Lurker > HHH is the game

Put yourself in the shoes of somebody that sees a baby as being a child earlier than birth. Rape victims and how it affects them is obviously important and awful but how it affects unborn babies is obviously important and awful too. You just dont see it that way because you dont see it as a baby.

RaptorLC posted...

Yes, it very much is a question of bodily autonomy, even if you dishonestly equate a fetus with a child.

It is, but its not SIMPLY that. There are other aspects at play that should be part of the conversation no matter which side you fall on.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


No, because the second point can be seen as women not caring that they are creating lives they then destroy because they dont want to worry about the responsibilities. Im pro-choice overall but think it should not be something treated lightly at all, and when people talk about a clump of cells or how its nothing but the woman's body at stake it bothers me greatly at how frivolously they're talking about unborn children

DEKMStephens posted...

Being mean to Republicans forced them to ban abortions for rape victims and medically compromised situations
:(

We need to be nicer to Republicans so they give those exceptions back guys :)

Interesting spins

Being mean to Republicans made them unwilling to ever listen or compromise, which I imagine is part of why there seems to be so much more division now than ever before.

greyfox747 posted...

Oh, that actually explains a lot about your responses ITT

Believe it or not, I actually saw people arguing this on reddit just today

DespondentDeity posted...

Are we really gonna pretend that you all werent mean to the guy who said its a good thing to take away womens bodily autonomy?

Jesus fucking Christ I am so tired of this line

Again, this is not a simple question of bodily autonomy, because there's an unborn child at stake too. The question is much more complicated than JUST bodily autonomy because of that.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


No, I think abortion should be allowed if it's medically necessary and that rape victims should be not forced to give birth.

But I also think those that say abortion is needed so women can have sex without worrying about a baby, and should be allowed guilt free at 8 months kind of bothers me too.

greyfox747 posted...

Yeah, it turns out that when you say that women should be forced to carry their rapists baby and be denied the medical care that they want , people are going to tell you to fuck off and call you a bad person for advocating for that

And you know what? I dont really think that the people telling him to fuck off and shut up are being the cruel ones in that scenerio.

Maybe we need though to find the reasons behind his decision or what he's done in his life that causes him to feel that way? I can understand people feeling innocent children should be protected at all costs. People also in here think abortion at 8 months is no big deal too, and I can understand people being upset by that. Medical care, clump of cells, these are sort of terms designed to skew the discussion. The question that people are divided on is the life of the unborn child. It's not as simple as a woman's body, medical care, etc.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


This I think should not be true, but it's not hard to believe that the divide between sides only widens when the left continues to act like pro-life people are the devil and that this is a simple question, a clump of cells, etc. Neither side is handling the discussion well or in a mature way

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


are we going to pretend people didn't tell him to go F himself, and told him that he's going to hell? lol. Pretty hateful stuff.

That is the type of things I mean when saying that the left is cruel. At least people that are pro-life feel like they're saving the lives of babies, so it's understandable why they feel passionate about it. I've seen people on the left say anybody who is pro-life is a piece of s*** etc, and it really just makes me angry how self-righteous they can be.

I disagree with the decision today but at the least I can understand that they feel they're doing the right thing. The left feels like they are crusaders fighting for good despite treating people worse on a day to day level than the people they think are devils. So the hypocricy makes me angry

As somebody who understands there are very good reasons for abortion, the pro-choice side's rhetoric is honestly often disgusting, constantly attacking and dehumanizing other people for having different views. As somebody who has mostly left more than right views, nothing makes me regret that more than seeing the way the left treats people. They used to be the 'good guys' out of the two but in the last decade they have really become so hypocritical and self-righteous and cruel. They're lucky the right often can be worse, because there are no good guys in these arguments.

lolife67 posted...

No because that's not systemic racism. A black boss having power over their employee doesn't stem from his/her race.

The idea is that racism needs a component of power. The systemic racism argument doesn't really hold water in day to day interactions where the power balance isn't represented by just your race. A black boss has power over their employee more than a white employee has power over their boss. If the argument is that racism needs power, then you can't just say it boils down to your race. Most people exhibiting racism don't have any power over the person they're doing it to. On a macro point of view, systemic racism is a thing, in an individual interaction there is not always power.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


And here is our problem. When people are literally insisting that it's impossible to be racist against a whole race, yeah, there's going to be problems with race relations.

lolife67 posted...

No, it isn't. Again, they're speaking on systemic racism which absolutely needs power to be achieved. You're purposefully misrepresenting what they saying for a "gotcha," instead of addressing the actual point. That's stupid, imo.

But they don't say "Systemic racism cannot be against white people" they are saying "Racism cannot be against white people". The difference is, this is one type of racism that doesn't apply to white people in America vs racism doesn't apply to white people in America.

