New Restrictions on Abortion Have Real World Consequences

Post Reply New Topic

Oh, and I don't blame you for avoiding discussing the morality of abortion, cos then we'd also have to discuss the morality of a bunch of other relevant related things, too. Like the morality of forcing a woman to give birth to a child that would have a low survival rate due to the current conditions of her life. Forcing a child to be born into an unsuitable environment, or to unsuitable parents. The fact that the majority of the obligation seems to fall onto the woman, even though it takes two to tango. The fact that "life is sacred", but only juuuuust sacred enough to demand it be done (by someone else, of course) but not enough to actually DO ANYTHNG to shoulder the burden, in even the slightest menial way, to the point where even trying to pretend they actually DO anything, sounds like a sarcastic disingenuous impression of steve carrell from 40 year old virgin, failing at describing what breasts feel like, and not even caring. "YeAh SuRe BaGs Of SaNd, WhAtEvEr."

But what do you actually do to help black criminals uncommondenominator? You say you think George Floyd shouldn't have been killed by that cop, but you and so many like you refuse to actually DO anything to shoulder the burden of not killing black criminals for no good reason. I just can't even.

What do you actually dooooo?

That desperate to change the subject, eh? Can't even what? Answer a simple little question like how you help protect unborn babies? Clearly.

Smugly trying to "turn the tables" with a red herring might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but it does make it more than a little obvious that you're just trying to avoid questions you can't answer by desperately hoping that I don't have answers either.

Also, what is your obsession with the phrase "black criminals"? My concern is "police brutality". YOU'RE the one that keeps squealing about "BlAcK cRiMiNaLs!" - which I've already explained is just a poorly constructed trap to either get me to say the words "I don't support..." so you can take them out of context and howl them like a fire alarm, or get me to admit support for your conveniently pre-framed question so you can take it out of context and claim that I "support criminals".

Despite your clever trap, I do not "support criminals". I oppose police brutality, regardless of race - the fact that it seems to HAPPEN more against POC would be the only reason I defend POC more.

And yet again, just cos YOU can't think of things to do doesn't mean OTHERS can't, or don't.

For example, I DO live in ghettos, and don't stigmatize POC for being POC. I DO make it a point to defend POC who are being profiled or harassed. I DO observe and film any questionable police interaction. I DO VOTE, to reorganize the police within the jurisdictions I have the legal right to vote over. Whenever I hear people say dumb crap like "BlAcK cRiMiNalS", I DO give them an earful. I DO risk getting in trouble "interfering with police business" in order to make sure the police know they are being watched. I DO research the law, and teach it to people so they know what their rights actually are. I DID try to become a police officer, so I could literally BE the difference. I've spend thousands of dollars to pay bail for POC who were arrested under false pretenses. The single mother I married? (see also: HELPING KIDS) She was black. Her younger brother was getting in trouble so we moved him in with us. I tutored him in highschool, and helped him stay out of trouble. I also give non-perishable food to the homeless of ANY race - not to shelters, directly in the hands of homeless people on the street - I meet them and talk to them, face to face, treat them like human beings. Pay them a few bucks to do odd jobs around the shop when I can. When I have a pocket full of change, I'll give it just for the asking. See? DOING THINGS.

Does it fix the planet? No. Does it end the problem? No. Is it doing more than making noise come out of a face-hole. Absolutely.

These are not hard questions if you actually DO THINGS.

STILLL WAITING on what YOU DO

Oh, and that's completely ignoring the elephant in the room of POLICE SHOULDN'T BE KILLING ANYONE FOR NO REASON, EVEN IF THEY ARE KILLING A "CRIMINAL"!

I wonder what topic you'll bring up next to fail at calling me out as a distraction from your lack of ground to stand on.

Let's try the list again. I've gone ahead and updated it for you.

Things you do to help protect babies:

1. Shame women.
2. AlL tHe ThInGs YoU cAn ImAgInE!! !
3. WhaT aBoUt GeOrGe FlOyD?!
4. "BlAcK cRiMiNaLs!"
5. "No YoU aNsWeR MY rAnDoM uNrElAtEd QuEsTiOn FIRST!"
6.

