Please then, in your own words, provide the definition of a woman. No copying and pasting, just what you, the person(?) behind the @tehdang account believes it to be.
Please then, in your own words, provide the definition of a woman. No copying and pasting, just what you, the person(?) behind the @tehdang account believes it to be.
"He didn't say he wanted to impregnate 16 year-olds! He just said that that's the best time to do it, and that it's a shame that culture has moved to the point where marrying that young is frowned upon!"
-Justifications I've heard from people desperate to defend that slime.
Democrats have refused to endorse any restrictions on late term abortions for some time now. I'm not going to apologize for noticing that.
The mods have rules on religion, sexuality, gender, and gender identity, and I haven't seen a carve-out for "unless someone's being called out on it, then it's all hunky dory."
If you want a debate on religious small groups and why one might have historically called members "handmaids," you're gonna want a debating equal. Someone that loves diving into that kind of stuff and using sarcasm and innuendo in the way used here. I picked the first name that came to mind, but there's others.
Is it so hard to handle the gutter-level culture warrior stuff that I'm grouping with "handmaids" and ACB? Fair's fair if you want to go "literally a handmaid," prepare for "literally doesn't know what a woman is." I don't think either can be profitably examined here, and both risk transgressing posted rules. I don't think there's actually an appetite to have right-wing loons and left-wing loons arguing over their political trash, which is mostly used to preach to the choir.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
matt walsh the guy who says democracy was a mistake and identifies as a theocratic fascist, thats the 1st name that springs to mind for you?![]()
Watching this guy flail about on "late-term abortions" as some kind of reason to continue to let women suffer or carry dead fetuses to term is beyond barbaric. This is the sort of women-hating incel behavior that seems to run rampant in the extremists camp.
“You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X
I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)
It also just goes to show how bunk the talking point is. If 'Late term abortions' were all Republicans were worried about, they would be pushing legislation targeting the late second to third trimester instead of banning it outright. No, this half-assed compromise is just an excuse to give Conservatives a solid foot in the door so they can keep pushing back on it later, now with a minimum 'reasonable' baseline to work with.
(Edit) In fact, I add that while Late-term abortions are 'rare', I can also add that - from the headlines we keep seeing over and over and over again - they're statistically common enough because of sudden late-term complications that keeping them protected is in our best interest. For every make-believe whoever that decides that they're gonna just change their mind a sprint away from the finish line, there's at least ten women who need these procedures or else they'll fucking die / suffer long term medical complications / can't ever have kids again.
And, as a human being with functioning empathy and critical thinking skills; The rare cases of hypothetical later term voluntary abortion are worth it if very real women with very real problems can get the help they need.
Last edited by Xyonai; 2023-05-07 at 04:57 PM.
Why should they? It's an attack on women's self-ownership, and the only basis for the denial of those rights is religious mores, which means it's also an attack on people's religious freedoms.
If you have a religious objection to abortion because of religious concepts like life beginning at conception or whatnot, that's fine. Make your own choices accordingly. That's where your rights stop. You don't get to push those views on other people.
At least you're just openly being transphobic at this pojnt and have given up pretending to be a reasonable, empathic person. Having to dig through the layers of lies to get to the hatemongering you're actually trying to sneak in gets exhausting.Is it so hard to handle the gutter-level culture warrior stuff that I'm grouping with "handmaids" and ACB? Fair's fair if you want to go "literally a handmaid," prepare for "literally doesn't know what a woman is." I don't think either can be profitably examined here, and both risk transgressing posted rules. I don't think there's actually an appetite to have right-wing loons and left-wing loons arguing over their political trash, which is mostly used to preach to the choir.
Bet you 10 bucks @tehdang can't give a definition for "woman" we can't pick apart in 20 seconds.
“There you stand, the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles to blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.”
It's a fatal concession on your part. How are you supposed to argue against 6-week or 12-week abortion bans, if your own position is legal throughout the pregnancy? It is your position on legality, as much as you want to declare it impossible.
People want to call me bad-faith, but look how insolently you transmute "late-term abortions" to "dead fetuses." I'm sure you're capable of debating the pro-life position, but you opt for an easier straw man.
So they might remain protected for the most severe complications, like those threatening the life of the mother and the life of the baby. But the hidden secret is the only protection you don't want extended is to the life of the baby absent such conditions. Protections only go one way for you. That sort of matters when you have to convince Americans that protections ought to only go one way.
The best way to de-fang the 6-week abortion bans is to advocate for severe restrictions for post-viable unborn baby abortions. The best way to ensure they last longer and take longer for legislative repeal is to support no restrictions whatsoever prior to delivery.
People are spending a lot of time and energy arguing the doctor has the legal right to perform the abortion in this case. I would have thought less passion would be evoked by banning a thing that never happens, but even that is a bridge too far for the pro-aborts. I am slowly becoming convinced that several here would prefer 6-week and 8-week bans to stay as the law for one or two years longer, with all the societal ills from it that they proclaim, than to verbally advocate for 20-22 week or post-viability general bans with exceptions (etc) to change the law sooner in their direction.
Sure, it would only impact the 1%, but apparently no law must touch it and that's final. It sounds a little extreme to me, but I have been reading and digesting this forum's earnest comments on the issue.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
Because your arguments are bad-faith and come from a place of fiction. Late term abortions are a rarity and you've been shown this time and time again and continue to troll the forum with nonsense. A dead fetus is something that happens when there's problems in its development and instead of being able to have it removed because of Republican legislation, a woman is forced to carry it to term, and give birth to a corpse. You know this though, and are just doing this shit for attention -- you're not the first nor will you be the last.
