SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Edge-]

No one has disputed anything I've said

Except all of it.

Including that time you implied that slavery was ended thanks to discussion and not because American conservatives got all murder-hungry because they were worried that some other states might not be allowed to own Black people.

[Dontrike]

Boy oh boy....

You guys need to consume and be exposed to more conservative content.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MaYEeXpKotQ

That's Kristan Hawkins, a pro life advocate who goes to different campuses across the country. She goes by scientific fact instead of religion, like my self.

If anyone is on the fence on this topic I'd suggest looking at her.

Also anyone see that feminist panel Vice did. They had an abortion segment too where Pearl from just pearly things, another conservative woman with content on YouTube, had many good points too.

Save your kids guys, you won't regret a life time of love.

Where do they use science to advocate for forcing 10 year olds to give birth after being raped by their uncle, stripping women of their freedoms, or allowing rapists to choose the mother of their children?

[Varx]

No, you need to be explicit with your argument. I'm not a mind reader and can't divine what you're thinking.

Christ, just admit your wrong and can't offer any actual rebuttals outside of cheeky bad faith crap.

[unfilteredJW]

Well I'm not and I'm done going in circles with people who refuse to abide by facts, values and morals

Ok Cartman.

[Varx]

Where do they use science to advocate for forcing 10 year olds to give birth after being raped by their uncle, stripping women of their freedoms, or allowing rapists to choose the mother of their children?

I've already said there are exceptions. Rape being one of them. I'm not a monster.

[unfilteredJW]

I've already said there are exceptions. Rape being one of them. I'm not a monster.

Being anti-consent laws, aka pro rape, does in fact make you a monster.

[Varx]

Ok Cartman.

You got it, Brian.

[Darththeo]

Well I'm not and I'm done going in circles with people who refuse to abide by facts, values and morals

You are.
And you haven't used a "fact" yet.

And values and morality do not exist in your argument.

[Elegiac]

I've already said there are exceptions. Rape being one of them. I'm not a monster.

How do you prove it was rape, exactly? What is your safeguard for ensuring women in abusive relationships or whose rapists are not convicted can seek abortions?

[Mekh]

How do you prove it was rape, exactly? What is your safeguard for ensuring women in abusive relationships or whose rapists are not convicted can seek abortions?

He's a Tate bro. No safeguards, because those cases don't count as rape to the rapist.

[Yetanothernewbie]

I've already said there are exceptions. Rape being one of them. I'm not a monster.

Your posting history suggests quite the opposite.

[Elegiac]

He's a Tate bro. No safeguards, because those cases don't count as rape to the rapist.

I mean yeah, that's pretty obvious. The point is demonstrating how performative pro-life positions actually are; when confronted with extreme cases like rape/incest/etc. they'll quickly back down and say "well it's okay THEN, I'm not a monster" but then fail to offer any mechanisms by which these exceptions can be enforced.

Because like most conservative positions, pro-life relies entirely on being treated as an ideological abstraction rather than a real-world issue with practical considerations. This is also why conservatives have a tendency to reduce minorities they're targeting to abstracts - rather than "women" it becomes "feminazis", "queer people" become "the gay agenda", etc; it's more palatable to be opposed to an idea rather than opposed to a group of people.

[Varx]

Your posting history suggests quite the opposite.

How so, please enlighten me.

[Jastall]

I've already said there are exceptions. Rape being one of them. I'm not a monster.

So the mother has to hope her aggressor is convicted within, at best, about half a year from his crime or else it increasingly starts to be far too late?

Most halfway fair justice systems being notoriously slow makes this quite the, well, optimistic position I'd say.

[Varx]

So the mother has to hope her aggressor is convicted within, at best, about half a year from his crime or else it increasingly starts to be far too late?

Most halfway fair justice systems being notoriously slow makes this quite the, well, optimistic position I'd say.

You ever heard of a rape kit? Doctors can determine a rape was done by physical injuries received during rape. Don't have to wait for conviction if a Dr can confirm a rape took place.

- - - Updated - - -

So that tissue organ donation argument actually has a term, its called the violinists argument. And our hero krisan Hawkins tackles this too and puts it down like a dog.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=89iD2s6ABqQ

[Edge-]

You ever heard of a rape kit? Doctors can determine a rape was done by physical injuries received during rape. Don't have to wait for conviction if a Dr can confirm a rape took place.

How do you think a rape kit works? Do you think they just stick it in there and if it's blue there was consent but if it's red that's rape?

Physical injuries are not always indicative of rape. And rape does not always result in physical injuries.

This is exactly the kind of quarter-baked thinking we're talking about.

[beanman12345]

A tumor grows and multiplies.

We're back to your definition for life meaning that people would be charged with murder for removing a tumor that would otherwise kill them.

Nobody could have ever seen this coming.

All lives matter ya know, except black lives, women's lives and neuron lives.

(big /S if not obvious.)

[Darththeo]

You ever heard of a rape kit? Doctors can determine a rape was done by physical injuries received during rape. Don't have to wait for conviction if a Dr can confirm a rape took place.

This is 100% wrong. Rape kits do not prove rape happened, they are a means to collect evidence of possible rape.

And this doesn't actually prove rape, that is done in a court of law. How fast do you think cases go?

So that tissue organ donation argument actually has a term, its called the violinists argument. And our hero krisan Hawkins tackles this too and puts it down like a dog.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=89iD2s6ABqQ

By not actually addressing the argument? Okay. I have seen that video before, she doesn't "put the argument down" she strawmans it.

Here is just one person pointing out the flaws with her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1bFXeWjQ4U

[Varx]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uXOgmn9G3kQ

I actually brought this argument earlier

She just massacres these libs


Open your eyes people. Listen and listen well.

[Darththeo]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uXOgmn9G3kQ

I actually brought this argument earlier

She just massacres these libs


Open your eyes people. Listen and listen well.

Dude, she's wrong. Objectively wrong.

If you understand her arguments, they are hugely flawed. Why should I listen to someone I know is 100% mistaken in her view point?