Abortion: The Thread

Something something this thread is an abortion hahaha something something


Abortion being moral or not depends mainly on one thing from my perspective.

Is the fetus considered a person with rights or not?

That in turn depends on how you define a person and will differ between people.

Your rights end where someone else's begin. At least I think so, which is why determining the fetus's personhood is important, because if it isn't a person, it doesn't have rights and it's all up to the woman (and perhaps the man a bit as well if the pregnancy was unintentional, but that's another debate entirely).

If it is a person, killing someone is illegal (and probably frowned upon) outside of fringe circumstances, so it would be immoral.

Drawing the line of what a person is seems to be the main issue as to why a general consensus on the topic is hard to reach. Avoiding the subject of personhood and not trying to reach an agreement on what that means in this context will lead to moral high ground grandstanding on both sides of the argument, as has been seen in this thread.

Women can do whatever they want regarding their womb.

I'm just that kind of a patriarch. /s


It's 3 am, abort my abortion of a abortion post in this abortion thread.
 
First, nobody has ever woken up from brain death. Absolutely nobody.

The 'rights' of coma patients are an interesting discussion. But is taking somebody off life support murder? If u think yes then how far do you take that; is not giving somebody in cardiac arrest resessitation murder? Is not preventing someone from smoking themselves to death murder?

If you don't think it's murder, what's the difference between removing a fetus from its life support system?

Then again it doesn't matter what u think because ur a life begins at conception etc etc so there's really no point
This is an extreme case, but you are absolutely incorrect about people not waking up from comas. People do, and can.

To answer your latter bits though, I do believe in a sense that yes, it is murder when you pull the plug because I believe they are technically still alive, but brain dead. It comes down to morality though, is the person physically suffering, or will they suffer if they wake up? That's a decision for the family to make in my opinion, and that is very tough to ever have to deal with. I see someone conflating this with babies being born into suffering, so I'm gonna put a plug on that now than later; adoption is an option if you cannot afford having a baby, just saying. You don't have a similar option in the case of comas and family involvement of those in comas, and I would hope to God someone wouldn't do that because comas are a different topic altogether. Like I said, the primary concern is to not let the baby be killed.

As for the cardiac arrest example, I think it would be a great idea to be a good samaritan and call 911, but no that is not murder because you theoretically did not inflict the heart attack. The same is true for the smoking example. The coma example is a bit different because you're taking that person off of the resource that is keeping them alive, but I do think that comes down to ethics. This topic is similar to euthanasia/suicide. It is however different from abortion because, more times than not, you did not cause that person to get into a coma (if you did than that is a much different story that'll involve criminal charges). You did however create a human life in the case of abortion, and that's where, in my opinion, the line is crossed.
 
Last edited:

Texas Cloverleaf

This user has a custom title
is a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
My point is, America is arguably the most successful its ever been, and the conservative government has reaped extremely positive results with the boom of the economy (and before you say that was from Obama's economy, 1. It's been 3 almost 4 years into the Trump presidency, and 2. Obama had one of the slowest economic recoveries since the Great Depression) and the historic unemployment.
Suggesting that the current economy is solely influenced by Trump because "it's been four years" is exactly the staggering economic ignorance I was referring to earlier. Economic indicators trail and lead the market at their own pace and are NOT subject to presidential election cycles. The environment each president oversees is directly related to the tenure of the previous one and significant market changes are much less attributable to a four year term as compared to an eight year term. The overall economic picture is much more complex than the black and white terms you've painted them in but do in fact paint a more generally positive picture of Obama's economy and a more negative picture of Trump's.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-clinton-s-obama-s-reagan-s-and-even-carter-s

"Measured by 14 gauges of economic activity and financial performance, the U.S. economy is not doing as well under Trump as it did under all but one of the four Republicans and three Democrats who have occupied the White House since 1976."


"By these measures, we reported two years ago, the economy under President Bill Clinton was No. 1. It still is, having strengthened the most during his years in office, 1993 to 2001. President Barack Obama, who took office in 2009 during the worst recession since the Great Depression, left in 2017 after the second-biggest improvement. President Ronald Reagan is No. 3 (1981-1989), followed by Presidents George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) and Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)."

