Its over. Joe Biden is stepping down

[Offthemat]

1 minute ago, Scouts Honor said:

so ... should we abort every child under 5?

of course not.

but, they can't support themselves either.

should we abort all disabled?

all welfare?

all homeless?

all mentally ill? 

where does it stop Joseph? 

18?  JK

[WrestlingRasta]

On 7/26/2024 at 4:32 PM, WrestlingRasta said:

I guess there in lies the fundamental difference between you and I….you think of it as a punishment.  It is not punishment. It is responsible for your actions.  No matter how you try to slice it, the person (except in the case of rape/sexual abuse) made a decision, a choice. And yes, you (that person) are responsible for the results, whatever they may be, of that choice. In this case it happens to be creating another living being. And yes, you are responsible for the care of that living being, because it is SOLELY there as a result of the choice you made, and can only live, for a period of time, under your direct care, which means….sharing your body. That’s how the fetus develops and grows until it no longer needs your body. There are then procedures for, should you need to or choose to, choose not to care for that being beyond the point that you are the only one on the planet that can. I’m not saying there aren’t scenarios in which I’m okay/for abortion.  I’m saying this argument of punishment and without consent is just……bullshit. 
 

Let me ask you this, and I would appreciate a direct answer without dancing around or moving the goal posts. Who in this scenario had more of a choice…the living being that created the action, or the living being that was the result?  

@ThreePointTakedown why have you continued down this topic yet avoided this very simple question I asked you.  I thought you were all about answering the question??

[Scouts Honor]

and before you bore me with slippery slope

look at the direction of our social mores

 

MAPs are now a thing...

 

my name Scouts Honor is a dig at Russell Scout, a one time contributor to this forum... who told me that MAPs would never be a thing... he always said.. slippery slope fallacy...etc.

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 minute ago, Bigbrog said:

Pretty sure you are the only one calling it a punishment.  Living with the consequences and taking responsibility for actions isn't punishment, but rather an important attribute to be a value add to society.

That's exactly what it is when the state handcuffs someone from giving/receiving something that is freely available. 

Who gets to determine the appropriate consequences for something illegal? The state. That's it. They are demanding that people who become pregnant put their lives on the line(being pregnant increases your mortality chances) to grow a person they may not be financially, mentally, or physically capable of caring for. All for no reason that I can discern other than what you just said, consequences. Which is a dog whistle for 'I don't agree with your lifestyle so I want to legally punish you and others like you from making me feel icky even if it puts your life on the line because I/we don't value you or those like you'

Do you understand how the body changes when going through a pregnancy?

Can you list a few things that happens to a pregnant body during gestation?

I'll give you a few hints: foot arches may permanently fall, hips widen, trouble sleeping, memory lapses, heart beat and breathing is faster

Lets not forget that giving birth could have complications and both pregnant person and baby could be lost. Is that a good enough consequence for having sex? 

[Bigbrog]

3 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

That's exactly what it is when the state handcuffs someone from giving/receiving something that is freely available. 

Who gets to determine the appropriate consequences for something illegal? The state. That's it. They are demanding that people who become pregnant put their lives on the line(being pregnant increases your mortality chances) to grow a person they may not be financially, mentally, or physically capable of caring for. All for no reason that I can discern other than what you just said, consequences. Which is a dog whistle for 'I don't agree with your lifestyle so I want to legally punish you and others like you from making me feel icky even if it puts your life on the line because I/we don't value you or those like you'

Do you understand how the body changes when going through a pregnancy?

Can you list a few things that happens to a pregnant body during gestation?

I'll give you a few hints: foot arches may permanently fall, hips widen, trouble sleeping, memory lapses, heart beat and breathing is faster

Lets not forget that giving birth could have complications and both pregnant person and baby could be lost. Is that a good enough consequence for having sex? 

Wow are you a true whackadoodle...are you seriously trying to lecture on what happens to a woman's body during pregnancy??  LOL 

By the way you have no idea what my stance even is on the whole abortion thing...I was merely pointing out where, once again, you try and turn something someone said into something they didn't say.  Why do you constantly do that???

[ThreePointTakedown]

13 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

why must i listen to people tell me a fetus isn't a person, when they gaslight me about a man dressing up as a woman.

i really dont care about the man playing dress up, i never have, until they started to try to take women's places.

 

the pregnant person did get a choice.

my parents had my brother when they were 16/17.  they had me at 19/20. still together

it was not easy. my mother was sent away... my gma hated her. so it wasn't like they had all this support.

