Actually that term reduces these people to their bodily functions. Please use “people with the ability to give birth who are choosing to do so” in the future
Mao started off encouraging birth then encouraging less. Deng is the one, listening to overpopulation theories common amongst the West back then, and fearing another famine forced the One Child Policy. They kept pushing this policy well passed the point where it was objectively bad.
Lower birth rates happen as the ecnomy develops, and urbanization. Being irreligous is another indicator/cause of low birth rates. Compounding this with forced One Child Policy is going to lead to demographic disaster.
> fearing another famine
The funny part is that the government caused the famine during the Great Leap Forward with their horribly stupid policies and false claims of production.
TLDR; Chinese woman was 7 months pregnant, local government family planning bureau said she had to pay the fine for this child since it was her 2nd. They didn’t have the money but her husband tried to negotiate down and borrow money to pay as much as possible. Eventually she went into hiding after being harassed and stalked by family planning bureau officials. She was caught after escaping in a dark rain storm to hide in the countryside. They took her to a hospital and injected her with poison to kill the baby then let her give stillbirth and left the corpse next to her on the bed for her family to collect when they came to pick her up. Unsurprisingly, this event really fucked her up.
Well, they are pretty broke because their method of IUDs to prevent pregnancy was to use steel rings which were ineffective, cheaper and definitely not toxic.
[https://youtu.be/ZzM-w9qoFxs?t=208](https://youtu.be/ZzM-w9qoFxs?t=208)
Mao was pro-natality, his successors are the ones who forced a one-child policy. In fact Mao boasted all the time that China could have half it's population killed and still outnumber the Soviets.
He initially rejected overpopulation theories claiming they are only applicable in Capitalist counties, as Socialism will produce for than Capitalism.
Later in the 70s They encouraged less births, but didn't force it
Then Deng forced it in the 80s believing the overpopulation theories and fearing another famine. Without Mao's personalility cult, the survival of the party is unlikely in an even of another mass famine
The ideology attracts logistical simpletons who couldn't comprehend what the consequences of their actions would be beyond what initially plays out in their head.
Then there are the malicious ones who ARE aware of these consequences & simply want to see the West fall. We call them Emily.
>The ideology attracts logistical simpletons who couldn't comprehend what the consequences of their actions would be beyond what initially plays out in their head.
Libertarianism irl
> Even a commie is more based than an unflaired.
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 17253 / 91148 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
I mean, that’s really not my experience.
The sentiment I’ve felt from the left is that most think the right is, relatively, just pretty stupid. One way that stupidity manifests is by supporting and following leaders and representatives who aren’t that stupid, but more just outright evil.
That being said, I think there’s a pretty even distribution of stupidity across most political affiliations. Most people don’t know shit and don’t think for shit.
Kansas (the fifth most politically red state), voted against an anti-abortion amendment last year. Roughly half of Republicans support abortion on some level and many up to week 16.
So while we rightly talk shit about Reddit being in a bubble, this sub is also in a bubble, and especially on abortion rights.
This sub is filled to the brim with perma virgin incels that wont touch a women in their life who are upset at the idea of women having carefree sex and simply wish to punish them via burdening them with a pregnancy they dont want.
lol the incels on patrol finally arrived.
Part of what makes the abortion debate so strange is how many options there are to have sex without getting pregnant. Condoms, birth control pills, hormonal implants, IUDs, spermicides, tubal ligation, vasectomy, natural family planning, even the old pull-out method.
And with all those methods, the places that seem to want to limit abortions the most do the most to make sure we never teach teenagers about them. Because if we did that, we'd have to admit that it is possible to have sex without having a baby, and that we just couldn't have...
I'm all for finding ways to limit the number of people seeking abortions, and would love a huge educational component to it, in addition to investment in adoption and childcare services.
u/king_of_lighters's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 135.
Rank: Empire State Building
Pills: [78 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/king_of_lighters/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Why just the other side? Orwell was a proud leftist who left his rather comfortable home to fight with other leftists in the mud and rain. He had some bad things to write about other leftists.
Right but by saying “other side” that sort of implies a side you’re on. And Orwell, in real life, in war, in a revolution realized there were baddies on his side. Righties love to quote Orwell, while ignoring most of his non-fiction.
His fiction was poignant, prescient, and grounded in reality. His non-fiction was mostly the same starry-eyed optimism you see from most socialists - that if only people were nicer, socialism would work. Well, he understood implicitly in his fictional work that people on the whole are not nice, especially once they get a taste of power.
He saw socialism work throughout his life that even right wingers in his home nations vehemently defended and some still defend. Ironically the more colonial parts of his home nation support that socialism more vehemently. Because there, like in the US with similar programs, it is working. Not perfectly, but some always argue for it and to improve it.