I'll make a list of some of mine, too, for comparison

1. Donate time to pregnant women.
2. Give money to pregnant women.
3. Accompany and assist pregnant women.
4. Buy healthy food for pregnant women.
5. Assist in the care of children once they are born.
6.

There, I even gave you a few ideas, should you feel bothered enough to even pretend you actually DO ANYTHNG, and choose to invent at least SOME thing you at least CLAIM you actually DO, other than shame, and avoid answering questions.

Oh and before you get all excited and try to accuse me of "virtue signaling", do remember that YOU ASKED, you DEMANDED I answer these questions, and I never brought up what I personally do, until YOU ASKED. Also note, they are ACTUAL THINGS BEING DONE, and not just "supporting" people by wearing the shirt and buying the bumper sticker, shaming women, and going home to watch tv. My actual TIME and MONEY is being invested, directly into the hands of the people who need it.

Oh, and, even if your plan HAD worked as intended, and you DID "reveal me" to be all talk, so what? At worst I'm no better than you, but that doesn't exactly exonerate you either. Weird flex, relying on trying to prove us both as being useless mouthpieces. But I guess when you have nothing to stand on, all you can do is try to drag someone else down with you, and somehow find a way to be smug about it. "See? We're BOTH useless! I win!" *victory dance*

Go ahead, call me out for what I ACTUALLY DO regarding some other distraction. I'M SURE it won't totally backfire this time

That wasn't actually the trap, the trap is was to get you to answer what you actually do for someone you wish to save from violence - because of the question that follows.



If you didn't do these things, would it be hypocritical or otherwise wrong to support George Floyd or people of colour in general?

If you don't personally expend time, effort and resources helping those you wish to save from violence and death, is it wrong to hold the opinion that they should be protected from it?



Backfire? You've just decapitated yourself in front of anyone paying attention though I am not sure you have the means to realise it. I suspect you have enough to dodge the question above though, demanding answers to the same questions again and hoping no one notices. Such is often the fate of anonymous arguments on the internet. But you'll know and I'll know.

Basically your plan was just to keep me answering questions so you could keep avoiding the ONE SIMPLE question I asked of you? I apologize. I gave you too much credit.

Pointing the finger at me, spazzing about, and seething "WeLL WhAt Do YOUUUUUUU do!?!?!?!" doesn't really look good if I DO do things, and, well, you don't.

I notice you specifically selected the word "hypocritical". Hypocritical means to say one thing, but do the opposite. As such, by definition, saying one thing, and doing NOTHING, isn't hypocritical. But it IS meaningless.

I notice you made it a simple either/or choice, where the only options are "hypocrite" and "wrongness". As for "wrongness", aside from being subjective, the same situation applies. You can't do something "wrong" if you don't actually DO ANYthing. Still meaningless.

Anyone can SAY things. Anyone can TALK big. "I'm gonna be a millionaire!" "I'm gonna save the world!" "I'm gonna be famous!" "I'm gonna save dem babies!" Until action is taken, talk is just aspirational noise.

Noise in and of itself is fine. But it's still only noise. Aside from the problem of "it's too quiet in here", not may problems are solved with noise.

You do win 100 irony points for saying I've "decapitated myself", while you're playing the part of a talking head - saying a lot, but doing nothing.

Yeah, it's funny how I keep asking the same question that you won't answer. "What do you do?" I'm pretty sure most people have noticed your failure to answer it.

Ballsy move, accusing someone of dodging questions, WHILE dodging a single simple question. "What do you do?" Also, kinda foolish, to claim I dodge questions, WHILE QUOTING MY ANSWERS to your questions. And kinda foolish to complain about my persistence in asking a simple question, WHILE persisting in trying to turn THAT SAME QUESTION (that I have answered) against me. Do you even listen to yourself? You whine and moan about things that you do, in the same post that you're whining about them. Screeching about me asking the same question (that you have not in fact answered) WHILE demanding I answer your version of literally the exact same question. "What do you do?"

