Forums / Discussion / General

"Hurr Durr i think one thing is bad so all child abuse is okay"

Literally you, a retard.

Wrong, and you miss my point that they hate one form of abuse, but have no problem with another form of abuse.

Did you just fail to understand what I wrote? All forms of abuse is bad. But so many people let some abuse slide while get worked up into a frothing madness over another form.

Then why are you fine with this?

You're defending child abuse by pointing to a different issue all together. It's a whataboutism, all because this looks bad for your guy. But I'll bite. A fetus can't feel, and a 2 year old can.

Otherwise Everytime a fetus absorbed one of it's siblings in the womb, we'd have to charge that baby with murder and sentence it to years in juvvie for being born wrong. Same exact logic applies if a fetus kills a fetus, as applies when a 4 year old kills a 2 year old.

almost like context matters. Most people are against murder, but are ok with murder if its the result of self defense. Pregnancy puts the woman at risk.
a fetus is also not an individual. A woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body. I thought you hated when the government told people what to do.

Also, the CPB agency won't accept donations to help these kids.

Again, the cruelty is the point.

Trump administration vetting documents leaked.

Look, I thought you where more astute than this. This is Abuse/murder done to a child BY AN ADULT. A fetus absorbing another is a biological event that naturally, a bet rarely, occurs. The mother has no say nor control over that. Now when a medical person shoves instruments up into a woman to tear up and kill a baby IS a murder for is someone else attacking the baby.

>A fetus can't feel,

Yes they can. Science has proven that.

> Same exact logic applies if a fetus kills a fetus, as applies when a 4 year old kills a 2 year old.

That isn't even logic, because 4 year olds don't know what they are doing. If they were 14 killing a 2 year old, then there might be some charges.

Finally! Some one is getting close to the crux of this debate. While can agree to disagree about the state of the unborn baby. I think that a fetus is an individual and should be afforded rights and protections.

>A woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body.

I agree, but a baby isn't a part of her body, she is temporarily carrying her child for 9 months. Her hands, face, legs are her body for they are permanently attached to her and she has control over them. A baby is not.

> I thought you hated when the government told people what to do.

I don't see any evidence of the right to an abortion on the Federal level. So there for, that goes to the states and they can decide if they allow them or not.

@Team Arkos
>I think that a fetus is an individual

by definition of what a fetus is, its not an individual. it relies on it's mother to survive.

> a baby isn't a part of her body

excuse me?
we gonna have to stop right there for a second.

>by definition of what a fetus is, its not an individual. it relies on it's mother to survive.

For a 9 months and then it has to live on it's own. Barring disease, disorders, and violence (accidental or other wise), a fetus will always become an individual. So why wait till it cross that point to give him or her the dignity of being a human?

>excuse me?

This might slide off topic but I feel I should say this.
That's right. I'm not sure if they taught you this in Biology class, but a baby's blood stream never interacts directly with the mother's. In fact if it wasn't for some biochemistry elements in play, the mother's own immune system would attack the baby because it's DNA no longer matches her own in full. I could go on in detail but that would start to slide into NSFW zone and some of you don't want to see that here. If you want to know more, you can look it up more on your own.

That being said, the Baby inside the mother isn't truly a part of her body.

So if a Fetus is an individual does a woman whose pregnant have the right to Double paychecks. After all, because she is currently 2 individuals, 1 woman and 1 fetus, she counts as 2 different employees.

Does the woman need to have her fetus certified and disciplined to preform certain tasks, or working with food? Conjoined twins have to get certified twice, so there's no reason a pregnant woman should not.

A fetus is a fully formed and living individual from the moment sperm meets egg, therefore, it should be illegal for pregnant woman to work, because that Fetus is underage and we do not endorsed child labor in this country!

These people aren't actually pro-life.
They're pro-birth. Once born, the kids will have to fend for themselves in this wilderness.

@Team Arkos
“I don't see any evidence of the right to an abortion on the Federal level.”
There’s literally a Supreme Court case ruling in favor of a woman’s right to choose. You can’t just pretend something didn’t happen because you don’t like the outcome.

What kind of insanity are you going off on now? Or have you lost the ability to make any further counter argument?

Look, just because it's an individual does not mean it's an adult. It is still a baby and it has long way to go before it becomes an adult.

that ruling was based on Bad law And people have pointed that out.

That and it's going to get sent back to the Supreme court again and it looks like it will get over turned.

I don't think one person on quora is really a good way to rebut an argument.
It's worth noting that most polls say most people are against overturning Roe v. Wade.

