Poll of the Day > C/D most pro life people are hypocrites

(+) Yeah! (+)

Yellow posted...

You're not entitled to the roads, gtf off of them.

I want to see an option for people to not pay taxes and not receive any government services. Darwinism would happen.

Taxes for roads are virtually impossible to avoid paying, since that's what gas taxes are supposed to be for. Granted, thanks to government corruption, oftentimes very little of that money goes to roads -- which is why CT has simultaneously had one of the highest gas taxes while having the worst roads in the country at least 2 years in a row. And now they're still talking about putting in tolls on top of it to punish us further for not wanting to move from this far-left shithole state despite the fact that toll money will invariably go to pay for other shit. Right now Ned Lamont has partly walked back his toll talk to claim that it's only going to impact trucks (despite the fact iirc he claimed no tolls at all during his campaign), but that's almost certainly unconstitutional and will likely be thrown out the window when the other court case involving it resolves (in Mass?)

And roads aren't a personalized benefit like healthcare, etc.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Objectively false Zeus

Objectively true, which it why it refutes your subjective narrative.
---

Zeus posted...

And roads aren't a personalized benefit like healthcare, etc.

You need to get somewhere? There's a road that will take you there. You get sick? There's a doctor that will treat you.

Seems personalized enough to me.
---

adjl posted...

You need to get somewhere? There's a road that will take you there. You get sick? There's a doctor that will treat you.

Seems personalized enough to me.

What an idiotic analogy.

The road has no say in its services. You pay your taxes, you pay your licenses, you have the right to use it. A doctor is a person who can, if they so decide, that he will NOT service you if the government does not pay him what his services are worth. Which is why Obamacare was such a shitty program and why so many doctors refused to oblige it.

Once again to all you Marxists out there : you're not entitled to a doctor's work. Put that through your entitled skulls.
---

The_tall_midget posted...

Once again to all you Marxists out there : you're not entitled to a doctor's work. Put that through your entitled skulls.

jesus dude you are such a crybaby. you dont know what youre talking about at all

---

adjl posted...

Zeus posted...

And roads aren't a personalized benefit like healthcare, etc.

You need to get somewhere? There's a road that will take you there. You get sick? There's a doctor that will treat you.

Seems personalized enough to me.

Because you don't understand what that word means or entails. And when you don't understand something, a lot of things are going to sound alike.
---

Yellow posted...

You're not entitled to the roads, gtf off of them.

I want to see an option for people to not pay taxes and not receive any government services. Darwinism would happen.

I mean with the amount weve paid and the amount they have in their accounts they could easily lower or remove taxes and pay for things with the interest accrued from those accounts.

Also roads is a bad example because he probably pays taxes and uses them. If hes not getting an abortion why should he pay for one for someone else?

---

The_tall_midget posted...

The road has no say in its services.

The people that build and maintain it do. Roads don't exactly arise spontaneously, after all.

I like that you still haven't explained why you don't understand the difference between "abortion shouldn't be illegal" and "abortion should be completely free to anyone that wants it." Is that too hard a question?

Zeus posted...

adjl posted...

Zeus posted...

And roads aren't a personalized benefit like healthcare, etc.

You need to get somewhere? There's a road that will take you there. You get sick? There's a doctor that will treat you.

Seems personalized enough to me.

Because you don't understand what that word means or entails. And when you don't understand something, a lot of things are going to sound alike.

If you truly know better than me and believe my interpretation to be wrong, you should be able to educate me. Begin.
---

Judgmenl posted...

There isn't a reason. Some people are stubborn, and a lot of people are apathetic.
I am definitely apathetic on this issue. Both sides have valid arguments, however both sides have absurd arguments which prevent me from really caring about this issue.

TBH, I'm effectively a neutral on the whole issue with a favoring towards pro-life. I mean, so much of it comes down to technicalities and questions that can't be simply answered or even scientifically answered that even figuring out what is being talked about is difficult. I mean, let's go with the whole 'when is it actually alive' thing.

If you're pro-choice then it clearly seems like a bunch of religious whackos who hate women are trying to punish her and restrict her sexuality simply because she's a woman by forcing her to spend nine months taking a non-living clump of cells and raising it into a baby which will then likely hold her back for eighteen or more years all simply because she had the audacity to have sex one night and a condom broke. Likewise if you're pro-life then it clearly seems like a bunch of hedonistic whackos want to kill babies and dodge responsibility so they can proceed to engage in full-on orgies and just abort any 'accidents' that happen. Does life begin at conception? Hard to say at best. Even if it could be determined when there is no denying that the fetus WOULD have become a living, breathing, human being (assuming no issues arose, yea yea). And when does it get considered to be 'alive' anyways? Conception? When it can survive outside the mother? Birth? 93rd trimester? Likewise a lot of the people weighing in on the situation are men whom will never have to deal with the issue of the unwanted pregnancy. They can have as much sex as they desire and not have to worry about getting pregnant.

