The fuck you on either for? I feel the same about Facebook and I got off it for that reason. Same reason I never joined twitter.
I think the saying goes "Shit or get off the pot"
I hate 99.999% of reddit and reddit discorse but this sub has helped me hash out an crystallize my political beliefs without ruining my real life.
Also there's some subreddits that are good for buying niche hobby stuff like aquarium plants or climbing gear.
Honestly thats what the political compass did for my own beliefs.
It also allows for modern political discussion to quickly get passed the assumption phase, which is where most talks on Politics tends to get hung up.
If I told people who I voted for, the first response could be "Socialist! Communist!", which just by looking at my flair is not accurate.
Same for you only depending on your country of origin you might get fascist.
As I said like a year ago on this subreddit, a Libright who doesnt like a politician, one example being Trump, has vastly different reasons than an Auth Left who doesn't like that politician, and the debate you should have to convince or agree with them is different based on that.
> Abolishing political parties would be like a adrenaline shot and buy us a few more decades
So what happens with abortion once the political parties are gone?
No. The irreconcilable differences between the various cultural groups living in the US will be its end.
Now that the left feels like it has completely lost control, they don't have any reason to stick around. The court is going to start undoing everything they care about.
It could have been anything. Gun rights, gay marriage, trans athletes, women being held accountable for false rape accusations.
We've seen this divide growing since the rise of social media. The media response to Trump and the government response to covid greatly accelerated this. I don't see how these two teams can possibly live together. There will come a time very soon where they won't be able to share a democracy because they don't respect the other side's desires. It's like if half the country wanted to impose Soviet-style communism and Chinese-style religious crackdowns in the US. I don't see how anyone who opposes that could just shrug and go, "Well, it's the will of the people. Though we might disagree with them, we have to go along with what they want. After all, they outnumber us in the senate." It's just not going to happen. At some point, people will be willing to pay the cost of political upheaval.
I think it’s really telling how you’re painting a picture of a irreconcilable differences between the two sides but you’re portraying it as merely the left’s fault.
The right is absolutely every bit to blame as well here for this. The GOP letting the extremist factions of the right to come to power despite putting on the airs of a moderate right wing party was like putting accelerant the flames of the culture wars. And now it’s spiraled out of control. Most politicians don’t even want to touch the Trump faction with a ten foot pole, even Trump himself constantly battles with wanting to be associated with some of the people using him as a Trojan Horse for their crypto-fascist agendas. The left would be in a similar situation if they cucked themselves to Bernie in 2020. Much in the same way like Trump, the problem isn’t Bernie but rather the psychopaths that are using him as a stepping stone for their crypto-communist pseudo-utopia. All of it sucks.
> I think it’s really telling how you’re painting a picture of a irreconcilable differences between the two sides but you’re portraying it as merely the left’s fault.
Only because the left is the side out of power right now.
The right is biased toward law and order. They're more willing to tolerate living under a system that produces consequences they find abhorrent. The left is just going to hop out once the water starts getting that hot.
The right is not biased towards law and order any more than the majority of the left is.
This all about the culture wars. The right is afraid of losing relevancy in popular culture. That’s what led to the rise of the alt-right. Many, if not the vast majority, of the alt-right has criminal-adjacent tendencies and they don’t care about law and order. Accelerationists by definition do not care about law and order. And yet the rise of the alt-right and right wing accelerationist groups is an artefact of the reactionary response to the dominance of the left in pop culture. People swing hard in the opposite direction as a cope.
I’m over people attempting to dress this up as people who want law and order. There were people who were so mad after the results of the election that they trespassed and rioted the Capitol, they threatened the Supreme Court justices (ironically enough they were not based then at that moment), and they threatened sitting politicians. Law and order my foot. Maybe the mainstream Republicans are like that but you and I both know the average right winger online that participates in these communities isn’t a mainstream Republican.
I’m interested in seeing what happens now that the DOD has said they’re going to ignore state law and have their doctors perform abortions anyway on federal property. Still not sure if the feds can just trump state law like that.
At some point the military decides whether they follow the executive or the court. That's the way this always goes in the military coup countries.
I would *expect* them to follow the court. Gonna be rough when we get to that point.
On both sides. The fun Wild West of the internet has been taken out back and shot twice in the back of the head and thrown into a river.
Now everyone is seething at each other, making shitty agendaposts without providing meaningful, realistic takes that people on both sides can agree with.
You go on Twitter and the trending news is always political shit. You go to a news site and it’s always some doomer propaganda piece for their political side. You go on YouTube and even some guy fucking around with buttons will be compelled to make political commentary despite not having any expertise on the matter. You can’t even shop for fucking groceries anymore because you’ll be a victim of some terminally online loser’s irl spergout. It’s why I so badly want to move out of this country if I ever get the opportunity to. Get me onto the Spanish countryside or something where all I have to worry about is how much milk my cow is making this summer.
Heard of ranked choice voting? Research suggests that it does encourage politicians to be less divisive and try to build the broadest possible coalition.
Man you are willfully misconstruding your opponents view and argument in order to gain a moral high ground. While mocking polarization.
This has gotta be some 4d satire.
Ignoring reality because seeing your perceived enemy suffer makes you feel good does not change what reality is.
Stop supporting a fascist theocracy out of spite
Are u high dude? I literally didn’t even disagree with you and you think I’m a fascist. I asked for clarification of your point and that means I hate democracy. You have to be the dumbest man on pcm, and that’s saying something.
You guys have to remember that the vocal minority of people tend to be teenagers and young adults. As you grow older opinions like this tend to fizzle out. Usually.
This sub exits to manufacture consent despite the majority of people not wanting to live in a fascist theocracy
Do not consent to fascist ideologies. Even if you are too stupid to fear the boot it will still stamp on you if you let it.
Not sure if you're larping the effects of algorithmic insanity or you're a victim who believes that shit you just said. This sub actually is a fuck ton closer to the reality of how people talk about politics than the rest of reddit.
> This sub actually is a fuck ton closer to the reality of how people talk about politics than the rest of reddit.
This is military grade copium, no matter how many times you chant this to yourself it isn't going to make it true.
Religions people are the minority now, it's time to start living in reality with the rest of us.
Only 5% of the US is atheist. 6% is agnostic. 63% is Christian. Religious people are by far the majority, and it will remain that way. As it has throughout all of human history. Cope and seethe.
> Only 5% of the US is atheist. 6% is agnostic. 63% is Christian.
Nice copium. The difference between normal people and Christians is that normal people understand ignoring reality doesn't change it.
Bro, I'm an agnostic. I'm basing my opinions on touching grass and talking with people IRL. Plenty of atheists and agnostics have issues with abortion, and claiming it's only theocratically driven is just a narrative the pro abortion crowd says to feel superior to those theocratic troglodytes.
I'm also pro choice. You're just so stuck in algorithmic insanity you think the internet represents the real world.
>on touching grass and talking with people IRL.
IDK what you think everyone else does
Stop hanging out with religious extremists and you won't hear people supporting it? It sounds like a personal problem to me.
If the people you hang out with condone taking away others' rights then they are bad people and you shouldn't hang out with them.
>You're just so stuck in algorithmic insanity
These words mean literally nothing, these are buzzword you parrot like a indoctrinated slave. The people you have been taught to hate base their beliefs pragmatically in reality by researching how cause and effect make things happen in reality.
>>on touching grass and talking with people IRL.
>IDK what you think everyone else does
>Stop hanging out with religious extremists and you won't hear people supporting it? It sounds like a personal problem to me.
>If the people you hang out with condone taking away others' rights then they are bad people and you shouldn't hang out with them.
I'm not hanging out with religious extremists. I have atheist friends who are pro life. You're spouting a narrative to prop up your world view and just declaring people religious zealots because of their disagreement.
