Page 147 of 267

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:12 pm
by Hardholm
Collectively, I find it exceptionally curious to insist on evidence of something of common knowledge, that there is sweeping a pro-abortion sentiment (and accompanying propaganda) among large portions of the population to include nearly one-half of the entirety of national politicians. Like literally, half of American politics falls under Social Liberalism/Leftism and an entire party has "Abortion Rights" as part of its political platform and the other major political party only vaguely opposes it to various degrees. It's like asking me to prove there is propaganda to participate in consumerist culture. There is a certain... Absurdity in thinking that "prove it" is an argument at all when faced with reality?

Literally open either of the links and read about the effects on the topic of abortion. If it doesn't 'stick' it's because you don't want it to.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:15 pm
by Genivaria
Hardholm wrote:Collectively, I find it exceptionally curious to insist on evidence of something of common knowledge, that there is sweeping a pro-abortion sentiment (and accompanying propaganda) among large portions of the population to include nearly one-half of the entirety of national politicians. Like literally, half of American politics falls under Social Liberalism/Leftism and an entire party has "Abortion Rights" as part of its political platform and the other major political party only vaguely opposes it to various degrees. It's like asking me to prove there is propaganda to participate in consumerist culture. There is a certain... Absurdity in thinking that "prove it" is an argument at all when faced with reality?

Literally open either of the links and read about the effects on the topic of abortion. If it doesn't 'stick' it's because you don't want it to.

Collectively, I find it exceptionally curious to insist on evidence of something of common knowledge

Then you don't understand how having a discussion actually works.
Just going "It's obvious" is not a valid argument..
that there is sweeping a pro-abortion sentiment

Pro-choice. Don't lie.
Absurdity in thinking that "prove it" is an argument at all when faced with reality?

Yes you have to prove what you claim, that's how it works.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:16 pm
by The New California Republic
Hardholm wrote:Collectively, I find it exceptionally curious to insist on evidence of something of common knowledge, that there is sweeping a pro-abortion sentiment (and accompanying propaganda) among large portions of the population to include nearly one-half of the entirety of national politicians. Like literally, half of American politics falls under Social Liberalism/Leftism and an entire party has "Abortion Rights" as part of its political platform and the other major political party only vaguely opposes it to various degrees. It's like asking me to prove there is propaganda to participate in consumerist culture. There is a certain... Absurdity in thinking that "prove it" is an argument at all when faced with reality?

Literally open either of the links and read about the effects on the topic of abortion. If it doesn't 'stick' it's because you don't want it to.

You made very specific claims. When you make a specific claim, you can't just point to an entire book etc and exclaim "it's in there!"; that is just incredibly lazy debate/discussion.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:16 pm
by Hardholm
Jebslund wrote:
Hardholm wrote:
Maybe it is naive, but I do feel like a mother's natural instincts and good will towards her offspring would usually not otherwise be overcome to violence against it?

I think there is also a decades long pro-abortion propaganda blitz from those circles which is undeniable.

Definitely not disingenuous in my thoughts. I know this is hot button so irritation is to be expected.

There is not "overcoming". At the point at which the vast majority of abortions are performed, the fetus isn't sapient. It is still an it. The mother to be doesn't even have any way of knowing its sex yet. Late-term abortions are typically only done in cases of medical need (One or both will die if it isn't done. Before you say anything, carrying a dead body isn't healthy for the woman, and can cause complications.). You are conflating abortion with infanticide. You hear "abortion" and imagine a mother smashing a born infant to death.

My irritation is at the disingenuity of your mindset, not at the issue. The idea that only being the victim of some plot against women could a woman ever see the issue differently.


Now you're telling me what I think or envision. How is that okay?

Anyway, no one here, or at least not me, is advocating for carrying a dead body. However, a perfectly alive child should, under almost all circumstances, be shielded from assaults on its life, yes.

And yes, I am speaking of "Abortion" in the generally understood term, in part because "infantcide" or "child killing" or any other term causes others to twist into knots. I try not to spend a lot of time arguing over terminology, but do understand its importance.