I've updated your list again.

Things you do to help protect babies:

1. Shame women.
2. AlL tHe ThInGs YoU cAn ImAgInE!! !
3. WhaT aBoUt GeOrGe FlOyD?!
4. "BlAcK cRiMiNaLs!"
5. "No YoU aNsWeR MY rAnDoM uNrElAtEd QuEsTiOn FIRST!"
6. "StOp AsKiNg ThE qUeStIoN i ReFuSe To AnSwEr AnD KeEp AnSwErInG mY qUeStIoNs"
7. "I cAnT bE dOiNg SoMeThInG bAd If Im NoT dOiNg AnYtHiNg At AlL"
8.

I'm guessing you're going for quantity over quality?

I've seen other people try this strategy. Stall, stall, stall, stall, "I aLrEaDy AnSwErEd yOuR qUeStIoN!! !" and hope nobody goes back to read and realizes that lol no you didn't you sneaky l'il rascal.

So far the closest you've come to answering the question of "what do you do?" was when you had a hissy and said "FINE, WHATEVER, I do whatever you imagine I should be doing, OK?!"

The nature of your most recent plaintive whine essentially seems to be "IS IT REALLY SO BAD IF I DO NOTHING?! IS IT WRONG TO SUPPORT A CAUSE ONLY IN WORDS, BUT NOT WITH ACTIONS?!" Bad, no. Wrong, no. Useless, you bet. Supporting something by saying "I support this thing" and doing nothing else is only slightly less lazy and detached than buying a bumper sticker and calling yourself an "ally".

To be so cavalier about it - even while pretentiously lecturing others on the sanctity of life, and how important it is to protect it - to be whittled down to resorting to arguing there's nothing wrong with doing nothing but move hot air and sit on your own hands, even when it comes to PROTECTING LIFE, shows exactly how committed to it you really are. You do all the talking, but expect others to do all the walking. And cos your talking makes you feel like you caused others to do the walking, you think you've "helped"?

Your misplaced cockyness is adorable

My plan was to teach you why you were wrong, but you are not easily taught.



A glimmer of light appears... then quickly disappears...

Just for fun, here are some serious answers to your pressing questions:

1. Donate time to pregnant women.
2. Give money to pregnant women.
3. Accompany and assist pregnant women.
4. Buy healthy food for pregnant women.
5. Assist in the care of children once they are born.

1. Donate, no, but in the past I have worked for an organisation along those lines where my time was paid for.
2. Yes, though a charity, though you might count that as "lazy".
3. As per q 1).
4. Yes, if you count food banks. Undoubtedly some of it went to pregnant women.
5. No, not outside family.

Your "argument" has actually been put better and less churlishly by others on this forum, usually in the form "Would you be prepared to pay extra taxes to care for all the extra children that live if you ban abortion?". I have always answered "Yes", while decrying the argument itself.

Here is my last ditch attempt to expose the problem of this argument to you, uncommondenominator: "Would you be prepared to pay extra taxes to care for all the George Floyds of the world that we don't kill through police brutality?"

Whether you realise it or not, you are entering an argument about whether someone innocent (or at least innocent enough) lives or dies by arguing about the cost to others of allowing them to live. The point of the George Floyd examples was to make you realise how bizarre, if not abhorrent that is when done to any other human. But you actually answered the question seriously.

---

Hmm... 'First World Privilege'...

