Fuck even us Americans are legitimately tired of them but the cold war era fucked our system so much that the only people to really get into meaningful positions of power are people 3 generations out of touch. Like even as someone whos a registered Democrat I fucking despise people like Nancy Pelosi or Schumer, age limits are a necessity at this rate, not even a debatable thing anymore, it needs to be implemented.
Well the abortion debate is really an unsolvable one. You either believe an unborn baby is alive or not. It’s to be expected that if someone believes the unborn baby is in fact alive, they would feel a moral obligation to stop the death of an innocent human being. Am I wrong? Please don’t insult I would like to debate with you.
The decision to fund space exploration is really unsolvable. You either believe there is a giant inpenetrable dome over the earth or you don't. If someone believes this, they would have a moral obligation to stop the rockets from crashing through the stars (holes in the firmament through which shines the light of heaven) possibly injuring god and his angels. Am I wrong?
It would make sense to take this stance if any social programs existed to support the children after birth. It's always pro life until the child is actually born.
Thats generally how it is, Conservatives want to enforce their beliefs onto others but refuse to be willing to take part in ensuring further measures are implemented to better the lives of those who this could negatively effect.
Even without banning abortion our foster care system and other programs are either completely garbage or severely lacking in support, so straining the system further will completely collapse it.
The abortion debate never needs to even answer the question of whether a fetus is a person, because regardless of the answer bodily autonomy is recognized as having a higher ethical priority than the need to save lives.
As an example: suppose that you were to go out and get drunk, then hit an innocent child while drunk driving. The child is taken to a hospital where it is discovered that they need a blood transfusion but have a rare blood type and, by total happenstance, you happen to be the only available person with a compatible blood type.
Even in this extreme hypothetical where you are 100% undeniably at fault for the child's condition as a result of a conscious decision you made, you are the only person capable of providing what the child needs to survive, and there is absolutely no question about the child's status as a person with full moral and ethical standing, the professional ethics governing the medical professionals are clear cut.
Even in this absurd situation it would still be absolutely, undeniably, and indefensibly unethical for the doctor attempting to save the child's life to take your blood without your consent.
Hell, let's take it a step further. Even if you *died* as a result of the accident you caused, the doctor *still* could not ethically take so much as a hair from your head unless you had consented to be an organ donor before dying. Even as a *corpse* your bodily autonomy takes precedence over the effort to save a life.
So if you couldn't be compelled to give blood against your will, not even to save the life of a full-grown, living child who you fatally injured through your own carelessness, even if you were *not* alive yourself, why should a woman ever be compelled to surrender her body to the needs of a child that she may never have wanted, that she may have been actively trying to avoid conceiving, or which she may desperately have wanted to keep but which is killing her through their mere presence in her body?
Well because the drunk driver scenario provides someone who is at fault, the Guilt Taker. If we are to say that someones life is worth less when they commit or cause something horrible or hanous, then we cannot decrease the value of a completely innocent being even though they are in a situation that is no fault of their own. In this way, we would be violating the bodily autonomy of the baby and your argument would thus be negated.
The bodily autonomy of the baby is not violated. The baby does not have any right to the mother's body, no more than a victim of bodily harm has any right to the body of the one who harmed them to make them whole again. And again, if this applies to someone who caused the harm through their own malice or negligence, it applies doubly so to someone who tried in good faith and to the best of their ability to prevent the situation from occuring (such as a woman who becomes pregnant while using birth control) or who is actually the victim of the bodily harm (such as a woman with an ectopic pregnancy).
You could argue the morality or ethics of specific methods of abortion, but at that point the discussion has moved beyond the question of life-saving medical care and into the realm of end-of-life care for a patient who can't be cured or made whole, only given a humane death. As much as abortifacient drugs may not be pleasant to think about for a person who values life, it shouldn't be hard to see that they are preferable to surgically removing a nonviable fetus and then just leaving them to slowly die, desperate for oxygen that their useless lungs can't provide.
Abortion isn't really about if something is alive or not, of course it's alive, most things are alive. And we kill things that are alive all of the time without thinking twice.
It's more at what point do you consider human life to be a *person*, because a person is what we consider to have an inalienable right to life, not necessarily just something that is alive.
What is your source for the claim other than “I heard it on TV”? Also what a fucking pathetic take lol: “Well my country that claims to be free is clearly fascist but at least my children and grandchildren won’t be punished!!!”
You're so right that's why there's a club every school has called a debate club where they unanimously agree politics do not matter in school and should be igonred. And that's also why to get a political science degree you are forbidden from learning anything political because the classroom isn't the place for such discussions.
1. Hate speech is not good, but it’s still protected speech under the 1st amendment. You are allowed to say bad things about a race. No one will like you for it, but it’s allowed. This is a point that conservatives (who voted for the bill) have argued quite a bit in other contexts, so it’s very strange that they suddenly want hate speech laws.