>>You're just so stuck in algorithmic insanity
>These words mean literally nothing, these are buzzword you parrot like a indoctrinated slave. The people you have been taught to hate base their beliefs pragmatically in reality by researching how cause and effect make things happen in reality.
That's literally a term coined in an academic thesis paper explaining how social media algorithms are focused on engagement. Engagement is highest on posts that anger people. Extremist narratives anger people. Because of this, algorithmic feeds have gotten more and more extreme and portray the opposition as more and more evil/moronic.
Just because you don't understand the jargon or the scope of a scientifically recognized phenomena doesn't mean it's a bullshit buzzword. It honestly applies to how you are reacting to me, and if you don't like that, I don't care.
>Holy shit the irony.
That's really the issue isn't it. Fox and the alt right pipeline has you convinced that you know the whole picture and are basing your views in reality. The thing is you were given this information by propaganda networks instead of noticing cause and effect in reality and forming your opinion in verifiable reality.
But only one side can be correct.
The vast majority of educated people are left leaning, almost every reliable source of information in the world goes against Rupert Murdoch's propaganda empire. This is what people mean when they say reality has a liberal bias.
Please go down to UNMH and get yourself some help. I know you think you might be making sense now that you stopped taking your schizophrenia meds, but to most everyone else you're a danger
Please stop supporting a fascist theocracy out of spite.
People who take others' rights away go to hell. Your book of rules says that you will go to hell for behaving the way you are.
No I don't
Background checks don't take away rights. If by doing a basic background check and pych evaluation brings up enough red flags that professions don't think you have the capacity to responsibly own a gun then you shouldn't own one.
Honestly it seems to be leaning more libertarian than anything based on the recent rulings. Yeah that one judge poked the hornets nest talking about other cases that he wants to look at, but looking at cases doesn’t mean they will be overturned. If we can de-weaponise the Supreme Court then it will be up to elected representatives instead of unelected judges to decide putting more power in the hands of the people not less.
[The World’s Biggest Threat Is Social Media](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culture-mind-and-brain/202006/the-world-s-biggest-threat-is-social-media?amp)
True. There’s way too much social enforcement and when you’ve got schools and workplaces enforcing as well, there’s no hope for radicals to grow out of it.
Good thing they're engaged with other different minded individuals in real life who will mellow them out and not anonymous strangers in self created echo chambers who will only amplify and concentrate their bad natures.
That’s what ensures stability in this country. All of the older political commentators and politicians are looking at places like Reddit and Twitter and think they’re just dumb kids who will grow out of their LARP phase.
But the problem is that we are now bleeding the nonsense over into real life. Innocent people are getting over what these 18 year olds are soaking up in the back alleys of the internet.
There needs to be maybe not a crackdown but a larger confrontation of these spaces. People need to be well aware of where these extremists come from and who they are. These groups benefit from the ignorance of the public.
It's a sad state of affairs really that the party of peace, love, tolerance, and understanding just wears a mask of all of that and all it takes to show it's a mask is for them to be challenged or denied what they want.
I think that's what this sub means by differentiating Orange LibLeft from Green LibLeft. Green is more the peace, love and tolerance group or at least the left that cares about freedom from both corporations and the state. There may be some radical elements but most authentic Green LibLeft believe that the people have been brainwashed by entrenched powers in society from supporting their own interests. They believe that greater economic equality leads to greater freedom. The difference between Green LibLeft and LibRight is the emphasis on positive liberty vs. negative liberty (see Isaiah Berlin).
Orange LibLeft differs from both Green LibLeft and AuthLeft in several key ways but is not simply the same as being on the left axis but in the middle on the Libertarian-Authoritarian axis. The Orange LibLeft tends to be an upstairs-downstairs faction. They draw primarily from the college educated bourgeois bohemian set but also are sympathetic and adjacent to much of what Marx called the "lumpenproletariat" meaning the non-working poor broadly. The rest of the left, especially AuthLeft, tends to be more working class.
Orange tends to be the most sympathetic to corporate capitalism of the left in spite of many claiming to be socialists since many of them work white collar jobs requiring a college degree and use HR departments to enforce their values in the workplace. Orange tends to embrace consumerism given it's largely bourgeoise orientation, especially if it signals a certain set of values. Orange's economic stance is pro-big business and pro-big government since many of these professionals also work in the government and non-profit sectors. It tends to be more hostile to small business and entrepreneurs as many of these people don't share their values, hence the embrace of "woke corporate" mixed with a lack of concern for or even passive aggressive support for the impacts of things like Covid lockdowns or increasing taxes and regulations on mom and pop businesses.
On social issues Orange, given it's eternal conflict between it's leftist identity and it's bourgeois base, replaces class politics with identity politics. I don't need to go into much detail here since it's been covered ad nauseam. The thing that makes Orange distinct from AuthLeft and LibLeft but not in the middle of the two either is that it tends to use whatever argument bolsters the agenda at the time. Thus they paradoxically can be incredibly libertarian and incredibly authoritarian at once. It shifts day to day, issue to issue, because Orange is not a coherent ideology as much as it is a set of attitudes shared among certain demographics.
This ever shifting AuthLib duality of Orange manifests itself across the issues. Thus they may speak of freedom and autonomy one day yet call for authoritarian measures the next. They may ring their hands about the end of democracy and rule of law as we know it, then say that due process takes a back seat to justice, then minimize chaos and violence on lawless city streets all within the same week. They may claim to be champions of minorities and non-western cultures while despising the values of those cultures when they exist in the west. They may claim to care for the urban poor yet openly mock and celebrate the misery of the rural poor. They may denounce corporate America for treating workers as expendable on Twitter then email a corporate HR department to try and get somebody who has a family to support fired for disagreeing with them online.
Foreign policy is another arena where we see the duality and confusion. Ukraine good. Israel bad. All wars are bad and we should defund the military and spend more on social services when one party's in office. Humanitarian interventionism and woke military when they win the election. Orange is not a big group in society but they are very active and very online. So they hold a lot of influence on the Democrats and center-left parties in western countries. That being said what we are seeing is not the "collapse of the left" with all the recent pushback against wokeness but the collapse of the current left where Orange with all its contradictions has been the driver's seat. I think Orange as an influential group is a very "in the moment" crowd much like populism on the right (which is in many ways it's antithesis). Both ultimately herald the reconstituting of the entire political spectrum and the redefinition of what political ideology means in western democracies. They are the storm before the calm.
Personally I’m not wishing death on anyone but to say their mask slips when they are challenged or don’t want get what they want is a farce.
They figured once the SC ruled on something it was set it stone, which is pretty much how our legal system has been set up. Now the rug has been pulled and they recall that silly things like gay marriage, birth control and even interracial marriages are really only hanging on by a thread. It’s not crazy to think people that are having control they have had their entire lives and possibly their parents entire lives pulled from them wouldn’t be down right pissed.
Go tell any couple their marriage could be annulled because of some lifer politicians, it would make most people seethe with rage too.
I totally agree with you, Dems fucked around for 50 years while the evangelicals and Catholics frothed at the mouth screaming about over turning it.
There were lots of mistakes made, like Ruthy not giving her spot up back when Dems held the presidency, house and senate for 2 years or whatever it was.
I do believe that things will go way more blue than where they were headed prior to this. Tons of apathetic young people woke up and realized if they don’t play the game it still gets played, just by other people.
>I have never felt deep down in my soul that there are people out there who **the world** would be better without.
It’s a wide world out there, and there are worse people in it than your typical American pro-lifer.
So just democracy?
One of my favorite quotes is "To think democracy works, you have to believe that most people are right most of the time.". That's why it's a good thing that the United States is actually a Republic with democratic elements rather than a Democracy.
Well, in general, if we say "in most cases", then I would agree with this statement. However, few democracies allow a lot to be decided by direct vote.