That's not to mention you most certainly have religious whackos who hate women and people who would utterly abuse the system to skirt responsibility. If you are pro-life you should agree that the people championing your cause shouldn't be the ones who see women as nothing more than talking oven/washing machine combinations. Likewise, if you are pro-life you shouldn't want the people championing your cause being people who would ignore all responsibility and reason so they can act like spoiled little ******; especially if you don't want it just legal but paid for by tax payers.

Heck, I'd say that it's even more complicated as I sort of see there being THREE sides at this point. The pro-life, pro-choice, and pro-abortion groups. The difference between the latter two being that the first merely wants it legal but basically used sparingly if not as a last resort while the other wants it as free and unrestricted as possible.

---

Im pro its nobodys business expect the woman with the crotch-fruit taking root in her butt, and her doctor

---

Mead posted...

Im pro its nobodys business expect the woman with the crotch-fruit taking root in her butt, and her doctor

Is it though? I mean, what if the father doesn't want her to have the child because he knows/believes that the courts will force him to pay for it and he is incapable for various reasons of doing so? Is it fair to force him to have to support a child he doesn't desire and may have even taken every precaution against? What if he believes that it isn't his and that his wife is cheating on him with the pool guy? What if she actually is? Is he now going to have to support someone who isn't his kid because the mother decided she wanted to keep it? What if the doctor forces their political viewpoint on the mother and starts to bring up all the negatives of having the child and persuades the would-be mother to abort when she wouldn't have otherwise? Possibly recommending a clinic run by a friend in doing so as well? What if the father desires the child and offers to take full care and responsibility but the mother aborts simply to spite him? What if the mother's reasoning for aborting is race or gender based or because she believes that the child will be homosexual and doesn't want to have a homosexual in their family?

That's just a few of the situations I can think of where maybe it should be more than just the two of them making the decision. Even in those I'm sure that there are caveots and conditions that would change the situation. It's not a clear-cut problem, doesn't have a clear-cut solution, and there will be no 'perfect' answer of equality or whatever else.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Is it though?

Yeah, it is. The end.

---

adjl posted...

Roads don't exactly arise spontaneously, after all.

actually, thats EXACTLY how most roads got started

---

slacker03150 posted...

The number of pro life people who get abortions but somehow think their situation was different or it was warranted in their situation is kind of funny.

When someone else needs it, they were just a slut who couldn't use birth control. When they need it, it was an accident and this is an unfortunate consequence.

I've run into this as well.

Anyway, C.

We don't force people to give blood, tissue, and organ donations to save other people.

We don't even take organs from corpses that haven't been pre-approved for organ donation.

Standard medical practices have already laid out the way abortion OUGHT to be treated, which is that the personhood of the fetus is actually completely irrelevant; even if you view a fetus as a human being, you STILL cannot violate the autonomy of the mother to preserve that fetus. If we don't do it to corpses, we shouldn't do it to women.

But generally speaking most pro-lifers are coming from a position of misinterpreting religious texts + complete ignorance about both medicine and women's bodies. There is no reasonable argument you can make when someone prioritizes their feelings over facts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/05/10/sponsor-an-ohio-abortion-bill-thinks-you-can-reimplant-ectopic-pregnancies-you-cant/

---

Noop_Noop posted...

actually, thats EXACTLY how most roads got started

In the sense of "the road is the least impassable route we can find so we'll walk on that," sure. In the sense of "this road was built to facilitate transportation along this route," not so much. You're not wrong, but I don't think that interpretation is necessarily applicable here.

Unbridled9 posted...

-snip-

Personally, I don't care for efforts to dehumanize fetuses or delegitimize their lives. Any attempts to draw a line between a non-living fetus and a living one almost invariably end up being either arbitrary or based on convenience, and I don't think either basis is really enough for defining something as significant as life itself. Instead, I'm happy to accept that abortion means taking a human life, meaning it's a decision that should be taken seriously and avoided wherever feasible. I also recognize, however, that taking a life is sometimes the lesser of two evils. Treat it accordingly and try to avoid it, but if you're at a point in your life where you can't feasibly support a kid and you end up with an accidental pregnancy, it's better to kill it than starve all three of you. To that end, it should be legal and readily available.