That is my point, I'm not saying systemic racism doesn't exist. just that it's crazy that people are trying to redefine racism to be systemic racism.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


So are you someone who believes you can't be racist against a white person?

lolife67 posted...

You're completely missing the point of that conversation, which is about systemic racism. I don't think we should conflate the 2 things and be more specific in our use of language but it's obvious what the people who say this mean.

It's a bad argument that falls apart at any scrutiny. Their argument is that racism needs power to be racism. First of all, that's ridiculous, and most people realize that. Second of all, that would imply a white subordinate could not be racist to their black boss because they don't have power over him, and it's only racist if the black boss is racist to the white subordinate. But you can guarantee the people who claim this don't believe it. Most racism incidents do not involve power. I realize they are saying it has to be systemic power, but it just doesn't hold up in day to day life.

Regardless trying to insist that racism against white people is impossible is a horrible message to try to get across if you don't want to alienate white people.

I don't doubt there were racists who were mad when Obama was elected, but I think the left's identity politics have caused way more harm than that.

Solar_Crimson posted...

Yeah, in fact, I read an article years ago from the months leading up to Obama's election that the KKK and other White Supremacist groups were actually hoping that Obama would win the election, because it would show White people that they've lost power in the country and would be galvanized to fight back.

...Unfortunately, it looks like they were right.

sadly it had nothing to do with Obama I think, but with the far left's attempts to make everything about race and re-define racism so it didnt apply to white people (This isnt a joke, people literally try to argue that its impossible to be racist against white people)

try Season 2, I didn't like it until then

Punished_Blinx posted...

There is no 'thinking'. It's fact.

Name me one single attempt at a solution that Republicans will support. Doesn't have to even be related to gun control. What makes you think Republicans are interested in coming together to solve it?

I honestly don't know. There has to be SOMEBODY in that group though that will. I just can't believe al those people from all those states are ALL irredeemably evil. There has to be somebody in there that cares and wants to do something even if it's not all of them. And again, if THAT isn't true, we are just screwed no matter what....

Punished_Blinx posted...

The problem is with one party in particular.

Even if true, that thinking is never going to let that party come together with the other, and if that doesn't happen, nothing does. If nothing else we need to appeal to whatever humanity and common ground there is in more moderate Republicans at least by trying to come together without accusation, without tension or bickering, just find SOME humanity in that group. And if we can't do that we're screwed. I wish we could just expel everybody from congress and put in 100 people from the middle so stuff could actually get done.

I hope SOMEHOW we find a way to make progress here as a nation. Because one way or the other this has to stop. But again, I think simplifying the argument to JUST gun control is also ignoring the question of what the heck is causing this besides guns, why is it so prevalent now, what has gotten into our society

PlantBased posted...

No one is buying this. Just go ahead and run away from this thread, too.

No one is buying what?

I worry that none of the problems in our country can be solved with the parties the way they are now. politics always involved disagreement but has it ever involved so much mutual hatred as it does now? This is something we should all be able to agree on. Even if we disagree on how to solve it, this should be a time that both parties come together and recognize the issue and say that they want to solve it SOMEHOW. It's mind-boggling that we can't. But I don't know what the way forward is. Maybe that's why we're all angry. Because it feels so hopeless

DarthAragorn posted...

Nobody is targeting the police for this

People are saying "MORE COPS!!!!!!!!" is not a fucking solution

I was referring partially to the tweet thread that said the police need to be abolished because they aren't here to help, etc. Obviously they tried.

But yeah....what CAN we do. Gun control is part of it but we've had guns before and this wave of mass shootings seems more than ever, or is it just that we see more news now? But I remember how shocking they used to be and now we see it every day.

I sort of wonder if the internet and social media is the cause of all this, and I hope not, because that is never going back in the bottle. I am totally in favor of gun control but Im scared that that won't be enough to stop this even if we could convince everybody. This is more than that but I dont know what it is.

why the heck are people targeting the police who are probably wracked with guilt right now that they were unable to stop this? Why are people sharing memes and mocking the other side?

What we need to do is come together, stop all the stupid bickering, and work together on ACTUALLY stopping this, sensible gun control laws, and figuring out what the heck is going on lately. I remember when Sandy Hook happened it was absolutely shocking, and now similar things have happened so many times it seems almost normal. It's tragic. WTF is going on? Is it the societal tension? Copycats? What the heck is making people start doing this over and over?

I'm done arguing for today but when people say these things I wonder if they really want a world with no cops (Since apparently being a good cop is bad too). I'm sure they wouldn't be feeling so happy if somebody breaks into their house or they get robbed or are in need of help but there's nobody to help them. I feel bad for cops who have such a dangerous job to zero respect. It's pretty messed up.