Just A Reality-Check. Some

Folks Value Fish More Than

Zygotes As Fish Feed Starving

Breathing Children; Zygotes Do Not;

True, Strangely

Enough

It is Often

Those Who Praise

The Sanctity of Un-breathing

Life AND A Bishop In A Catholic Diocese

Instructing Head Priests to Remove All

Covid-19 Precautions Well Knowing This

Is Trump Land USA Conspiracy Theory Territory;

Where Only 32 Percent of the Still Breathing Population in the County

And Even Less in Surrounding Counties Among Parishes are Vaccinated

Fully; Where Several Counties Have Vaccination Rates At 20 Or Less Percent;

Let's Develop Some Ethics

And Morality; Even More

In Church; Instead of

Worrying About Bringing

Folks Back to Fill Up the Money Baskets Again;

Before We Go On To Say the Unbreathing Are

More Important Than Breathing Life Now;

Sorry, NOT Sorry; Ain't Buying The BS As Always

The Real God Nature Is Fully In Charge; Karma Still Coming;

The Dead May Bury Their Own; And Let the Living Breathe

With More

Than

Scare

Crow

Brains,

Tin Man

Hearts, Without

Enough Lionly Courage

To Save Breathing Ignorance

From Killing Itself Dead; True, One

Will Feed More Starving Breathing Children With a Fish Than A Zygote...

And As Far as Nature Goes; A Fish In Balance With Nature More Valuable

Than

ALL

Humans

Destroying

Balance of Nature;

Now All of Nature, God of Course...

The Problem Is All Are Equally Differently Integral;

One Loose Screw Like Humanity Is Enough to Harm Most...

Again; This Is No Territory For 'Rational' Debate, Alone; It Is An Ethical And Morality

Issue For However One Views Reality As Nature Now; Some Folks See Bigger Pictures;

Other

Folks

See

'Zygote Big'...

And Again In A Democracy

Folks Decide By Majority Consensus

Through those They Elect, No Matter

What Is Said in 'Discussion Boards', Rules Do Rule The Ethics and Morality Next...

Which Ever Way it Goes, Intelligent Decisions for Nature All in Balance; Or Ignorance;

Same Dam Ignorance...

Out

of Balance...

Fortunately, This Is
A Still A First World

Country; Yet It's True

There Are Those Who Would

Love A Starving One Controlled

By Church, Where Ya Truly Have

To Worry A Fish is Worth More Now

Than A Zygote to Feed Starving Breathing Children...

Here it is More Often, The 'Young First Baptist Girl' Whose

Parents Insist on An Abortion, Not to Lose Faith of Face in the

Social Status of Church, For Abstinence of Intelligence Ignorance Still Brings...

True, It's More Of An Issue That Ignorance Has Real World Consequences Seeing Small....

As Neuroscience

Shows Humans

At Core are

Not Rational, Go Figure;

ThiS Ain't 'Something' 'You'll'

Ever Measure With 'A Ruler' Alone...

---

THIS↑ quoted for truth.  Also, why is it that people who are against abortion -- because "Life is sacred" -- are often the same people who support the death penalty?

Because the point isn't to "protect babies," it's to control and punish women.

Life is sacred is a sandwich board or a protest placard. For most, including myself, the argument is that unborn life is human life and everything follows from there.



If I were Fnord, I'd probably say that's a conspiracy theory. I've also answered this claim before. If you want to control women sexually - you go after contraception, not abortion, so that charge might stick against the Catholic Church, but not against everyone arguing against abortion.

Ultimately removing the woman's choice in the matter of abortion harms women's ownership over their bodies and sexuality whether it's denying access or forcing it.

Obviously denying access to both contraceptives and abortion is an attempt to exert more control on women's sexuality than only limiting access to abortion but both ultimately exert some pressure. You can't be certain why exactly someone failed to use contraceptives or why they may have failed but removing the option to do anything once one is in that situation still exerts pressure on them.

Limiting options or exerting pressure is a consequence of restricting abortion, yes, but XFG alleges that the people who are against abortion are really only interested in controlling women (forcing them into chaste behaviour to avoid the consequences of pregnancy) and all the arguments about the unborn are naught but a clever ruse. That is not true, at least from my side of the argument. If forcing women to be chaste was the secret goal, you'd attack contraception as well, if not primarily, because it provides 99% of that freedom today.

I understand the position she's advancing, I'm not trying to advance that argument because I'm sure how important the motives are, I'm more concerned about consequences.

