Texas Nutters Abort Rationality

Yes.

Clueless ^^ . So how many humans can humanity sustainably exist within our set of operating systems?

Perhaps your one of those religous nutters who believe humans are Gods greatest gift Universe ergo there is no limits to human proliferation for any set of operating systems? 

Clueless ^^  father superior has spoken to his flock of seagulls, uhh, I mean Parrots.

GParrot still has not addressed that questioned posed to him.  So now we have two Why's{?} for GP.

I am just saying it's completely arbitrary when the Constitution is cited as a justification for the expansion of government powers in the same argument to limit government power. It makes the purpose of the Constitution meaningless.

If pregnancy, childbirth, and all their related impacts was just as intrusive as wearing a peace of cloth over your face in a supermarket, or was limited to a minute  risk of a significant adverse reaction, and likely only a few days of having an arm ache - i’d be anti abortion.

Likewise, if wearing a mask or being vaccinated required at least 9 months of substantive health issues, cost, health risk, and a plethora of financial, health, career or other issues; I’d be anti-mask and anti-vaccine mandate too.

But they’re not; they’re not even close to being on the same continent as the same ballpark.


The bottom line is simple:

No Woman should be forced by the government to go through all of the varied and significant consequences of pregnancy and childbirth - at any point - if they don’t want to.

Whether or not you consider a fetus a person, or whatever set of complete or incomplete rights you feel it has, if the continued life of an individual - any individual - is only possible through major, sustained and substantial impact to another person, that other person must consent to it. 

That’s a blanket statement in almost total support of abortion for any reason prior to just shy of the third trimester - where it is not possible for a fetus to possibly survive outside the mother.

If a woman does not consent to major abominable surgery, or all the related issues of childbirth after this point in order to be able to remove the unborn child without killing it; I also think she shouldn’t be forced into it that either; however the reality there is that it rarely happens other than in instances were there is genuine medical need, or in cases where the unborn child isn’t viable.


This is the real crux: all of us should be able to consent to having likely, substantial and life altering health impacts - visited upon us without our consent; preventing such life altering health impacts is part of what healthcare is. Right now, the only way of doing that is through abortion. 

When artificial wombs, and transporters allow a fetus to be unobtrusively beamed out of a pregnant woman’s body; or if allowing the unborn child to live is as physically or emotionally intrusive as wearing a mask; or as impactful as a safe vaccine; then I would be happy to reassess my position; but it really isn’t.

Except when it comes to Covid vaccines. Then it's no longer your body nor your choice...

If only I had written a detailed rebuttal to this very point in the first three paragraphs of my response....

Yah yah...if some fuckwit in DC gets to decide the word "substantive" then you can throw your freedoms out the window like the rest of the nutjobs.

We get it sir.

If you paid attention to what I said; I’m pointing out the key difference between requiring vaccinations in order to go to restaurants or work in certain professions (rather than being legally forced to be vaccinated with no legal avenue to decline); and being forced to remain pregnant; is that one has almost no meaningful financial or health impact; the other has major financial, health and life impacts.

It’s what makes them very different things.

You don’t seem to be arguing or contesting that, but randomly changing the subject to some completely unrelated, nonsequitor which doesn’t seem to make any sense.

According to who? Your grand poohbah in Washington DC? How about you tell Washington DC to fuckoff and get with the program.

My monumental gains in my hedge funds due to the Washington DC lockdowns and other mandates says different.

Though I pity the lesser savvy that can't work the hedge fund/DC mandates game as "investors" like Soros can. Survival of the fittest and all.

The only non-sense is trumpeteer virtual rape of pregnant woman, i.e. without her consent trumpteers sticking their friggin nose into the pregnant wombs vagina and womb business. Sick-n-head immoral behaviour. Simple concept to grasp, STOP the virtual rape of pregnant women.

Pregnant woman having abortion is totally irrelevant to coVid2/19.  More trumpeteer false narrative to bend truth every way except absolute truth.

When you going to answer the questions I posed to you GP?  Apparrently your seemingly superior morality is above my line of inquiry about your trumpeteer religous practice of virtual rape of pregnant women, without their consent. Sad :--( if  not just plain sick-n-head.

Never have I seen someone spend so much time, effort and energy on a debate site attempting to avoid being drawn into a debate on an issue.

That is because trumpeteers follow in their fathers footsteps...LINK...."Trump did not take questions, and instead rambled for the better part of 50 minutes, shushing reporters for attempting to ask questions about Floyd and racism in America."...

And below GP does  not take questions about his apparrent moral superiority over pregnant women.

I just don't have the time or patience for rehashed academic tripe excusing present day Washington DC totalitarian authority and corruption using the argument that the oligarchy up there is really really smart and compassionate, and knows best what to put in your body and on your face.

It's worth noting that most of Europe took a look at the CDC recommendations and promptly told them to fuck off, especially with the recommendations for school kids.

Europe isn't under a 24/7 gaslight from state media, and the American teacher's unions have no interest in influencing European politics.

Of course; you’re likely not going to reply to any of this, instead I’m fairly sure you will reply with the same or similar nonsense you’ve already made, as you have nothing else.

I'm absolutely clear about both. Government doesn't know best. For either case.

Try to actually read those articles and note the similarities.

Alot of them objectively are. They certainly are not all good, all wise, all knowing like the wizards of your Oz.

Trumpets brain is broken and apparrently yours is also GP.