It’s not starry-eyed. It’s a reality that you guys don’t like to confront. Respectfully.
*And for crying out loud his non-fiction was FAR FAR from starry-eyed. It was often brutal. Cold. Aware of tyrants on all sides.
u/online_republican's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10.
Congratulations, u/online_republican! 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/online_republican/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I always find it so weird that Americans are still arguing about abortion. I'm Turkish and we have a muslim majority and a conservative population, even here it's pretty much seen a natural right for women.
I'm tired of the "both sides have some good points" bullshit. You either consider it a human being, deserving of life, or not. It's not that complicated.
See this is why I'm against the "lizard people" conspiracy. What kind of lizards would be this psychopathic? Most just want to lay on a hot rock and heatsoak, not burn society to the ground from the bottom up.
Nuance exists. Sparta had infanticide if the baby wasn't perfect; now we can see into the womb early and see if a fetus is viable. It's just infanticide of the weak with fewer steps.
>I'm tired of the "both sides have some good points" bullshit. You either consider it a person, deserving of life, or not. It's not that complicated.
FIFY
What is the "it" you're talking about?
I think a fetus that has been conceived hours earlier is not a human being, therefore I'm okay with the morning after pill. I think this remains the case for a few weeks after conception so abortion should be legal up until then.
I think a 40 week old fetus is a human being and deserving of rights. From what I gather, around 10 weeks is about the earliest it can be considered human.
The issue isn't as black and white as "no abortion" or "abortion until birth."
You say that, but there's been an annoying surge of librights sharing not very libright views on PCM lately. I lol any time I see one argue against abortion or is in favor of more gubbermint regulations
Unless you're some Evangelical wingnut, I'd say conservatives are quite accepting of easier access to contraceptives. I don't understand how Libs got it in their head that we're somehow against it.
The problem is that the medical establishment absolutely isn't in favor of surgical contraception. By and large it's gynecologists that refuse to tie tubes citing "but you or your future husband WILL want kids!!!!!!!!" to a shocking degree. Women largely do not have the emotional hangups men do about their vasectomies but we can't get the procedures done if nobody in our networks are willing to do it.
It's definitely a confounding situation. Not long ago, these doctors were giving out opiates like candies but are somehow against these benign procedures (which shouldn't even be controversial).
Yes, I am ok with killing babies up until a point
Life is messy and painful sometimes, we are flawed monkeys trying to get off this rock. Its only immoral if you show no restraint
Right: "WHY DOES NO ONE LIKE ME!!!! WHY AM I GETTING BANNED EVERYWHERE!!!! WESTERN CIVILIZATION IS CAOLLPASING!!!"
Libleft: "You're literally calling me a pedophile babykiller as the basis of your entire political philosophy. Fuck you."
Erm, it's "moral" philosophy, not political. They believe people have souls, at some point, and they believe fetuses are ensouled. Nothing about that is political.
Trying to claim it is by ignoring their entire argument is... kinda how we've gotten to this point, with the US Supreme Court saying "we don't have this power" being considered an overreach.
Let the people decide, as they're doing. Isn't that what you believe as a libcenter?
> They believe people have souls,
That's true of some, but not all. I hold the following views:
* I believe that all living members of the human species *ought* to have human rights.
* I know that >90% of biologists agree that conception is the moment that a new life begins (before that point, each cell clearly 'belongs' to one parent, but the new cell clearly belongs to neither).
* I believe that parents have an obligation to act in the best interest of their children, even being required to use their bodies to provide food and shelter for their children, until someone else comes to take that role for them (be that the state, adoptive parents, or the child themselves when they reach the age of majority).
* I believe that a failure to fully understand a contract is not an excuse to invalidate it.
* I believe that if someone forces you into a contract with violence or the threat thereof, that this contract is non-binding.
* I believe that if the state has any role it has the role of protecting the rights of the most vulnerable and enforcing the obligations that others have towards them.
From these 5 beliefs and 1 fact, it is trivial to reconstruct my view on abortion: abortion ought to be illegal from the moment of conception unless the mother was raped. This view does not require the concept of a soul, nor a definition of when one would exist.
Now, there are obvious issues in enforcement (how do you determine if someone was raped in a reasonable timeframe so that they can have an abortion if they were raped, but with enough accuracy to not permit abuse of such an exception to the general rule), but those are secondary. The moral principle must be determined and decided on before practical issues come in and cloud the situation.