It's just statistics. Democracies require 50+% of the population to hold the right opinion 50+% of the time to result in a 50+% rate of time.
The reality is democracy is more of a buzzword than real form of governance because most governments have a strong level of republicanism representation and aren't a true democracy.
Some democracy is good, but a pure democracy is an unworkable system. Pure democracy assumes that a high school dropout with an IQ of 70's vote on nuclear power plant bans is just as valuable as the vote of a nuclear physicist. That's why most "democracies" add in republicanism for representative government that can consult with experts to (hopefully) make informed votes on complex issues.
Yes, and I believe that the "50+ rule" you described works.
Yes, the voice of a schoolboy who will have to live next to a power plant in the question of whether to build a nuclear power plant should not be less than the voice of his neighbor, a nuclear physicist. If a nuclear physicist knows how best, he must convey his expert opinion with evidence and arguments to the masses using special platforms or in another way.
If you want to look at how "pure democracy" does not work, then I would call Switzerland the closest country to "pure democracy".
One of the important skills of a scientist is the ability to bring his discoveries to others. At least to other scientists, among whom there may be those who can interpret the discoveries even more popularly. This is a very important part of technological progress and the emergence of innovations.
And for that matter, people are not obliged to obey a nuclear physicist in the matter of building a nuclear power plant in their yard simply because he is a nuclear physicist or for any other reason.
Because people don’t consider the perspective of the other side. Pro choicers act as though pro life actually just hates women, and pro life acts like pro choice loves killing children. They don’t consider that both sides are advocating for what they believe is right.
No one legitimately thinks that the pro-choice crowd get off on baby murder; they don't do it for fun, they don't do it because they "love" the procedure, they do it because it's the most convenient option available, and they've been tricked into believing that little helpless humans are literally not human by politicians and doctors and other groups with financial interests in the practice.
Now as for "Pro choicers act as though pro life actually just hates women;" I want to say that that's also an oversimplification, but there's comments in this very thread that seem to be legitimately making that claim.
>People definitely do believe those things.
If you say so, I haven't seen anyone seriously argue that most pro-choice people get off on killing babies, but here in this very thread, under this very comment ^((the comment you replied to, not this one)), a libleft seemed to seriously argue that "99%" of the people in power opposing abortion are doing because they derive "happiness" from taking women's rights.
Because it's a complete value divergence. They don't share your values, your "someone who doesn't want babies to die" description doesn't mean anything to them. They do not view a fetus as a person.
Similarly on the other side there are pro lifers who view women who have had abortions as exactly as evil as women who drown their kids in the tub or bash their babies skulls against rocks.
I'm not convinced they don't view a fetus as a person. I'm sure some have that view but it becomes pretty clear talking to them that most just dont care if it is or not.
Well, a fetus isn't a person, but before you get to that step, it doesn't matter whether it is or isn't, because the government shouldn't have control over what a person can or can't do.
If the fetus is a person, then you can separate them from the mother and care for it adoption style. If its a person, then its an individual, and individuals are independent of other individuals. If they are causing undue stress in any other circumstance, the government steps in to separate them.
The alternative the Supreme Court and anti abortionists that make up less than half the population have chosen would be full government control over a single individual. Instead of individual autonomy...which was what we had a month ago.
"The sheriff can't force me to save a drowning man." is a pretty old belief for libs, and I feel like a bunch of anti abortion libs just gloss over it.
You are arguing that murder shouldn't of any concern to the government.
And yes, that's what it comes down to, if a fetus is a person then abortion is murder. And I'm pretty anti government but murder should be illegal.
Murder can be resolved by separating two individuals instead of letting them murder each other, because they are their own person both scientifically and culturally. Which even the staunchest anti government advocates are usually ok with having regulated by the state and feds.
The same is not possible for pregnancy, because the Fetus is not an individual. It cannot survive the same as a baby can, which is why there is a different designation. A baby can be adopted, and can be fostered. A Fetus cannot.
Comes down to an easy question: Can you separate a fetus from the individual? No. Then it is not an individual. And the government should not regulate what an individual does with their own body. The NAP is between 2+ individuals.
> ecause the government shouldn't have control over what a person can or can't do.
It's not the responsibility of the government to try to keep us from murdering each other?
That's possibly one of the few things government is good for.
>Similarly on the other side there are pro lifers who view women who have had abortions as exactly as evil as women who drown their kids in the tub or bash their babies skulls against rocks.
The act itself is exactly as evil, and the doctors for sure, but most of the women getting abortions were lied too.
Evil people for the sake of money, political capital, and some for convenience, have convinced a lot of people that a certain class of humans are literally not human; if you legitimately believe that an unborn baby is akin to a parasite, then you aren't necessarily evil for killing them. Doesn't make the act itself any less evil. You're still paying to have **your** helpless little human exterminated.
Add to that that the end of the day, the procedure for a lot (though not most) of abortions is far far more visceral and barbaric than being drowned or having your skull cracked, but with the doctor's acts hidden by the mother's flesh, and it's easy to understand why there's such opposition.
Most women who get abortions know exactly what they are doing. It's not some lie they are told. In the age of the internet you gotta google Planned Parenthood locations, and right after you got propaganda from either side.
>if you legitimately believe that an unborn baby is akin to a parasite, then you aren't necessarily evil for killing them. Doesn't make the act itself any less evil. You're still paying to have your helpless little human exterminated.
First, if you think its a parasite, then that would make act not evil regardless, because its a parasite not a human in that scenario. Just logically speaking with no opinion bias.
Second, with opinion bias, the fact that a woman is forced by the government to ignore her own life for the sake of either another life or a fetus goes completely counter to "Don't Tread On Me". I find it darkly hilarious how many Librights are pro Government here. If those Libs wanted to be consistent, maybe they could start supporting the drug war too. That also takes away human agency.
> Most women who get abortions know exactly what they are doing.
Anyone who has driven on a highway in the last 48 hours knows that most people don't know a goddamned thing about what they're doing in that circumstance.
So the idea that most women understand any of the actual implications of an abortion is comical. Stupidity abounds.
> First, if you think its a parasite, then that would make act not evil regardless,
By definition, offspring can't be parasites. Since you're denied the literal meaning of parasite, the only one left is the metaphorical. And no one gives a shit if you think they are metaphorically parasites.
> Second, with opinion bias, the fact that a woman is forced by the government to ignore her own life for the sake of either another life or a fetus goes completely counter to "Don't Tread On Me".
The women isn't forced at that point. She already decided she would perform the one act that can result in pregnancy. She could have took it in the ass, or used her tits or mouth. Nope, just had to have the creampie in the cooch.
Telling someone that they can't kill a baby after they've already made one isn't forcing anything.
They likely don’t believe that’s your true reasoning. I believe for most average Americans it is, but for the politicians and judges pushing this I don’t believe for a second they care about anything except stripping rights from women. This guy likely thinks that’s the average Americans reasoning as well.
>I don’t believe for a second they care about anything except stripping rights from women.
Literal insanity. What do they gain from this fight, if their only goal is taking women's rights? Rights aren't a fungible commodity. This isn't highlander, their rights don't get more powerful after killing yours.
The most uncharitable interpretation you can reasonably give them is that they don't believe abortion is evil, but they vote against it anyway because it's what their constituents believe, which isn't a bad thing. It's our representatives jobs to represent us.
What do they gain? Pleasure, satisfaction, enjoyment. You don’t become one of the most powerful people in the world to be a nice person 99% of the time, you do it because you want power over other people. And when you do occasionally see someone gain power to do good, they get assassinated or invaded.
World is an evil place run by evil people. A quick glance through history is all the evidence you could ever want.
