He was in his 30s back then and his wife and baby girl had just died in a car crash. I wouldn't call that an "incel phase".



A politician is of course allowed to change his views over the course of 50 years. I just found it funny how on every single issue, you can find a Biden statement from pre-2000 which is the exact opposite of his position today.

Time, Place, Manner.

The difference between a civil libertarian and a wacko libertarian is that I recognize that rights are both protected from the government and protected by the government. Without authority to enforce it, there are no freedoms. If mobs can intimidate judges, juries and court officers, if they can harass people in their private homes for the purpose of subverting the justice system, then those mobs are infringing on the rights of everyone affected by the judicial process. And in this case, democracy as a whole. Civil rights are a balancing act, to maximize the rights of the people by using the least restrictive means to serve the government's compelling interests in protecting people. Contrast far right libertarians who think that anarchy is true liberty, except then its just tyranny of whoever owns the most guns. Rights aren't just infringed by the government, the right of my nose to be on my face is infringed by anyone swinging their fist.

So lock'em up. There's ample public forum for airing political views, there's an open democratic process. Those who try to use threats, violence and intimidation to undermine that process are infringing on all of our rights and should be forcefully suppressed

Lol I was being edgy.



Yeah I get it. But the crowd there reflects the actual legitimacy crisis. Not everyone has good coping skills.

no, what i'm saying is that someone who was actually a principled proponent of "life" would start by supporting / introducing measures to dis-incentivise abortions, to support mothers and children, rather than legislating women's bodies before, or even while actually opposing such policies. those aren't measures that would convince ME to value other people's feelings over a woman's right to bodily autonomy, those are simply the minimum requirements to even start arguing a morally consistent "pro-life" stance, rather than merely a "pro-birth" or "anti-choice" stance.

personally, i think that it should always be the mother's choice - as a matter of principle. even though i personally don't like the idea of people simply being "too lazy" or "too careless" to practice safe sex, and treating abortion as "birth control", i think that it's still not up to the government to intervene into such private affairs, stripping citizens of their bodily autonomy, and forcing them to go through all the challenges that a pregnancy poses. nowhere - but especially not in a country that does so little to educate, protect, and support young women and children.

to clarify, it'd be dishonest to ignore that those kinds of "convenience" abortions happen, and again, i personally share the moral concerns about them, but at the same time i think these cases are often vastly overstated by anti-choice zealots. reality is much more complicated than that. such decisions are overwhelmingly NOT made flippantly, and are usually influenced by a multitude of different reasons. checking one box for a statistic, doing your government mandated diligence concerning a deeply personal decision, unsurprisingly doesn't tell the whole story. and again, i'm simply not arrogant enough to conclude that my personal moral concerns should dictate how other people approach the issue.

damn, not one ellipsis used, gg post fender

But is there really an "end" to de-incentivise abortion? Because at the end of the day, there is nothing that the de-incentivizing programs that can ever offer that will ever free itself from the notion of woman's bodily autonomy right? Because woman's bodily autonomy is greater than the POTENTIAL life. Like, the current life that woman has will and always be greater than the potential life that can be created into this world and this is your personal opinion. (Is that about right? Please correct me if I oversimplified it or isn't correct).

And I know it's semantics but you should say a woman's choice vs the mother's choice unless you are meaning that any woman that gets pregnant does get donned the motherhood status. (If that's what you're saying, that's fine too but that would be odd thing to say because what constitutes a woman to be a mother is the HAVE a child where as the woman who chooses abortion doesn't see the fetus as a child at all). But yeah, I don't know if I can ever get behind the notion that some woman MAY use abortions as a form of "birth control" but with that, I would guess that the percentage of these kinds of woman cannot be that high in nature.

But one thing that I want to ask though is, in your opinion, government should have less regulation on private affairs so isn't RvW getting overturned a "positive" step towards that direction? Going from the control of a federal government to State? Or is it the idea that if RvW gets overturned, the power that's given to each individual states will be too great and potentially restricting the woman's right bylarge?

This post was edited by Slowtoanger on May 8 2022 10:19am

You can decrease the economic pressure to have one. If you want to ban abortion without supporting programs to support mothers and impoverished children then you're really just an advocate for feminized poverty.

Are you saying that there isn't a program currently or are you saying that the current programs are not enough?

I'd have to look into it but I was under the assumption that there are programs to help woman who are in such predicament.

goon-shill "logic" and "principles":

a violent mob storming the capitol, attacking police / security, trying to overturn an election and kidnap / kill elected officials: i sleep
people protesting the imminent abolishment of rights and freedoms by people who promised not to overturn them: real shit

government introducing laws to limit speech at schools: i sleep
people getting banned on private social media platforms for hate speech, or for repeatedly spreading disinformation about a pandemic: real shit




This post was edited by fender on May 8 2022 10:26am

The Medicaid system is pretty broken. Capitalist welfare de-incentivizes self-improvement to a large degree by drastically reducing your ability to stay healthy and use widely available healthcare if you do something like become a waitress.

The best places to get women's health services like contraception or prenatal care if you don't have access to private health insurance are places like Planned Parenthood, who offer low cost ultrasounds and vitamins for struggling people. Women aren't allowed to have liberty in health care because non-doctors want to tell them what choices than can and can't make regarding reproduction. Some of these lawmakers even want to kill them by banning ectopic abortions, and also putting the wishes of a rapist above the wishes of the woman in terms of carrying a baby to term.

There is no reason for male lawmakers to be legislating what women should do at the doctors. We should legislate mandatory prostate exams for men starting at 40 and every 5 years after that to return the favor.

These are people who threw temper tantrums about wearing a mask and getting a vaccine wanting to use the power of government to force women to have babies. They are politically schizophrenic.

This post was edited by Skinned on May 8 2022 10:29am