Your mixing oranges avacodoes i.e. not even close to a fair/just comparsion.  Of course that is nothing new for a trumpeteer. They typcially commit 100 immoral acts before breakfest is how the old saying goes

I’m so close to being able to pull you into an actual discussion rather than you just yelling unrelated statements at me. 

I will point out that just yelling what you think, does not, in any way shape or form, have any bearing, impact or pose as a rebuttal or attack on anything I just said.


Perhaps you’re out of practice; with all the meme throwing and habitual derailing; let me walk you through how to do this:

First, you take what I said; if you pay attention what I did is walk through why one thing is completely different from another; and what helps mitigate the issues one vs the other.

Second, you use logic and reason to justify why you think that approach is wrong; inconsistent, contradictory or hypocritical.

Third - and I cannot stress this enough - try your hardest not to try skip points one and two, deflect, change the subject or subtly ignore everything I said in order to focus on cheap troll points that show your worldview is as fragile as your masculinity.

Noted, so again CDC, FDA etc are all a worthless can of worms in your mind, whereas Trumpet may be the greatest president ever your mind.  STOP THE STEAL!

STOP the VIRTUAL RAPE! OF pregnant women, from the so called moral superiors like Trumpet and his trumpeteers flock of parrots/seagulls.

I wouldn't go as far as to say they are worthless, but compromised enough to warrant scrutiny and critical thinking over lockstep obedience.

Please don't respond to me or I will submit a complaint for harassment.

I don't have the time or patience for ad-hom battles.

Good day sir.

That’s GP in a nutshell. He’d rather report his fellow debaters as bullies than actually think up a cogent defense for the lies he tells. His mission is the 180 degree opposite of of this sites: rather than seeking truth thru dialogue and reasoned argument, GP seeks to broadcast lies without any challenge or effort on his part. He just wants to misinform, get his friends to like his falsehoods and mock all honest effort.  I wish he’d relocate to parler which site was designed for weak unthinking followers like GP. 

Stop harassing me Oro. You can find other people to play personal ad-hom battles with, you most certainly don't need me. This is a debate site not a hen coop.

Reporting your post for harassment.

You have been warned multiple times to stop personally attacking people on this site, yet you continue to do so, to the detriment of everyone here.

And you already know when a person has asked you to stop harassing and you continue anyway, it's a bannable offense.

If you don't like the rules you can leave the site.

There's plenty of educated people with views similar to yours on this site that don't regularly sling ad-homs while discussing ideas, so don't think for a moment that I need anything from you but your absence.

The strategy is pretty effective; and fascinating

I raised key issues, described why I think I’m right, presented an argument; while most people tend to try and address the point - although many may do it badly - the approach taken seems to be, as I explained, to not answer the point being raised by simply divert the topic to an area of familiar comfort.

IE: shift to talk about government being untrustworthy, argue with the bold pretence that this is what the argument is actually about, rather than what I’m actually talking about which is whether two actions are comparable or one action can be supported when one cannot.

What’s tricky about this form of argument, is that it’s easy to get sucked in; because there’s always a compulsion to answer points raised. When you do that, you can then drive the discussion off the rails and away from the position of strength.

If you can find someone who can get sucked in, all you have to do is maintain that pretence and you can continually shift the conversation back to that point of comfort - goading the other person into constantly bashing their heads against that same pretence, whilst making no effort to respond to anything they’ve actually said.

I mean; how can you argue against someone who is not acknowledging you said anything - or worse - who continually pretends as if you said something completely different from what you did?

I want to actually have a discussion on the merits; and have been doing this long enough to understand that when confronted with this sort of diversionary tactic you have to continually draw the conversation back to what is being avoided, reject the pretence, and call out the failure to address the point.

One of the strategies I have for this type of technique is that once you’ve established the pattern;  post your own expectation of how they’re going to divert the conversation next; I did it a few posts ago.

It undermines their ability to use the same strategy again; and forces them back into an area of discomfort; and from there as you can see, forcing them off that pretence makes their approach rapidly go off the rails.

I mean, the new pretence adopted; that constantly pointing out that the point has been ignored and the subject has been changed and to suggest that the other person should defend their claims is somehow Harrassment, is obviously patently absurd ; but in itself is just another way to change the subject in a way that derails the conversation - which could well be the intent.

Unfortunately there’s only one practical way of responding to that new pretence without achieving the goal of driving the conversation into a position of strength that will cede control back to allow the other person to control the course of the conversation.

I’m more interested in having someone rebuttal or attack my claims than trying to attack this new pretence tbh; though it’s always interesting figuring out different ways to attack silly rhetorical strategies like that  :)

Texas is slowly trying to draw away the liberals from coming into the state

Serious note; banning abortion is not the proper way to go about abortion. A person has the right to their own bodies and what they do and to outlaw that is pretty unconstitutional from the way I see it. In my point of view, abortions should be completely privatized. I do not want to pay tax dollars for something that will raise taxes and contribute to something I don't support. Private companies should do as such, as most healthcare is.

Who says, with any credibility, at 8B, the Earth is overpopulated? Nonsense. We don't have a population issue. Our problem is resource distribution, mostly limited by greed. For most of our essential resources, this is the real problem. Just two examples:

1. Almost yearly, the lower Mississippi valley of the U.S. experiences flooding at great annual expense. Why haven't we constructed aqueducts from the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri to the southwest, where water is in limited supply. That cost is dwarfed by the flood mitigation.

2. There are many places in the world where fresh water is in limited supply. Desalinization is now a very cheap process, yet we avoid doing it, jealous of the cost of fresh water - a greedy consequence of refusing to apply a simple technology.