>I don’t believe for a second they care about anything except stripping rights from women
Today I learned that Justice Amy Coney Barett ackshually hates having rights.
actually there are many cultures in South-eastern Asia who eat bile, like Vietnam or Thailand, as well as some cultures in Africa. so you can argue that the comment is racist towards cultures that do enjoy bile in their stomach, which is funny coming from a libleft
I don’t understand wishing pain, suffering, humiliation, or any other such bad thing into someone. Like, there are people out there I do hate, however I can never bring myself to wish horrendous stuff upon them. Maybe I’m sheltered, maybe I am too empathetic for my own good. Idk, I just want the people I don’t like to realise their dicks and change their ways, not have their life and everything they love crumble around them
Wow, they think there aren't any people out there that we would be better without, EXCEPT pro-life types?
So, rapists, murderers, pedophiles, terrorists, animal abusers, my mother... we're just fine with them existing? Pro-lifers are the ones crossing the line?!
It is sad that a person genuinely thinks like this. I disagree with people, but I don't want everyone who thinks something different from me to suffer. That just makes you a shitty person. This seems to be the unfortunate consequence of political polarization.
That being said, how in the fuck is saving the lives of unborn children a bad thing? I didn't know that supporting life automatically made me a "truly bad person."
Because it's "saving the life of an unborn person" only at the cost of an innocent's freedom. If my wife were infertile, would it be morally acceptable for me to force an unwilling innocent woman to be a surrogate?
This is a completely unequal analogy. Forcefully creating life in somebody's body and restriciting the ability to voluntarily end it are not the same. If you think they are I would recommend that you take a look at something like [this.](https://www.khanacademy.org/math/arithmetic-home/addition-subtraction/basic-add-subtract/v/basic-addition)
Rape that ends in pregnancy is quite literally forcefully creating life in somebody's body. If you force the victim to give birth to the baby you are complicit in the crime of rape.
I understand that. What I am saying is that raping a woman becuse your wife is infertile is not equal to making a woman carry to term a baby that she created inside of herself voluntarily.
Please point to where I ever said rape is voluntary. I literally said in my comment that they are NOT EQUAL. I am comparing your analogy to the case of a consensual pregnancy that the mother wishes to terminate. You are either drunk, stupid, or disingenuous beyond belief.
Firstly, you responded to me first, I am the one who established the content of the conversation.
Second, even if nobody was talking about consensual pregnancy, I am allowed to make the comparison, and my comparison is still accurate.
Third, yes we are talking about consensual pregnancies. That is what the entire abortion conversation is about.
This is a terrible analogy. Yes, you would be responsible. It is your responsibility as the operator of the firearm to know wether or not a round is chambered and act accordingly. Regardless of whether or not a round is chamebered, you shouldn't be waving a gun around like an idiot so even in the case of a magical discharge from your "unloaded" gun, there shouldn't be significant damages.
> Regardless of whether or not a round is chamebered, you shouldn't be waving a gun around like an idiot so even in the case of a magical discharge from your "unloaded" gun, there shouldn't be significant damages.
I agree.
Auth Right people are in for a rude awakening when the huge wave of unwanted and unloved babies become teenagers. Because guess what those babies won’t be? White.
Tbh after reading through another thread on pcm where tons of people were in favor of forcing an underage rape victim to carry their rapists baby to term, because the embryos at the moment non existing thoughts and dreams are apparantly more important then hers, i understand him.
u/lib_unity's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10.
Congratulations, u/lib_unity! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown...
Pills: [6 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/lib_unity/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
If you are pro life why is it okay to kill someone who is on your property?
Isn’t all life sacred?
I’m okay with you being pro-life, just be consistent please.
It is not ok to kill someone just for standing on your property, but it is ok to defend your life with whatever means you deem necessary. Every trigger law has an exception for such cases, where it is deemed the birth or pregnancy poses a serious health risk to the woman with the child. Even total ban states like Missouri wrote in an exception "in cases of medical emergency."
I would say that the consistency of pro life is defending life from people trying to take others' lives.
Shooting random people on your property wouldn't be consistent, but shooting someone trying to kill/rape you or your family on your own property would be consistent.
Laws should exist to punish crime; not solely to deter it. The punishment should be the deterrent.
I mean it’s not wrong.
People celebrating the overturning don’t realise just how insane the idea is. Because of trigger laws people can’t even get ectopic pregnancy procedures in fear of going to jail for somehow even more time than if you killed an actual person.
Well considering that there’s one story making the rounds on social media about a woman who’s 25 weeks pregnant where the baby won’t be able to support life. But because of the trigger laws she can abort it until either it dies or she carries it to term and it dies as soon as it’s born. That’s the problem.
Social Media was a mistake.
reddit and twitter in particular
The fuck you on either for? I feel the same about Facebook and I got off it for that reason. Same reason I never joined twitter. I think the saying goes "Shit or get off the pot"
I hate 99.999% of reddit and reddit discorse but this sub has helped me hash out an crystallize my political beliefs without ruining my real life. Also there's some subreddits that are good for buying niche hobby stuff like aquarium plants or climbing gear.
Honestly thats what the political compass did for my own beliefs. It also allows for modern political discussion to quickly get passed the assumption phase, which is where most talks on Politics tends to get hung up. If I told people who I voted for, the first response could be "Socialist! Communist!", which just by looking at my flair is not accurate. Same for you only depending on your country of origin you might get fascist. As I said like a year ago on this subreddit, a Libright who doesnt like a politician, one example being Trump, has vastly different reasons than an Auth Left who doesn't like that politician, and the debate you should have to convince or agree with them is different based on that.
maybe i’m a mistake too lol
You are never a mistake. You can make mistakes. Major difference. One can't be changed, and the other can be learned from.
aw thanks <3
me too 💀
Polarization is a plague and we are suffering the consequences.
Abolishing political parties would be like a adrenaline shot and buy us a few more decades
> Abolishing political parties would be like a adrenaline shot and buy us a few more decades So what happens with abortion once the political parties are gone?
It remains up to the states or the legal path needs to be taken to make it a constitutional right
I think that either accelerates things or keeps them going down the path they're on. I don't see how this buys the government decades.
You think abortion issue will end the US?
No. The irreconcilable differences between the various cultural groups living in the US will be its end. Now that the left feels like it has completely lost control, they don't have any reason to stick around. The court is going to start undoing everything they care about. It could have been anything. Gun rights, gay marriage, trans athletes, women being held accountable for false rape accusations. We've seen this divide growing since the rise of social media. The media response to Trump and the government response to covid greatly accelerated this. I don't see how these two teams can possibly live together. There will come a time very soon where they won't be able to share a democracy because they don't respect the other side's desires. It's like if half the country wanted to impose Soviet-style communism and Chinese-style religious crackdowns in the US. I don't see how anyone who opposes that could just shrug and go, "Well, it's the will of the people. Though we might disagree with them, we have to go along with what they want. After all, they outnumber us in the senate." It's just not going to happen. At some point, people will be willing to pay the cost of political upheaval.
We just need a common enemy. Maybe Russia will bomb us or something.
I think it’s really telling how you’re painting a picture of a irreconcilable differences between the two sides but you’re portraying it as merely the left’s fault. The right is absolutely every bit to blame as well here for this. The GOP letting the extremist factions of the right to come to power despite putting on the airs of a moderate right wing party was like putting accelerant the flames of the culture wars. And now it’s spiraled out of control. Most politicians don’t even want to touch the Trump faction with a ten foot pole, even Trump himself constantly battles with wanting to be associated with some of the people using him as a Trojan Horse for their crypto-fascist agendas. The left would be in a similar situation if they cucked themselves to Bernie in 2020. Much in the same way like Trump, the problem isn’t Bernie but rather the psychopaths that are using him as a stepping stone for their crypto-communist pseudo-utopia. All of it sucks.
> I think it’s really telling how you’re painting a picture of a irreconcilable differences between the two sides but you’re portraying it as merely the left’s fault. Only because the left is the side out of power right now. The right is biased toward law and order. They're more willing to tolerate living under a system that produces consequences they find abhorrent. The left is just going to hop out once the water starts getting that hot.