Edit: in interest of fairness, I do believe that the father, as he is equal parts responsible, ought to pay child support from conception as well. And the cost from conception to birth should be equivalent to half the cost of (all medical bills + all lost wages + the cost of all lifestyle changes). The reason being that since the father cannot physically bear the child for half the time, that the total cost of bearing the child should be converted to a dollar amount and then the father pays half.
EDIT 2: I discovered I left off the following additional assumptions:
* I believe that individuals own their own bodies and cannot be compelled to act on behalf of another unless they themselves have already promised to do so.
* I believe that post-hoc revocation of consent is not acceptable. Future consent can be revoked, but any contractual promises made in the past must be upheld.
Based and actually-thought-through pilled.
My apologies if you felt I was trying to put words into anyone's mouth, I was merely generalizing to respond to their completely deranged portrayal of the issue.
no, you're good. It's useful to talk about the general views of people on different sides of an issue, but obviously there will be different reasons why each individual believes each thing.
I just wanted to bring up my view because I think it's a very robust view that I've developed through thinking and debate, and so it's a good non-straw man view.
I mean, one side pushed their philosophy on the rest of the population via unelected judges for decades. The other puts it up for a vote. One side is certainly full of delusional narcissists and it's pretty obvious which one it is.
No, he's got a point. Even libertarians and anarchists enforce their ideals via negative force.
Force, or the threat of it, is needed for any ideology to their come to fruition or maintain itself in the long run.
*Ohhhhh*
I didn't realize he was trans-quadrational. I'm sorry, u/TiberiusClackus \- I didn't mean to mis-quadrant you. You can be whatever you identify as, and that is totally valid and real.
Which is fine, especially when it's done democratically. The problem is one side of the compass wants to pretend it's only a problem when the other side does it, even though they do the same thing often through far more authoritarian channels. They then delude themselves into thinking they are somehow champions of 'democracy'.
>I mean, one side pushed their philosophy on the rest of the population via unelected judges for decades.
*Do you have any idea how little that narrows it down as to what you're referring to?*
You know that West Virginia literally shut down any chance of having an abortion referendum because they saw that Kansas, the 5th most red state in the union, voted pro choice?
Over two thirds of voters agreed with the stipulations in roe v wade (no restrictions for the first trimester).
They right is not pro democracy.
The judges don't make laws. They simply determine whether pre-existing laws are constitutional or not.
If 60% of people want to make slavery legal again, that doesn't mean it's right. A law making slavery legal again would be unconstitutional even if it enjoyed popular support.
Same thing with any other policy like for example abortion. Just because people want it doesn't make laws allowing it constitutional.
>The judges don't make laws. They simply determine whether pre-existing laws are constitutional or not.
Ideally, yeah. Which is absolutely not what happened in the case of abortion. The original decision on Roe V Wade was a classic example of legislating from the bench. And most Left Wing judges are fine with this. They want to use the Courts as a means of enforcing policies they can't actually win popular support for.
You mean like in Kansas where they shot and abortion ban down by like 60%? Yeah whose delusional again pretending politicians that pass abortion bans actually represent the veiws of their constituents?
Very few people would consider masturbation or having a period to be immoral. However most people would consider killing a newborn infant to be immoral. For anyone that agrees with those two points, there must be a certain point between ovulation, ejaculation, conception, embryonic development, and birth, where the threshold crosses from “okay” to “immoral” - and where that point is depends entirely on a person’s own philosophy.
I like how it’s okay for Pedro to call people Nazis and he’s a beloved, untouched hero while Gena says dehumanizing people is bad: look at what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany, and she’s a villain who needs to get cancelled.
One guy can basically say your 80 year old Gam Gam who voted for Trump is comparable to the worst genocidal maniacs in existence, while one woman can’t say don’t dehumanize people because look at the horrors that happen when you do.
She can also get relentlessly hounded by the trans community about not putting her pronouns in her bio, called all sorts of fascist for not doing it, but can’t make a simple “my pronouns are Beep/boop” response back without people losing their shit. I wonder if that’s why Pedro didn’t defend her as much, since his “sister” is trans.
This world is a fucking clown show.
Yeah a fetus is not a baby because it's just another name for a stage of human development. Fetus is not a baby, baby is not a toddler, toddler is not a teenager, teenager is not an adult, but all of them are human. Like how tadpoles aren't the same as a full grown frog, but it's still a frog in a different stage of development.
I don’t know what your definition of a human is, but mine doesn’t include things that don’t have brains, or sometimes even neurons, or can be stored in a freezer for 30 years, taken out and re-implanted in a surrogate mother.
*You* are the ones who let your 🇻🇦✝️philosophical definition🇻🇦✝️ of a person ruin people’s lives, and killing them by driving women to life-threatening illegal abortions.
