The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[fhtagn]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

[fhtagn]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

If you're going to draw the line at a developmental stage, would you say that the life of a newborn baby has less value and it's more acceptable when they die vs say, a 5 year old child? After all, you are clearly only arguing here that they aren't the same because of their stage of development.

No. This is hardly the gotcha you think it is - it’s only a very stupid and brainless comment. A fetus in its mother’s stomach and a fetus once it’s actually born are two fundamentally different things in the way that a newborn baby and even a 50 year old are not. Try to realize that and stop comparing apples and oranges.

1. Fetuses are never at any point in the mother's stomach during development. 
2. You still haven't provided anything that either proves your argument nor disproved mine. As mentioned previously, the only real difference between a fetus and a newborn child you're pointing out is stage of development. It's completely logical to question your feelings on already born people in different developmental stages, since that clearly matters enough to you to consider whether one is worthy of not being killed. It's not comparing apples & oranges when we are literally talking about the same thing, in this case: humans.

[fhtagn]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

If you think you shouldn't be replying, then you can simply not reply.

Unlike you, I'm not a science denier.

[fhtagn]

DeadPrez is an extremely far right troll who supports the CSA and opposes interracial marriage  (he says it’s okay for him to oppose interracial marriage because he’s black).

Yeah, I've long-doubted this. It's very obviously a cover so he can 'get away' with saying all of the blatantly racist, reactionary nonsense that he spews. He's as white as snow.

[fhtagn]

-snip-

You lost any shred of credibility in your argument the second you argued that babies are stored within and grow within an organ that is part of the mother's digestive system and continued defending it lmao

thanks for saving me the effort by posting in here again.

[fhtagn]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

If you think you shouldn't be replying, then you can simply not reply.

Unlike you, I'm not a science denier.

We'll see if that's true the next time a discussion on climate change comes up.

You have this really weird obsession with assuming my beliefs with absolutely nothing to back it.

[fhtagn]

-snip-

You lost any shred of credibility in your argument the second you argued that babies are stored within and grow within an organ that is part of the mother's digestive system and continued defending it lmao

thanks for saving me the effort by posting in here again.

So I lost credibility the moment I wrote something that I made sure to fact-check on multiple websites first? I didn't write anything till I consulted multiple credible websites and was in fact sure about what I was saying. The fact that you at this juncture just accuse me of having lost my credibility confirms what I thought all along: what you've been saying about fetuses has been demonstrably untrue all along. Fetuses are in the lower stomach. The lower stomach is part of the stomach, which itself is part of the digestive system. So no, what I'm saying isn't incredible. And if it is in fact that shocking, check out Weird but True. The truth can be difficult to believe sometimes (although I don't know why it would be in this case).

It's truly amazing that you keep helping me out here. I'm guessing they haven't gotten to sex ed yet for you in school, or anything about the reproductive system for you yet in biology class.

[fhtagn]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

We've been through this. Your argument as to why a fertilized egg instantly becomes a so-called human being it is basically "because reasons".

I mean, as your theology obviously holds this to be true, more power to you. Kindly don't Yammer on incessantly about science and biology when you are basically discussing what the nuns taught in Sunday School.

We get it, you believed your children were a completely different species while they were in your wife's womb.

Doesn't make you right by any definition, but if it makes you feel better, go for it.

[fhtagn]

You cannot unironically wear a MAGA hat and feign innocence.

yeah it's very weird that people are pretending he was falsely accused of racism when he was literally wearing a MAGA hat lmao

[fhtagn]

Why can't the right just mind their own business when it comes to peoples' bodies?

And don't try even try and conflate vaccines to this!

[fhtagn]

If I’m wrong I’m not reading about how she talked about his ancestors, just that he should be deported

Still bad, but just a different kind of bad

I added the bit about his ancestors because it is utterly absurd and extremely offensive to suggest that a man whose family was brought here against their will in chains should be forcibly shipped back to Africa now that he's finally found great success as a Senator. It is so disgusting it makes me almost physically ill, to think that Warnock could come so far compared to where his family came from and still have people basically telling him he doesn't "belong" and should go "back to Africa," when it wasn't even his family's choice to leave in the first place!