Fox News
CBS
Pew research
The Hill

Not that any of that matters since the government usually goes against what the people want.

Because i don't feel bad about a 6 month human-omlette as much as i do a 2 year old human child. Just like how seeing a fetus blended out of a woman and said woman getting blended are two different reactions, the later being way more visceral then the former.

A fetus isn't an individual pre-birth for the purposes of US law in general. Here's the definition that includes a born alive child, even in the process of intended abortion. States' laws can specify things further, of course.

Then there are interesting specifics like "what happens if some cunt punches a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry?", where a fetus can be considered an individual just for the purposes of criminal law in these cases without putting any restrictions on any other laws. Law is flexible like that. Vice versa, labor code can be restricted to born-alive persons.

Can't wait for you lot to rebrand contraceptives as a baby killing poison, and charging Walgreens with felony 3 charges for selling them. Spermicide to be classified as a chemical weapon attack. And the inevitable return of the back alley abortion clinics and dumpster babies to come back harder than measles.

While y'all having this debate. I have a few questions I'd love to get feedback on.

Would you be a lot more supportive of restricting abortion rights if there was increase in government welfare for child-development and welfare?

Would you be more supportive of restricting abortion rights if child-rearing, even if out of wedlock, etc, would be subsidized by the state?

As a conservative, do you feel that it would be a good exchange to restrict abortion rights if the state would subsidize child rearing, on your tax paying dime?

money is nice and all, but child birth has a mortality rate, so its not really just a financial thing.

If it were a give and take, maybe. But clearly it isn't. It's the same amount of subsidies for families now, which is barely anything, plus removing all the support for women to try and not have a baby when they cannot afford it. I mean, in all honesty, I have almost more faith that there are going to be big cuts to child rearing and in general maternal and paternal subsidies, given how much republicans hate social welfare programs.

Because the cost of having a baby is extremely high. Medical expenses keep climbing, and so the cost of giving birth increases with it. You have to consider how much it costs for painkillers, the hospital room, the incubators, etc. Even a home birth can cost thousands of dollars for hiring a Mid Wife, and you really want to hire someone qualified and not try to do it yourself, for your own safety and the safety of the child. What you are basically asking for, when asking people to give birth no matter what, is to get into debt they may not be able to afford, having a child they didn't want, and who is going to go into an abusive orphanage system where the chances of winding up with a good home is equal to that of an abusive home, and swinging door returns for children are a pretty high occurrence.

It's increasing a net-worth of misery for the benefit of a single religious groups ability to enforce their own doctrine on those who do not believe in it.

The Council of Europe is appeasing Russia, and France/Germany are seeking to lift sanctions on Russia despite no change in behavior.

Ukraine is leaving EU human rights body and delegation for the Council in protest.

@Black Graphic T

@poochyena

Excluding the mortality risk to the mother (that is a no brainer). And let's assume that all child-bearing costs (hospitalization, etc) are subsidized. Would your opinion on abortion change?

I'm just curious as to how much of the abortion debate is centered around economics.

costs have literally nothing to do with it for me. Its about giving women rights to their body. Human rights aren't something negotiable with money.

You're still making an orphan to then continually have to keep funded, which the results in more abused children, who then grow up mentally damaged or criminally inclined. Abortion is cheaper, it keeps more orphans out of abusive houses, gives us resources for treating more diseases (stem cells, vaccine manufacturing, research, etc.), And is optional.

And that's the part i absolutely can't stand in this debate. Nobody is forcing people to get abortions, you aren't being mandated to give 1 fetus every fiscal quarter or face legal and punative damages. It's an option, just like going to term is an option, or contraceptives/condoms are an option. This entire debate is that one side, based solely on religious beliefs, is removing options from people and punishing those who pursue those options. I'm not gonna let a group outlaw the consumption of pork because they find it morally and religious reprehensible, and im not going to extend that to forcing rape victims to give birth because a fairy tale told us they should.

But if a fetus is classified as a human, who's rights trump who's?

a human doesn't have the right to invade the personal space of a person and stay there. If you woke up one day in a hospital bed with wires connected from you to another person that kept the other person alive, should you not be allowed to disconnect the wires and leave? Doing so would kill the other person, but you have a right to your own body, no?

To "invade the personal space" sounds to me like a definitive intention. Does a fetus have intention to invade the personal space of the mother? Does the mother, through action (sex), effectively create the situation where the personal space is then invaded?

>should you not be allowed to disconnect the wires and leave?