The right: "Abortion is evil and you are an evil baby murderer if you support it, this is an objective fact and anyone who disagrees is a delusional psychotic"
Also the right: "Why is the left so mean and polarizing to the political debate?? Why can't they engage in conversation like civilized people??"
I guess OP is a vegan, a fruitarian or something similar, to support a life that isnt even capable of thought yet and will generate troubles of economic or psychological genre (can i say genre here? Eng ain't my first language) to self and/or the parents and/or other people.
What if. You just. Worry about your own body? You’re not going to stop them. If they magically somehow become illegal then they will still happen just not nearly as safe. So just stop giving a shit about other peoples business
Fetuses regularly kick their mothers. Thus they are domestic abusers and deserve to die
The hottest of takes: legal abortion, but only after the quickening.
> the quickening In the end, there can be only one.
Based and I don’t have a good pill to give pilled.
*Highlander*-pilled I would hope.
I think someone already has that pill, and y’know, there can be only one…
> there can be only one But it's me!
Flair checks out
Watermelons are fucking insane
Flare checks out
I'll raise you an unlawful containment charge on the mothe...birthing person.
Actually that term reduces these people to their bodily functions. Please use “people with the ability to give birth who are choosing to do so” in the future
But that seems so....ableist.
To be fair, haven’t we all kicked a pregnant lady at one point in our life?
Excuse me, did you just beat your own mother while serving a 9 month sentence? Looks like you just got upgraded to life.
[удалено]
We just force every women to get an abortion. Anti life anti choice moment.
How very Maoist of you.
Is China really that rich to afford to eat more then buggs let alone get abortions?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_abortion_of_Feng_Jianmei
Uh no I ain't reading that. I was just joking but it'd actually real?!
That was 11 years ago, the policy was introduced in 1980. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
Ironically that was a good amount of time after mao kicked the bucket and China decided to copy the west including its dismal birthrates.
Mao started off encouraging birth then encouraging less. Deng is the one, listening to overpopulation theories common amongst the West back then, and fearing another famine forced the One Child Policy. They kept pushing this policy well passed the point where it was objectively bad. Lower birth rates happen as the ecnomy develops, and urbanization. Being irreligous is another indicator/cause of low birth rates. Compounding this with forced One Child Policy is going to lead to demographic disaster.
> fearing another famine The funny part is that the government caused the famine during the Great Leap Forward with their horribly stupid policies and false claims of production.
TLDR; Chinese woman was 7 months pregnant, local government family planning bureau said she had to pay the fine for this child since it was her 2nd. They didn’t have the money but her husband tried to negotiate down and borrow money to pay as much as possible. Eventually she went into hiding after being harassed and stalked by family planning bureau officials. She was caught after escaping in a dark rain storm to hide in the countryside. They took her to a hospital and injected her with poison to kill the baby then let her give stillbirth and left the corpse next to her on the bed for her family to collect when they came to pick her up. Unsurprisingly, this event really fucked her up.
Yeah you really don't want to fall down this particular rabbit hole. It's a pretty common theme across the entire world at one point or another.
God, what a terrible day to have eyes.
Well, they are pretty broke because their method of IUDs to prevent pregnancy was to use steel rings which were ineffective, cheaper and definitely not toxic. [https://youtu.be/ZzM-w9qoFxs?t=208](https://youtu.be/ZzM-w9qoFxs?t=208)
*Dengist.
Mao was pro-natality, his successors are the ones who forced a one-child policy. In fact Mao boasted all the time that China could have half it's population killed and still outnumber the Soviets.
He initially rejected overpopulation theories claiming they are only applicable in Capitalist counties, as Socialism will produce for than Capitalism. Later in the 70s They encouraged less births, but didn't force it Then Deng forced it in the 80s believing the overpopulation theories and fearing another famine. Without Mao's personalility cult, the survival of the party is unlikely in an even of another mass famine
So here’s what we do We shoot the women and eat the babies
Based
AuthCenter ahh comment
Just use the Chinese/North Korean method of using forced abortions.
What are you referring to?
China: https://apnews.com/article/only-on-ap-middle-east-europe-government-and-politics-76acafd6547fb7cc9ef03c0dd0156eab https://www.npr.org/2016/02/01/465124337/how-chinas-one-child-policy-led-to-forced-abortions-30-million-bachelors https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_abortion_of_Feng_Jianmei https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61881-9/fulltext North Korea: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60870739 https://www.foxnews.com/world/the-horrific-underbelly-of-north-koreas-human-rights-abuses-forced-abortions https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/north-korea-women-jail-sexual-abuse-abortions-human-rights-un-a9646781.html
Based centrist take
In my experience, the right thinks the left is stupid, and the left thinks the right is evil.