"The Trump years have been no better than average and mostly below average in 12 of the 14 measures. The bond market suffered its worst performance the past two years than in any other presidency since Carter. Anemic productivity and a widening deficit as a percentage of GDP are the worst since George W. Bush was president. The dollar’s 3.2 percent annualized decline and GDP growth of 2.24 percent give Trump no better than a No. 5 ranking."


https://www.businessinsider.com/9-c...-economy-to-obama-bush-administrations-2019-9

"The Obama administration confronted the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression when it initially took office. It passed a massive stimulus package in February 2009 to jumpstart the economy - and it was successful. The Congressional Budget Office said in a report that GDP growth was higher from 2009-2012 in part due to the legislation."

"As a result, Obama inherited an economy in free-fall. The unemployment rate peaked at 10.2% in October 2009 during the recession and 8.7 million jobs were lost from early 2007 and 2010, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. But it started falling steadily in 2011 and that trend continued for the rest of the Obama presidency.

President Trump took office as the economy continued its recovery - and as it underwent a decade-long expansion, the longest in American history. The current employment rate stood at 3.5% as of December 2019 - the lowest in a half-century."

"Obama's stimulus packages also added a substantial amount of money to the debt, though it helped put the nation back on track economically. According to Department of Treasury data and Congressional Budget Office projections, the national debt grew 84% under Obama's watch by the end of fiscal year of 2016 - slightly more than it had under Bush at 75%.

Trump vowed to erase the debt during his presidency, but instead has only added to it with the GOP tax cuts and short-term spending bills."

Fiscal conservatism eh?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/20/trump-v-obama-economy-charts/

"As for two of Trump’s favorite metrics — stocks and jobs — there is a case to be made that those looked better under Obama, although most economists expected job gains to slow now that the economic recovery is a decade old.
Presidents have only so much control over the economy, but how voters perceive economic conditions and their personal finances can play a key role in how they vote. Lately, Republicans and many wealthy voters rate this economy as the best since the 1990s boom, while Democrats and many lower-income voters are less enthusiastic."

"2. Unemployment rate. The nation’s unemployment rate is at a half-century low, a source of pride for Trump. But many economists have pointed out that the rate has been falling steadily since 2011, making it difficult to see much difference after Trump took office."

"Trump campaigned on bringing the trade deficit down, but it has grown during his tenure"


Suggesting America is the most successful it's ever been is farcical at best from a economic perspective, to say nothing of the unprecedented degree of political and moral corruption that has been revealed around the administration.



Articles and analysis such as these are readily and numerously available with only a modicum of research and it's one of the biggest reasons I can offer as to why you need to critically evaluate your information sources. The propaganda arms of the conservative machine will not paint you a complete picture because their goal isn't to do so, it's to make you continue to vote Conservative.
 
Suggesting that the current economy is solely influenced by Trump because "it's been four years" is exactly the staggering economic ignorance I was referring to earlier. Economic indicators trail and lead the market at their own pace and are NOT subject to presidential election cycles. The environment each president oversees is directly related to the tenure of the previous one and significant market changes are much less attributable to a four year term as compared to an eight year term. The overall economic picture is much more complex than the black and white terms you've painted them in but do in fact paint a more generally positive picture of Obama's economy and a more negative picture of Trump's.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-clinton-s-obama-s-reagan-s-and-even-carter-s

"Measured by 14 gauges of economic activity and financial performance, the U.S. economy is not doing as well under Trump as it did under all but one of the four Republicans and three Democrats who have occupied the White House since 1976."


"By these measures, we reported two years ago, the economy under President Bill Clinton was No. 1. It still is, having strengthened the most during his years in office, 1993 to 2001. President Barack Obama, who took office in 2009 during the worst recession since the Great Depression, left in 2017 after the second-biggest improvement. President Ronald Reagan is No. 3 (1981-1989), followed by Presidents George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) and Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)."

"The Trump years have been no better than average and mostly below average in 12 of the 14 measures. The bond market suffered its worst performance the past two years than in any other presidency since Carter. Anemic productivity and a widening deficit as a percentage of GDP are the worst since George W. Bush was president. The dollar’s 3.2 percent annualized decline and GDP growth of 2.24 percent give Trump no better than a No. 5 ranking."


https://www.businessinsider.com/9-c...-economy-to-obama-bush-administrations-2019-9

"The Obama administration confronted the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression when it initially took office. It passed a massive stimulus package in February 2009 to jumpstart the economy - and it was successful. The Congressional Budget Office said in a report that GDP growth was higher from 2009-2012 in part due to the legislation."