But also, I'm not sure XFG has suggested that the goal is to impose chastity upon women, only to deny agency. If anything it's more like they're trying to impose the traditional mindset of you can be a potential bride, a mother or a woman of loose morals, rather than simply trying to impose forced celibacy.

It's true I might have read it incorrectly, but that's how I interpreted "control and punish", particularly the punish part.

I think all we're interpreting differently is what exactly the intention is to control. You're suggesting it's just trying to impose chastity, I'm suggesting it's more just intended to interfere with agency in a broader sense. Controlling and punishing are still ultimately relevant even if it's not as black and white as your interpretation.

Cool story. Except for one thing. I posted the following on page ONE.



You could have latched on to ANY of those things as things you're NOW claiming you do. How had would it have been to say "yes, I support funding for free care for pregnant women - since in your own words:

""Would you be prepared to pay extra taxes to care for all the extra children that live if you ban abortion?". I have always answered "Yes""

Yet for THREE PAGES, when asked, somehow couldn't squeeze out a "yes". Couldn't answer that simple little question. The idea seemed to utterly allude you. Why was it so hard to claim that you do these things that I asked about on page one, and only NOW are mentioning on page FOUR? If you had these answers all along, why was it SO VERY HARD to say that you do the things that you've FINALLY bothered to list? NOW, FINALLY, you drop a vague and uninformative "list" where you claim you'd answer a question, if asked in your approved format, having apparently forgotten I DID ask that, in His Majesty's preferred format.

And lets examine that list, shall we? "Worked for an organization?" Did this "organization" actually help pregnant women, or was it an anti-abortion group, and by your standards fighting abortion IS "helping pregnant women", to "ThAt ToTaLlY cOuNtS!! !" Also, you time was paid for? I'm guessing that's a quirky way of saying "I was paid to be there". Such big help. Getting paid by THEM is the opposite of donating money TO them, and certainly not donating time if you're being PAID. What was this organization, and what did you do for them, big helper?

You say you donate to a charity. Would that charity happen to be an anti-abortion charity that fights abortion, and that's it? What IS the charity? What assistance does this charity offer?

As per #1, what assistance and support did you offer to these women while at this mystery organization you worked for?

"StAtIsTiCaLlY SoMe Of ThE fOoD PrObAbLy MaDe It To A pReGnaNt WoMaN, SO IT COUNTS!! !!" - you're getting pretty desperate, aintcha, to resort to "I threw some food onto the curb where a pregnant woman could potentially find it, IM HELPING!! !"

Supposedly you help take care of kids related to your family. Yet when I asked if you'd ever even watched a kid, you responded by asking about george floyd, instead of saying "yes".



Yeah, I am not actually arguing that the cost should be the deciding factor as to whether or not people should be "allowed to live" - though I'm sure you'd like it if it was, that would allow your nonsense to actually have some relevance. I'm pointing out that everything has a cost, and when all you do is sit on your arse and shout commands, you're expecting other people to cover the costs of your whiney demands.

When you force a woman to have a baby, you're also forcing them to incur all the related costs associated with it. IF you provided, or supported, free care for pregnant women, then there would be ONE LESS COST associated with giving birth. Thus helping SOLVE one of the PROBLEMS pregnant women face, and alleviating some of the REASONS a woman might choose to get an abortion.

Even then, championing support for a thing that doesn't yet exist, and not TRYING TO BRING IT INTO EXISTENCE, is just more noise, and expecting others to do the WORK while you shake your pom poms from the sidelines.

High horse, low bar.

Maybe the reason you're being unsuccessful at "convincing" me, isn't me. Maybe, just maybe, your point isn't as well thought out as you think it is.

"ThIs Is My LaSt DiTcH aTtEmPt aT..." Giving up already? That's the best your ideology has to offer? LIVES ARE AT STAKE HERE!! ! This is such a SERIOUS issue. Why would I NOT take your questions seriously, and answer them seriously? Should I NOT be taking you seriously? I kinda got that impression, but still felt I should give you doubt's benefit. I am guilty of overestimating you again. I apologize.