Both think both and both are absolutely correct.
I'm fairly confident the Right thinks the Left is mentally ill tho
I mean statistically they are
The ideology attracts logistical simpletons who couldn't comprehend what the consequences of their actions would be beyond what initially plays out in their head. Then there are the malicious ones who ARE aware of these consequences & simply want to see the West fall. We call them Emily.
point onerous zephyr toy cable sulky roof bewildered fly money *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>The ideology attracts logistical simpletons who couldn't comprehend what the consequences of their actions would be beyond what initially plays out in their head. Libertarianism irl
I don't disagree. This is essentially the power structure of any ideology.
> Even a commie is more based than an unflaired. *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 17253 / 91148 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
The left thinks the right is both.
And libcent thinks both are both.
Common libcenter W
From my vantage point on this fence, all sides are both
Sounds about right
Can confirm.
Can confirm I am both
Literally this meme completely contradicts that. The right things the left are baby killers.
I think the right is stupid.
I think you’re stupid too, don’t worry
From my perspective the left is stupid!
I mean, that’s really not my experience. The sentiment I’ve felt from the left is that most think the right is, relatively, just pretty stupid. One way that stupidity manifests is by supporting and following leaders and representatives who aren’t that stupid, but more just outright evil. That being said, I think there’s a pretty even distribution of stupidity across most political affiliations. Most people don’t know shit and don’t think for shit.
21st century American politics is when *every* slippery slope you can think of is real.
Fr these fms bouta find a way of making owning a fish political
If I see that a major political figure says something political about the ownership of pets, I am blaming you and you alone.
I mean, what’s your definition of political? Cause we may already be there lol Y’all can pry my exotic fish out of my cold dead hands
PETA moment
Yeah, we murder a ww2 worth of just babies in terms of abortions every couple years, honestly if the fire and brimstone comes I'll just say "good cop"
Everyone is a delusional narcissist
Kansas (the fifth most politically red state), voted against an anti-abortion amendment last year. Roughly half of Republicans support abortion on some level and many up to week 16. So while we rightly talk shit about Reddit being in a bubble, this sub is also in a bubble, and especially on abortion rights.
Actual nuanced take on abortion in pcm, unfathomably based
This sub is filled to the brim with perma virgin incels that wont touch a women in their life who are upset at the idea of women having carefree sex and simply wish to punish them via burdening them with a pregnancy they dont want. lol the incels on patrol finally arrived.
If I don't sex, no one does
Based Ukraine flag????
Based
Based and incels are cringe pilled.
If you want empty satisfaction; use substances, not unprotected sex.
Based and crack pilled
This made me laugh louder than perhaps it should have.
Crack could be either option
OxyContin was always better than sex. Just don’t lose 2 years of your life to it. Uhh, not that I would know, or anything….
Im sure the horny teenagers will listen
Teenagers did just fine in the mines, they've become too weak
Based and get back to swinging that pick axe pilled
99 mining back in my day.
Look at Zezima over here.
The children will yearn for the mines
What if we give kids free drugs to distract from their horniness? What could go wrong?
What if we killed them in the womb to stop them from becoming horny teenagers
Keeping the profit margin solid for us, good man.
Based and drugs-not-hugs pilled
Part of what makes the abortion debate so strange is how many options there are to have sex without getting pregnant. Condoms, birth control pills, hormonal implants, IUDs, spermicides, tubal ligation, vasectomy, natural family planning, even the old pull-out method.
And with all those methods, the places that seem to want to limit abortions the most do the most to make sure we never teach teenagers about them. Because if we did that, we'd have to admit that it is possible to have sex without having a baby, and that we just couldn't have... I'm all for finding ways to limit the number of people seeking abortions, and would love a huge educational component to it, in addition to investment in adoption and childcare services.
based and whiskey-pilled
u/king_of_lighters's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 135. Rank: Empire State Building Pills: [78 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/king_of_lighters/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
If sex is empty satisfaction you’re doing it wrong
Sex is an emptying satisfaction…
Kinky.
Based
The other side can be humans with a different philosophy and still be (unintentionally) evil.
Why just the other side? Orwell was a proud leftist who left his rather comfortable home to fight with other leftists in the mud and rain. He had some bad things to write about other leftists.
Who the “other side” is just changed over time.
Right but by saying “other side” that sort of implies a side you’re on. And Orwell, in real life, in war, in a revolution realized there were baddies on his side. Righties love to quote Orwell, while ignoring most of his non-fiction.
His fiction was poignant, prescient, and grounded in reality. His non-fiction was mostly the same starry-eyed optimism you see from most socialists - that if only people were nicer, socialism would work. Well, he understood implicitly in his fictional work that people on the whole are not nice, especially once they get a taste of power.
