ThreePointTakedown

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?

Of course you don't. Because I guess its a horrific opinion that if anyone knew you actually held it, would look at you quite differently. But that probably doesn't bother you either. I'm sorry you feel attacked by me for simply asking you to justify your opinion. If you had a solid justification it shouldn't be difficult to break it down to its simplest parts. I don't feel you've done an adequate job of it. Hence my follow up questions. I hope you have this conversation with someone you care about. Someone you can't run from. It might shock you how some people feel about the topic.

Your irrational fear is represented by the person on the right. They don't really have a place in the conversation and I'm curious why you would support/post something like this as a point to your opinion unless you agreed with it. So it seems as if both of these situations are misunderstood by you and that may inspire your fear of them. The person on the right. Why do you offer up and bash someone you don't like to support this point? Why does the pregnant person not get a choice in the process? I think you've mentioned before, something like, 'they've made the choice to create the pregnancy and now must live with the consequences'. Is that correct. If so, how is that not support to punish someone for getting pregnant? I guess you'll say, 'no'. But seeing as I can spin it to sound just that way, why doesn't that bother you that some, many pregnant people, feel its punishment?

Why do you say that? I don't think the case has been made very well or clearly. Could you offer up what convinced you that it was 'rigged'?

Not sure I understand what you're saying. What was the evidence that the left rigged the 2020 election?

I'm not claiming that its not a human. But, THAT, it exists does not offer it special rights that the person on the right would not be allowed to have. Please, keep your irrational fears to yourself.

What do you mean why? What does it matter? How does the why effect you and your life? If there is no direct consent and there is harm being done to one person, there could/would be legal avenues to stop it. Your suggestion is to refuse the option of stopping it.

Wow that's wrong a few points. One is conscience the other, depending, is not. Remember the outliers are not the norm. Most pregnancies that are ended on purpose are done in the first trimester. North of 75%. https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abortions-by-week-of-pregnancy/ If you are having an emotional reaction to the topic it probably means you are looking for and finding only the information that reinforces your position. But if you're saying that it IS a person. Then my question to you is why does this person get the right to use another person to survive when no one else can? If you say, the pregnant person made a choice and now must live with the consequences, then you are attempting to punish a person by remaining pregnant. You can say, 'its not a punishment just consequences' but those are the same thing. Allowing another person to live off of the body of a person that does not want to. Notwithstanding forcing someone's body to go through the irreversible changes that go along with being pregnant(do you know what those changes are? I'll bet you don't), which is a disgusting thing to force upon someone. You'll need to square that circle without resorting to the morality play. Because not everyone abides by your morality. And trying to force others to legally abide by your sense of morality is, itself, immoral.

Based on what? Your years of experience in the field, I'll bet. Or are you arm chair quarterbacking this one too? Turning your points into tissue paper and making you attempt to gaslight me as a way to abandon the discussion to salvage your dignity. Well done. You've put yourself into the toxic box of cliches. Can't say I'm surprised. Its pretty typical of someone that holds your opinions. Can't actually defend it so you resort to name calling and gaslighting. You must be a gem to live with. Nice try.

But I quantified it by saying 'some'. Not generalizing to all like the post read. If they didn't mean 'all', they should have said so. Hence the 'lazy' part of my response to them holding that opinion. They had no intention of learning or knowing the numbers before making the statement. They had a notion and wanted it considered as fact. But it isn't. Its wrong. And when addressed they dodged, ducked, dipped, dived, and dodged so as not to acknowledge that they were wrong to even bring it up. But I'm the jerk for insisting people be honest, truthful, and diligent in their statements of 'fact'? Why not learn about your opinion so you can at least seem authentically knowledgeable? Or change it based on the wrong numbers you just make up in your head.

"So its lack of education, lazy, or irresponsible.' Was that you making a broad and false generalization about a group of people? Yes. 'MOST OF THESE ITEMS ARE FREE'. So what? Some people still don't have them available, but for some reason you feel that might make them irresponsible, lazy, or uneducated. Seems a bit more like how someone could come by this opinion; irresponsible, lazy, and/or uneducated. 'I'm not talking about incest or rape or medical difficulties with the mother or the baby' That was you insinuating abortion. So you did bring it up. Regardless of whether you think so. Nope. But you did dodge my question to determine if you have a base level of information on this subject. You did mention abortion as I stated before. But since you have no other reason to oppose abortion it does mean you have a moral objection. You have a standard that disqualify people from accessing health care, in your mind. Oversharing way of answering a simple question that you could have done two posts ago. So again, what if someone does use any or all of those methods of birth control and still do get pregnant? What then? Do you have a suggestion or just condemnation?