 

convenience and economics are  the number one reason for abortion

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives

A glob of cells is not a person. It does not have the same rights a birthed human does. It certainly should not be afforded extra rights, to use another's body to sustain itself, that is not given to anyone else. 

If you want to give a fetus special rights then come out and say it? Why circle around 'consequences' which is punishment. Its the same as filling pools in with cement. You see others enjoying the fruits of society and you want to shut it down. You can't physically fill in pools. But this is the next best thing in your mind. I know you can't see the similarity but it is. The reason for filling pools was racism. Plain and simple. Why do you want to fill this particular pool? You'll say consequences. But its not much different than a pool. You just don't like this group of people for the same reason as for the pools. Still just as repugnant and senseless as the racists that filled pools. You should be ashamed of yourself. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

15 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

so ... should we abort every child under 5?

of course not.

but, they can't support themselves either.

should we abort all disabled?

all welfare?

all homeless?

all mentally ill? 

where does it stop Joseph? 

Explain how murder and chemically ending an abortion at 7-8 weeks is the same thing? 

I imagine you'll just say, 'it is' but you'll need to show your work. If all you say is, 'it is' I'll know you have no way to equate those two things. 

 

[Bigbrog]

2 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Explain how murder and chemically ending an abortion at 7-8 weeks is the same thing? 

I imagine you'll just say, 'it is' but you'll need to show your work. If all you say is, 'it is' I'll know you have no way to equate those two things. 

 

Hey dum dum...that is the moral argument...aka, when does life actually start....it is an argument that the scientific and medical field struggle with all the time.  I personally think the fetus is a living thing once the heart starts beating...but that is my personal opinion based on my scientific training and education...again, it is not an indication of my stance on abortion but rather an opinion on the moral debate of when life actually starts.  

[WrestlingRasta]

I guess he's still avoiding.  Nuff said.  

[ThreePointTakedown]

16 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I guess there in lies the fundamental difference between you and I….you think of it as a punishment.  It is not punishment. It is responsible for your actions.  No matter how you try to slice it, the person (except in the case of rape/sexual abuse) made a decision, a choice. And yes, you (that person) are responsible for the results, whatever they may be, of that choice. In this case it happens to be creating another living being. And yes, you are responsible for the care of that living being, because it is SOLELY there as a result of the choice you made, and can only live, for a period of time, under your direct care, which means….sharing your body. That’s how the fetus develops and grows until it no longer needs your body. There are then procedures for, should you need to or choose to, choose not to care for that being beyond the point that you are the only one on the planet that can. I’m not saying there aren’t scenarios in which I’m okay/for abortion.  I’m saying this argument of punishment and without consent is just……bullshit. 
 

Let me ask you this, and I would appreciate a direct answer without dancing around or moving the goal posts. Who in this scenario had more of a choice…the living being that created the action, or the living being that was the result?  

I'm going to ask some clarifying questions because I don't understand what you are asking. What do you mean by 'more'? What do you mean by 'action'? 

I maybe missed this post considering how many there have been. I apologize. If you want a direct answer the question needs to be more specific and less leading. 

Makes me feel like you want me to say that the pregnant person has more of a choice. Which makes no sense. But what about complications. There really is no choice when the pregnant person and the baby are in danger. Or people that can't get pregnant and now have IVF up in the air because the next thing that will be(and has been) targeted will be IVF. Their choice will be taken from them if IVF is made illegal in their state. Making it financially impossible for some people to get pregnant. So full circle pregnancy economics. Can't afford to keep it now can't afford to make it.

If you honestly respond to my questions about your question then maybe I can give you a direct answer. 

More and more this reminds me of the gay hysteria. People without exposure to gay people were perfectly fine with treating them like second class citizens. Keeping them from receiving health care(seems familiar). But the more and more people came out and those people started to realize they were punishing other humans for simply being different. Showing no sympathy or empathy to the group. Until it effected someone in their circle. Then their tune changed. 

25% of pregnant people in America will likely need/have an abortion in their lifetime. That's roughly 40m people. 

17 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

@ThreePointTakedown why have you continued down this topic yet avoided this very simple question I asked you.  I thought you were all about answering the question??

 

[ThreePointTakedown]

24 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Wow are you a true whackadoodle...are you seriously trying to lecture on what happens to a woman's body during pregnancy??  LOL 

By the way you have no idea what my stance even is on the whole abortion thing...I was merely pointing out where, once again, you try and turn something someone said into something they didn't say.  Why do you constantly do that???

Want some cheese with your whine?

[Bigbrog]

4 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Want some cheese with your whine?

OMG...LOL!!!!  You literally just did it when I ask you why you do it...how in the world did you come to the conclusion I am whining???  

