Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   Judge says Arizona can roll back abortion laws to 1864, still undecided if women should be able to vote or have jobs   (bbc.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Roe v. Wade, White House, Republican-led states, Abortion, lack of exemptions, decision, medical conditions, Pro-choice  
•       •       •

2396 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 24 Sep 2022 at 4:14 PM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



128 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-09-24 4:18:33 PM  
Live in a fascist police state, expect fascist laws.
 
2022-09-24 4:18:36 PM  
Here is hoping Arizona's blue(ish) shift in 2020 carries over to the midterms.
 
2022-09-24 4:21:22 PM  
AZ is a hellhole, trying to compete with TX. I know from experience.
 
2022-09-24 4:22:52 PM  
The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.
 
2022-09-24 4:24:24 PM  
Let's see what the Founding Fathers thought of abortion...

Oh look, Ben Franklin wrote a manual that described how to have an abortion at home: https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak
 
2022-09-24 4:25:23 PM  
1864.  At least Cocaine and Morphine will be legal

/A little too early for Heroin, but it probably would have been OK too
 
2022-09-24 4:26:33 PM  
and now you got far-right group camp out at ballot drop boxes with the blessings of local sheriff to intimidate voters, all because of a fake docufilm 2000 mules

Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-09-24 4:27:46 PM  

kkinnison: and now you got far-right group camp out at ballot drop boxes with the blessings of local sheriff to intimidate voters, all because of a fake docufilm 2000 mules

[Fark user image image 583x904]
[Fark user image image 850x1327]


Wonder how much government assistance these folks live on tbh
 
2022-09-24 4:29:20 PM  

zgrizz: The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.


Wait!  You mean laws mean things?????
 
2022-09-24 4:29:27 PM  

zgrizz: The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.


I guess the comedy here is that Conservatives can't tell what a joke is?
 
2022-09-24 4:29:45 PM  
of course women in Arizona can vote and hold jobs, if their fathers or husbands permit it.  it's a family matter that shouldn't be up to the state. women are private property, not communal property- we live in a Christian society, thankyouverymuch
 
2022-09-24 4:31:27 PM  

zgrizz: The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.


Doesn't really matter. Anything that Republicans can do between now and the election that shows Americans who and what they really are is a good thing - and this reversion to a brutal, archaic 19tn century law does that.
It's more honest than their wishy washy little 15 week ban.
 
2022-09-24 4:33:29 PM  
But since you weren't a state in 1864, you don't have any say in Federal elections. Get in line behind Puerto Rico.
 
2022-09-24 4:37:15 PM  

jso2897: zgrizz: The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.

Doesn't really matter. Anything that Republicans can do between now and the election that shows Americans who and what they really are is a good thing - and this reversion to a brutal, archaic 19tn century law does that.
It's more honest than their wishy washy little 15 week ban.


How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.
 
2022-09-24 4:39:12 PM  

pacified: kkinnison: and now you got far-right group camp out at ballot drop boxes with the blessings of local sheriff to intimidate voters, all because of a fake docufilm 2000 mules

[Fark user image image 583x904]
[Fark user image image 850x1327]

Wonder how much government assistance these folks live on tbh


I gather they can thrive only on hatred and anger.
 
2022-09-24 4:40:00 PM  

zgrizz: The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.


Let's see.
Were the laws governing abortion rolled back? Yes.
Is the law they rolled back to from the 19th century? Yes.
Not sure what facts you think were twisted; seems like an accurate headline to me.
 
2022-09-24 4:40:13 PM  
Meet the judge:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-09-24 4:44:57 PM  

vestona22: How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.


When you order omelets for breakfast, are you disappointed when you don't get pulled chicken?
 
2022-09-24 4:45:39 PM  

kkinnison: and now you got far-right group camp out at ballot drop boxes with the blessings of local sheriff to intimidate voters, all because of a fake docufilm 2000 mules

[Fark user image image 583x904]
[Fark user image image 850x1327]


Jesus Christ in a cracker.

Even with the QAnon user name.

What f*ckheads.
 
2022-09-24 4:46:14 PM  

vestona22: jso2897: zgrizz: The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.

Doesn't really matter. Anything that Republicans can do between now and the election that shows Americans who and what they really are is a good thing - and this reversion to a brutal, archaic 19tn century law does that.
It's more honest than their wishy washy little 15 week ban.

How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.


Let's reframe the question, shall we?  How about...
How is forcing women to carry pregnancies against their will, like some kind of baby factory, not brutal?

So the answer to your extremely biased and misleading question is, because it is the only way to allow women to have the extremely basic human right of deciding how their bodies are used. A right that we even afford to corpses. If the government can't force you to donate a kidney to save someone's life, it shouldn't be able to force women to donate their uterus to save a fetus.
 
2022-09-24 4:49:33 PM  

Gawdzila: vestona22: jso2897: zgrizz: The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.

Doesn't really matter. Anything that Republicans can do between now and the election that shows Americans who and what they really are is a good thing - and this reversion to a brutal, archaic 19tn century law does that.
It's more honest than their wishy washy little 15 week ban.

How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.

Let's reframe the question, shall we?


No.  Let's stick to the actual question:  How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?
 
2022-09-24 4:50:40 PM  

vestona22: jso2897: zgrizz: The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.