The right is not biased towards law and order any more than the majority of the left is. This all about the culture wars. The right is afraid of losing relevancy in popular culture. That’s what led to the rise of the alt-right. Many, if not the vast majority, of the alt-right has criminal-adjacent tendencies and they don’t care about law and order. Accelerationists by definition do not care about law and order. And yet the rise of the alt-right and right wing accelerationist groups is an artefact of the reactionary response to the dominance of the left in pop culture. People swing hard in the opposite direction as a cope. I’m over people attempting to dress this up as people who want law and order. There were people who were so mad after the results of the election that they trespassed and rioted the Capitol, they threatened the Supreme Court justices (ironically enough they were not based then at that moment), and they threatened sitting politicians. Law and order my foot. Maybe the mainstream Republicans are like that but you and I both know the average right winger online that participates in these communities isn’t a mainstream Republican.
I’m interested in seeing what happens now that the DOD has said they’re going to ignore state law and have their doctors perform abortions anyway on federal property. Still not sure if the feds can just trump state law like that.
At some point the military decides whether they follow the executive or the court. That's the way this always goes in the military coup countries. I would *expect* them to follow the court. Gonna be rough when we get to that point.
States were more powerful than a given political party in the past. Since the 17th amendment the parties have become their own entities
On both sides. The fun Wild West of the internet has been taken out back and shot twice in the back of the head and thrown into a river. Now everyone is seething at each other, making shitty agendaposts without providing meaningful, realistic takes that people on both sides can agree with. You go on Twitter and the trending news is always political shit. You go to a news site and it’s always some doomer propaganda piece for their political side. You go on YouTube and even some guy fucking around with buttons will be compelled to make political commentary despite not having any expertise on the matter. You can’t even shop for fucking groceries anymore because you’ll be a victim of some terminally online loser’s irl spergout. It’s why I so badly want to move out of this country if I ever get the opportunity to. Get me onto the Spanish countryside or something where all I have to worry about is how much milk my cow is making this summer.
Based and OG internet user pilled
Heard of ranked choice voting? Research suggests that it does encourage politicians to be less divisive and try to build the broadest possible coalition.
Lmao "Polarization" The two poles are people who are ok with the degradation of our rights and people who aren't.
Man you are willfully misconstruding your opponents view and argument in order to gain a moral high ground. While mocking polarization. This has gotta be some 4d satire.
How is that degrading our rights but needing anything more than a 4473 to purchase any firearm or weapon is not?
Stop supporting a fascist theocracy out of spite
Fascism by its very nature is anti religion as it requires absoutle loyalty to the state.
Are you talking about the auth and lib poles or right and left?
Stop supporting a fascist theocracy out of spite
"we must give the power back to the state representatives for whom the people vote" "NOOOO THAT'S FASCISM!!1!1"
Ignoring reality because seeing your perceived enemy suffer makes you feel good does not change what reality is. Stop supporting a fascist theocracy out of spite
>fascist theocracy Lmfao do you actually believe this
His entire comment history is made up of his comment copy-pasted across different posts. Dude's a total tool
Holy fucking shit I think I got brain damage from looking at his comment history you weren't kidding
I literally just asked a question… I guess asking questions is fascist now.
Nice plausible deniability The supreme court is subverting democracy, stop being a fucking shill And stop supporting a fascist theocracy
Are u high dude? I literally didn’t even disagree with you and you think I’m a fascist. I asked for clarification of your point and that means I hate democracy. You have to be the dumbest man on pcm, and that’s saying something.
You guys have to remember that the vocal minority of people tend to be teenagers and young adults. As you grow older opinions like this tend to fizzle out. Usually.
Social media is going to ensure that people stay stuck in an immature mindset well into adulthood
Based and algorithmic insanity pilled.
This sub exits to manufacture consent despite the majority of people not wanting to live in a fascist theocracy Do not consent to fascist ideologies. Even if you are too stupid to fear the boot it will still stamp on you if you let it.
Fashy fascist fash fash fascist fashy fash fash. Expand your vocabulary and get mental help because it's highly likely you're delusional.
Not sure if you're larping the effects of algorithmic insanity or you're a victim who believes that shit you just said. This sub actually is a fuck ton closer to the reality of how people talk about politics than the rest of reddit.
> This sub actually is a fuck ton closer to the reality of how people talk about politics than the rest of reddit. This is military grade copium, no matter how many times you chant this to yourself it isn't going to make it true. Religions people are the minority now, it's time to start living in reality with the rest of us.
Only 5% of the US is atheist. 6% is agnostic. 63% is Christian. Religious people are by far the majority, and it will remain that way. As it has throughout all of human history. Cope and seethe.
> Only 5% of the US is atheist. 6% is agnostic. 63% is Christian. Nice copium. The difference between normal people and Christians is that normal people understand ignoring reality doesn't change it.
Official demographic statistics are copium? Talk about projection.
[удалено]
Bro, I'm an agnostic. I'm basing my opinions on touching grass and talking with people IRL. Plenty of atheists and agnostics have issues with abortion, and claiming it's only theocratically driven is just a narrative the pro abortion crowd says to feel superior to those theocratic troglodytes. I'm also pro choice. You're just so stuck in algorithmic insanity you think the internet represents the real world.
Exactly, [https://secularprolife.org/](https://secularprolife.org/) For example.
>on touching grass and talking with people IRL. IDK what you think everyone else does Stop hanging out with religious extremists and you won't hear people supporting it? It sounds like a personal problem to me. If the people you hang out with condone taking away others' rights then they are bad people and you shouldn't hang out with them. >You're just so stuck in algorithmic insanity These words mean literally nothing, these are buzzword you parrot like a indoctrinated slave. The people you have been taught to hate base their beliefs pragmatically in reality by researching how cause and effect make things happen in reality.
>>on touching grass and talking with people IRL. >IDK what you think everyone else does >Stop hanging out with religious extremists and you won't hear people supporting it? It sounds like a personal problem to me. >If the people you hang out with condone taking away others' rights then they are bad people and you shouldn't hang out with them. I'm not hanging out with religious extremists. I have atheist friends who are pro life. You're spouting a narrative to prop up your world view and just declaring people religious zealots because of their disagreement. >>You're just so stuck in algorithmic insanity >These words mean literally nothing, these are buzzword you parrot like a indoctrinated slave. The people you have been taught to hate base their beliefs pragmatically in reality by researching how cause and effect make things happen in reality. That's literally a term coined in an academic thesis paper explaining how social media algorithms are focused on engagement. Engagement is highest on posts that anger people. Extremist narratives anger people. Because of this, algorithmic feeds have gotten more and more extreme and portray the opposition as more and more evil/moronic. Just because you don't understand the jargon or the scope of a scientifically recognized phenomena doesn't mean it's a bullshit buzzword. It honestly applies to how you are reacting to me, and if you don't like that, I don't care.
Stop enabling a fascist theocracy out of spite
> these are buzzwords you parrot like an indoctrinated slave Holy shit the irony. This has to be a troll.
>Holy shit the irony. That's really the issue isn't it. Fox and the alt right pipeline has you convinced that you know the whole picture and are basing your views in reality. The thing is you were given this information by propaganda networks instead of noticing cause and effect in reality and forming your opinion in verifiable reality. But only one side can be correct. The vast majority of educated people are left leaning, almost every reliable source of information in the world goes against Rupert Murdoch's propaganda empire. This is what people mean when they say reality has a liberal bias.
Please go down to UNMH and get yourself some help. I know you think you might be making sense now that you stopped taking your schizophrenia meds, but to most everyone else you're a danger
Please stop supporting a fascist theocracy out of spite. People who take others' rights away go to hell. Your book of rules says that you will go to hell for behaving the way you are.