None of us are immune to propaganda. Not you. Not me. Not women. Not men.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:19 pm
by Genivaria
Hardholm wrote:
Jebslund wrote:There is not "overcoming". At the point at which the vast majority of abortions are performed, the fetus isn't sapient. It is still an it. The mother to be doesn't even have any way of knowing its sex yet. Late-term abortions are typically only done in cases of medical need (One or both will die if it isn't done. Before you say anything, carrying a dead body isn't healthy for the woman, and can cause complications.). You are conflating abortion with infanticide. You hear "abortion" and imagine a mother smashing a born infant to death.

My irritation is at the disingenuity of your mindset, not at the issue. The idea that only being the victim of some plot against women could a woman ever see the issue differently.


Now you're telling me what I think or envision. How is that okay?

Anyway, no one here, or at least not me, is advocating for carrying a dead body. However, a perfectly alive child should, under almost all circumstances, be shielded from assaults on its life, yes.

And yes, I am speaking of "Abortion" in the generally understood term, in part because "infantcide" or "child killing" or any other term causes others to twist into knots. I try not to spend a lot of time arguing over terminology, but do understand its importance.

None of us are immune to propaganda. Not you. Not me. Not women. Not men.

Okay. Stop.
Please prove that the reason women get abortions is because of societal pressure to.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:20 pm
by Hardholm
The New California Republic wrote:
Hardholm wrote:Collectively, I find it exceptionally curious to insist on evidence of something of common knowledge, that there is sweeping a pro-abortion sentiment (and accompanying propaganda) among large portions of the population to include nearly one-half of the entirety of national politicians. Like literally, half of American politics falls under Social Liberalism/Leftism and an entire party has "Abortion Rights" as part of its political platform and the other major political party only vaguely opposes it to various degrees. It's like asking me to prove there is propaganda to participate in consumerist culture. There is a certain... Absurdity in thinking that "prove it" is an argument at all when faced with reality?

Literally open either of the links and read about the effects on the topic of abortion. If it doesn't 'stick' it's because you don't want it to.

You made very specific claims. When you make a specific claim, you can't just point to an entire book etc and exclaim "it's in there!"; that is just incredibly lazy debate/discussion.


My "claim" is a merely a recognition of reality. It isn't lazy to reference reality or the state of things when that is the "claim".

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:21 pm
by Genivaria
Hardholm wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:You made very specific claims. When you make a specific claim, you can't just point to an entire book etc and exclaim "it's in there!"; that is just incredibly lazy debate/discussion.


My "claim" is a merely a recognition of reality. It isn't lazy to reference reality or the state of things when that is the "claim".

Yes you're being lazy by not even trying to prove what you're claiming.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:24 pm
by The New California Republic
Hardholm wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:You made very specific claims. When you make a specific claim, you can't just point to an entire book etc and exclaim "it's in there!"; that is just incredibly lazy debate/discussion.


My "claim" is a merely a recognition of reality. It isn't lazy to reference reality or the state of things when that is the "claim".

You claim something is reality and people have questioned you on it, so it doesn't seem to be something that other people have noticed/agree with. Hence why you need to provide proof. Implying it's obvious is just another very lazy argument.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:25 pm
by Hardholm
Genivaria wrote:
Hardholm wrote:
My "claim" is a merely a recognition of reality. It isn't lazy to reference reality or the state of things when that is the "claim".

Yes you're being lazy by not even trying to prove what you're claiming.


Claim: A large portion of Western society is pro-abortion and advocates for it

Evidence: Numerous laws and movements that have been made and existed over the past numerous decades that prove this

What on Earth, guys.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:26 pm
by Genivaria
Hardholm wrote:
Genivaria wrote:Yes you're being lazy by not even trying to prove what you're claiming.


Claim: A large portion of Western society is pro-abortion and advocates for it

Evidence: Numerous laws and movements that have been made and existed over the past numerous decades that prove this

What on Earth, guys.