That said, I'm all for reducing abortion rates. Making them illegal, however, is not a good way to do that. That tends to just push them underground and make them more dangerous, to say nothing of the question of bodily autonomy that always comes up in this discussion. What does work is reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies that happen in the first place, which can be done via comprehensive sex ed and subsidized birth control (and related health care) programs that improve access to those resources. The Netherlands has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world, despite abortion being freely legal and readily accessible up until week 21 (they draw the line at fetal viability), which they've managed by creating a culture where taking responsibility for the risks of sex is easy (information and birth control are readily available to anyone seeking them) and encouraged.

Quite simply, people aren't going to stop having sex just because there's a risk of pregnancy. The "just don't have sex" approach to reducing unwanted pregnancy rates has been tried countless times and failed every time. That means it's just not a sensible approach from a public health perspective, meaning it should not inform laws on the matter. Comprehensive sex ed and subsidized birth control programs, however, have been tried (even in the US) and shown to be excellent for reducing rates. Pro-lifers don't push for more of those, though, because then they don't get to punish people (mostly women) for being dirty sex-havers, which is all most of them actually care about.

---

adjl posted...

In the sense of "the road is the least impassable route we can find so we'll walk on that," sure. In the sense of "this road was built to facilitate transportation along this route," not so much. You're not wrong, but I don't think that interpretation is necessarily applicable here.

The first roads were simply the easiest paths to resources and the repeated traveling of those paths created "the roads" quite spontaneously without thought to "creating a road", like wild game trails.

Even now, when roads are built, they are simply to facilitate travel from your den to a resource.

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

the repeated traveling of those paths created "the roads" quite spontaneously without thought to "creating a road",

In any remotely dense wilderness (i.e. any wilderness where a road is actually necessary because shambling aimlessly from point A to B is blocked by difficult terrain), there was definitely thought of "this is in my way I'll move it so I can travel this path more easily." That's deliberately making a road, not having it arise spontaneously. There's also the option of saying that the wear associated with repeated travel is also not spontaneous, since it does rely on human activity, but that's getting needlessly pedantic.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Even now, when roads are built, they are simply to facilitate travel from your den to a resource.

Yes. Duh. They're still built, though.

---

adjl posted...

In any remotely dense wilderness (i.e. any wilderness where a road is actually necessary because shambling aimlessly from point A to B is blocked by difficult terrain), there was definitely thought of "this is in my way I'll move it so I can travel this path more easily." That's deliberately making a road, not having it arise spontaneously. There's also the option of saying that the wear associated with repeated travel is also not spontaneous, since it does rely on human activity, but that's getting needlessly pedantic.

Yes. Duh. They're still built, though.

Clearly some brush to get somewhere doesn't mean the thought was "whelp, it's blocking my way, time to build a road." In fact, the thought was "I need to clear this brush to get to the water."

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

In fact, the thought was "I need to clear this brush to get to the water."

The mere act of clearing the brush constitutes creating a path/road, even if there's no deliberate intent to create something that will be used in the future.

---

I don't care if abortions are available, which basically shows what the geniuses making assumptions about my position are all about. They should not, however, be subsidized in any shape or form (which they are). It's not society's job to pay for your mistakes.

---

The_tall_midget posted...

It's not society's job to pay for your mistakes.

Yeah, tell that to rape victims and women with ectopic pregnancies.

That aside, I guarantee that you pay more for unwanted pregnancies that are carried to term than you ever could for abortions anyway. If you object to having to pay out to people for their "mistakes" then you should support women's health care MORE, not less, because carrying a pregnancy to term, giving birth, and raising a kid is a hell of a lot more expensive both for the individual and for society than terminating a pregnancy.

Oh, and about your sig. Incels are INVOLUNTARY. Meaning they DON'T want to be single. Are you trying to make yourself out to be stupid on purpose or something?

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

Yeah, tell that to rape victims and women with ectopic pregnancies.

That aside, I guarantee that you pay more for unwanted pregnancies that are carried to term than you ever could for abortions anyway. If you object to having to pay out to people for their "mistakes" then you should support women's health care MORE, not less, because carrying a pregnancy to term, giving birth, and raising a kid is a hell of a lot more expensive both for the individual and for society than terminating a pregnancy.

Oh, and about your sig. Incels are INVOLUNTARY. Meaning they DON'T want to be single. Are you trying to make yourself out to be stupid on purpose or something?

