By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom said:
ConservagameR said:
JWeinCom said:

Wow. Your point was completely blown out of the water, and you pivoted to complete nonsense. If someone chooses to have sex, that does not mean they lose the choice of anything that happens afterwards.

As for why each side can't just make up their own rules, because that's not how human rights fucking work. It's the same reason a state can't say you have to get a vaccine or you can't work anywhere. Because a) a person should not be forced to uproot their lives to exercise their basic human rights and b) not everyone is always able to leave a particular place. 

No, as was already explained, it was vaccine or test.

As for why contraception is not a choice, because she's already fucking pregnant Captain Hindsight. Same reason why we can't deny people access to hospitals if they get Covid by saying "Well you could have gotten a vaccine derf derf derf". When you invent time travel, then those are valid alternatives. 

I'm going to assume this isn't the manner in which you typically converse with people, and that you're just having a bad day, or are taking it too personally, and am going to end the conversation here since it doesn't seem like you can compose yourself at the moment. I'd hope next time we could have a more moderate constructive dialogue.

When you assume, you make an ass of u and me. I am having a wonderful day as a matter of fact. But, I use the word fuck when I find it appropriate, and if someone puts forth a ridiculous argument, it will be treated as such. If you find that objectionable, then by all means, you are under no compulsion to engage. 

Well you didn't exactly sell me on the assumption, and I'm also not sure why asking questions is ridiculous.

Since this is normal response etiquette for you as you say it is, I'll be sure to steer clear from now on, as I also like to complete wonderful days.



Around the Network
ConservagameR said:
JWeinCom said:

When you assume, you make an ass of u and me. I am having a wonderful day as a matter of fact. But, I use the word fuck when I find it appropriate, and if someone puts forth a ridiculous argument, it will be treated as such. If you find that objectionable, then by all means, you are under no compulsion to engage. 

Well you didn't exactly sell me on the assumption, and I'm also not sure why asking questions is ridiculous.

Since this is normal response etiquette for you as you say it is, I'll be sure to steer clear from now on, as I also like to complete wonderful days.

Asking questions is not ridiculous. Asking ridicuolous ones is. Why abstinence is not a choice for a pregnant woman is an example of such a question and I had a great time answering it with appropriate snark. If you didn't have as much fun as I did, again, no compulsion to engage.




 

JWeinCom said:

Actually, going to end it here for now, cause I have studying to do. May repost later.

I did catch the lenghty message you deleted. Just in case you decide to repost, my example of dna-sample to determine fatherhood is how it works in my country. It wasn't a wacky analogy but an example of a situation where to rights overlap and lawmakers can decide to limit another right in a specific situation. There are other examples as well.

My intention also wasn't to cherry pick some of your points. Questions like what about rape victims etc. are of course valid, it's just that we've had these discussions in my country and we've had a well-functioning law and system about it for decades. So I thought I won't bother with those as my point was from the begin with that your analogies were deeply flawed. 

Whether the fetus has a reasonable chance of life is not a legal distinction. It is a factual distinction, but why does that change the legal analysis? What is the underlying principle? When we have to use our body to preserve another viable life we must? I am undoubtedly a viable human life, but neither of my parents have to use their bodies to keep me alive against my consent. Could we force them to give a blood transfusion? Could we have forced my mother to give me a blood transfusion when I was a minute old?

This is where I get confused. Legal distinction here is a 24-week old fetus, and it's partly based on factual distinction. Rest of your questions are again suggesting that there can't be a legal difference between a fetus and a born human, even though this is the case in many countries. Maybe in US it isn't possible to make a legal distinction then, I don't know but I find it odd.

Is this really an ongoing debate in US? That if you don't have to donate an organ to somebody, then a mother doesn't have to use her body to grow a baby? To me that's going into extremes, but teh freedom and bodily autonomy, right?

Last edited by KiigelHeart - on 11 May 2022

Republicans will not rest until we are literally living The Handmaid’s Tale.



Why is gun ownership a right wing thing? Republican thing to do?



Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

Around the Network
LudicrousSpeed said:

Republicans will not rest until we are literally living The Handmaid’s Tale.

Edited, Republicans can't win them all. Biden is President now. 

Last edited by SegaHeart - on 11 May 2022

Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

SegaHeart said:

Why is gun ownership a right wing thing? Republican thing to do?

Its not, you will find that a lot of liberals, Dems, you name it carry guns as well.  I would say the difference is how each side believe there should be restrictions and gun laws which is where they differ.



Politics is another case entirely way different than gaming.

Last edited by SegaHeart - on 11 May 2022

Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

Machiavellian said:
SegaHeart said:

Why is gun ownership a right wing thing? Republican thing to do?

Its not, you will find that a lot of liberals, Dems, you name it carry guns as well.  I would say the difference is how each side believe there should be restrictions and gun laws which is where they differ.

What's the restrictions between the 2?



Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

SegaHeart said:
Machiavellian said:

Its not, you will find that a lot of liberals, Dems, you name it carry guns as well.  I would say the difference is how each side believe there should be restrictions and gun laws which is where they differ.

What's the restrictions between the 2?

Liberals believe that they should be heavily regulated since they are dangerous. 

Conservatives believe that they are a fundamental right and that is more important than health or safety. (As always, conservatives want all the rights without any of the responsibilities that come with it.) 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II, Rock Band 4