But the other person, who's wires are connected to you, is there because of you, though. A fetus doesn't choose to be created, or born, or anything. A fetus is a result of a person engaging in sexual activity, they have no choice in the matter. You do.

>Does a fetus have intention to invade the personal space of the mother? Does the mother, through action (sex), effectively create the situation where the personal space is then invaded?

Doesn't matter. If you ask someone to leave, and they don't, you have the legal right to kill them in most states.

>A fetus doesn't choose to be created, or born, or anything.

The woman obviously didn't choose it either. They did things to result in it happening, but that isn't the same as choosing it. Its like leaving the front door open leads to someone entering, but doesn't mean you chose to let them in.

10/10 of all unwanted pregnancies are the result of the male ejaculation.

This snuck up on me faster than I realized.

Get your popcorn ready kids, the first Democrat debate is going to happen tonight.

I am hoping this will turn into a metaphorical gladiator free for all match.

Just visit clint. The guards will be happy to have the kids knife fight for your entertainment.

So, anyone keeping up with the Oregon shit and know why the republicans doing the walk out aren't being impeached and thrown in jail right now?

From what I read, a climate bill that would greatly affect of devastating the farmers, dairies and the state’s struggling logging industry, among others. Republicans argue that the bill creates an existential threat to rural life (as a lot of environmental policy tends to do), and argue that the bill should be voted on by the people not a bunch of Democratic state legislators. Democrats control Oregon's Governorship, Senate as well as the House of Representatives.

Supposedly, such a bill if gone to the popular vote would be devastated. In many ways, the rural vs urban divide in Oregon is a microcosm (which many states have) of the macrocosm of US cultural changes among urban and rural people. To put some stats into perspective.
Portland metro area has 54% of the entire Oregon population. And although the governor won with 7% higher of the vote, the majority of counties did not vote for her.

Anyway:

The bill in question is one of the most extensive climate change bills in the country. Creating a cap and trade system, greatly targeting emissions from a lot of rural industries, directly regulating emissions from industries like cement and paper manufacturing, while also taking aim at the natural gas used to heat homes and the gasoline and diesel fuels that power cars and trucks.

As of today, the contraversial bill is dead, according to the Democratic state legislators. As reported by NPR they do not have the votes on the floor anyway. Seems to me, this created enough of an uproar where some Democratic legislators decided to reverse their position.

The big thing is that the Governor decided to use the police to find the missing 11 Republicans and bring them to the capitol to vote on it. Supposedly, this also caused some on the /r/the_donald to "threaten" the police force and thus get the reddit channel suspended.

Now as far as why they aren't being impeached and thrown in jail:

They aren't being impeached because they are representing their constituents, who are largely rural farmers, loggers, etc, that will be greatly affected by this bill. They aren't going to jail because as far as I know, it is not illegal to do this and Oregon isn't the only state where this happened.

And in my opinion, the Republicans did it right. They are there to represent people, their constituents, and when those people themselves do not have the power to vote in, or out, a massive bill that would fundamentally affect their lives for the worse, their only hope are their representatives. If this is the measure that those representatives had to take to make sure such a devastating bill would not pass they should be viewed as political heroes.

Climate change legislation is going to die over and over and over again as long as it fails to address the real economic damage that it would do to largely rural people. This is once more another massive battle between urban city-dwellers who enact bills that affect urban people far more than it would ever affect the urban.

This is why it's so goddam important to have an electoral college that is designed to prevent centralized population centers from dominating politics and law that affects everyone.

@Chewbunny How is sabotaging legislation, halting the government from doing it's job, refusing to report for service, and blatantly subverting democracy even remotely legal? Why even have a democracy is the minority party can walk out of voting and kill any bill they like? Seriously, this should be one of the most illegal things an elected representative can do imaginable. Who the fuck cares about the bill itself, this isn't even remotely excusable.

The first Democrat debate is now done. I'll take awhile to process it, but a fast hot take I got is that Beto took a beating, No one talked about Biden at all, one guy had the balls to say that Medicare for all isn't a great idea.

Booker won this debate I think. Warren, Castro, and gabbard did well too.

Spent the whole day exploring Hawaii, so I didn't get to see the debate live. But based on CNN's post-debate show, here's what I learned:

• Warren dominated
• Booker did better than expected
• Castro did fine
• Klobuchar and other moderates didn't do so well
• Fucking Bill de Blasio did better than Beto

Also heard that there was a divide on Healthcare, which is funny to me. Don't think I'll be able to see tomorrow's debate, but at the very least I hope Yang doesn't get shafted like Tulsi Gabbard did tonight.