You don't seem to get the sig reference, at all. I'll try to explain slowly for you.

A man says he wants to be single. The typical reaction of dumb feminists and lefties? Call that man a loser, an incel, an eternal child, etc. The typical kind of shaming insults men are getting used to, such as toxic masculinity, DA PATRIARCHY, etc. And yes, I am aware incel does not apply, which is why I am making fun of the incorrect use of the term, since idiots like to throw that term around when it does not apply, much like the terms "racist" "nazis", and other assortment of words morons like to throw around.

However, when a woman does the same, like say that dumb feminist bitch Emma Watson, the same idiots who no life on social medias praise her as a strong, independent wahmyn. See the hypocrisy?

Did you understand? Or I need to explain with even less words?

As far as abortions goes, I'll have to repeat since people with your views tend to jump the guns in blind rage.

I have NO problems with abortions being available to women. However, you're not entitled to society's money due to your poor and terrible choices. This also applies to welfare and other handouts that the democrats are promising to throw at endless groups of useless moochers in the next election. No amount of you making numbers up in your head will change this. Also, I can assure you that countries who are promoting your views of allowing free abortions to be thrown around like it's candy, and promoting killing unborn babies, are well on their way to future economic destruction. Countries, however, that are promoting childbirth and families actually having children have far better future prospects than those who don't. Strangely enough, those happen to be countries who aren't pro-feminist. Funny how that works.

But hey, when you hate your country, I can see why wanting to kill off its population is something you want to promote.

---

The_tall_midget posted...
And yes, I am aware incel does not apply

So you admit your signature is idiotic. Why did you then go on a rage-filled rant defending it?

The_tall_midget posted...

Did you understand? Or I need to explain with even less words?

Yeah, you admitted that your signature is stupid, like I said. But you didn't answer my question, which was:
Are you trying to make yourself out to be stupid on purpose or something?
Edit: ahahaha, you changed your signature! You actually agree with what I said but you're too triggered to admit that your phrasing was stupid!

The_tall_midget posted...
However, you're not entitled to society's money due to your poor and terrible choices.

And I pointed out that this doesn't apply to many women who have abortions (which you ignored in this post, presumably because you don't actually have an argument) and that you will end up paying more for an unwanted pregnancy that a woman carries to term than you will for an abortion and therefore your sniveling about "society's money" is not merely not an argument against not funding abortion; it is an argument FOR funding abortion... which you also did not address.

Hmm... not so great at actually responding to people's actual arguments, are you?

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

So you admit your signature is idiotic. Why did you then go on a rage-filled rant defending it?

Yeah, you admitted that your signature is stupid, like I said. But you didn't answer my question, which was:
Are you trying to make yourself out to be stupid on purpose or something?
Edit: ahahaha, you changed your signature! You actually agree with what I said but you're too triggered to admit that your phrasing was stupid!

And I pointed out that this doesn't apply to many women who have abortions (which you ignored in this post, presumably because you don't actually have an argument) and that you will end up paying more for an unwanted pregnancy that a woman carries to term than you will for an abortion and therefore your sniveling about "society's money" is not merely not an argument against not funding abortion; it is an argument FOR funding abortion... which you also did not address.

Hmm... not so great at actually responding to people's actual arguments, are you?

Cant believe im defending zues here but his sig is saying certain people would call a man like that a once not that they are infact a incel. Incel has become a generic insult these days.

---

mooreandrew58 posted...

Cant believe im defending zues here but his sig is saying certain people would call a man like that a once not that they are infact a incel. Incel has become a generic insult these days.

Who's Zues?

Also, Gaawa is just not getting it. Which I don't understand, you'd think it would be easy enough to.

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

So you admit your signature is idiotic. Why did you then go on a rage-filled rant defending it?

No. I am admitting that you're just not getting it. Which is not really a surprise considering your views.

Edit : Here, I think make this simple enough for someone like you to understand.

Person 1 with male sexual organs : I don't like shoes. Group of idiots : YOU'RE A LOSER! SHOE HATER!
Person 2 with female sexual organs : I don't like shoes. Group of idiots : So strong! So brave!

I am obviously pointing out that the group of idiots are idiots. What I did with the incel term, which does not apply since the person is a voluntary celibate, is simply emphasize that they're idiots as well as hypocrites in one fell swoop! And, strangely enough, the people responding like those idiots, happen to be groups and types of people with left leaning views!

Now, do you understand or you will just continue to prove why your views are idiotic?

---

The_tall_midget posted...

I don't care if abortions are available, which basically shows what the geniuses making assumptions about my position are all about.