You're being dishonest again by using 'pro-abortion', you're also now completely changing your claim.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:32 pm
by Hardholm
Genivaria wrote:
Hardholm wrote:
Claim: A large portion of Western society is pro-abortion and advocates for it

Evidence: Numerous laws and movements that have been made and existed over the past numerous decades that prove this

What on Earth, guys.

You're being dishonest again by using 'pro-abortion', you're also now completely changing your claim.


People that are for the allowance of abortion in most or all circumstances are "pro-abortion". People who are for the disallowance of abortion in most or all circumstances are "anti-abortion". This is not dishonest.

And no, that is the main root of my thoughts at this time.

Anyhow, logging out to cycle my nations' and do irl stuff. If anyone wants to continue a discussion in private, I'm open to that :)

Have a good day.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:49 pm
by Katganistan
Hardholm wrote:And "it isn't a child", by definition, the unborn are children)


Really? The unborn are 'by definition' children? Nope. Try again.
The unborn are perhaps zygotes, blastocysts, embryos or fetuses, but they are not children until they are born.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child
Biologically, a child is a person between birth and puberty,[1][2] or the period of human development from infancy to puberty.[3] Legally, the term child may refer to anyone below the age of majority or some other age limit. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines child as "a human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier".[6] This is ratified by 192 of 194 member countries. The term child may also refer to someone below another legally defined age limit unconnected to the age of majority. In Singapore, for example, a child is legally defined as someone under the age of 14 under the "Children and Young Persons Act" whereas the age of majority is 21.[7][8] In U.S. Immigration Law, a child refers to anyone who is under the age of 21.[9]


That some people think it refers to unborn is ridiculous. Are you still a person once you're mouldering in the ground?


https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Child
Child
a person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is child, preschool.


https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/ ... s-of-child
adolescent noun
a boy or girl who is changing into a young man or woman. The physical changes that take place at this time are known as puberty. An adolescent between the ages of 13 and 19 is called a teenager

a growing boy/girl phrase
a child who is still growing, especially one who needs a lot of food

bairn noun
Scottish a baby or child

boomerang kid noun
informal humorous an adult child who returns home after college, their first job, or the end of a relationship because they have no money or job

boy noun
a male child


cherub noun
an attractive child, or one who behaves very well

child noun
a young person from the time they are born until they are about 14 years old

child noun
for or about children

child noun
used for showing that the person mentioned is a child

child prodigy
noun
a child who is extremely skillful at something that usually only adults can do

girl noun
a female child

imp noun
a child who behaves badly in a way that adults think is funny

issue noun
legal someone’s children

juvenile noun
formal a young person

latchkey kid noun
a child whose parents work and who returns from school to an empty house

little/young ones phrase
children

love child noun
mainly journalism a child who is born as the result of a relationship between two people who do not marry each other

minor noun
someone who has not reached the age at which they are legally an adult

offspring noun
biology someone’s child or children

only child noun
a child who has no brothers or sisters

orphan noun
a child whose parents have died

playmate noun
a child who another child plays with

preteen noun
a child between the ages of 9 and 12

progeny noun
very formal a person’s child or children

ragamuffin noun
mainly literary a child who is poor and dressed in old torn clothes

sprout noun
someone or something that grows very quickly, especially a child

stray noun
someone, especially a child, who is lost

teenager noun
a young person between the ages of 13 and 19

teens noun
the years of your life between the ages of 13 and 19


toddler noun
a very young child who is learning how to walk

tomboy noun
a girl who takes part in activities and games that people think are more appropriate for boys

urchin noun
old-fashioned a child who is very poor and wears dirty clothes

waif noun
a person, especially a child, who is thin and pale and looks as if they need to be taken care of

waif noun
a child who has no home

the young noun
children and young adults in general

young person
noun
a person between the ages of 14 and 17

youngster noun
old-fashioned a child, or a young person

youth noun
a male teenager, especially one involved in violent or criminal activities


No words for childhood there that apply to the unborn.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:54 pm
by Hardholm
child noun, often attributive
\ ˈchī(-ə)ld \
plural children\ ˈchil-​drən , -​dərn \
Definition of child (Entry 1 of 3)
1a : an unborn or recently born person

I see you missed my post on this so here you go.