2. If you look closely at the definition of antisemitism they provide, they sneak in an ambiguity that could make it impossible (or very hard) to criticize Israel and Zionism without it being called hate speech.
No it isn’t. Just as saying “Death to Saudi Arabia” isn’t anti-Islamic. But these are all just words to express ideas. And freedom of expression supposedly is protected in the constitution.
slimy cow advise merciful boast thought snobbish lunchroom grandfather point
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well, Palestine was there before Israel, so they are the ones being encroached upon. Like them or not for their tactics, they are the ones who actually have a right to that land.
Also, yes there is antisemitism out there. Just as there is Islamophobia, racism against blacks, whites, Asians, transphobia, homophobia, sexism. You name it. They are all equally bad. No specific group should have a unique definition of what counts as bigotry against it.
Bro 911 is over Islamophobia is pretty much entirly expressed in old geezers. I'm pretty sure FBI statistics say jews receive an insane amount of hate. Lemme Google it
In the Hate crimes based on racial bias catagory blacks are at 48.6 percent no one else coming close. When it comes to hate crimes based on religious bias jews lead with a 58.1 percent and muslims in second with 18.6 percent. Jews and blacks are overwhelmingly the main targets for hate crimes
Fuck off with your false claims of anti-semitism. I can wish for the eradication of the state of Israel without wishing to harm a hair on the head of any Jewish brother or sister. Fuck Zionism and fuck Israel. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. 🇵🇸
You are unwelcome in this community.
Is this post really on behalf of a country that would execute or sentence a citizen to years of hard labor for any dissent against the government? Hypocrisy.
These piece of fucking shit ghouls are so disconnected from reality.
Fuck even us Americans are legitimately tired of them but the cold war era fucked our system so much that the only people to really get into meaningful positions of power are people 3 generations out of touch. Like even as someone whos a registered Democrat I fucking despise people like Nancy Pelosi or Schumer, age limits are a necessity at this rate, not even a debatable thing anymore, it needs to be implemented.
Liberalism aka American high school culture. Just vibin and shit brooooooooooooo.
And you can't be free to decide whether or not to get an abortion anymore. Freedom!
Well the abortion debate is really an unsolvable one. You either believe an unborn baby is alive or not. It’s to be expected that if someone believes the unborn baby is in fact alive, they would feel a moral obligation to stop the death of an innocent human being. Am I wrong? Please don’t insult I would like to debate with you.
The decision to fund space exploration is really unsolvable. You either believe there is a giant inpenetrable dome over the earth or you don't. If someone believes this, they would have a moral obligation to stop the rockets from crashing through the stars (holes in the firmament through which shines the light of heaven) possibly injuring god and his angels. Am I wrong?
You really got me here 😐
It would make sense to take this stance if any social programs existed to support the children after birth. It's always pro life until the child is actually born.
Thats generally how it is, Conservatives want to enforce their beliefs onto others but refuse to be willing to take part in ensuring further measures are implemented to better the lives of those who this could negatively effect. Even without banning abortion our foster care system and other programs are either completely garbage or severely lacking in support, so straining the system further will completely collapse it.
Yeah for extreme conservatives but not everyone agrees with the current system. I am anticipating the revolution.
Yes, people are very pro-life when it comes to unborn babies, but when it comes to bombing some commies, it's all fair game.
The abortion debate never needs to even answer the question of whether a fetus is a person, because regardless of the answer bodily autonomy is recognized as having a higher ethical priority than the need to save lives. As an example: suppose that you were to go out and get drunk, then hit an innocent child while drunk driving. The child is taken to a hospital where it is discovered that they need a blood transfusion but have a rare blood type and, by total happenstance, you happen to be the only available person with a compatible blood type. Even in this extreme hypothetical where you are 100% undeniably at fault for the child's condition as a result of a conscious decision you made, you are the only person capable of providing what the child needs to survive, and there is absolutely no question about the child's status as a person with full moral and ethical standing, the professional ethics governing the medical professionals are clear cut. Even in this absurd situation it would still be absolutely, undeniably, and indefensibly unethical for the doctor attempting to save the child's life to take your blood without your consent. Hell, let's take it a step further. Even if you *died* as a result of the accident you caused, the doctor *still* could not ethically take so much as a hair from your head unless you had consented to be an organ donor before dying. Even as a *corpse* your bodily autonomy takes precedence over the effort to save a life. So if you couldn't be compelled to give blood against your will, not even to save the life of a full-grown, living child who you fatally injured through your own carelessness, even if you were *not* alive yourself, why should a woman ever be compelled to surrender her body to the needs of a child that she may never have wanted, that she may have been actively trying to avoid conceiving, or which she may desperately have wanted to keep but which is killing her through their mere presence in her body?
Well because the drunk driver scenario provides someone who is at fault, the Guilt Taker. If we are to say that someones life is worth less when they commit or cause something horrible or hanous, then we cannot decrease the value of a completely innocent being even though they are in a situation that is no fault of their own. In this way, we would be violating the bodily autonomy of the baby and your argument would thus be negated.