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Awesome. Cops have no place at Pride. They are the leading edge of a legal system that routinely brutalizes us to this day.

I'm sure all the gay cops love to hear this statement. honestly when did the left become just as hateful a party as the right?

A_Good_Boy posted...

Boy if you don't stop concern trolling and attempting these shitty gotchas then I'm just gonna stop responding to you.

They aren't "gotchas" they're just examples of hypocricy from those that preach these kinds of things. People think ACAB is fine, but "all muslims are bad" or "all women are bad" or "all black people are bad", that would be absolutely appalling, right? but ACAB is just fine. All of them are appalling. And again, people say you can't choose your race or your sex, so it's not the same. Okay, but you CAN choose your religion. So we should allow you to say that about religions? Or what about discrimination by somebody's weight, you can control that too, right?

Any time you find yourself saying an entire group is BAD unless that group is nazis or serial killers you should really double check yourself.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Was Pride started in large part because firefighters kept on raiding homosexual gathering places and beating the shit out of them, or was it the police that did those things?

Again, that was A. decades ago, and B. cops that were not involved in that shouldn't have to be held responsible for actions that were not theirs. Maybe white people should be banned from BLM rallys too

A_Good_Boy posted...

Is being a cop an immutable characteristic that they have no control over? Cause pretty sure they can just take off their boots and put on sandals and march, if they actually wanted to.

They should be proud to be cops. They are risking their lives to try to protect others, something most people would whine about but be much too scared to actually do. They should be proud of that, and they shouldn't have to be made ashamed because of bad people who sully the good names of cops. It's no different from how muslims should not have to be ashamed to be muslims just because terrorists warp their beliefs and use them for evil. But constantly the same people who fully understand that, don't mind throwing hate at police instead. People should preach tolerance for all, not just some, and not tell people they should be ashamed of something they have every right to be very proud of (again, something that seems pretty in line with what the pride parade stands for?)

A_Good_Boy posted...

Isn't that why they were asked to show up without their uniforms?

No? Showing up without their uniforms shouldn't be necessary? They are still cops. They are cops that believe in pride. To repair the damage they have to be ashamed of being cops? No.

ScazarMeltex posted...

Seeing as pride grew out of a commemoration of the riots that ensued after the cops raided a gay bar and were exceedingly violent in doing so, no, cops should not be there. At least not as cops. When you come in uniform, as a cop, you represent the institution. If they were to come in their street clothes, as members of the LGBTQ community that's fine. It would be like if Cops came and marched in a parade to commemorate the life of Fred Hamptom or any of the other Black Panthers they murdered.

Those individual cops did not murder anybody or cause those riots, just because a police officer did it doesn't mean that all police officers are evil. People understand tolerance and unity and pride and all these things until its a group they don't care for, then they can dehumanize all they wish. People should practice what they preach. The exact same things that people accuse others of doing, racism, sexism, etc, they are perfectly fine practicing the exact same things when its a "bad guy" like a "cop"

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Nope. They're the bad guys.

I hope this is a troll post and not serious. I know the parody SEEMs obvious, but I feel like some people actually say these things seriously.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Sorta seems like the cops want it to be about them and not about the LGBTQ if all it takes for them to throw their hands up is not wearing their work clothes. Why can't they wear a a rainbow shirt that says who they are? Why can't they march like Officer Dangle? Why's it gotta be the boot and truncheon?

Because saying that they can't wear their uniform kind of flies in the face of everything that pride should stand for, saying that they should be ashamed to be who they are

MrToothHasYou posted...

Cops shouldnt be at Pride, period.

Shut the fuck up

Cops shouldnt be at pride? What a ridiculous statement. So cops cant be gay? so cops cant have gay family members? So cops cant support LGBT? Not to mention that you'd think they could help for protection in case anything bad was to happen there.

I honestly feel so bad for police sometimes. Its becoming just acceptable to hate them. Like they should be ashamed of their uniforms? Its like telling a muslim person they cant wear a turban after 9/11 because they should be ashamed to be associated with terrorists. ACAB should be considered hate speech.

I think its gotten better every season, so Im looking forward to it

Guide posted...

Not saying you're wrong, but why did the majority of voters go for Biden instead of Trump?

Because Trump probably. It was still much closer than it ever should have been. I cant see myself voting for a Republican but I can understand why some people might especially against Biden.

CableZL posted...

People are sensationalizing it by trying to claim a fetus is the same as a baby. They're are specific terms for stages of the human life cycle.

I just am saying that the question of when a fetus is a baby is not cut and dry. I know when I was a teenager I HATED the idea of abortion because I imagined what if my mom decided to abort me when Im just a baby, cutting off my chance at life when I cant do anything to defend myself ? It was a scary thought to me that she could just have decided to kill me and Id never have lived.