[WrestlingRasta]

7 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

I'm going to ask some clarifying questions because I don't understand what you are asking. What do you mean by 'more'? What do you mean by 'action'? 

I maybe missed this post considering how many there have been. I apologize. If you want a direct answer the question needs to be more specific and less leading. 

Makes me feel like you want me to say that the pregnant person has more of a choice. Which makes no sense. But what about complications. There really is no choice when the pregnant person and the baby are in danger. Or people that can't get pregnant and now have IVF up in the air because the next thing that will be(and has been) targeted will be IVF. Their choice will be taken from them if IVF is made illegal in their state. Making it financially impossible for some people to get pregnant. So full circle pregnancy economics. Can't afford to keep it now can't afford to make it.

If you honestly respond to my questions about your question then maybe I can give you a direct answer. 

More and more this reminds me of the gay hysteria. People without exposure to gay people were perfectly fine with treating them like second class citizens. Keeping them from receiving health care(seems familiar). But the more and more people came out and those people started to realize they were punishing other humans for simply being different. Showing no sympathy or empathy to the group. Until it effected someone in their circle. Then their tune changed. 

25% of pregnant people in America will likely need/have an abortion in their lifetime. That's roughly 40m people. 

 

No it doesn't  you are just dancing.  But I will humor you:

There are two living beings in this equation.   One of those living beings made a choice to take on an action.  As a result of that action, living being number one created living being number two, and the only way living being number two can survive, for a period of time, is under the direct, biological care of living being number 1, which is precisely one of the very vital things living being number 1's body was developed to do.

My question to you, and I will ask you to go back and read the whole post again so you will have the correct context, is which of those two living beings had a choice in the situation.  I can understand why using the word 'more' may have been confusing to you, because only one of those living beings had a choice in the matter, so 'more' is not appropriate.  My question to you, is which one of those two living beings had the choice, to perform the action, that created the other living being.  And I'll ask you to just simply answer the question, without telling me what I am thinking, what angle I'm trying play by asking the question, or any other movement of the goal posts that make you feel more comfortable.  Please, just simply answer the question.  That is kind of a big thing to you....right?

Edited July 30 by WrestlingRasta

[ThreePointTakedown]

14 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Hey dum dum...that is the moral argument...aka, when does life actually start....it is an argument that the scientific and medical field struggle with all the time.  I personally think the fetus is a living thing once the heart starts beating...but that is my personal opinion based on my scientific training and education...again, it is not an indication of my stance on abortion but rather an opinion on the moral debate of when life actually starts.  

'Dum dum' thanks for that. Do you understand that is your way of otherizing me so its easier for you to ignore the points I make that disagree with your opinions?

Why do you draw the line at heart beat?

If you think its life why not earlier? 

How can an arbitrary line also be a moral distinction when making this decision? 

[WrestlingRasta]

8 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

25% of pregnant people in America will likely need/have an abortion in their lifetime. That's roughly 40m people. 

In order for the statistic to be relevant, you will need to separate need and have.  Not all abortions are needed, a large number are chosen, and not because of extraordinary medical risk.

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 minute ago, WrestlingRasta said:

No it doesn't  you are just dancing.  But I will humor you:

There are two living beings in this equation.   One of those living beings made a choice to take on an action.  As a result of that action, living being number one created living being number two, and the only way living being number two can survive, for a period of time, is under the direct, biological care of living being number 1, which is precisely one of the very vital things living being number 1's body was developed to do.

My question to you, and I will ask you to go back and read the whole post again so you will have the correct context, is which of those two living beings had a choice in the situation.  I can understand why using the word 'more' may have been confusing to you, because only one of those living beings had a choice in the matter, so 'more' is not appropriate.  My question to you, is which one of those two living beings had the choice, to perform the action, that created the other living being.  And I'll ask you to just simply answer the question, without telling me what I am thinking, what angle I'm trying play by asking the question, or any other movement of the goal posts that make you feel more comfortable.  Please, just simply answer the question.  That is kind of a big thing to you....right?

Living person 1 made a choice, yes. 

Is the pregnancy now the only choice they have following that first choice? 

Thank you for confirming your question wasn't worded in a way that would/could allow for a direct answer. Classy. 

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

'Dum dum' thanks for that. Do you understand that is your way of otherizing me so its easier for you to ignore the points I make that disagree with your opinions?

Why do you draw the line at heart beat?

If you think its life why not earlier? 

How can an arbitrary line also be a moral distinction when making this decision? 

Yes I do...because 99% of your opinions are completely crazy.

