing conservativy shit?

As I said.

When was the last time a Republican ever gave a damn about what the constitution says or doesn't say?

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Give me exactly 1 example of Congress restricting your freedom of speech. Please.

Tho plenty of Republican states pass laws breaching every single one of the articles of the first amendment. Every single one. From the whole 10 Commandments exhibits and prayer in schools nonsense, to cracking down on protesters, to labeling the press as the "Enemy", to voting rights restrictions (redress of grievances) and laws against suing the police etc.

I stand by my statement. Conservatives either have no clue what's in the constitution or straight up don't care.

You getting banned from Facebook for saying "Death to the Jews" or "Kill Nancy Pelosi" is not a breach of your first amendment rights under any sane interpretation of the concept of "Freedom of speech".

[Darththeo]

Except she doesn't... Again watch her content. She has plenty of shorter vids.

And yeah obviously child porn and anything involving that is wrong and would be an exception for freedom.of speech....

I have watched her content. It isn't really science based.

[Varx]

The Supreme Court doesn't think that it is.

If you need help moving those goalposts let me know though, we wouldn't want to get in trouble with OSHA.

What you mean? Yes they do... As long as you can prove intent it says it in that article you linked

[Varx]

I have watched her content. It isn't really science based.

How so? Cuz she's stated clearly she's not going off of religious motivation when called out in it.

[Endus]

Okay, well the life of an innocent human being trumps your need for bodily autonomy

This premise is not held true for any situation. Why would I entertain it for abortion, specifically? You never explain this, because you can't, because it's an inconsistency that doesn't hold up.

when you consent to an act that you knowingly results in potential pregnancy.

1> Consent can be revoked at any moment. Not understanding that raises serious moral questions.
2> Pregnancies can be ended, medically. Via abortion. So this ceases to be an argument because of abortion; it doesn't work as an argument against abortion.

Whether you agree with that is up to you

No, it's up to how reason and rational analysis works.

If it were "up to me", then I'd be admitting to being an irrational and emotion-driven individual.

but what's morally right based on consent and basic understanding of biology is what's, well, right.

You're literally the one pretending you can ignore consent and force women to bear to term even when they aren't consenting to doing so.

And you haven't given any biological argument against abortion, at all. Literally nothing. And no; don't delve into the stages of human development again; that's not an argument against abortion. It's an appeal to emotion fallacy.

[Mekh]

He gets more incompetent and lazy with every ban, doesn't he. Just two or three more and he'll be nothing but a drooling vegetable.

[Endus]

He gets more incompetent and lazy with every ban, doesn't he. Just two or three more and he'll be nothing but a drooling vegetable.

I'm most disturbed by his "you consented earlier, so you can't say 'no' now that my pants are off" approach to consent. Which is wildly problematic, to say the least, as my paraphrase there should clearly indicate.