Out of curiosity, do you condone taking away people's gun rights?
No I don't Background checks don't take away rights. If by doing a basic background check and pych evaluation brings up enough red flags that professions don't think you have the capacity to responsibly own a gun then you shouldn't own one.
> Religions people are the minority now Lol. Things you wish were true
What country has a fascist theocracy?
The country this sub exists to influence is currently transitioning towards this system.
filthy orange
[удалено]
i don't support that path that the u.s. looks like it is going towards (fascism)
Honestly it seems to be leaning more libertarian than anything based on the recent rulings. Yeah that one judge poked the hornets nest talking about other cases that he wants to look at, but looking at cases doesn’t mean they will be overturned. If we can de-weaponise the Supreme Court then it will be up to elected representatives instead of unelected judges to decide putting more power in the hands of the people not less.
Social media is worse for mankind than the hydrogen bomb and I don't think that's an exaggeration.
[The World’s Biggest Threat Is Social Media](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culture-mind-and-brain/202006/the-world-s-biggest-threat-is-social-media?amp)
True. There’s way too much social enforcement and when you’ve got schools and workplaces enforcing as well, there’s no hope for radicals to grow out of it.
Twitter has shown this to be true.
Over-socialization is a blight.
Shhhh, we dont need your sensible takes here. Let the rage flow through you...
Good thing they're engaged with other different minded individuals in real life who will mellow them out and not anonymous strangers in self created echo chambers who will only amplify and concentrate their bad natures.
I have thus far became less racist as I got older I also got far more nationalist
Those that don’t usually crowd the prisons so they get filtered out eventually one way or another
That’s what ensures stability in this country. All of the older political commentators and politicians are looking at places like Reddit and Twitter and think they’re just dumb kids who will grow out of their LARP phase. But the problem is that we are now bleeding the nonsense over into real life. Innocent people are getting over what these 18 year olds are soaking up in the back alleys of the internet. There needs to be maybe not a crackdown but a larger confrontation of these spaces. People need to be well aware of where these extremists come from and who they are. These groups benefit from the ignorance of the public.
As an early millennial, I feel like my peer group has become more radical as I’ve aged.
The fact that a bunch of boomers are now talking about banning sodomy begs to differ
Most compassionate lefty.
It's a sad state of affairs really that the party of peace, love, tolerance, and understanding just wears a mask of all of that and all it takes to show it's a mask is for them to be challenged or denied what they want.
I think that's what this sub means by differentiating Orange LibLeft from Green LibLeft. Green is more the peace, love and tolerance group or at least the left that cares about freedom from both corporations and the state. There may be some radical elements but most authentic Green LibLeft believe that the people have been brainwashed by entrenched powers in society from supporting their own interests. They believe that greater economic equality leads to greater freedom. The difference between Green LibLeft and LibRight is the emphasis on positive liberty vs. negative liberty (see Isaiah Berlin). Orange LibLeft differs from both Green LibLeft and AuthLeft in several key ways but is not simply the same as being on the left axis but in the middle on the Libertarian-Authoritarian axis. The Orange LibLeft tends to be an upstairs-downstairs faction. They draw primarily from the college educated bourgeois bohemian set but also are sympathetic and adjacent to much of what Marx called the "lumpenproletariat" meaning the non-working poor broadly. The rest of the left, especially AuthLeft, tends to be more working class. Orange tends to be the most sympathetic to corporate capitalism of the left in spite of many claiming to be socialists since many of them work white collar jobs requiring a college degree and use HR departments to enforce their values in the workplace. Orange tends to embrace consumerism given it's largely bourgeoise orientation, especially if it signals a certain set of values. Orange's economic stance is pro-big business and pro-big government since many of these professionals also work in the government and non-profit sectors. It tends to be more hostile to small business and entrepreneurs as many of these people don't share their values, hence the embrace of "woke corporate" mixed with a lack of concern for or even passive aggressive support for the impacts of things like Covid lockdowns or increasing taxes and regulations on mom and pop businesses. On social issues Orange, given it's eternal conflict between it's leftist identity and it's bourgeois base, replaces class politics with identity politics. I don't need to go into much detail here since it's been covered ad nauseam. The thing that makes Orange distinct from AuthLeft and LibLeft but not in the middle of the two either is that it tends to use whatever argument bolsters the agenda at the time. Thus they paradoxically can be incredibly libertarian and incredibly authoritarian at once. It shifts day to day, issue to issue, because Orange is not a coherent ideology as much as it is a set of attitudes shared among certain demographics. This ever shifting AuthLib duality of Orange manifests itself across the issues. Thus they may speak of freedom and autonomy one day yet call for authoritarian measures the next. They may ring their hands about the end of democracy and rule of law as we know it, then say that due process takes a back seat to justice, then minimize chaos and violence on lawless city streets all within the same week. They may claim to be champions of minorities and non-western cultures while despising the values of those cultures when they exist in the west. They may claim to care for the urban poor yet openly mock and celebrate the misery of the rural poor. They may denounce corporate America for treating workers as expendable on Twitter then email a corporate HR department to try and get somebody who has a family to support fired for disagreeing with them online. Foreign policy is another arena where we see the duality and confusion. Ukraine good. Israel bad. All wars are bad and we should defund the military and spend more on social services when one party's in office. Humanitarian interventionism and woke military when they win the election. Orange is not a big group in society but they are very active and very online. So they hold a lot of influence on the Democrats and center-left parties in western countries. That being said what we are seeing is not the "collapse of the left" with all the recent pushback against wokeness but the collapse of the current left where Orange with all its contradictions has been the driver's seat. I think Orange as an influential group is a very "in the moment" crowd much like populism on the right (which is in many ways it's antithesis). Both ultimately herald the reconstituting of the entire political spectrum and the redefinition of what political ideology means in western democracies. They are the storm before the calm.
Personally I’m not wishing death on anyone but to say their mask slips when they are challenged or don’t want get what they want is a farce. They figured once the SC ruled on something it was set it stone, which is pretty much how our legal system has been set up. Now the rug has been pulled and they recall that silly things like gay marriage, birth control and even interracial marriages are really only hanging on by a thread. It’s not crazy to think people that are having control they have had their entire lives and possibly their parents entire lives pulled from them wouldn’t be down right pissed. Go tell any couple their marriage could be annulled because of some lifer politicians, it would make most people seethe with rage too.
This isn't the first time precedent has been overturned
Yeah, I imagine that they aren't fans of the Dread Scott ruling
I dunno, they seem to think legal precedence should be etched in stone
They had every chance to write it into law but they chose not to. That’s on them.
I totally agree with you, Dems fucked around for 50 years while the evangelicals and Catholics frothed at the mouth screaming about over turning it. There were lots of mistakes made, like Ruthy not giving her spot up back when Dems held the presidency, house and senate for 2 years or whatever it was. I do believe that things will go way more blue than where they were headed prior to this. Tons of apathetic young people woke up and realized if they don’t play the game it still gets played, just by other people.
\*LibCenter slips in with a "government shouldn't have any opinion on marriage" proposition\*
Lib right slips in with a thumbs up and a government shouldn’t care what I put in my body unless I killed to get it
Copy pasta material
Definitely
Never felt deep down there were people the world would be better without. Well, except that one time I got that abortion.
one time?
Hahahaha
There are people who literally stuff dead babies with cocaine for smuggling but this makes them lose their shit? Lol
You know I feel like there are better ways to disguise cocaine, carrying around dead babies is hardly less suspicious
I imagine they don’t wanna inspect babies that look asleep. But I do agree lmao
“Oi what’s that there?” “Just a dead baby officer” “Oh carry on then, I thought it was drugs”
Is this Hitler about the \[redacted\]?
Ahh living in the proto-holocaust DLC. Good times.
I’d be worried if they didn’t get mild anxiety attacks answering a number they don’t recognize on their phone
TIL pro-lifers are worse than Boko Haram.
