MasterOBee Master/King @ MasterObee @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

514

Joined

2 yr. ago

Abortion should be legal at any trimester, for any reason.

I disagree, but once again, almost any western nation disagrees with you.

No one has the right to use your body without your consent

There's a decent argument bringing a life into this world by choice is consent.

Pretty sure that’s how it is in Canada.

Canada is one of the very few nations to decriminalize abortions totally.

That's a bold assumption given the lack of evidence we have supporting either of those situations.

What do you think the reason is for her keeping the baby remains?

I don't know any reasonable person that would say the U.S. is a worse country than india. Between the caste system, gang rapes and extreme poverty experience by a huge portion of your population and arranged marriage culture, it'd be tough to convince most.

America isn't perfect, we're a new country with a lot of kinks to work out, but you couldn't pay me enough to get me to move to india.

This would be illegal in every western country....Do you think every western country is fascist?

so 20 minutes before the birth, you think it should be fine if the mother terminated the pregnancy?

That is an....odd take

I went there and it was actually dope. People so friendly, the food was delicious.

There was a tornado when I went there that ran right by us, it was oddly cool (mainly bc it was my first time experiencing one).

I'm also a POC, so I heard a lot of people like you that said I would just feel unwelcomed. Couldn't have been further from the truth.

It is quite possible

Sounds like you don't know the circumstances. This is why we have a jury of our peers.

"According to court documents, Celeste Burgess was in her third trimester of pregnancy when she consumed the abortion pills, making the procedure illegal as per Nebraska law."

I think this would be illegal in almost every western country.

What would be revolting is if this wasn't a crime. She then hid the "human remains." I understand you're probably pro-choice, but is this the hill you want to die on?

People like you just read the headline and reaction as if you know the whole story?

it's a hypothetical, do you know what a hypothetical is?

is that these laws and these concepts you support are indeed enslaving women.

That's where we disagree. I think it's absolutely absurd you equate it to slavery, and belittles past and modern day slavery.

You're the one saying I need to use your definition of words no matter what. But you didn't provide any definitions. Come on, man. At least pretend like you might want to one day have a single argument in good faith.

Look man, you can insult me all you want, doesn't matter. I'm a young conservative in an extremely liberal state, I've heard it all.

I think that's the problem. I've listened to each of the lefts arguments, it's unavoidable for someone young and on social media.

But the minute I speak up, saying I can be pro-life and not pro-slavery, I get 60 downvotes. Not that I care about the votes, more of the symbol of, what did I say that was controversial? That being pro life isn't comparable to slavery? That's not controversial to anyone, we all know it. But I'm a conservative, so downvote away.

I see you do not understand that by “down,” I am speaking historically and not arbitrarily “in the last three years.”

Oh, so you're comparing this last year to...what? You need some sort of finite time period, no? Or are you comparing rates to as long as humanity existed? To be fair, adam and eve, there was no violent crimes. First one was Cain and Able, so you'd be wrong in that instance too.

The graph with #5 goes back to the 1980s. The downward trend is clear. I’m not sure if you’re being pedantic or deliberately obtuse.

Well if you're using that as your gauge, then police killings are also down, see figure 3, the same figure you refereed me to before. Which is it? Do you want to compare police killings from 2015 to now and violent crime rates over the last 100 years? That doesn't make sense, it seems like you're the one arbitrarily choosing time periods.

You're the one comparing these two, you gotta be consistent. You can't change your metrics simply because you don't like they way they turn out.

I don’t feel the need to keep engaging with you on this subject. You seem to take pride in missing the forest for the trees. Have a nice night.

That's a bummer, our last messages we were a bit closer to understanding, but then this message it seemed you lost all direction of your argument. Or maybe because you realized that you were arguing a point that contradicts itself if you have to be consistent.

You skipped over #5, huh? Or #6, that despite a surge the murder rate is

I actually didn't! #5 - "Annual government surveys from the Bureau of Justice Statistics show no recent increase in the U.S. violent crime rate." If you wanted me to look and note how this is not at all your claim, I'll do it. I just thought it was redundant. So that proves your statement false again.

#6 - Is an estimate based on a survey that they claim showed no increase. Once again, against what you said of decreasing. Here's a useful quote for you: "It relies on data voluntarily submitted by thousands of local police departments, but many law enforcement agencies do not participate. In the latest FBI study, around four-in-ten police departments"

Your argument of violent crime going down is incorrect based on this survey taken of police departments that only really 40% shared. I don't think that's the smoking gun you want, especially because it'd be friendly fire.

#7 - if you have an issue with what I quoted, please show me what goes against my argument, and for yours.

Regarding the second link, I understand, I hate when I am looking for something specific, that should be easy to find (I also looked up homicides by police over years and couldn't find much) - but I still, it does look like rates, specifically over the last 5 years have been on an upward tend. That's worrying, I'm curious the analysis on this.

Rape exceptions might as well not exist.

I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater then.

Laws I’ve heard on this require the rape to be proven in the court of law.

I'm not too knowledgeable about the language of rape exceptions in many states. My state is pretty liberal, so that's not something I have in my state. I, along with others, think a good alternative could be that any woman who had a rape kit, or reported a rape (which I believe is the law in some states?). I'd even go 1 step further, I'd say that any woman that claims the baby is a result of rape, is allowed to have an abortion (up to some, fairly liberal point in the pregnancy, say 20 weeks for examples).

Exceptions for medical complications are also very hard to legislate because you have to decide when is the woman dying enough to be able to save her life.

I agree, it's a tough line! if there's a 1% chance, is that high enough? 2%? 20%?

A lot of law says 'reasonable persons' - I think if a reasonable person would think there would be a high enough threshold of risk to the mothers health, that's fine. It's up to a jury of her peers, and court precedence. Many items in our law have these as gauges of what's 'reasonable.'

Third, I’ve only seen one state that allowed an exception for nonviability of a fetus. In all the other states I’ve seen, women have to carry doomed fetuses who will die shortly after birth. I can’t imagine the trauma of that. Isn’t it more merciful to allow those women to abort?

I don't know enough about the states laws, that sounds wrong to me, but maybe it's right. I disagree with that, if the baby is already dead, there's no reason for a woman to endure the pregnancy further.

I’m happy to explain to you why you’re wrong to be anti-choice

I'm open to hearing your argument, but as you can imagine, as a conservative on lemmy/reddit I've heard every argument, and it's made me more refined in my belief, and more able to argue my belief well.

Don’t pretend like conservatives don’t love to shit talk about liberals.

I didn't. but generally no, I don't see conservatives talk trash about liberals, nor liberals conservatives. I see Republicans and Democrats talk trash, but I don't equate them to conservatives and liberals.

If you have something you want to talk about, then talk.

Okay. I'm pro-life, you calling me anti-choice is an absurd mischaracterization of my argument, and you know it. You just try to name call instead of actually put forward your position. If you have a good argument, you don't need to resort to such childish and rude comments.

Additionally, my argument is, just because I'm pro life doesn't mean I want to enslave women.

If you'd like to discuss either of these in good faith, and without being a dick, I'm down.

Yeah, unfortunately, I think it's just bad law. I think it'd be okay legislatively, which is why it's sooooo incredibly odd that the democrats didn't codify RvW despite having many many many opportunities. But ultimately, I think it was a terribly ruled case that I think the SC was right to overturn. Fun fact, RBG also shares my belief.