It's not much of an assumption to think that your response to a question is in response to that question and not to some tangent. You have a habit of coming into any topic discussing whether or not abortions should be legal and going off on your tirades about "paying for mistakes." In the absence of any sort of context for discussing subsidies or the like, that looks very much like you have difficulty differentiating "abortions should be legal" from "abortions should be completely paid for by the government." You'll have fewer people making what you think are unreasonable assumptions (they aren't) if you pay attention to context before launching into your little rants.

The_tall_midget posted...

They should not, however, be subsidized in any shape or form (which they are). It's not society's job to pay for your mistakes.

It is, however, society's (or at least the government's) job to do what's best for society. Put aside your principles for a moment and ask yourself which scenario ultimately costs society more money and is more likely to result in a negative outcome for society:

-A person who cannot afford an abortion has that abortion paid for by the government (about $400)
-A person who cannot afford an abortion has no choice but to deliver that child (about $6500 if nothing goes wrong, which she also cannot afford because $6500>400)

I think the math there is obvious. But wait! The costs of having a child don't stop there!

-Feeding a baby for even just one year costs around $1000 (which she also cannot afford because $1000>$400), to say nothing of the remaining years before the kid becomes independent (though I won't tally up all of that because she has the potential to make changes to her income in that time frame)
-Schooling a child from 5-18 costs the government an average of $138,000 ($10,615 per year), which they will be paying unless she can afford a private school (which she probably can't if $400 was prohibitively expensive)
-Children of low-SES single parents (I don't think I have to explain the correlation between this and not being able to afford the abortion one desires) are substantially more likely to end up in the justice system, which is terribly expensive all around

Among others. That money's gotta come from somewhere, and if the mother can't afford it, it's gonna be the government bailing her out (potentially ruining her credit rating and thereby hurting her ability to improve her financial situation moving forward). Eventually, the kid will presumably end up paying taxes that offset what they cost the government (if they don't end up in prison), but that's a long wait for a return on that investment. Can you really say that paying for an abortion means society is "paying for her mistakes" more than they would be if she carried the baby to term?

You can rage about "entitlement" all you want, but the numbers speak for themselves. Principles with no basis in practicality are worthless. Principles at the expense of practicality are idiotic.

The_tall_midget posted...

A man says he wants to be single. The typical reaction of dumb feminists and lefties? Call that man a loser, an incel, an eternal child, etc

I'm gonna need to see a citation on that. Mocking men for choosing to be single is much more within the realm of people with more traditional ideas about masculinity, which tend to be more on the conservative side of things. Even then, it's not particularly common if you hang around people that aren't complete assholes because most people (regardless of political leanings) respect that relationships aren't for everyone.

The_tall_midget posted...

Countries, however, that are promoting childbirth and families actually having children have far better future prospects than those who don't. Strangely enough, those happen to be countries who aren't pro-feminist. Funny how that works.

I'm also going to need to see a citation on that, and perhaps some clarification on what you mean by "better future prospects" because that sounds like a bunch of vague buzzwords.

---

Pro-lifers aren't pro-life. They are only pro-birth. They don't give a damn what happens to the child after that.

adjl posted...

If you truly know better than me and believe my interpretation to be wrong, you should be able to educate me. Begin.

If you don't understand the meaning of a word, ask the dictionary instead of me.

Unbridled9 posted...

Is it though? I mean, what if the father doesn't want her to have the child because he knows/believes that the courts will force him to pay for it and he is incapable for various reasons of doing so? Is it fair to force him to have to support a child he doesn't desire and may have even taken every precaution against? What if he believes that it isn't his and that his wife is cheating on him with the pool guy? What if she actually is? Is he now going to have to support someone who isn't his kid because the mother decided she wanted to keep it? What if the doctor forces their political viewpoint on the mother and starts to bring up all the negatives of having the child and persuades the would-be mother to abort when she wouldn't have otherwise? Possibly recommending a clinic run by a friend in doing so as well? What if the father desires the child and offers to take full care and responsibility but the mother aborts simply to spite him? What if the mother's reasoning for aborting is race or gender based or because she believes that the child will be homosexual and doesn't want to have a homosexual in their family?

That's just a few of the situations I can think of where maybe it should be more than just the two of them making the decision. Even in those I'm sure that there are caveots and conditions that would change the situation. It's not a clear-cut problem, doesn't have a clear-cut solution, and there will be no 'perfect' answer of equality or whatever else.

This, tbh. Otherwise regardless it involves killing a baby without the baby's consent.


---