"As a result, Obama inherited an economy in free-fall. The unemployment rate peaked at 10.2% in October 2009 during the recession and 8.7 million jobs were lost from early 2007 and 2010, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. But it started falling steadily in 2011 and that trend continued for the rest of the Obama presidency.

President Trump took office as the economy continued its recovery - and as it underwent a decade-long expansion, the longest in American history. The current employment rate stood at 3.5% as of December 2019 - the lowest in a half-century."

"Obama's stimulus packages also added a substantial amount of money to the debt, though it helped put the nation back on track economically. According to Department of Treasury data and Congressional Budget Office projections, the national debt grew 84% under Obama's watch by the end of fiscal year of 2016 - slightly more than it had under Bush at 75%.

Trump vowed to erase the debt during his presidency, but instead has only added to it with the GOP tax cuts and short-term spending bills."

Fiscal conservatism eh?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/20/trump-v-obama-economy-charts/

"As for two of Trump’s favorite metrics — stocks and jobs — there is a case to be made that those looked better under Obama, although most economists expected job gains to slow now that the economic recovery is a decade old.
Presidents have only so much control over the economy, but how voters perceive economic conditions and their personal finances can play a key role in how they vote. Lately, Republicans and many wealthy voters rate this economy as the best since the 1990s boom, while Democrats and many lower-income voters are less enthusiastic."

"2. Unemployment rate. The nation’s unemployment rate is at a half-century low, a source of pride for Trump. But many economists have pointed out that the rate has been falling steadily since 2011, making it difficult to see much difference after Trump took office."

"Trump campaigned on bringing the trade deficit down, but it has grown during his tenure"


Suggesting America is the most successful it's ever been is farcical at best from a economic perspective, to say nothing of the unprecedented degree of political and moral corruption that has been revealed around the administration.



Articles and analysis such as these are readily and numerously available with only a modicum of research and it's one of the biggest reasons I can offer as to why you need to critically evaluate your information sources. The propaganda arms of the conservative machine will not paint you a complete picture because their goal isn't to do so, it's to make you continue to vote Conservative.
Why are we talking about this in an abortion thread? I'd debunk all of this garbage in a heartbeat if it wasn't the case that I don't want to derail.
 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
If you are brain dead you are dead dead, this is not the same as being in a coma in which you are unconscious but still react to stimuli and have spontaneous motor functions.

Armed with this knowledge going forward some people should address the arguments with “coma” in my mind when discussing the potential “brain death” topic and some should adapt their language to be scientifically accurate
 
You literally brought it up in an abortion thread

Edit: you fucking hypocrite
I responded to Termi who brought it up, and I explicitly said this is the last time I'm responding to that, only because he called me out.

Edit: cleared out the provocative language. You're free to read back at any time, because I was not the one that brought economics up. I was called out on that basis.
 
Last edited:
If you are brain dead you are dead dead, this is not the same as being in a coma in which you are unconscious but still react to stimuli and have spontaneous motor functions.

Armed with this knowledge going forward some people should address the arguments with “coma” in my mind when discussing the potential “brain death” topic and some should adapt their language to be scientifically accurate
Fair, I apologize, I was trying to discuss the case of comas when it comes to proving sentience, I misunderstood where GatoDelFuego was going. I'll own that one that's my fault.

I will argue though you are not sentient when you're in a coma, and that is not a good indicator of life. That's the baseline argument.
 

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Idk why people (lookin at u orch) took the meme YES I post as too serious. All I was trying to say is that comatose/vegetative ppl don't have rights, because their lives are decided by their guardians. It's a fucked up scenario but anybody in a coma can be disconnected from life support if their guardians say so. Is it murder? I don't think so.