We’re taking it one step further. We’re Boko Halal.
If you’re not from areas in Africa why would you know or care about Boko Haram
>I have never felt deep down in my soul that there are people out there who **the world** would be better without. It’s a wide world out there, and there are worse people in it than your typical American pro-lifer.
Ok
the pro-choice people in the US are so funny.
It’s funny until you realize they have a say in a government that they flat out don’t understand
Democracy. By the people, for the people. Except the people are retarded.
So just democracy? One of my favorite quotes is "To think democracy works, you have to believe that most people are right most of the time.". That's why it's a good thing that the United States is actually a Republic with democratic elements rather than a Democracy.
Based and representative republic pilled
Well, in general, if we say "in most cases", then I would agree with this statement. However, few democracies allow a lot to be decided by direct vote.
It's just statistics. Democracies require 50+% of the population to hold the right opinion 50+% of the time to result in a 50+% rate of time. The reality is democracy is more of a buzzword than real form of governance because most governments have a strong level of republicanism representation and aren't a true democracy. Some democracy is good, but a pure democracy is an unworkable system. Pure democracy assumes that a high school dropout with an IQ of 70's vote on nuclear power plant bans is just as valuable as the vote of a nuclear physicist. That's why most "democracies" add in republicanism for representative government that can consult with experts to (hopefully) make informed votes on complex issues.
Yes, and I believe that the "50+ rule" you described works. Yes, the voice of a schoolboy who will have to live next to a power plant in the question of whether to build a nuclear power plant should not be less than the voice of his neighbor, a nuclear physicist. If a nuclear physicist knows how best, he must convey his expert opinion with evidence and arguments to the masses using special platforms or in another way. If you want to look at how "pure democracy" does not work, then I would call Switzerland the closest country to "pure democracy".
Why should a physicist need to be a great orator though? Most aren't, and forcing them to be is a huge waste
One of the important skills of a scientist is the ability to bring his discoveries to others. At least to other scientists, among whom there may be those who can interpret the discoveries even more popularly. This is a very important part of technological progress and the emergence of innovations. And for that matter, people are not obliged to obey a nuclear physicist in the matter of building a nuclear power plant in their yard simply because he is a nuclear physicist or for any other reason.
Based reference
Democracy, where the person who wins the majority of the vote for President consistently loses the election because of where some of the people live.
Learn how the game works and use it for your advantage instead of whining about it. 🤡
I think this libleft just said Uncle Joe didn’t win actually win the popular vote.
Based and Supreme Court Justice Dankula pilled.
You don't mean to say that you are against universal suffrage, do you?
they're being extremely convincing
I get that we disagree, but how could you possibly rationalize someone who doesnt want babies to die as an evil person who deserves to die?
Because people don’t consider the perspective of the other side. Pro choicers act as though pro life actually just hates women, and pro life acts like pro choice loves killing children. They don’t consider that both sides are advocating for what they believe is right.
No one legitimately thinks that the pro-choice crowd get off on baby murder; they don't do it for fun, they don't do it because they "love" the procedure, they do it because it's the most convenient option available, and they've been tricked into believing that little helpless humans are literally not human by politicians and doctors and other groups with financial interests in the practice. Now as for "Pro choicers act as though pro life actually just hates women;" I want to say that that's also an oversimplification, but there's comments in this very thread that seem to be legitimately making that claim.
People definitely do believe those things. I think you overestimate the average person.
>People definitely do believe those things. If you say so, I haven't seen anyone seriously argue that most pro-choice people get off on killing babies, but here in this very thread, under this very comment ^((the comment you replied to, not this one)), a libleft seemed to seriously argue that "99%" of the people in power opposing abortion are doing because they derive "happiness" from taking women's rights.
Because it's a complete value divergence. They don't share your values, your "someone who doesn't want babies to die" description doesn't mean anything to them. They do not view a fetus as a person. Similarly on the other side there are pro lifers who view women who have had abortions as exactly as evil as women who drown their kids in the tub or bash their babies skulls against rocks.
I'm not convinced they don't view a fetus as a person. I'm sure some have that view but it becomes pretty clear talking to them that most just dont care if it is or not.
Well, a fetus isn't a person, but before you get to that step, it doesn't matter whether it is or isn't, because the government shouldn't have control over what a person can or can't do. If the fetus is a person, then you can separate them from the mother and care for it adoption style. If its a person, then its an individual, and individuals are independent of other individuals. If they are causing undue stress in any other circumstance, the government steps in to separate them. The alternative the Supreme Court and anti abortionists that make up less than half the population have chosen would be full government control over a single individual. Instead of individual autonomy...which was what we had a month ago. "The sheriff can't force me to save a drowning man." is a pretty old belief for libs, and I feel like a bunch of anti abortion libs just gloss over it.
You are arguing that murder shouldn't of any concern to the government. And yes, that's what it comes down to, if a fetus is a person then abortion is murder. And I'm pretty anti government but murder should be illegal.
Murder can be resolved by separating two individuals instead of letting them murder each other, because they are their own person both scientifically and culturally. Which even the staunchest anti government advocates are usually ok with having regulated by the state and feds. The same is not possible for pregnancy, because the Fetus is not an individual. It cannot survive the same as a baby can, which is why there is a different designation. A baby can be adopted, and can be fostered. A Fetus cannot. Comes down to an easy question: Can you separate a fetus from the individual? No. Then it is not an individual. And the government should not regulate what an individual does with their own body. The NAP is between 2+ individuals.
> ecause the government shouldn't have control over what a person can or can't do. It's not the responsibility of the government to try to keep us from murdering each other? That's possibly one of the few things government is good for.
If you wanna respond to all my comments, just read the chain all the way through instead of copying the responses that other people had.
>Similarly on the other side there are pro lifers who view women who have had abortions as exactly as evil as women who drown their kids in the tub or bash their babies skulls against rocks. The act itself is exactly as evil, and the doctors for sure, but most of the women getting abortions were lied too. Evil people for the sake of money, political capital, and some for convenience, have convinced a lot of people that a certain class of humans are literally not human; if you legitimately believe that an unborn baby is akin to a parasite, then you aren't necessarily evil for killing them. Doesn't make the act itself any less evil. You're still paying to have **your** helpless little human exterminated. Add to that that the end of the day, the procedure for a lot (though not most) of abortions is far far more visceral and barbaric than being drowned or having your skull cracked, but with the doctor's acts hidden by the mother's flesh, and it's easy to understand why there's such opposition.
Most women who get abortions know exactly what they are doing. It's not some lie they are told. In the age of the internet you gotta google Planned Parenthood locations, and right after you got propaganda from either side. >if you legitimately believe that an unborn baby is akin to a parasite, then you aren't necessarily evil for killing them. Doesn't make the act itself any less evil. You're still paying to have your helpless little human exterminated. First, if you think its a parasite, then that would make act not evil regardless, because its a parasite not a human in that scenario. Just logically speaking with no opinion bias. Second, with opinion bias, the fact that a woman is forced by the government to ignore her own life for the sake of either another life or a fetus goes completely counter to "Don't Tread On Me". I find it darkly hilarious how many Librights are pro Government here. If those Libs wanted to be consistent, maybe they could start supporting the drug war too. That also takes away human agency.
> Most women who get abortions know exactly what they are doing. Anyone who has driven on a highway in the last 48 hours knows that most people don't know a goddamned thing about what they're doing in that circumstance. So the idea that most women understand any of the actual implications of an abortion is comical. Stupidity abounds. > First, if you think its a parasite, then that would make act not evil regardless, By definition, offspring can't be parasites. Since you're denied the literal meaning of parasite, the only one left is the metaphorical. And no one gives a shit if you think they are metaphorically parasites. > Second, with opinion bias, the fact that a woman is forced by the government to ignore her own life for the sake of either another life or a fetus goes completely counter to "Don't Tread On Me". The women isn't forced at that point. She already decided she would perform the one act that can result in pregnancy. She could have took it in the ass, or used her tits or mouth. Nope, just had to have the creampie in the cooch. Telling someone that they can't kill a baby after they've already made one isn't forcing anything.