The bill it self is a damn nightmare of a cap and trade set only on the state Oregon. It would be ruinous to the economy of that state and the farmers who live and work there. Businesses and jobs would flee the state as well. Also it would do zilch to effect the environment. Also, with the Democrats have super majority in their state capital, they have completely IGNORED the Republicans and decided to pass what ever they liked and took no input from them.

Take a listen to some of the people involved in it.

Supreme Court rules in favor of partisan gerrymandering 5-4.

And the Surpreme Court blocks the Citizenship Question from the Census.

I disagree. Because if the roles were reversed and it was 11 democrats walking out of a bill to allow the reintroduction of segregation(just going with what r/thedonald would want here), and they managed to kill that bill this way, you'd be calling them heroes. It's just this time the bill was something you wanted instead of something you don't.

That said, I think cap and trade is stupid anyway. Carbon Taxes are the only really effective measure. Every country that can actually penalize over-pollution of the atmosphere have seen the most effective change while giving the least impact on normal citizens both urban and rural. It has also been the most efficient way of incentivising better technological growth, even sparking new research into how to use carbon emissions as industrial materials to make money via cutting down their pollution.

I don't like the idea of paying more money but self-regulation has been nothing but one dissappointment after the next, and the people who do the most damage are often unwilling to actually do any sort of effort in keeping themselves in check. If the invisible hand is no longer enough to guide the market out of killing itself, it's consumers, and all the future generations to live on the soon to be lifeless rock, then it's time for a Hammer and Anvil approach to force them into shape instead.

>and they managed to kill that bill this way, you'd be calling them heroes

No I wouldn't, this has nothing to do with parties, nothing to do with the bill and everything to do with circumventing democracy. The fact that this is somehow allowed and has been done before by democrats with out it being a MASSIVE historical event that ended with all participating parties booted out of the government has, more than any other failure, made me lose complete faith in this country. Even worse is that people are making this about the bill or the parties when this should be, on principle itself, unacceptable.

@Team Arkos Yeah, they have a super majority because that's what the people of Oregon voted for, that's the fundamental rule of the government that, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, cannot be ignored.

How is it in anyway democratic when you have a state that is dominated entirely by one party trying to ram through a massive regulatory bill that would effectively be disastrous to a huge segment of it's population? You're focusing entirely too much on the protocol over the greater purpose of better, wider, representation.

If the minority does not have the power to actively fight against the majority, as most direct democracies end up having, then you have tyranny of the mob. And frankly, much of our US progressive movements have begun as minority dissenting voices having to take on the majority.

The bill would have been absolutely economically disastrous to rural people. But instead of giving a shit about how such a bill can radically damage a group of people, you seem to be obsessing over protocol

Similarly, in Indiana in 2011, the House Democrats walked out for 6 weeks to prevent the Republicans from passing a right-to-work bill that was highly anti-Union. Even though I politically side more with the Republicans, I totally understand why the Democrats, who are in the minority, stood strong against such a measure. And when the Republicans tried to make it illegal it was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. And by the way, such walk outs have historic precedence in Indiana, so for example, during the Civil War era, when at the request of Governor Oliver P. Morton, Republicans fled the capitol to prevent anti-war and pro-Confederate legislation from passing.

FFS even Abraham Lincoln participated in such a stunt
"Lincoln’s leap came at the end of a legislative session, when he and his fellow Whigs were trying to buy time to save a state-run bank from being shut down. Democrats, who controlled the chamber, were not fans of the bank, and scheduled a vote to adjourn that would seal the bank’s fate. Lincoln, who had emerged as a leader in the Whig Party, came up with a last-ditch plan to open a window and jump out to deny the Democrats a quorum."

Better governance comes with better representation. When you have a one party rule in a state because maybe the Democrats have 55% of the vote vs Republicans who may have 45% it still isn't representational at all. Ramming legislature that 55% may support but 45% wouldn't because it would hurt them is one of the single biggest problems with direct democracies. This isn't like 95% of the people support this and only 5% do not. Better representation should create better legislation.

Maybe, just maybe the Democrats should have at least tried to take into consideration the kind of damage it would have on a significant part of the population and try to find ways to mitigate it, work with those people, work with their representatives. That's what makes a better more representatives democracy. Instead they thought that their clear majority gives them the right to do as they fit.

