No exceptions

I did not do any of this. I did not implore anyone to agree with my definition of baby.

It shouldn't. That's my opinion. This is the debate forum. We share opinions. You don't have to agree with them.

Oh no, an old guy on the internet has had it up to HERE with me.
Youre Getting Old Beavis And Butthead GIF by Paramount+
 
I think it's immoral to force a rape victim to give birth. Don't you?
Well, your moral compass is so screwy, asking the wrong question is what I would expect. I will set aside several objections to how you worded the question.

But the answer is that, no, it is not immoral. It is terribly unfortunate. Life deals out some crummy deals to most of us at some point or another - and this would be one of the worst examples of that.

What is, without a doubt, immoral is killing the innocent person with no agency involved in the situation. If leftists have a bloodthirst on and need to kill someone, I would nominate the rapist.

Your path takes an innocent victim and corrupts her by encouraging her to murder her child. Now, that's disgustingly immoral.
 
Why are Republicans against exceptions in the case of rape/incest victims getting abortions?

In other words, why does the gop support rape and incest?
At it's core, I'd say regardless of how the child was conceived, aborting a baby is death, and that's wrong in some's eyes. It's really about as simple as that. Saying the GOP supports rape and incest is a stretch.
 
Well, your moral compass is so screwy,

But the answer is that, no, it is not immoral.
So morality is relative. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Oh wait. I forgot. You're an old white Christian male and daggumit that makes your voice the most important.
 
So morality is relative. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Oh wait. I forgot. You're an old white Christian male and daggumit that makes your voice the most important.
Let's do some basic logic and I will show you something about yourself.

You have asserted that morality is relative. The implication of that error is that nothing can be established as moral or immoral, since, as you say, it depends on individual perspective. You are a god, making yourself able to form your own standards.

However, you keep asking moral questions - which makes no sense since you insist that it doesn't matter and there is no such certain thing.

There is an ancient, established, and proven standard of morality that exists outside and above our small minds. The only question is whether we acknowledge or reject it, but if we reject it, we have to give up on viewing the world through certain moral terms - if we want to be a person of sound reason.

But leftists want the cake and the icing that doesn't go with it. This is why I say that the Left gives us the very odd situation where the most morally confused people in the world are also the most morally cocksure. It is one of the fundamental non sequiturs of leftism.
 
Let's do some basic logic and I will show you something about yourself.

You have asserted that morality is relative. The implication of that error is that nothing can be established as moral or immoral, since, as you say, it depends on individual perspective. You are a god, making yourself able to form your own standards.
If enough people agree that something is immoral, they can establish societal guidelines and standards which can be enacted into laws. But this does not establish morality; this establishes legality. Take any vice that has been legalized - recreational marijuana, certain fashions of gambling, alcohol. Whether these things are legal, you will have individuals on either side of whether they are moral. As morality is relative/subjective, no one is objectively wrong.
However, you keep asking moral questions - which makes no sense since you insist that it doesn't matter and there is no such certain thing.
The only question I've asked in this thread centering around morality was "I think it's immoral to force a rape victim to give birth. Don't you?"

Just because I claim morality is relative, it doesn't mean our morality Venn diagram can't overlap.
There is an ancient, established, and proven standard of morality that exists outside and above our small minds. The only question is whether we acknowledge or reject it, but if we reject it, we have to give up on viewing the world through certain moral terms - if we want to be a person of sound reason.

But leftists want the cake and the icing that doesn't go with it. This is why I say that the Left gives us the very odd situation where the most morally confused people in the world are also the most morally cocksure. It is one of the fundamental non sequiturs of leftism.
Okay Socrates. Do you care about the rape victim's recovery and future livelihood or not?
 
If enough people agree that something is immoral, they can establish societal guidelines and standards which can be enacted into laws. But this does not establish morality; this establishes legality. Take any vice that has been legalized - recreational marijuana, certain fashions of gambling, alcohol. Whether these things are legal, you will have individuals on either side of whether they are moral. As morality is relative/subjective, no one is objectively wrong.

The only question I've asked in this thread centering around morality was "I think it's immoral to force a rape victim to give birth. Don't you?"

Just because I claim morality is relative, it doesn't mean our morality Venn diagram can't overlap.