Now I understand the other side and why abortion should be legalized overall. But I still think people need to better admit that its not an easy question and that they shouldnt simplify it and ignore the fetus or baby in their discussion. And the question of when an abortion should be allowed and how long until the baby should be delivered is not easy either

Spiritlittle posted...

Not at all. I would still say it's the right for the woman to choose.

If she deal with whatever comes after (physically, emotionally, etc.), then that's her business--no one else's.

I don't care if he's a fetus or a 18 year old in there--she should still have the choice.

its understandable to believe she should have the choice. Its just not understandable to pretend its a simple matter and shes the only one affected.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Nah it's a very easy discussion.

Are your actions hurting those around you? Are they personally affecting me? If the answer to both of these questions is "No", then I have no right to tell you what you are allowed to do.

and in this case the answer is yes. Its hurting the baby

if you think a fetus is not a baby or a human thats fine and understandable. At least admit that question is hard to answer. And realize that peoples differing opinions on that result in their differing opinions on abortion.

Spiritlittle posted...

Yes it is.

The right to choice should be a given. That's a VERY easy decision--not even a discussion.

this is sort of also complicated by the fact that sometimes this is due to people choosing to have unprotected sex. In that case they did sort of make a choice.

again if you replace fetus with a born baby and then look back at your arguments youll see how the other side sees this and the unfortunate truth is its based on philosophical questions that are up to opinion.

It's our bodies and it's our right to choose. My choice regarding my body doesn't effect you. Whether I want an abortion isn't your business.

I find this to be a very cold argument. Theres another life at stake besides your own. And are you claiming abortion doesnt affect the father? Not arguing on whether or not it should be legal. But its false to say it only affects you. The baby isnt you.

even if its true that if an adult human was somehow living off your body youd be within your right to cut him off and let him die you cant say that that only affects you. It affects him, his parents, etc. you may have the legal right but it does affect others.

should murder be legal because it doesnt affect us personally who you choose to murder? No. Our laws arent only allowed to be based on if we were personally affected. Otherwise murder can be legal unless you kill a lawmaker.

there are a lot of arguments in favor of abortion but people really oversimplify the situation and its effects. And for those that say its ridiculous to compare to murdering a baby thats been bornwhen you engage that comparison longer maybe you will start to understand the other side.

to be honest there could be a society in years that looks back and is appalled that we were habitually murdering babies and acting like it was no big deal. It all comes down to where you draw the line on when a baby or fetus is a person

COVxy posted...

I don't think conscious vs unconscious determines anything about the morality of killing. Or at least, that's what human behavior suggests.

I meant ability to perceive etc. but anyway my point is the question is murky.

COVxy posted...

Not sure about that. It might be explicitly not relgious, but I sense some implicit religion in there. "When life begins" is kind of a nonsense question, science wise. What people usually mean by that is something like "when does the soul slip into the body?".

it might be. Which makes the question of when aborting becomes killing a young human even harder to answer. Especially given that its not so cut and dry as a huge transition when it leaves the body like flipping a switch from unconscious to conscious.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

But you agree that religion is an important factor in banning the right to abortion?

For some people yes

And for the record Im pro choice, but I do find it a tough decision, and find pro-lifers more sympathetic than those who insist its an easy decision without giving it a second thought and look down on anyone who disagrees.

Smashingpmkns posted...

Maybe getting an abortion can be a tough decision sometimes but having the option whether or not to definitely is an easy decision.

The reason it can never be an easy decision is because thats saying its an easy decision when life begins. And that is just factually untrue.

bigblu89 posted...

Sure it is.

Just don't use your religious beliefs to make legislative decisions, and the topic of abortion should be an easy one.

Its not just a religious issue. My arguments above have zero to do with religion.

Cleo_II posted...

Stfu

we dont have the answer to when life begins because its not an obvious question and its open to interpretation. As long as thats the case abortion will always be a gray area. We are snuffing out the opportunity of life. Her body her choice is a disingenuous argument. The babys body is at stake too. Saying only the mom can decide doesnt acknowledge its the fathers son or daughter were talking about.

These should be acknowledged as a big deal and saying its cut and dry or easy is completely oversimplifying the situation

I hate people who call it simple. Im pro-choice overall but its a tough decision and anybody who says otherwise really annoys me.

Lets put it this way. If a woman thought a baby would be a detriment to her life/career, would you be ok with people killing their babies after theyre born still? After all who can force a woman to take care of a baby she doesnt want?

if youre not ok with that then abortion is not cut and dry, because we don't know when a baby becomes a baby, and anybody who says otherwise is very full of themselves.