Again brain death is dead, there is no coming back and nobody ever has and never will
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
We now have bills in legislatures that enable you to birth a baby and then leave them to die because they are unwanted. The law also greenlights unrestricted and unquestioned abortion access for minors, thereby enabling predatory men to take advantage of them. A living, breathing, crying infant. Virginia passed it. New York passed it. The pro-lifers in Massachusetts (I'm one of them) are currently holding a similar bill back from becoming law. Meanwhile other states who have something resembling a soul or a moral compass, if you prefer, are passing heartbeat laws. Let's stop pretending the debate is still on "safe, legal, and rare" or rape, incest, and life-of-the-mother crisis scenarios. That was the debate going on in the 90's.

Our descendants will look back at how callous we were to our weakest members in an age of 4D ultrasound, and condemn us as inferior human beings morally even to slave owners. Slavery was a worldwide practice endemic to all nations. Murdering infants seconds after birth while sloganeering "shout your abortion" was an active choice by people who knew better, knew that at 21 weeks we were saving premies in neonatal hospital units and at 24 weeks we were slaughtering them in a $Billion+ death mill down the street, and supported the killing anyway. President Trump put it in stark contrast at the State of the Union.

Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned. It's a human life. Pro-lifers know this. Pro-lifers set up agencies to help women knowing this. All of science, human decency, and common sense support the pro-life position. It's time to end human abortion. Or at least crib something from the Europeans, all of whom have more humane laws that the archaic, backward, 1973 Roe decision.

I have attached my testimony (personal info redacted) on the so-called ROE Act they are trying to implement in Massachusetts, this was last June, and as far as I know the legislation is still stalled. You can thank the release of the UnPlanned Movie for part of that.

- - - - - -
I testify today against HB 3320 / SB 1209

All legislation must be considered in its totality. This is an act with the chief effect of legalizing late term abortions for minor children in facilities that lack hospital cleanliness standards and obstetrical service requirements. It also directly subsidizes abortion and legalizes infanticide.

I cannot know the thoughts of all our legislators, but I suspect some may dismiss my testimony because I cannot become pregnant. What voice should men have in abortion anyway? The reality, especially considering this bill, is that men do have a voice in abortion. There is an understanding that when a man gets a woman pregnant and tells her he will “take care of it,” he means “I will pay for your abortion.”

In the context of an equal relationship I might find this unfortunate and cowardly on the man’s behalf, but I understand that sentiment is rare.

In the context of an unequal relationship, “take care of it” is a predatory, deeply exploitative impulse. Imagine a 15 year old girl with some older friends. They go to a party and a 21 year old male convinces her to do something foolish. She later discovers she is pregnant. Not wanting to admit this to her parents, her male predator tells her he will “take care of it” and the predation continues.

Thanks to this law, this statutory rape will never be reported or addressed because the man will obviously avoid a hospital facility. Evil predators like this man will benefit directly.

It gets worse. This 15 year old girl, now 16, gets pregnant a second time and fearing both her parents and her increasingly abusive male predator she hesitates to tell anyone until further along. She must now get a more complicated late-term abortion, and naturally the predator chooses a non-hospital facility again. They deliver the child but the abortion fails. With an infant left crying loudly in pain on a cold metal pan, they ask this minor what to do. She sees her little boy’s or little girl’s face, and then runs away crying from shock. A child is left to die on a cold table. A powerful, predatory male abuser is still on the loose. A teenage girl is forever scarred.

And just a few blocks away from this tortured young girl, some of our legislators will high five over tea and chai about “expanding reproductive rights” as they deposit a NARAL PAC contribution. I beg you not to let that come to pass.

Why did her parents never get involved? The very law you are considering.

Do you want to stop the most evil of men from having a say in abortion? Oppose these bills.

I stand here against HB 3320 / SB 1209

Thank you again Chairmen and Committee Members for the opportunity to testify.

Notes:

“This is an act with the chief effect of legalizing late term abortions for minor children in facilities that lack hospital cleanliness standards and obstetrical service requirements. It also directly subsidizes abortion and legalizes infanticide.”

Legalizing Late Term Abortions:

By striking the substance of Chapter 112, section 12M from the MGL which currently prohibits abortions beyond 24 weeks, abortion will become legal through all stages of pregnancy.

For Minor Children:

By striking the words “abortion or” from Chapter 112 section 12F and all language from section 12S and 12U, abortion will become legal for minors without obtaining parental consent.