I disagree. So you're in favor of punishing someone for choosing to have sex and becoming pregnant? But just one half of them. The choice to have sex is not a choice to get or remain pregnant. We know this because some people that want to and would otherwise choose to become pregnant cannot. Some people are not even aware that pregnancy may be a result of sex.

Glad you tried to correct me. What are your thoughts on that issue then? Care to share? BTW, birth control is not available for everyone for free. Before you say something like you should know who does not have access to free birth control. Does someone have the right to use your body to sustain itself, without your consent?

Did you happen to skip the part about using birth control methods that have been around for over 174 years. Did you skip the part when I asked why smart, intelligent people don't use the available birth control products. Is it lack of education, laziness or just irresponsible. I don't think I mentioned abortion whether right or wrong. Please show me. I'm serious. Show me. First two words acknowledged your points. Not sure what points you were trying to make but ok. I just wanted to confirm that you knew the the methods of birth control you mentioned are not 100% effective. The abortion point was the next step of the conversation, I feel. That states are refusing to allow health care needs to some sexually active people is either ignorant or malicious. And I don't feel they are honest with their reasons for curtailing abortion options for pregnant people. Hope that helped. Ps. Do you understand that birth control methods are not 100% effective?

Not sure what you're asking. Can you reword the question?

Fair. But the 'well regulated militia' is specific and is before 'shall not be infringed'. So you need to fall within the description of the first thing before you get the privilege of the second thing. Sorry if you might not agree to that but that's how its written. Textualists/originalists must agree unless they just lie to see things the way they want to anyway. Which is pretty much what an originalist/textualist does. How many gun owners are in a 'well regulated militia'? Probably not many. What is a 'well regulated militia'? Probably a group people that get together to train with their weapons to aid in the defense of the state/country. Also, there is probably a list of who belongs to this group. Where are those groups?

I'm sorry but when you say 'many' to try to bolster your point. You look lazy. 'Many' should be a 'significant amount/percentage'. Then we can talk about what number would you say is 'significant'. What are your metrics for making that decision? 'Many' could be three or four. If its still a vanishingly small number, in the end, then what would be your point in posting that? As soon as you can prove those points. Which your post does not. Then you can say that. What percentage does your example make of the whole number? Do you know? Did you even try to find out?

Fair point. Birth control is not 100% effective. Did you know that? What would suggest in that case? The 'moral' argument that, it seems like you are raising(correct me if I'm wrong) is not a salient one. You cannot force your, subjective, morality on other people. If you don't have data to express the benefit of your point a 'common sense' or 'moral' argument is worthless. Because it comes back as 'I want what I want because I want it'. Its childish and mean considering the obvious ramifications of not being able to get the health care people need and what could result from that. PS. Incest and Rape are also brought up with the morality argument. Making the bars so high to clear that its almost impossible to prove the conditions of a pregnancy under those conditions. That being the point because those who are in favor of banning abortion want to make it very difficult to get any abortion. Let alone one that begins by incest or rape. Because they are paranoid and believe any loop hole in the law will allow 'those people' to game the system. Its a fill in the pool argument. They don't want the people that they don't like to have the benefits of anything, really. Because rich/privilege people will always have abortion available to them. Its just an attack on poor and less educated.

Back to this again. Looking for one outlier to try to prove a universal point. Its weak to say the least. Who shot at the former president? Did they actually kill someone? What party did they(shooter) associate with? Please stop doing this. You aren't making the point you think you are.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/07/politics/alabama-prosecute-out-of-state-abortion/index.html Despite getting shut down. Threatening to prosecute(regardless of the legality) will have a chilling effect on people reaching out to try to get the health care the need/want. If that is the point, its a sleazy tactic.

Great question, not sure. Probably made up. Just posing a hypothetical.

Particularly because the AGs in some of the states that have banned or curtailed the availability of abortion are now trying to make it illegal to leave their state(s) to get the health care that is not longer provided.

Would it matter to you if they were in a 'well regulated militia' or not?

You are a liar and a coward and I site the fact that you refuse to provide your sources or how you come by your opinions.

Was it a typo or are you refusing/misspelling the current VP, Kamala's Harris's name on purpose? If on purpose what is the reason?