Bye for real this time haha. Encourage any and all responses to my telegram!

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:32 pm
by Christian Confederation
The New California Republic wrote:
Christian Confederation wrote:Look abortion is wrong the ga law agnolages it as a necessary evil, if they don't want a kid don't have sex. Than there's 0% chance of an unwanted child.

I am absolutely amazed that you are still doubling down with the same smokescreening shit to avoid the question of failed contraception.

Contraception can't fail if you don't have sex in term no unwanted pregnancy.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:57 pm
by The New California Republic
Christian Confederation wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:I am absolutely amazed that you are still doubling down with the same smokescreening shit to avoid the question of failed contraception.

Contraception can't fail if you don't have sex

Image

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:26 pm
by Neanderthaland
Christian Confederation wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:I am absolutely amazed that you are still doubling down with the same smokescreening shit to avoid the question of failed contraception.

Contraception can't fail if you don't have sex in term no unwanted pregnancy.

Your entire religion is based on the idea that this isn't true.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 4:07 pm
by The Forlorn Redoubt
Neanderthaland wrote:
Christian Confederation wrote:Contraception can't fail if you don't have sex in term no unwanted pregnancy.

Your entire religion is based on the idea that this isn't true.


Image

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 4:11 pm
by Andsed
Hardholm wrote:
Genivaria wrote:Yes you're being lazy by not even trying to prove what you're claiming.


Claim: A large portion of Western society is pro-abortion and advocates for it

Evidence: Numerous laws and movements that have been made and existed over the past numerous decades that prove this

What on Earth, guys.

Can you provide a source actually showing this evidence instead of just yelling that it is obvious.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:32 pm
by Hardholm
You literally quoted the evidence. That a majority of all nations now have abortion legal and that both major parties in America have a platform that support it to a greater or lesser extent.

I had forgotten what a dizzying ride the internet was.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:37 pm
by Neanderthaland
Hardholm wrote:You literally quoted the evidence. That a majority of all nations now have abortion legal and that both major parties in America have a platform that support it to a greater or lesser extent.

I had forgotten what a dizzying ride the internet was.

I don't know what question you think people are asking you, but that's not it. People are asking you to demonstrate that women who have abortions do so primarily because of societal pressure. You have not done so.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:37 pm
by The Feylands
Northern Davincia wrote:
Katganistan wrote:Or Numbers 5:11-5:31 where if a man SUSPECTS through jealousy that his wife may have been unfaithful, he can take her to a priest who doses her with an potion to make the 'unfaithful' have an abortion.

It's going to take me a good amount of time to correct your wrongful interpretation of scripture but this one is easy to disprove.
The original translations make it clear that this passage has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever.
That post really confused me.... Did I simply missunderstand it because my brain isn’t really working when it’s like 3 o’clock (funfact: we folks with adhd - apart from really fitting in to that “submissiveness” trope... ehh not.. often do not sleep so well :( ). Or have I suddenly become bible-preaching and “toxically male” now? :blink:

I’ll try to write an in-depth response tomorrow (zzzz... I guess this is sort of sleepy me counting sheep) but seriously.. If one wanna argue with straw(wo)men.. one could at least make one with any resemblance to the “subject” of it... :eyebrow:

I mean.. one of the beefs I have with X-tianity and the entity it claims to be God is how it on too many occasions seems to make people (of both sexes btw) way to docile and constantly afraid/submissive etc. Including stuff like “shaming” teenagers new feelings of desiring intimacy. And I suspect that’s partly why we see these “pro-lifers” acting in the unimpressively submissively they did in the case I mentioned. Their “submissive” way of going on about this simply doesn’t work. :(

I’m not a person who is ashamed over any sort of feelings in general. But I’m quite sure there are biological differences between the sexes (in a *general* sense that is) and sex stuff is part of that as well. I’m not gonna do sex education with you guys right now.. but it’s not hard to grasp even by eh.. anatomics. :P Anyway. Here’s a video about male sexuality I found really neat and worth a watch especially for anyone who is.. eh.. interested in men. :)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A9WZFeA4FzI