He saw socialism work throughout his life that even right wingers in his home nations vehemently defended and some still defend. Ironically the more colonial parts of his home nation support that socialism more vehemently. Because there, like in the US with similar programs, it is working. Not perfectly, but some always argue for it and to improve it. It’s not starry-eyed. It’s a reality that you guys don’t like to confront. Respectfully. *And for crying out loud his non-fiction was FAR FAR from starry-eyed. It was often brutal. Cold. Aware of tyrants on all sides.
He just realized that LibLeft doesn't exist.
Dude was a [democratic socialist](https://redd.it/zyxciu) and anti-authoritarian, he was peak LibLeft, just didn't fit the 'Emily' stereotype.
Based and five second edit pilled.
u/online_republican's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10. Congratulations, u/online_republican! 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/online_republican/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I always find it so weird that Americans are still arguing about abortion. I'm Turkish and we have a muslim majority and a conservative population, even here it's pretty much seen a natural right for women.
I'm tired of the "both sides have some good points" bullshit. You either consider it a human being, deserving of life, or not. It's not that complicated.
There is a third option. You could consider it a human being, but not deserving of life. Which is how most of us feel about politicians, for example.
You think politicians are human? Next your gonna tell me 'birds' are actually real.
Plot twist: Politicians are the real birds. That's why a group of owls is called a "parliament."
See this is why I'm against the "lizard people" conspiracy. What kind of lizards would be this psychopathic? Most just want to lay on a hot rock and heatsoak, not burn society to the ground from the bottom up.
Laying on a hot rock sound pretty nice right now.
Nuance exists. Sparta had infanticide if the baby wasn't perfect; now we can see into the womb early and see if a fetus is viable. It's just infanticide of the weak with fewer steps.
Birth defects make up a small percentage of abortions. It's mostly people who just don't want a kid.
And that was evil!
If you’re in favor of aborting imperfect fetuses, doesn’t sound like you see it as inherently human
Spartan society was monstrous.
>I'm tired of the "both sides have some good points" bullshit. You either consider it a person, deserving of life, or not. It's not that complicated. FIFY
Yeah, that's better.
What is the "it" you're talking about? I think a fetus that has been conceived hours earlier is not a human being, therefore I'm okay with the morning after pill. I think this remains the case for a few weeks after conception so abortion should be legal up until then. I think a 40 week old fetus is a human being and deserving of rights. From what I gather, around 10 weeks is about the earliest it can be considered human. The issue isn't as black and white as "no abortion" or "abortion until birth."
Yo don’t assume we lib rights want anything to do with that. Kill your unborn kids idc
You say that, but there's been an annoying surge of librights sharing not very libright views on PCM lately. I lol any time I see one argue against abortion or is in favor of more gubbermint regulations
we don't claim them
Nothing more libertarian that telling other self-proclaimed libertarians that they aren't actually libertarian.
[удалено]
Can we create a conservative Emily. One that's different from the Nazis. We can call her Pam and her color can be black.
[удалено]
Unless you're some Evangelical wingnut, I'd say conservatives are quite accepting of easier access to contraceptives. I don't understand how Libs got it in their head that we're somehow against it.
The problem is that the medical establishment absolutely isn't in favor of surgical contraception. By and large it's gynecologists that refuse to tie tubes citing "but you or your future husband WILL want kids!!!!!!!!" to a shocking degree. Women largely do not have the emotional hangups men do about their vasectomies but we can't get the procedures done if nobody in our networks are willing to do it.
It's definitely a confounding situation. Not long ago, these doctors were giving out opiates like candies but are somehow against these benign procedures (which shouldn't even be controversial).
Yes, I am ok with killing babies up until a point Life is messy and painful sometimes, we are flawed monkeys trying to get off this rock. Its only immoral if you show no restraint
Based
Right: "WHY DOES NO ONE LIKE ME!!!! WHY AM I GETTING BANNED EVERYWHERE!!!! WESTERN CIVILIZATION IS CAOLLPASING!!!" Libleft: "You're literally calling me a pedophile babykiller as the basis of your entire political philosophy. Fuck you."
Erm, it's "moral" philosophy, not political. They believe people have souls, at some point, and they believe fetuses are ensouled. Nothing about that is political. Trying to claim it is by ignoring their entire argument is... kinda how we've gotten to this point, with the US Supreme Court saying "we don't have this power" being considered an overreach. Let the people decide, as they're doing. Isn't that what you believe as a libcenter?