I draw the line at heart beat as that is one of the critical biological functions of humans.  The other reason I say it is the beating heart and not, let's say the brain, is because humans can still be alive even if their brain isn't functioning (I am not getting into a moral debate about being brain dead here)...people can not be alive if their heart is not beating.

You can call it whatever you want...a line or arbitrary line all you want, it is the distinction I make when thinking of a human being a living thing.  It has nothing to do a moral distinction of anything other then when I think life begins.  So nice try but you can't twist/extrapolate/confuse it with making any sort of comment about abortion.

[ThreePointTakedown]

2 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

In order for the statistic to be relevant, you will need to separate need and have.  Not all abortions are needed, a large number are chosen, and not because of extraordinary medical risk.

What do you mean by 'large number'? Do you have access to this information or are you just 'common sense'ing your disagreement? 

[WrestlingRasta]

Just now, ThreePointTakedown said:

Living person 1 made a choice, yes. 

Is the pregnancy now the only choice they have following that first choice? 

Thank you for confirming your question wasn't worded in a way that would/could allow for a direct answer. Classy. 

Reading comprehension.  I didn't confirm anything, I clearly said you were dancing.

Now to answer your question, is the pregnancy the only choice they have now following the first choice?......well I guess that depends on whether or not you are a person that believes in being responsible for your responsibilities.

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 minute ago, Bigbrog said:

Yes I do...because 99% of your opinions are completely crazy.

I draw the line at heart beat as that is one of the critical biological functions of humans.  The other reason I say it is the beating heart and not, let's say the brain, is because humans can still be alive even if their brain isn't functioning (I am not getting into a moral debate about being brain dead here)...people can not be alive if their heart is not beating.

You can call it whatever you want...a line or arbitrary line all you want, it is the distinction I make when thinking of a human being a living thing.  It has nothing to do a moral distinction of anything other then when I think life begins.  So nice try but you can't twist/extrapolate/confuse it with making any sort of comment about abortion.

I didn't have to twist. 'Moral' judgement is hardly ever that. You cannot say that one thing is more/less moral than another without a metric. What is your metric? Are you seeing abortion cases as a group or individually? If its a group, then you're wrong. No moral judgement can be leveled upon everyone in a such a large group. Its just a lazy way of punishing those people you don't like. If you wait to level a moral judgement on each individual case then you shouldn't be on here anyway talking about morals because no one can possible share your same morality. 

[WrestlingRasta]

3 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

What do you mean by 'large number'? Do you have access to this information or are you just 'common sense'ing your disagreement? 

Yes there is access to that information.  If one was truly interested in gaining information about a topic they are serious about, one would put in the effort to seek it.  If one was truly interested in winning an argument with strangers on the internet, one would require said stranger to 'show their work'.

[ThreePointTakedown]

3 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Reading comprehension.  I didn't confirm anything, I clearly said you were dancing.

Now to answer your question, is the pregnancy the only choice they have now following the first choice?......well I guess that depends on whether or not you are a person that believes in being responsible for your responsibilities.

Yep and there it is. You just want to punish people you don't like. Got it. 

Paint everyone with one brush because you're a lazy thinking and claim the high ground. Pathetic. 

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

I didn't have to twist. 'Moral' judgement is hardly ever that. You cannot say that one thing is more/less moral than another without a metric. What is your metric? Are you seeing abortion cases as a group or individually? If its a group, then you're wrong. No moral judgement can be leveled upon everyone in a such a large group. Its just a lazy way of punishing those people you don't like. If you wait to level a moral judgement on each individual case then you shouldn't be on here anyway talking about morals because no one can possible share your same morality. 

Man you are exhausting...I am not in the argument about what is moral or not moral when it comes to abortion...I have repeatedly said that...abortion is WAY to much of a complicated subject that I choose to withhold my overall opinion on it as it could probably change hour by hour.

You asked my why I choose the "line" of life starts at a heartbeat...period!

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 minute ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Yes there is access to that information.  If one was truly interested in gaining information about a topic they are serious about, one would put in the effort to seek it.  If one was truly interested in winning an argument with strangers on the internet, one would require said stranger to 'show their work'.

Now who's dancing. Coward. 

I had the time of my life!

[ThreePointTakedown]

Just now, Bigbrog said:

Man you are exhausting...I am not in the argument about what is moral or not moral when it comes to abortion...I have repeatedly said that...abortion is WAY to much of a complicated subject that I choose to withhold my overall opinion on it as it could probably change hour by hour.

You asked my why I choose the "line" of life starts at a heartbeat...period!

Fair.