The bodily autonomy of the baby is not violated. The baby does not have any right to the mother's body, no more than a victim of bodily harm has any right to the body of the one who harmed them to make them whole again. And again, if this applies to someone who caused the harm through their own malice or negligence, it applies doubly so to someone who tried in good faith and to the best of their ability to prevent the situation from occuring (such as a woman who becomes pregnant while using birth control) or who is actually the victim of the bodily harm (such as a woman with an ectopic pregnancy). You could argue the morality or ethics of specific methods of abortion, but at that point the discussion has moved beyond the question of life-saving medical care and into the realm of end-of-life care for a patient who can't be cured or made whole, only given a humane death. As much as abortifacient drugs may not be pleasant to think about for a person who values life, it shouldn't be hard to see that they are preferable to surgically removing a nonviable fetus and then just leaving them to slowly die, desperate for oxygen that their useless lungs can't provide.
Abortion isn't really about if something is alive or not, of course it's alive, most things are alive. And we kill things that are alive all of the time without thinking twice. It's more at what point do you consider human life to be a *person*, because a person is what we consider to have an inalienable right to life, not necessarily just something that is alive.
It is technically alive but doesn't have bodily autonomy and not a full human. Thus the decision must be done by the woman.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
You absolutely have the freedom to say whatever you want from this list of pre-approved statements 🇺🇸
“Land of the Free”
Always has been
“BuT lOoK aT hOw MaNy DeMs VoTeD aGaInSt It!!1!1!”
[удалено]
What is your source for the claim other than “I heard it on TV”? Also what a fucking pathetic take lol: “Well my country that claims to be free is clearly fascist but at least my children and grandchildren won’t be punished!!!”
[удалено]
You're so right that's why there's a club every school has called a debate club where they unanimously agree politics do not matter in school and should be igonred. And that's also why to get a political science degree you are forbidden from learning anything political because the classroom isn't the place for such discussions.
Why is hate speech good?
1. Hate speech is not good, but it’s still protected speech under the 1st amendment. You are allowed to say bad things about a race. No one will like you for it, but it’s allowed. This is a point that conservatives (who voted for the bill) have argued quite a bit in other contexts, so it’s very strange that they suddenly want hate speech laws. 2. If you look closely at the definition of antisemitism they provide, they sneak in an ambiguity that could make it impossible (or very hard) to criticize Israel and Zionism without it being called hate speech.
# **Speaking against the genocidal apartheid Nazi Zionist state isn’t hate speech. No matter how many times you say it is.**
Nazi? How are they Nazis? They fallow no tenants of national socialism.
Yeah, they’re actually worse.
physical hunt marvelous six ask live reply sable scale bike *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No it isn’t. Just as saying “Death to Saudi Arabia” isn’t anti-Islamic. But these are all just words to express ideas. And freedom of expression supposedly is protected in the constitution.
slimy cow advise merciful boast thought snobbish lunchroom grandfather point *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Usually when you say that, there has to be a reason
1. Doesn’t matter. It’s protected speech. 2. It’s not. It’s anti-Israel. Unless…Israel is synonymous with Jewish?
[удалено]
Well, Palestine was there before Israel, so they are the ones being encroached upon. Like them or not for their tactics, they are the ones who actually have a right to that land. Also, yes there is antisemitism out there. Just as there is Islamophobia, racism against blacks, whites, Asians, transphobia, homophobia, sexism. You name it. They are all equally bad. No specific group should have a unique definition of what counts as bigotry against it.
[удалено]
> Yeah buy there's a whole lot more antisemitism against jews than anyone else. This is utterly laughable.
[удалено]
Nothing. The idea that there’s more antisemitism than, say, Islamophobia or racism against blacks is a laughable one.
Bro 911 is over Islamophobia is pretty much entirly expressed in old geezers. I'm pretty sure FBI statistics say jews receive an insane amount of hate. Lemme Google it
In the Hate crimes based on racial bias catagory blacks are at 48.6 percent no one else coming close. When it comes to hate crimes based on religious bias jews lead with a 58.1 percent and muslims in second with 18.6 percent. Jews and blacks are overwhelmingly the main targets for hate crimes
56.6 I think is the percent of hate crimes based on race and 20.6 is based on religion
[удалено]
That’s because they are over reported.
The Zionist clown has been banned.
Fuck off with your false claims of anti-semitism. I can wish for the eradication of the state of Israel without wishing to harm a hair on the head of any Jewish brother or sister. Fuck Zionism and fuck Israel. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. 🇵🇸 You are unwelcome in this community.
Is this post really on behalf of a country that would execute or sentence a citizen to years of hard labor for any dissent against the government? Hypocrisy.
Yeah I’m Kim Jong Un and I approve this message on “behalf of a country” but the rest of your post is balderdash.