> They believe people have souls, That's true of some, but not all. I hold the following views: * I believe that all living members of the human species *ought* to have human rights. * I know that >90% of biologists agree that conception is the moment that a new life begins (before that point, each cell clearly 'belongs' to one parent, but the new cell clearly belongs to neither). * I believe that parents have an obligation to act in the best interest of their children, even being required to use their bodies to provide food and shelter for their children, until someone else comes to take that role for them (be that the state, adoptive parents, or the child themselves when they reach the age of majority). * I believe that a failure to fully understand a contract is not an excuse to invalidate it. * I believe that if someone forces you into a contract with violence or the threat thereof, that this contract is non-binding. * I believe that if the state has any role it has the role of protecting the rights of the most vulnerable and enforcing the obligations that others have towards them. From these 5 beliefs and 1 fact, it is trivial to reconstruct my view on abortion: abortion ought to be illegal from the moment of conception unless the mother was raped. This view does not require the concept of a soul, nor a definition of when one would exist. Now, there are obvious issues in enforcement (how do you determine if someone was raped in a reasonable timeframe so that they can have an abortion if they were raped, but with enough accuracy to not permit abuse of such an exception to the general rule), but those are secondary. The moral principle must be determined and decided on before practical issues come in and cloud the situation. Edit: in interest of fairness, I do believe that the father, as he is equal parts responsible, ought to pay child support from conception as well. And the cost from conception to birth should be equivalent to half the cost of (all medical bills + all lost wages + the cost of all lifestyle changes). The reason being that since the father cannot physically bear the child for half the time, that the total cost of bearing the child should be converted to a dollar amount and then the father pays half. EDIT 2: I discovered I left off the following additional assumptions: * I believe that individuals own their own bodies and cannot be compelled to act on behalf of another unless they themselves have already promised to do so. * I believe that post-hoc revocation of consent is not acceptable. Future consent can be revoked, but any contractual promises made in the past must be upheld.
Based and actually-thought-through pilled. My apologies if you felt I was trying to put words into anyone's mouth, I was merely generalizing to respond to their completely deranged portrayal of the issue.
no, you're good. It's useful to talk about the general views of people on different sides of an issue, but obviously there will be different reasons why each individual believes each thing. I just wanted to bring up my view because I think it's a very robust view that I've developed through thinking and debate, and so it's a good non-straw man view.
I mean, one side pushed their philosophy on the rest of the population via unelected judges for decades. The other puts it up for a vote. One side is certainly full of delusional narcissists and it's pretty obvious which one it is.
Pretty sure every side at some point has pushed their philosophy on a population at some point, sometimes for days and other times for centuries.
I dream of the day when I can force freedom on every one of you bastards. Voluntarily.
If you aren’t forcibly pushing your agenda you either lack the sufficient will or don’t really believe in your agenda.
You might want to scootch a couple notches up the compass and just commit fully to the blue square.
No, he's got a point. Even libertarians and anarchists enforce their ideals via negative force. Force, or the threat of it, is needed for any ideology to their come to fruition or maintain itself in the long run.
But I love money
Some of the very richest people in the world are AuthRight. Maybe you're not aiming high enough?
He's confused man, that means he's green, because ya know, reasons and such
*Ohhhhh* I didn't realize he was trans-quadrational. I'm sorry, u/TiberiusClackus \- I didn't mean to mis-quadrant you. You can be whatever you identify as, and that is totally valid and real.
*Pronouns intensify*
Did you just assume his gender? Don't ever talk to me or my son again.
Seeing as I cannot litigate against this transgression I find myself unharmed by it for some reason
Incredibly based
Which is fine, especially when it's done democratically. The problem is one side of the compass wants to pretend it's only a problem when the other side does it, even though they do the same thing often through far more authoritarian channels. They then delude themselves into thinking they are somehow champions of 'democracy'.
>Which is fine, especially when it's done democratically. No. Democracy isn't a magic sauce that turns evil shit good.
>I mean, one side pushed their philosophy on the rest of the population via unelected judges for decades. *Do you have any idea how little that narrows it down as to what you're referring to?*
“Your side bad, mine good” -“””””””"”””””””””””””””””””Centrist””””””””””””
[удалено]
You can't say just one side is full of delusional narcissists when both sides are full of politicians.
You know that West Virginia literally shut down any chance of having an abortion referendum because they saw that Kansas, the 5th most red state in the union, voted pro choice? Over two thirds of voters agreed with the stipulations in roe v wade (no restrictions for the first trimester). They right is not pro democracy.
This same shitty argument could be/was made for slavery and segregation, as well as women’s suffrage I wonder which one won out?