These Republicans, like the Democrats of Indiana are heroes. Not giving qorum when the bill in question can be massively destructive to your constituents is heroic. You're there to fight for them and that's what they are doing.

>How is it in anyway democratic when you have a state that is dominated entirely by one party trying to ram through a massive regulatory bill that would effectively be disastrous to a huge segment of it's population? You're focusing entirely too much on the protocol over the greater purpose of better, wider, representation

Because the reason that state is dominated by one party is because the people of that state voted for that! Better, wider representation? How is the minority blocking votes until the majority caves better, wider representation?

>If the minority does not have the power to actively fight against the majority, as most direct democracies end up having, then you have tyranny of the mob.

Almost like how the government is supposed to work. Everyone can't get what they want, so we pass what most people want. We have a representative democracy so it's not just mob rule. This isn't mob rule, this is the government doing exactly what it was designed to do.

>The bill would have been absolutely economically disastrous to rural people. But instead of giving a shit about how such a bill can radically damage a group of people, you seem to be obsessing over protocol

Because this method should be massively illegal as it completely and utterly undermines out entire way of government! What's the point of a democracy when a few people can decide our votes don't matter? They abandoned their posts and threatened violence in order to halt the government until they get what they want, against the will of the people. How is that excusable?

>Similarly, in Indiana in 2011, the House Democrats walked out for 6 weeks to prevent the Republicans from passing a right-to-work bill that was highly anti-Union. Even though I politically side more with the Republicans, I totally understand why the Democrats, who are in the minority, stood strong against such a measure. And when the Republicans tried to make it illegal it was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. And by the way, such walk outs have historic precedence in Indiana, so for example, during the Civil War era, when at the request of Governor Oliver P. Morton, Republicans fled the capitol to prevent anti-war and pro-Confederate legislation from passing.

FFS even Abraham Lincoln participated in such a stunt
"Lincoln’s leap came at the end of a legislative session, when he and his fellow Whigs were trying to buy time to save a state-run bank from being shut down. Democrats, who controlled the chamber, were not fans of the bank, and scheduled a vote to adjourn that would seal the bank’s fate. Lincoln, who had emerged as a leader in the Whig Party, came up with a last-ditch plan to open a window and jump out to deny the Democrats a quorum."

And the fact this was allowed to happen might be one of the biggest failures in American history. I'm not even kidding. Seriously, it doesn't matter who did it. It doesn't matter why they did it. The fact that a few politicians can, at any time the want, decide that Government is no longer a democracy and that laws will not pass until they personally decide to let them is fucking atrocious.

>Better governance comes with better representation. When you have a one party rule in a state because maybe the Democrats have 55% of the vote vs Republicans who may have 45% it still isn't representational at all. Ramming legislature that 55% may support but 45% wouldn't because it would hurt them is one of the single biggest problems with direct democracies. This isn't like 95% of the people support this and only 5% do not. Better representation should create better legislation.

Ramming legislature that 55% support is how out government gets anything done. If we only let things pass when 90% support, zero laws would ever be passed and the government would cease function. It's not perfect, but it's what we have.

>Maybe, just maybe the Democrats should have at least tried to take into consideration the kind of damage it would have on a significant part of the population and try to find ways to mitigate it, work with those people, work with their representatives. That's what makes a better more representatives democracy. Instead they thought that their clear majority gives them the right to do as they fit.

Yes, how dare they try to pass a law that clearly the majority of the state supports.

>These Republicans, like the Democrats of Indiana are heroes. Not giving qorum when the bill in question can be massively destructive to your constituents is heroic. You're there to fight for them and that's what they are doing.

They're not heroes, not by a long shot. They denied the people of Oregon their democratic process and abandoned their civil duty. Not that it would have mattered, the bill wouldn't have passed anyway, meaning all that stuff you spewed about the majority not listening to the minority was pure bullshit. They did listen and they did compromise, but these fucks decided to halt the government just in case they didn't get what they want in order to force minority rule they didn't even need.

I think I might be done. The fact that it is somehow allowed that a minority group in the government can, at will, decide our government is no longer a democracy and circumvent the entire foundation of our country until they get what they want, and the fact that people are actually defending them because they didn't support the bill, might have irrevocably made me lose all faith in the US government and might actually be giving me an aneurysm. I don't think I've ever been this upset over something political, ever.

Same stunt was pulled to pass Civil Rights, so I Guess "Press F" for black people being equal? Idk man, this seems like a stupid hill to die on.

Harris won the debate easily and killed biden while doing it.

Kamala Harris the pro-prison candidate?