ThreePointTakedown

I don't live in that state. Sadly.

You need people to fit in these boxes that you've constructed for them. If they don't, you need to point out that they don't. When you could just ignore them. Like you do with just about everyone else that comes in and goes out of your life. But you've decided that these people are a threat. To what, I ask? To which I'll bet you can't give me one reason whey its necessary to even have this conversation other than 'I just don't like em'. Which is usually where these topics start. Except that you don't want to have to include people in a box that you don't think they belong in. What does keeping them out of that box do for them or for you? In the grand scheme of things, not much. Because you don't matter all that much. But the discussion will perpetuate a person that is leaning towards harming someone in this box, to do it. Or to continue to otherize a trans person to the point where that trans person tries to end their life. For the crime of mildly inconveniencing someone on a forum thread somewhere. Keeping people on the fringes of society, where they don't have access to the same resources and opportunities that everyone should have, is dangerous for people in those groups. Trans, gay, queer, minority and poor all people with lower life expectancy, rates of education, health outcomes, financial mobility, then their counterparts. Not just because of conversations like this and the decisions that are made because of them but they don't help. Mostly because the information that is used to attempt to keep 'those' people in their place is wrong and based in fear. So yes. You are scared or at least your arguments and rhetoric would indicate as much. Of what? Probably of losing any wealth or privilege that you currently have and the ability to pass the benefits along to the next or future generations. Or that your efforts to prop up the future generations is undone by things out of your control. The typical song and dance. Its not a new story. Its always fear. Because its never logical. XY or XX, you have an opinion that you are couching in science talk but its just comes back to your fear.

Aren't they also people, who can become pregnant? Your question would insinuate you prefer one to another. Both would be accurate. Why even bring it up?

Yes. What would be the process that would need to be put in place when petty parents, athletes, coaches, or pundits challenge the chemistry or features of an athlete? How to determine the standards?

Why are you so scared about language and people wanting to be people? Just can't stand the fact that other people might be allowed to swim in your pool, huh? Otherizing is ugly.

I mean people who can become pregnant. Does it anger you that I used that language?

Fair point. People, especially young people, often are woefully ignorant of the responsibilities that come with adulthood. That includes being a parent. Its a difficult needle to thread trying to get children ready for a cruel and unforgiving world and still allowing them to remain 'children' for as long as possible. The wording of the second sentence is curious. Do you mean start a pregnancy or end one? Because either way, could be the case and there are discussions to be had for why to start or why to end. Everyone has their own reasons for either/both. Neglected and abused children are protected by the state and alternative arrangements are found if necessary. Plenty of problems with that system. Topic for other discussions, who is fit to foster or adopt. Some states have pretty bigoted ideas on that topic. Divorce is up to the parents. Why ask these questions? What is your point? Certification and licensing to have a child? That's pretty bleak. Can we try education first?

My apologies. Gender. Same question.

Now explain the reason(s) that this needs to remain the same, in this day and age? Have we figured out anything that would make this superfluous?

When did I ever specifically say that? Should parents listen to their children and try to understand them? Yes. Help them through their lives, transitioning them through myriad steps in their lives, growing up, learning, moving out? Yes. Could transitioning from the sex they were assigned at birth to a different one, sometimes? Yes, they should help their children live life as their authentic selves. If they don't they run the risk of passing down their generational trauma. If they are fine with that, there is nothing I or anyone else can do to them. Which includes taking their kids away. That was a ridiculous thing to even suggest. That you skipped right to a hyperbolic example that isn't real is indicative of how you try to justify your opinion by creating fictitious enemies to combat and in so reinforce the validity of your own ideas. Rather than consider that you could be wrong in actual reality.

I'm not advocating for that at all. People who can become pregnant can use their eggs how ever they see fit. In a manner of their own choosing. Everyone else still need informed, enthusiastic consent if they intend to induce a pregnancy.

Not really interested in that. Sorry.

Why separate need from have? Who gets to determine the circumstances/differences of those two? The same people that write in a 'rape and incest' exception have also included 'if the pregnant person is in danger' exceptions. But as we've learned recently they make those bars so incredibly high to clear because they don't want anyone to be able to clear them. Like mandating a police report being filed. Which makes it clear they know or have tried to learn little of what a rape victim goes through after the incident. Their mental state or whether they are even mentally ready to address the issue. Sometimes it takes years before they can come to grips with what happened and seek justice. If you don't think that is the case, what is behind door number 1, every report of clergy sexual abuse in the history of ever that was broken because someone... decades later finally was able to tell someone about priest, nuns, etc. abusing them and many MANY others. So the rape bar is set too high because, their words, 'women would cry "Rape" to try to get an abortion'. Health of the pregnant person has been in the news plenty. With Texas and Idaho both ignoring the obvious issues that go along with that provision. Do they care enough to change it or add clarification? Nope. They're perfectly happy with pregnant people dying in the hospital bathroom as long as they can't get abortions. Tell me how that is not being used as a deterrent or punishment when they are letting pregnant people die rather than giving them health care? Not pro-life!

Sorry for my mistake in typing. I meant 'pregnancy'. Its not a life. It was always alive before it came down the fallopian tube. If it doesn't implant its still alive. Its ending a pregnancy. 'Ended' because pregnancy is a process. Processes can continue or they can end. Once the pregnancy has ended the body makes the requisite changes based on the outcome.

Fair.

Now who's dancing. Coward. I had the time of my life!

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.

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.

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

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.

'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?

Want some cheese with your whine?

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.

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.

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.