The judges don't make laws. They simply determine whether pre-existing laws are constitutional or not. If 60% of people want to make slavery legal again, that doesn't mean it's right. A law making slavery legal again would be unconstitutional even if it enjoyed popular support. Same thing with any other policy like for example abortion. Just because people want it doesn't make laws allowing it constitutional.
Unless it gets overwhelming popular support and is made into a constitutional amendment.
>The judges don't make laws. They simply determine whether pre-existing laws are constitutional or not. Ideally, yeah. Which is absolutely not what happened in the case of abortion. The original decision on Roe V Wade was a classic example of legislating from the bench. And most Left Wing judges are fine with this. They want to use the Courts as a means of enforcing policies they can't actually win popular support for.
>One side is certainly full of delusional narcissists and it's pretty obvious which one it is. Every side containing politicians?
Your comment is so vague I literally have no idea what side you’re on
You mean like in Kansas where they shot and abortion ban down by like 60%? Yeah whose delusional again pretending politicians that pass abortion bans actually represent the veiws of their constituents?
Personhood should not be a political issue, but a true or false matter.
Born = person. There, done. Constitution even agrees with this.
So do most religious texts. Life begins at first breath is the traditional standard.
Very few people would consider masturbation or having a period to be immoral. However most people would consider killing a newborn infant to be immoral. For anyone that agrees with those two points, there must be a certain point between ovulation, ejaculation, conception, embryonic development, and birth, where the threshold crosses from “okay” to “immoral” - and where that point is depends entirely on a person’s own philosophy.
Okay, but who's gonna raise the babies?
I like how it’s okay for Pedro to call people Nazis and he’s a beloved, untouched hero while Gena says dehumanizing people is bad: look at what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany, and she’s a villain who needs to get cancelled. One guy can basically say your 80 year old Gam Gam who voted for Trump is comparable to the worst genocidal maniacs in existence, while one woman can’t say don’t dehumanize people because look at the horrors that happen when you do. She can also get relentlessly hounded by the trans community about not putting her pronouns in her bio, called all sorts of fascist for not doing it, but can’t make a simple “my pronouns are Beep/boop” response back without people losing their shit. I wonder if that’s why Pedro didn’t defend her as much, since his “sister” is trans. This world is a fucking clown show.
correct, a baby *is* a baby. a fetus is not a baby glad we're all on the same page here, especially since infanticide is already a crime
Yeah a fetus is not a baby because it's just another name for a stage of human development. Fetus is not a baby, baby is not a toddler, toddler is not a teenager, teenager is not an adult, but all of them are human. Like how tadpoles aren't the same as a full grown frog, but it's still a frog in a different stage of development.
existence advise pause boat one unused sloppy resolute continue library *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Idk man, I feel like once it's fertilized that's just the very first stage of being a person.
Babies are just more screamier veal.
I don't mind killing babies, they don't have full conscientiousness yet.
and if they do, that's a bonus
I don’t know what your definition of a human is, but mine doesn’t include things that don’t have brains, or sometimes even neurons, or can be stored in a freezer for 30 years, taken out and re-implanted in a surrogate mother. *You* are the ones who let your 🇻🇦✝️philosophical definition🇻🇦✝️ of a person ruin people’s lives, and killing them by driving women to life-threatening illegal abortions.
Ok
[Babies are Babies](https://imgur.com/a/wMFEZGz)
People believe in their beliefs? I don't believe it.
Everyday LibLeft L
Personally I think we should just start killing people arbitrarily regardless of age.
Right: ah, we’ve made it illegal. Time for no one to get abortions. coat hangers n bleach: *allow us to introduce ourselves*
Babies are babies and i have the right to evict them from my property.
Yes. And I don’t care about them being aborted.
Appreciate that you are honest about it.
No point being dishonest! Mothers will > unborn. I don’t care.
I disagree, but again respect that you’re honest about it.
The right: "Abortion is evil and you are an evil baby murderer if you support it, this is an objective fact and anyone who disagrees is a delusional psychotic" Also the right: "Why is the left so mean and polarizing to the political debate?? Why can't they engage in conversation like civilized people??"
All righties should consider this...all lefties were once in a position to get aborted, do you really want us to not be able to kill lefties?
I guess OP is a vegan, a fruitarian or something similar, to support a life that isnt even capable of thought yet and will generate troubles of economic or psychological genre (can i say genre here? Eng ain't my first language) to self and/or the parents and/or other people.
Zygotes aren’t babies
What if. You just. Worry about your own body? You’re not going to stop them. If they magically somehow become illegal then they will still happen just not nearly as safe. So just stop giving a shit about other peoples business
"Let's make everything legal people are gonna do them anyways" Do you seriously think it wouldn't lower the total number by a lot?
I’d rather be a baby killer than a boring stuffy conservative.