In effect, he was dragged here, then he rose against all odds and succeeded greatly under our great American democratic system anyway. NOW you want to tell me he should be deported? To where? A country that didn't even exist at the time his family was forcibly removed and shipped across the Atlantic?

Nikki Haley is a sick, sick degenerate. A repulsive excuse for a "person." No actual human being with a soul would make such a claim. I had thought slightly better of her than most of the GOP before today; no longer!

[fhtagn]

"Goysplain" is not a slur, that's a ridiculous assertion to make.

[fhtagn]

"Goysplain" is not a slur, that's a ridiculous assertion to make.

The simple truths thread is thataway-->

I don't take advice from someone we already know is racist and sexist. Of course you'd see nothing wrong with what Fergie and Mr. X said, it's just another box to check for you.

also

[fhtagn]

"Goysplain" is not a slur, that's a ridiculous assertion to make.

The simple truths thread is thataway-->

I don't take advice from someone we already know is racist and sexist. Of course you'd see nothing wrong with what Fergie and Mr. X said, it's just another box to check for you.

also

Holding you in contempt personally hardly makes me sexist, though I understand that hanging around with people whose end goal of social policy is handmaid's tale lite must create a huge crave for deflection.

And racist? I have to admit I'm not sure if that's yet more deflection, or projection, or a mixture. Probably the latter.

Says the white male who hates when minorities don't agree with him.

[fhtagn]

No one is special enough to change how language works.

Languages evolve constantly.

How long before you simp so hard you become a xe/xir?

[fhtagn]

Forgive me if I don’t believe Fox News over a trans person’s story. The person is clearly an awful being and should rot in a dark cell, but deadnaming someone is as bad as the n word, and you’d know this if you’d spend time around trans people.

Deadnaming a trans person for being evil is analogous to calling a black person the n-word because they're evil.

[fhtagn]

The spam argument doesn't hold water because the problem some people have with these posts is not that they are spam, it's that they are evidence that radicalism is real and that the anti-transgender crusade was never about parental rights or anything else seemingly reasonable.

The spam argument exists because it actually is spam. There is no evidence to support this idea that a "trans genocide" is happening, and there is no valuable discussion that results from the threads. It's just an excuse for some red or maroon av to falsely claim "trans genocide" with no proof and for a bunch of people to reply things like"omg Republicans are evil and have to be stopped" like it means anything.

I haven't see anyone say it is actually happen, but it's clear that there are people proposing it (this person at CPAC). And not all the threads are about genocide, but are also about bills about banning transitioning and even removing children from the home.

If you even bothered to listen to what he actually said, he was referring to transgenderism (an ideology), not transgender people. He's clearly not even close to proposing genocide.

But of course like every other red/maroon av on this forum that frequently posts about trans issues, it's much easier to push your existing beliefs than actually listen to what is being said or reason what is actually being proposed from the source itself.

There's no such thing as transgenderism. It's just a word right-wingers made up to refer to all transgender people in a way where they can do exactly what you just did which is create a false narrative of talking about something separate.

[fhtagn]

The spam argument doesn't hold water because the problem some people have with these posts is not that they are spam, it's that they are evidence that radicalism is real and that the anti-transgender crusade was never about parental rights or anything else seemingly reasonable.

The spam argument exists because it actually is spam. There is no evidence to support this idea that a "trans genocide" is happening, and there is no valuable discussion that results from the threads. It's just an excuse for some red or maroon av to falsely claim "trans genocide" with no proof and for a bunch of people to reply things like"omg Republicans are evil and have to be stopped" like it means anything.

I haven't see anyone say it is actually happen, but it's clear that there are people proposing it (this person at CPAC). And not all the threads are about genocide, but are also about bills about banning transitioning and even removing children from the home.