“You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X
I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)
What a stupid argument. People are literally suffering, and some nearly dying, because doctors are waiting on legal to give them advice in each case they come across so they don't go to prison. I'll argue against any bans because its none of my business if a woman wants to get an abortion. That is be between her and her doctor. Which is where it should stay.
Strike one. No such thing as pro-abortion. Its pro-choice.
Strike two. If it doesn't happen then why are you banning it? The only thing you do is cause confusion when someone requires it due to a complication and people suffer for it. But that is the point isn't it? Causing suffering. That seems to be the point of a lot of republican legislation recently. I can't think of anything they've done to help people in decades.
Last edited by SoulForge; 2023-05-07 at 10:31 PM.
If you want to debate somebody that demands an already-dead unborn baby must be carried to term, look elsewhere. This is just a strawman you're very committed to, and the strength of your commitment doesn't make it a part of somebody else's ideology.
Consider just for a second that nobody here said they support a return to how Roe vs Wade treated late-term abortions (well, more like how it allowed states to prohibit except under circumstances).
You may become the first person to state that you wish post-viability abortions to be generally illegal. I see no way to reconcile "it was perfectly regulated under Roe v Wade" and "I don't want it to be illegal because I choose to believe they're only done for causes I agree with." States could and did, and existing law can and does.
Then you're arguing against Roe, since it explicitly permitted states to declare them generally illegal with an exemption.
Maybe your view is that every state that did so was unjust for the last 50 years. Certainly you can believe post-Roe post-viability regulations were a problem, and then it's no wonder that you think today's regulations are a problem.
People have afforded themselves the privilege of declaring the pro-life position is not actually pro-life. Therefore, as a reminder to the logic of this, I have chosen to sometimes call the pro-choice side as pro-aborts. Certainly I've seen ample evidence of people here favoring legal abortion throughout every week of the pregnancy, so the epithet has some descriptive power.Strike one. No such thing as pro-abortion. Its pro-choice.
Strike two. If it doesn't happen then why are you banning it? The only thing you do is cause confusion when someone requires it due to a complication and people suffer for it. But that is the point isn't it? Causing suffering. That seems to be the point of a lot of republican legislation recently. I can't think of anything they've done to help people in decades.
I believe the true weighing of the mother's burden and the fully capable child she is bearing means giving protections to the baby post-viability, period. If this wasn't a human, and wasn't mere inches from deserving full protections, and abortion wasn't incredibly fatal to the child, then I'd be closer to seeing things your way. I gather mothers killing their own babies after birth is also vanishingly small, so can you declare them nonexistent and thus ought not to be protected by laws? I don't see the logic in always deciding the only two parties in the three-party system are Doctor and Mother when we both know the unborn child in late-stage pregnancy is fully capable of existing without the mother. How about protecting the rare cases, and I consider maternal infanticide also a rare case if you're actually concerned about the principles here, instead of declaring them impossible?
I don't think you're ever going to prove the negative "It doesn't ever happen." Every late-term pregnancy abortion in every single case for the entirety of history has to always fit your preconceived ideas of what constitutes an acceptable reason to abort. Maybe you already consider "withdrawal of bf/gf support" to be an acceptable reason for a late-term abortion, but saying it never happens is concealing the real reasons you think it should happen.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
Except none of the people pushing abortion bans actually want to put those exemptions into law, or make the laws so poorly worded that doctors can't perform these procedures until the very moment the mother's life is in danger which an often be too late. And in that case either of our opinions on the well-being of the fetus doesn't really matter, because in this instances the kid's doomed either because it's going to be born dead or kill its mother before they can be born.
And, as mentioned before, a viable fetus isn't going to be aborted. No real, actual person in this thread is arguing that a mother has the right to terminate a viable late-term pregnancy, what we're arguing is that the lack of regulations is there so that when these procedures need to be done to save the mother's life, then they can be done without having to wade through horribly worded or utterly inflexible laws.
If your position is that abortion should always be legal, why would that suddenly change when confronted with an arbitrary week limit?
Stop pushing Christian-fascist bullshit and attacking other people's freedom of (from) religion.
There are literally ongoing cases in the USA where women whose fetuses have literally died are unable to have those fetuses removed because doing so involves an abortion and their State has banned abortions, so they're waiting for the fetus to go septic which will give enough cause to act.People want to call me bad-faith, but look how insolently you transmute "late-term abortions" to "dead fetuses." I'm sure you're capable of debating the pro-life position, but you opt for an easier straw man.
https://people.com/health/beauty-you...n-on-abortion/
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/healt...sis/index.html
This isn't hypotheticals, we're talking about actual events. There is no "trasmutation", you just either literally do not understand the discussion or, more likely, are willfully lying about it out of your deep-seated animosity.
There really isn't any "debate" to be had with the pro-life position. The pro-life position is an inherently religious and misogynist one, and the only "debate" it deserves is the response of "fuck no, keep that to yourselves".
I spent years on these forums asking in good faith for anyone to give me any secular defense for pro-life stances. Never got a single valid response. Because there isn't one. It's religious fascism and misogyny, and nothing more.