A friend of mine does too.
I'm ready to form a supervillain league with the sole motivation of performing unethical research experiments on your kind. This power must be brought to the masses!
blightbow
joined 1 year ago
Ok but to balance it: it forces you to confront your own on the topic as well.
I was actually tempted to include that in the original, but I didn't want to belabor it. :)
I'm fine with this, and would prefer it that way.
Ability to force anyone to objectively confront their own cognitive dissonance by maintaining eye contact.
Possibly too powerful. Some heads may spontaneously combust from a lifetime of preferring their own reality.
desperately struggles to maintain character while responding again
turns purple in the face and vanishes in a puff of logic
Unfortunately, I am not an adventurer like you.
This morning was intentional, see this thread that was commented on by ernest. The rest is folks not realizing that they need to click on the remember login button again.
@meco03211 is pretty squarely presenting the difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" branding. No harm in pointing out that some debates aren't worth wasting energy on until they're properly framed.
“I’m not gonna get in trouble for this, I’m not gonna have to worry about a kid cuz I can make her abort it!” Ik that sounds retarded but I kid you not when abortions are made legal (where I live anyway) we will see a huge wave of young kids coming to get them as a form of birth control.
This is a "trust me bro" argument. It doesn't contribute much to an online discussion because it's speculation that cannot be affirmed or denied based on the information you have presented.
What about rape? Silently putting the kid up for adoption is an option, no one has know and there are couples waiting to take kids in. Well what about women’s rights!? Well, what if I told you I don’t care. I only care about the babies right to life, if he/she wants to off themselves later on (which they shouldn’t and should seek help) then that’s their choice.
This, on the other hand, is useful to the rest of us. It regretfully informs us that you are very poorly informed on the subject of mental health, and aren't likely to be persuaded to invest the effort that would be needed to change your mind. You have already chosen the life of a potential child at all costs and the mother is an acceptable casualty of circumstance, because she gets a "choice" in what she does with the trauma from being forced to bear a child against her will, and the fetus having no agency precludes all further discussion.
The fact that you will likely read that italicized text and think that is a checkmate argument in your favor is the crux of the issue. I apologize for not being willing to invest the energy in convincing you otherwise, but I also thank you for being honest with it. Way too much time gets wasted when people pretend that isn't the core pillar of their anti-abortion argument.
Now, if the mothers life is in jepordy, as well as the babies then why not abort it and save the mothers life? Well there is a thing called c section.
There is also something called non-viable pregnancies. They tend to be conveniently ignored by policy makers and half-researched attempts to steelman a pro-choice PoV. (aka, what is happening here)
If medical practitioners are placed in a position where they can't provide preventative care without risking a lawsuit, then the mother gets traumatized by being forced to carry a corpse to term, and at worst both die pointlessly. The baby will never develop agency to begin with, and the mother isn't given any agency either because she's an acceptable casualty. This has happened several times in recent news already: one woman nearly bleeding out on the floor of a salon, and another being forced to bear a baby without a head.
By all means, let's allow politicians to make these decisions for us in advance of pregnancies instead of medical practitioners. Politicians are equipped with an infallible combination of medical experience and psychic powers that allow them to anticipate all medical scenarios ahead of time and prescribe the correct dosage of lawsuits to their constituents.
Lemme tell you a story:
Appeals to the fear of non-existence are not uncommon, and sympathetic to a degree. Non-existence is the shit that keeps a lot of us up at night. Fear of non-existence and ignorance of mental health unfortunately don't make for good policy making.
I will delete this account in a few cuz apparently this isn’t the instance for me, I think I might make my own!
Not gonna actually help anything, that's not how ActivityPub works. You're participating on lemmy.world from your account on lemmy.fmhy.ml. It does however suggest that you are in search of an echo chamber, in which case...best of luck.
I wouldn’t want the Republican party to vanish and have nothing take its place. Having only Democratic party candidates to choose from would be bad.
I agree with the spirit of where you're coming from, but I don't think this is a realistic risk. More than two major political ideologies effectively exist already, but their coalitions are the parties themselves due to the limitations inherent in the US voting system.
The Democrat party already encompasses a broad spectrum of political philosophies, and they're not in the same party because they want to be. They are a de facto coalition of whatever the Republican party isn't. This is because the US leans to the right on the Overton window, and the two-party government of the US forces the role of the leftist party into being the kitchen sink coalition. This regretfully gets wallpapered over by the "radical left" narrative talking point that Republican media chestbeats over relentlessly, to the point where the average American never makes this connection.
If I were to wave my magic wand and enact voting reform that doesn't empower a two-party system, we have at least four parties worth of politicians in play:
- establishment liberals, neoliberals, etc.
- everyone in the democrat party who is to the left of them (who would realistically form more than just one party)
- non-MAGA conservatives (Republicans who jumped ship to Democrat already/are too indoctrinated to consider it, conservative politicians who don't agree with party leadership but maintain status quo for their careers)
- Far-right Freedom Caucus types. McCarthy would already backstab these guys in a heartbeat if his speakership was politically viable without them. The fact that Republican leadership cares more about ego than principles is what put them into this predicament. (largely a consequence of what safe primaries have done to political strategies, but that's another rant)
You can split this up even further by pointing out libertarians (ones that aren't really just conservatives who don't want to be Republicans anymore) and others, but it's enough to make the point. Let the Republican party collapse. Something else will immediately take its place, and as long as their replacement recognizes that the Freedom Caucus is what sank them, maybe they can steal enough of the right leaning Democrats to where they no longer need the far right crazies to be politically viable. A system that accommodates more than two parties would be better still, but congress critters are never going to vote in favor of something that weakens their own power. Voting reform will have to happen at the state level.
Even if he understands, it doesn't suit his narrative. He is a far-right politician who says what his owners (domestic and otherwise) want to hear on the cameras. It's a coin toss whether he actually believes some of the things that he says, but largely inconsequential at the end of the day because he isn't going to argue in good faith even if someone miraculously trips over a genuine belief that he holds close to him.
What feedback do you have on the first sentence, which is not hyperbole? Honestly curious. You appear to have very strong opinions on this topic, but you aren't replying to any of the comments pointing out 33 years worth of failed audits.
Is this most recent one particularly suspect compared to audits that have come before it, and more sketchy than ones that have failed during administrations run by the other party?