If you even bothered to listen to what he actually said, he was referring to transgenderism (an ideology), not transgender people. He's clearly not even close to proposing genocide.

But of course like every other red/maroon av on this forum that frequently posts about trans issues, it's much easier to push your existing beliefs than actually listen to what is being said or reason what is actually being proposed from the source itself.

There's no such thing as transgenderism. It's just a word right-wingers made up to refer to all transgender people in a way where they can do exactly what you just did which is create a false narrative of talking about something separate.

The simple truths thread is thataway.

Again, trying to say you're not trying to get rid of transgender people just transgenderism is like saying you're not trying to get rid of jews, just jewishness. You're fooling no one.

[fhtagn]

Something needs to be done about Ishan lobbying personal attacks on me here

He also said that I should pirate the game which would be an illegal activity, and misgendered me (I identify as genderless, not male, though admittedly, I generally do not go around policing people for misgendering me like this).

I apologize for misgendering you and I have edited my post and in the future I won't do so - but my point still stands.

I really don't care you that you edited the post and apologized. Misgendering someone should be a permaban, period.

[fhtagn]

You can reject transgenderism while still being compassionate to the individual.

Nope. "Love the sinner, reject the sin" is a bunch of horsesh**t.

[fhtagn]

(snip because I'm not going to support doxxing)

Can we not do doxxing on this forum?

And yes the removing of the film is bad.

Public information. I just think an organization that is supposed to be open to everyone should be made aware that an employee has a racial bias. They need to sit her down and have a conversation.

(snip)

Behold the sadistic nature of the leftist trying to ruin the life of a random person who dares to have a different opinion. Once again, this place is literally Twitter now.

No, I'm an African-American who is sick of White racists trying to erase history that they don't like. Accountability is not sadistic, it's reality and it is a necessity.

[fhtagn]

Who cares? He's a disgusting human being who's an accessory to genocide.

genocide?

They're trying to do a genocide against transgender people. If you look at the ten stages, we're already at like stage 6.

[fhtagn]

Who cares? He's a disgusting human being who's an accessory to genocide.

genocide?

They're trying to do a genocide against transgender people. If you look at the ten stages, we're already at like stage 6.

Wrong thread, this is for ignorant ones, not correct ones.

Thanks for saving me the effort by posting in the thread, Fergie!

[fhtagn]

I wasn't sad about Anita Bryant getting a pie in the face; and I'm not gonna cry over Riley Gaines getting some expected pushback from going to one of the most trans-inclusive and tolerant places in the country to push her message.

Please, as if this wasn't the point.

[fhtagn]

A violation of norms would be making an accusation without evidence, not saying that passing particular legislation could make you responsible for the repercussions.

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

Saying that voting for a bill that bans trans kids from potentially life saving care would mean having blood on your hands is not particularly extreme when it comes to this sort of issue.

 Except life saving care isn't what is being discussed.

You don't get to determine that. If a particular issue can effect a person's mental state enough for them to want to do harm to themselves then whatever care that could reasonably help deter that would be life saving. If a transgender person is having a breakdown over not being able to transition then access to care to transition is life saving. No one is saying that not being able to transition by itself will physically kill someone, but not being able to do so can cause mental anguish that could lead to suicide.

In the medical field, life saving care has an actual meaning. And not a single thing that falls under "gender affirming care" also falls under what is actually life saving care.

Wow, you're a doctor, I didn't know that. Neither am I, but I'm smart enough to know that gender affirming care can be life saving. Not every transgender person is going to be suicidal, but some will be. If you don't understand that then you shouldn't be a doctor.

Once again, not how actual life saving care works. But at least you admit you have no clue what you're talking about.

As a doctor you should know that saving lives isn't all about curing diseases or illnesses or life saving surgery. Gender affirming care is life saving for many transgender individuals, period. That's not something that you can speak on because that's not your experience and you refuse to be understanding of other's experiences. I'm not transgender, but I have read about how transgender people are affected.