Okay Socrates. Do you care about the rape victim's recovery and future livelihood or not?
Of course he does. He also cares about the innocent life that your kind dismisses as uterine effluvia.

The situation you describe is called a difficult choice. Unfortunately, we sometimes have to make them in the real world. In Lefty-land where you live, you simply redefine a few things to fit your narrative and then declare victory with the smug look of moral superiority on your face.

But I'll clue you in on something... moral relativists aren't superior, they're just unwilling/unable to accept the truth when it's inconvenient for them.
 
Of course he does.
I'm sure he can speak for himself.
He also cares about the innocent life that your kind dismisses as uterine effluvia
The situation you describe is called a difficult choice.
As if abortion could never be a difficult choice. Do you think people want to undergo an abortion? Do you think abortion is glamorous?

As with before in this thread, we are using the same logic against each other and we are going to arrive at an impasse.
Unfortunately, we sometimes have to make them in the real world. In Lefty-land where you live, you simply redefine a few things to fit your narrative and then declare victory with the smug look of moral superiority on your face.
And when it’s a child that lashes out at the world that forced them to exist they’re the “product of a fatherless home” and need to be imprisoned. When it’s a fully formed adult that needs food or housing because they weren’t given a fair shot at living a productive life, you just see it as tax dollars lost.

It’s the checklist mentality. Anti-abortion folks “saved” the child so they get to tick the box. Any further assistance you need because they forced you to give birth to a child is irrelevant because the box has already been ticked. It’s the “minimum viable goodness” required to get into eternal paradise. Anything more is chump’s work to them.
But I'll clue you in on something... moral relativists aren't superior, they're just unwilling/unable to accept the truth when it's inconvenient for them.
You are literally talking about everyone.
 
If enough people agree that something is immoral, they can establish societal guidelines and standards which can be enacted into laws. But this does not establish morality; this establishes legality. Take any vice that has been legalized - recreational marijuana, certain fashions of gambling, alcohol. Whether these things are legal, you will have individuals on either side of whether they are moral. As morality is relative/subjective, no one is objectively wrong.

The only question I've asked in this thread centering around morality was "I think it's immoral to force a rape victim to give birth. Don't you?"

Just because I claim morality is relative, it doesn't mean our morality Venn diagram can't overlap.

Okay Socrates. Do you care about the rape victim's recovery and future livelihood or not?
Lol. You work very hard at your sophistry and you shotgun it. I don't have the time to pick it apart and expose it right now.

But I answered your question and all of the additional nonsense you are shotgunning here is your attempt to avoid the obvious point that in the case of a rape/incest victims, there are 3 people involved, and the person you say must die is the one person who is innocent by any standard AND has no agency. That's where your moral relativity leads you. I offered that if you feel someone must die, I would suggest the best candidate is the clear guilty party who is 100% responsible for the suffering. That's how my morality informs me - and simple reason confirms it.

But that knocks out the poor reasoning you are basing your moral relativity on, ergo, the contortions, distractions, deflections. A major trait of leftists is their comfort with violating 18 rules of logic to get where they want to go.
 
Last edited:
Lol. You work very hard at your sophistry and you shotgun it. I don't have the time to pick it apart and expose it right now.

But I answered your question and all of the additional nonsense you are shotgunning here is your attempt to avoid the obvious point that in the case of a rape/incest victims, there are 3 people involved, and the person you say must die is the one person who is innocent by any standard AND has no agency. That's where you moral relativity leads you. I offered that if you feel someone must die, I would suggest the best candidate is the clear guilty party who is 100% responsible for the suffering. That's how my morality informs me - and simple reason confirms it.
No. This is a straw man fallacy. In no place have I said anyone must die. But you have reshaped my argument that way so it's easier for you to write another sermon. I am advocating for the choice to be legal. If the choice is legal, then the rape victim makes that call.
But that knocks out the poor reasoning you are basing your moral relativity on, ergo, the contortions, distractions, deflections. A major trait of leftists is their comfort with violating 18 rules of logic to get where they want to go.
Yeah, when you contort my argument every chance you get, your logic lecture is completely hollow.
 
No. This is a straw man fallacy. In no place have I said anyone must die. But you have reshaped my argument that way so it's easier for you to write another sermon. I am advocating for the choice to be legal. If the choice is legal, then the rape victim makes that call.