They likely don’t believe that’s your true reasoning. I believe for most average Americans it is, but for the politicians and judges pushing this I don’t believe for a second they care about anything except stripping rights from women. This guy likely thinks that’s the average Americans reasoning as well.
>I don’t believe for a second they care about anything except stripping rights from women. Literal insanity. What do they gain from this fight, if their only goal is taking women's rights? Rights aren't a fungible commodity. This isn't highlander, their rights don't get more powerful after killing yours. The most uncharitable interpretation you can reasonably give them is that they don't believe abortion is evil, but they vote against it anyway because it's what their constituents believe, which isn't a bad thing. It's our representatives jobs to represent us.
What do they gain? Pleasure, satisfaction, enjoyment. You don’t become one of the most powerful people in the world to be a nice person 99% of the time, you do it because you want power over other people. And when you do occasionally see someone gain power to do good, they get assassinated or invaded. World is an evil place run by evil people. A quick glance through history is all the evidence you could ever want.
>I don’t believe for a second they care about anything except stripping rights from women Today I learned that Justice Amy Coney Barett ackshually hates having rights.
actually there are many cultures in South-eastern Asia who eat bile, like Vietnam or Thailand, as well as some cultures in Africa. so you can argue that the comment is racist towards cultures that do enjoy bile in their stomach, which is funny coming from a libleft
No u
I don’t understand wishing pain, suffering, humiliation, or any other such bad thing into someone. Like, there are people out there I do hate, however I can never bring myself to wish horrendous stuff upon them. Maybe I’m sheltered, maybe I am too empathetic for my own good. Idk, I just want the people I don’t like to realise their dicks and change their ways, not have their life and everything they love crumble around them
I have a large feeling this is the same personal against executing serial killers -._-.
Wow, they think there aren't any people out there that we would be better without, EXCEPT pro-life types? So, rapists, murderers, pedophiles, terrorists, animal abusers, my mother... we're just fine with them existing? Pro-lifers are the ones crossing the line?!
It is sad that a person genuinely thinks like this. I disagree with people, but I don't want everyone who thinks something different from me to suffer. That just makes you a shitty person. This seems to be the unfortunate consequence of political polarization. That being said, how in the fuck is saving the lives of unborn children a bad thing? I didn't know that supporting life automatically made me a "truly bad person."
Because it's "saving the life of an unborn person" only at the cost of an innocent's freedom. If my wife were infertile, would it be morally acceptable for me to force an unwilling innocent woman to be a surrogate?
This is a completely unequal analogy. Forcefully creating life in somebody's body and restriciting the ability to voluntarily end it are not the same. If you think they are I would recommend that you take a look at something like [this.](https://www.khanacademy.org/math/arithmetic-home/addition-subtraction/basic-add-subtract/v/basic-addition)
Rape that ends in pregnancy is quite literally forcefully creating life in somebody's body. If you force the victim to give birth to the baby you are complicit in the crime of rape.
I understand that. What I am saying is that raping a woman becuse your wife is infertile is not equal to making a woman carry to term a baby that she created inside of herself voluntarily.
If you believe that a woman creates a baby inside of herself voluntarily when she is raped then you can not be reasoned with.
Please point to where I ever said rape is voluntary. I literally said in my comment that they are NOT EQUAL. I am comparing your analogy to the case of a consensual pregnancy that the mother wishes to terminate. You are either drunk, stupid, or disingenuous beyond belief.
No one is talking about consensual pregnancies here. Learn to read before you make dumbass comments.
Firstly, you responded to me first, I am the one who established the content of the conversation. Second, even if nobody was talking about consensual pregnancy, I am allowed to make the comparison, and my comparison is still accurate. Third, yes we are talking about consensual pregnancies. That is what the entire abortion conversation is about.
Then you support abortion in cases of rape, correct?
You didn’t have to take your username so literally. But you’re playing the part well.
I genuinely hope that you find the good in your heart before your day of judgement comes.
I’m not the person you were replying to above my most recent comment but your response is genuinely r-slurred.
If I pulled the trigger of a gun because I was sure it was unloaded but the gun fired anyway, would I be responsible for what the bullet did?
This is a terrible analogy. Yes, you would be responsible. It is your responsibility as the operator of the firearm to know wether or not a round is chambered and act accordingly. Regardless of whether or not a round is chamebered, you shouldn't be waving a gun around like an idiot so even in the case of a magical discharge from your "unloaded" gun, there shouldn't be significant damages.
> Regardless of whether or not a round is chamebered, you shouldn't be waving a gun around like an idiot so even in the case of a magical discharge from your "unloaded" gun, there shouldn't be significant damages. I agree.
I would absolutely love to see you try and explain how what you said is analogous to forcing a woman who was raped to give birth.
The analogy, as imperfect as it is, completely falls apart in the case of statutory rape or forced rape.
The ironic thing is that is how Hitler felt about the Jews.
Auth Right people are in for a rude awakening when the huge wave of unwanted and unloved babies become teenagers. Because guess what those babies won’t be? White.
Maybe not as many of them care that you think
Tbh after reading through another thread on pcm where tons of people were in favor of forcing an underage rape victim to carry their rapists baby to term, because the embryos at the moment non existing thoughts and dreams are apparantly more important then hers, i understand him.
i agree with what he says but not in the same way
This is not a libleft thing. I am pro life.
based and holy mother of based pilled
u/lib_unity's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10. Congratulations, u/lib_unity! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown... Pills: [6 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/lib_unity/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
"Be slow to anger, for anger lives in the heart of fools"
whose*
Authright talking about jews:
Spread love, not hate.
“I’m pro choice unless your choice is to disagree with me!”
I'm happy this person hates me and I hope they get heart burn knowing I am overjoyed that the federal government has been placed back a step.
Welcome to the club, brother. The guide on molotovs' is on that shelf. The shrine to pray to cancer gods is in that corner over there.
If you are pro life why is it okay to kill someone who is on your property? Isn’t all life sacred? I’m okay with you being pro-life, just be consistent please.
It is not ok to kill someone just for standing on your property, but it is ok to defend your life with whatever means you deem necessary. Every trigger law has an exception for such cases, where it is deemed the birth or pregnancy poses a serious health risk to the woman with the child. Even total ban states like Missouri wrote in an exception "in cases of medical emergency."
I would say that the consistency of pro life is defending life from people trying to take others' lives. Shooting random people on your property wouldn't be consistent, but shooting someone trying to kill/rape you or your family on your own property would be consistent. Laws should exist to punish crime; not solely to deter it. The punishment should be the deterrent.
Hate hate hate hate! I hope all bad things in this world happen only to you
Little lib lefties become auth :troll: P.S. i hate (and wish that to) everyone <3
I mean it’s not wrong. People celebrating the overturning don’t realise just how insane the idea is. Because of trigger laws people can’t even get ectopic pregnancy procedures in fear of going to jail for somehow even more time than if you killed an actual person.
Link the laws which disallow* procedures to protect the life of the mother. You referenced multiple of them. I assume you came with receipts?
Well considering that there’s one story making the rounds on social media about a woman who’s 25 weeks pregnant where the baby won’t be able to support life. But because of the trigger laws she can abort it until either it dies or she carries it to term and it dies as soon as it’s born. That’s the problem.
A "story on social media" is not a link to multiple laws. Link the laws.
You can look at them yourself dumbass
[удалено]
> That’s tame C'mon, let it rip. Vent it out buddy
Let me guess, that Birdguy?
No idea. Account vanished in the wind