In Facilities That Lack Hospital Cleanliness Standards and Obstetrical Service Requirements:

Chapter 112, Section 12Q is also struck, and requires these abortions be performed in hospitals with obstetrical service facilities, so these minors obtaining procedures without consent may now do so in facilities that are not mandatory reporters.

These sections are also struck entirely:

12R Specifies reporting requirements in some detail.

12T Specifies punishments for violating the struck sections.

Subsidizing Abortion:

Modifying Chapter 118E, Section 10E to specifically include “including but not limited to abortion” will make it part of the medical assistance plan established for pregnant women and infants.

Legalizing Infanticide:

Chapter 112 Section 12P which requires that all reasonable steps be taken to preserve the life of an aborted child is also removed, thereby directly and specifically legalizing infanticide.

- - - - -
 

termi

bike is short for bichael
is a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributor
i dont rly see what the moral difference is between successfully aborting a fetus immediately or having it be briefly alive outside the womb by accident and then letting it die, especially considering anti-abortionists already consider successful abortions to be infanticide. anyway cool that u hate women or whatever, im sure ur proud of urself
 

Celever

i am town
is a Community Contributor
We now have bills in legislatures that enable you to birth a baby and then leave them to die because they are unwanted. The law also greenlights unrestricted and unquestioned abortion access for minors, thereby enabling predatory men to take advantage of them. A living, breathing, crying infant. Virginia passed it. New York passed it. The pro-lifers in Massachusetts (I'm one of them) are currently holding a similar bill back from becoming law. Meanwhile other states who have something resembling a soul or a moral compass, if you prefer, are passing heartbeat laws. Let's stop pretending the debate is still on "safe, legal, and rare" or rape, incest, and life-of-the-mother crisis scenarios. That was the debate going on in the 90's.

Our descendants will look back at how callous we were to our weakest members in an age of 4D ultrasound, and condemn us as inferior human beings morally even to slave owners. Slavery was a worldwide practice endemic to all nations. Murdering infants seconds after birth while sloganeering "shout your abortion" was an active choice by people who knew better, knew that at 21 weeks we were saving premies in neonatal hospital units and at 24 weeks we were slaughtering them in a $Billion+ death mill down the street, and supported the killing anyway. President Trump put it in stark contrast at the State of the Union.

Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned. It's a human life. Pro-lifers know this. Pro-lifers set up agencies to help women knowing this. All of science, human decency, and common sense support the pro-life position. It's time to end human abortion. Or at least crib something from the Europeans, all of whom have more humane laws that the archaic, backward, 1973 Roe decision.

I have attached my testimony (personal info redacted) on the so-called ROE Act they are trying to implement in Massachusetts, this was last June, and as far as I know the legislation is still stalled. You can thank the release of the UnPlanned Movie for part of that.

- - - - - -
I testify today against HB 3320 / SB 1209

All legislation must be considered in its totality. This is an act with the chief effect of legalizing late term abortions for minor children in facilities that lack hospital cleanliness standards and obstetrical service requirements. It also directly subsidizes abortion and legalizes infanticide.

I cannot know the thoughts of all our legislators, but I suspect some may dismiss my testimony because I cannot become pregnant. What voice should men have in abortion anyway? The reality, especially considering this bill, is that men do have a voice in abortion. There is an understanding that when a man gets a woman pregnant and tells her he will “take care of it,” he means “I will pay for your abortion.”

In the context of an equal relationship I might find this unfortunate and cowardly on the man’s behalf, but I understand that sentiment is rare.

In the context of an unequal relationship, “take care of it” is a predatory, deeply exploitative impulse. Imagine a 15 year old girl with some older friends. They go to a party and a 21 year old male convinces her to do something foolish. She later discovers she is pregnant. Not wanting to admit this to her parents, her male predator tells her he will “take care of it” and the predation continues.

Thanks to this law, this statutory rape will never be reported or addressed because the man will obviously avoid a hospital facility. Evil predators like this man will benefit directly.