Yeah, when you contort my argument every chance you get, your logic lecture is completely hollow.
Some day you will learn what a straw man fallacy is, realize that you don't establish one simply by declaring it, and stop using it as yet another deflection when someone points out you have reasoned yourself into an undefendable situation.

:)
 
Some day you will learn what a straw man fallacy is, realize that you don't establish one simply by declaring it, and stop using it as yet another deflection when someone points out you have reasoned yourself into an undefendable situation.

:)
Quote me where I've said someone must die.
 
Quote me where I've said someone must die.
I love this because it is the epitome of exactly what I am trying to teach you.

"I support abortion as a personal choice that should be legal, but I have never said that anyone should die."

Uh, when you support a thing, you support what the thing is, what it means, and what the end result of it is. Abortion is, by definition and practicality, the intentional ending of a pregnancy that results in the death of the unborn child. Supporting abortion is supporting the killing of unborn children - and any attempt to get around that involves pure semantic games and contorted reason.

Imagine if I would say that I support deer hunting, but you should not assume that I support the hunting deaths of deer! Lol
 
I love this because it is the epitome of exactly what I am trying to teach you.

"I support abortion as a personal choice that should be legal, but I have never said that anyone should die."
Now you're straw manning both us. Is it "must die" or "should die"?

Notice how this was not a quote from, like I asked.
Uh, when you support a thing, you support what the thing is, what it means, and what the end result of it is. Abortion is, by definition and practicality, the intentional ending of a pregnancy that results in the death of the unborn child. Supporting abortion is supporting the killing of unborn children - and any attempt to get around that involves pure semantic games and contorted reason.
I support the right to have that choice.
Imagine if I would say that I support deer hunting, but you should not assume that I support the hunting deaths of deer! Lol
What does "support deer hunting" mean to you?
 
I support the right to have that choice.
Lol.

The problem with moral relativity, as you defined it as people getting together and deciding collectively what is right and wrong, is what if a group of people decide that it is moral to kill you?

I understand that this is another "straw man", as you misdefine it - because you can't answer it without deflection and semantic games, but the truth of it remains.
 
I’m pro choice within the time frame before a heartbeat forms. Do I feel good about it? No. But it’s also not my body.

It is a bizarre thread when Omar is the reasonable one. Those of you taking polar extreme positions on this need to take a breath.

On the pro-choice side, outside of the aforementioned rape and incest victims, the majority of women having abortions generally make the decision after much agonizing and discussions with health care professionals. They take no joy in ending a life and no one is excited about killing a baby. It is largely done for the health of the mother or for extremely difficult financial situations, where they cannot afford the child. Do I wish they would have the child and offer it for adoption? Absolutely. But it is a huge ask and not my decision. It is up to the woman, her family, and her doctor.

On the pro-life side, where I tend to put myself, it is simply not true that most of us have no sympathy for victims of rape and incest. We would happily prosecute those that commit these crimes, and I'm OK with life sentences and prison retribution for the sick creeps.

If our politicians could be reasonable, the right answer is in the middle, as always. Abortions should not be easy to attain, they should require an MD involved, and there needs to be a reasonable cutoff date in terms of fetus viability. But they also should not be illegal. This is far too complex and too personal of an issue for politicians to be involved at all.
 
Lol.

The problem with moral relativity, as you defined it as people getting together and deciding collectively what is right and wrong, is what if a group of people decide that it is moral to kill you?
Uh, I did not define moral relativity that way. But I'll engage your stupid question. If it is found to be moral to kill me, have they also found it legal to kill me? Either way, I personally can find it immoral to kill me.
I understand that this is another "straw man", as you misdefine it - because you can't answer it without deflection and semantic games, but the truth of it remains.
This was not a straw man. You did not misrepresent my argument to make it easier for you to attack. You just plain got it wrong.
 
It is a bizarre thread when Omar is the reasonable one. Those of you taking polar extreme positions on this need to take a breath.