But in case I ought to prove myself, that I’m no cliche “toxic submissive” trope, lemme emphasise: Fey occasionally fantasises about a squadron of self-confident and well trained (though not “athletic” in the sense she thinks of it: looking too much like a bag of meat) Air Force men who all not-so-secretly want to marry her and lives to shield her from any harm. And she is not afraid to talk about her fantasy with her friends. :) #Toxicfemininity

(Gosh. I should really do more RP:s, shouldn’t I? :D)

Anyway nite.. try keep this discussion civil and interesting mkay?

:)

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:38 pm
by Neanderthaland
The Forlorn Redoubt wrote:
Neanderthaland wrote:Your entire religion is based on the idea that this isn't true.


Image

My avatar is literally a caveman with a neckbeard. I don't know why you bothered.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:21 pm
by Godular
Northern Davincia wrote:
The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
That in itself is a rather silly claim to make, with rather impressive jumps of logic completely irrespective of what the definition of slavery might be.

The ‘enslavement’ comes from forcing somebody to do something they do not want to do. It falls closely in line with the point that no person has the right to use another person’s body without their consent. To claim that the woman has enslaved herself by getting pregnant is rather silly because such would imply she is forcing herself to remain pregnant... a rather ludicrous notion.

No, she would have identified a situation in which she is being harmed (and she most definitely is, whether ‘intent’ to harm existed or not) and seeks to remedy the situation.

I have to pay taxes even though I don't want to. Am I enslaved? Are those drafted into military service enslaved? The point is that we often make justifications for force, yet we do not consider ourselves in bondage. Society is largely nonconsensual.


I take your strawmen and set fire to them. This is about things done to a person's body against their will, not whether you have to deal with some kind of inconvenience FOR WHICH YOU RECEIVE BENEFITS.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:24 pm
by Godular
Inkopolitia wrote:Only make it allowed in cases where the woman's life is in danger or if it's rape. Simple as that, the already high taxes shouldn't be spiked up even more.


I am amused at the irony of this comment. Enforcing this rule you speak of would increase taxes.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:47 am
by Estanglia
Hardholm wrote:Collectively, I find it exceptionally curious to insist on evidence of something of common knowledge, that there is sweeping a pro-abortion sentiment (and accompanying propaganda) among large portions of the population to include nearly one-half of the entirety of national politicians. Like literally, half of American politics falls under Social Liberalism/Leftism and an entire party has "Abortion Rights" as part of its political platform and the other major political party only vaguely opposes it to various degrees. It's like asking me to prove there is propaganda to participate in consumerist culture. There is a certain... Absurdity in thinking that "prove it" is an argument at all when faced with reality?

Literally open either of the links and read about the effects on the topic of abortion. If it doesn't 'stick' it's because you don't want it to.


If it's actually 'common knowledge', then we wouldn't have to ask you for sources. You'd also easily be able to back it up without just posting wiki links.

Also it's pro-choice.

If it was reality, we'd know. And you'd be able to substantiate it.

Hardholm wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:You made very specific claims. When you make a specific claim, you can't just point to an entire book etc and exclaim "it's in there!"; that is just incredibly lazy debate/discussion.


My "claim" is a merely a recognition of reality. It isn't lazy to reference reality or the state of things when that is the "claim".


It isn't reality. If it was, you'd be able to prove it. Point to the pressure. Point to the propaganda. Otherwise, it ain't reality.

Hardholm wrote:
Genivaria wrote:Yes you're being lazy by not even trying to prove what you're claiming.


Claim: A large portion of Western society is pro-abortion and advocates for it

Evidence: Numerous laws and movements that have been made and existed over the past numerous decades that prove this

What on Earth, guys.


Show me a law telling people to get abortions.

Hardholm wrote:You literally quoted the evidence. That a majority of all nations now have abortion legal and that both major parties in America have a platform that support it to a greater or lesser extent.

I had forgotten what a dizzying ride the internet was.


That isn't the claim we asked for proof for.