It gets worse. This 15 year old girl, now 16, gets pregnant a second time and fearing both her parents and her increasingly abusive male predator she hesitates to tell anyone until further along. She must now get a more complicated late-term abortion, and naturally the predator chooses a non-hospital facility again. They deliver the child but the abortion fails. With an infant left crying loudly in pain on a cold metal pan, they ask this minor what to do. She sees her little boy’s or little girl’s face, and then runs away crying from shock. A child is left to die on a cold table. A powerful, predatory male abuser is still on the loose. A teenage girl is forever scarred.

And just a few blocks away from this tortured young girl, some of our legislators will high five over tea and chai about “expanding reproductive rights” as they deposit a NARAL PAC contribution. I beg you not to let that come to pass.

Why did her parents never get involved? The very law you are considering.

Do you want to stop the most evil of men from having a say in abortion? Oppose these bills.

I stand here against HB 3320 / SB 1209

Thank you again Chairmen and Committee Members for the opportunity to testify.

Notes:

“This is an act with the chief effect of legalizing late term abortions for minor children in facilities that lack hospital cleanliness standards and obstetrical service requirements. It also directly subsidizes abortion and legalizes infanticide.”

Legalizing Late Term Abortions:

By striking the substance of Chapter 112, section 12M from the MGL which currently prohibits abortions beyond 24 weeks, abortion will become legal through all stages of pregnancy.

For Minor Children:

By striking the words “abortion or” from Chapter 112 section 12F and all language from section 12S and 12U, abortion will become legal for minors without obtaining parental consent.

In Facilities That Lack Hospital Cleanliness Standards and Obstetrical Service Requirements:

Chapter 112, Section 12Q is also struck, and requires these abortions be performed in hospitals with obstetrical service facilities, so these minors obtaining procedures without consent may now do so in facilities that are not mandatory reporters.

These sections are also struck entirely:

12R Specifies reporting requirements in some detail.

12T Specifies punishments for violating the struck sections.

Subsidizing Abortion:

Modifying Chapter 118E, Section 10E to specifically include “including but not limited to abortion” will make it part of the medical assistance plan established for pregnant women and infants.

Legalizing Infanticide:

Chapter 112 Section 12P which requires that all reasonable steps be taken to preserve the life of an aborted child is also removed, thereby directly and specifically legalizing infanticide.

- - - - -
This is the most misogynistic statement I've ever read. You know that women are capable of having autonomy, right? They can choose not to have an abortion if they don't want one. Even 15 year old girls have autonomy and can choose not to have an abortion. If they want one then I'm glad that, in your scenario where the woman is only a teenager, they're not having to pay for it themselves. The narrative that men can command women into abortions ("take care of it") is only true in abusive relationships, which no child deserves to be born into.

There's also no causation between abortion being legal and rape victims not reporting the crimes that they're a victim of. If anything, it's the inverse. Perhaps if we empowered women by giving them autonomy over their bodies they would feel more capable of reporting their victimhood and getting your hypothetical perpetrator thrown in jail. And perhaps limiting women's autonomy socialises them into an otherhood that makes them feel lesser, and therefore more liable to be preyed upon by people such as your hypothetical rapist.

Your statement characterises women as obsequious baby factories and that's utterly revolting. If I were one of the legislators you were speaking to, I would have had you thrown out.
 

Wigglytuff

mad @ redacted in redacted
is a Tiering Contributoris a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnus
i'm confused about deck knight's post.

it has quotes like this:
Pro-lifers know this. Pro-lifers set up agencies to help women knowing this. All of science, human decency, and common sense support the pro-life position.
and has a call to action (i testify against etc etc) for ostensibly pro-lifers. is he preaching to the choir?

but if he's preaching to the choir, why is this post so damn long...just say "copy and paste this testimony to your local representatives thanks" because not like you need to convince pro-lifers to protest abortion, they're already doing that
 

EV

Banned deucer.
i'm confused about deck knight's post.

it has quotes like this:

and has a call to action (i testify against etc etc) for ostensibly pro-lifers. is he preaching to the choir?

but if he's preaching to the choir, why is this post so damn long...just say "copy and paste this testimony to your local representatives thanks" because not like you need to convince pro-lifers to protest abortion, they're already doing that
He's also here to virtue signal and strawman and grandstand. The line you quoted was an attempt to frame the debate as entirely moot (to think otherwise shows a lack of "common sense"), so there's some gaslighting going on, too. Just his usual antics.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top