On the pro-choice side, outside of the aforementioned rape and incest victims, the majority of women having abortions generally make the decision after much agonizing and discussions with health care professionals. They take no joy in ending a life and no one is excited about killing a baby. It is largely done for the health of the mother or for extremely difficult financial situations, where they cannot afford the child. Do I wish they would have the child and offer it for adoption? Absolutely. But it is a huge ask and not my decision. It is up to the woman, her family, and her doctor.
Good.
On the pro-life side, where I tend to put myself, it is simply not true that most of us have no sympathy for victims of rape and incest. We would happily prosecute those that commit these crimes, and I'm OK with life sentences and prison retribution for the sick creeps.
This does not stop the victim from bearing the product of the crime and her life being derailed at no fault of her own. Justice closure only goes so far.
If our politicians could be reasonable, the right answer is in the middle, as always. Abortions should not be easy to attain, they should require an MD involved, and there needs to be a reasonable cutoff date in terms of fetus viability. But they also should not be illegal. This is far too complex and too personal of an issue for politicians to be involved at all.
Good.
 
It is a bizarre thread when Omar is the reasonable one. Those of you taking polar extreme positions on this need to take a breath.

On the pro-choice side, outside of the aforementioned rape and incest victims, the majority of women having abortions generally make the decision after much agonizing and discussions with health care professionals. They take no joy in ending a life and no one is excited about killing a baby. It is largely done for the health of the mother or for extremely difficult financial situations, where they cannot afford the child. Do I wish they would have the child and offer it for adoption? Absolutely. But it is a huge ask and not my decision. It is up to the woman, her family, and her doctor.

On the pro-life side, where I tend to put myself, it is simply not true that most of us have no sympathy for victims of rape and incest. We would happily prosecute those that commit these crimes, and I'm OK with life sentences and prison retribution for the sick creeps.

If our politicians could be reasonable, the right answer is in the middle, as always. Abortions should not be easy to attain, they should require an MD involved, and there needs to be a reasonable cutoff date in terms of fetus viability. But they also should not be illegal. This is far too complex and too personal of an issue for politicians to be involved at all.
What you basically described is one of several options involving viability as a basis for a "reasonable political compromise". I would take that over what Issue 1 put in place in 2022. But I think the majority of the country can be persuaded down to at least the common European country range limit of 12-14 weeks, which is well below viability. As a practical political matter, the country or a particular state will vote for almost unrestricted abortion if they are faced with what they perceive as a threat of a total ban. If a total ban was taken off the table, I think there is probably a plurality of support around that 12-14 week area.

But in a moral context, I have to be opposed to abortion at any point from conception forward. But that is not a majority position, and is, in fact, very much a minority position. So, if the question is what is moral, I have an answer. If the question is what is politically feasible, the answer is very different.
 
It is a bizarre thread when Omar is the reasonable one. Those of you taking polar extreme positions on this need to take a breath.

On the pro-choice side, outside of the aforementioned rape and incest victims, the majority of women having abortions generally make the decision after much agonizing and discussions with health care professionals. They take no joy in ending a life and no one is excited about killing a baby. It is largely done for the health of the mother or for extremely difficult financial situations, where they cannot afford the child. Do I wish they would have the child and offer it for adoption? Absolutely. But it is a huge ask and not my decision. It is up to the woman, her family, and her doctor.

On the pro-life side, where I tend to put myself, it is simply not true that most of us have no sympathy for victims of rape and incest. We would happily prosecute those that commit these crimes, and I'm OK with life sentences and prison retribution for the sick creeps.

If our politicians could be reasonable, the right answer is in the middle, as always. Abortions should not be easy to attain, they should require an MD involved, and there needs to be a reasonable cutoff date in terms of fetus viability. But they also should not be illegal. This is far too complex and too personal of an issue for politicians to be involved at all.
I think both sides do themselves a disservice by not understanding the opposing POV. The Pro Choice crowd should understand why the fetus can be viewed as a separate living being and it’s not about controlling women’s bodies. The Pro Lifers should understand abortion isn’t a casual procedure. No woman out there is thinking “screw the birth control, I’ll just get an abortion if I get knocked up.” It’s a last resort.

This is why it’s legitimately hard for me to feel passionate about it bc it is such a gray area.
 
Last edited:
Watching Lester Holt.., laughable story about "contraception deserts". Lmao. Yep... ya just can't find birth control on line.. at drug store...

right after that... a Harris campaign ad where she says Trump wants to ban abortion and birth control.

Coincidence? lol. Right
 

"Almost a quarter (24%) of women who had abortions in 2021 had one previous live birth, 20% had two previous live births, 10% had three, and 7% had four or more previous live births."

Hope this helps
They should them understand how ya get pregnant and how not ro
 
Top