Doesn't really matter. Anything that Republicans can do between now and the election that shows Americans who and what they really are is a good thing - and this reversion to a brutal, archaic 19tn century law does that.
It's more honest than their wishy washy little 15 week ban.

How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.


When it's thr product of rape, for one.

Or anencephalic, for another.

Or a harlequin syndrome.

Or ectopic.

Or any number of other reasons, up to and including that the woman already has kids she can't afford to feed because poppa skipped town like the fine upstanding man he is.
 
2022-09-24 4:51:03 PM  

Outshined_One: vestona22: How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.

When you order omelets for breakfast, are you disappointed when you don't get pulled chicken?


I note that you dodge the question:  How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?
 
2022-09-24 4:51:38 PM  
Leaches for everyone!
 
2022-09-24 4:51:49 PM  

vestona22: Outshined_One: vestona22: How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.

When you order omelets for breakfast, are you disappointed when you don't get pulled chicken?

I note that you dodge the question:  How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?


When the girl carrying it is 10 years old.
 
2022-09-24 4:54:18 PM  

Bonzo_1116: vestona22: Outshined_One: vestona22: How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.

When you order omelets for breakfast, are you disappointed when you don't get pulled chicken?

I note that you dodge the question:  How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?

When the girl carrying it is 10 years old.


So you're OK with murder in some cases? Noted.
 
2022-09-24 4:54:22 PM  

vestona22: Outshined_One: vestona22: How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.

When you order omelets for breakfast, are you disappointed when you don't get pulled chicken?

I note that you dodge the question:  How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?


How is murdering logic through begging the question acceptable discourse? You've assumed a murder where one must be proved. Indeed, you've misidentified a zygote as a "baby" when they are clearly not the same thing.

/I'm being trolled, aren't I.
 
2022-09-24 4:56:32 PM  

vestona22: jso2897: zgrizz: The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.

Doesn't really matter. Anything that Republicans can do between now and the election that shows Americans who and what they really are is a good thing - and this reversion to a brutal, archaic 19tn century law does that.
It's more honest than their wishy washy little 15 week ban.

How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.


You can make anything brutal, if you accomplish iat by means of brutality and oppression.
Including "not killing babies",
 
2022-09-24 4:59:13 PM  

vestona22: Bonzo_1116: vestona22: Outshined_One: vestona22: How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.

When you order omelets for breakfast, are you disappointed when you don't get pulled chicken?

I note that you dodge the question:  How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?

When the girl carrying it is 10 years old.

So you're OK with murder in some cases? Noted.


Is an execution murder?

Is it murder if I shoot a man dead that was knifing me?

Is it murder when we drone strike a convoy from 5000 miles away?

Is it murder if it's not a person?

Not all killing is murder.  Unless you're a PETA member.
 
2022-09-24 4:59:52 PM  

vestona22: Gawdzila: vestona22: jso2897: zgrizz: The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.

Doesn't really matter. Anything that Republicans can do between now and the election that shows Americans who and what they really are is a good thing - and this reversion to a brutal, archaic 19tn century law does that.
It's more honest than their wishy washy little 15 week ban.

How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.

Let's reframe the question, shall we?

No.  Let's stick to the actual question:  How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?


Sigh, fine. When one life requires the unconsenting use of another person's body, to not terminate is brutal. It's slavery. That's how.
 
2022-09-24 5:01:48 PM  

vestona22: jso2897: zgrizz: The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.

Doesn't really matter. Anything that Republicans can do between now and the election that shows Americans who and what they really are is a good thing - and this reversion to a brutal, archaic 19tn century law does that.
It's more honest than their wishy washy little 15 week ban.

How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.


There are no babies involved.
 
2022-09-24 5:02:10 PM  

cryptozoophiliac: vestona22: Outshined_One: vestona22: How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.

When you order omelets for breakfast, are you disappointed when you don't get pulled chicken?

I note that you dodge the question:  How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?

How is murdering logic through begging the question acceptable discourse? You've assumed a murder where one must be proved. Indeed, you've misidentified a zygote as a "baby" when they are clearly not the same thing.

/I'm being trolled, aren't I.


You are not.  You're being asked to explain yourself.  You refuse to to answer a simple question, "How is not killing babies brutal"  You can't.

Literally from Mirriem-Webster;
Definition of feticide
: the act of causing the death of a fetus
 
2022-09-24 5:02:18 PM  
I mean really.  This sort of law makes miscarriages negligent homicide if you take it to its logical conclusion.

I'm looking forward to buying beer in Arizona by showing a doctor's note that I've reached menopause.
 
2022-09-24 5:03:15 PM  

vestona22: Outshined_One: vestona22: How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.

When you order omelets for breakfast, are you disappointed when you don't get pulled chicken?

I note that you dodge the question:  How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?


Moat any medical procedure involving the removal of cells going to be "brutal." Removing a cancerous mass is brutal. Removing a tumor is brutal. Amputating a gangrenous limb is brutal. Removing an ectopic pregnancy is brutal. Each is necessary for the survival of the person bearing it.

You're trolling, but your point contains more loaded presuppositions than a first year philosophy student attempting an ontological argument.
 
2022-09-24 5:03:21 PM  

strathmeyer: zgrizz: The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.

I guess the comedy here is that Conservatives can't tell what a joke is?


Nobody likes conservative humor.
 
2022-09-24 5:04:35 PM  
 Next on the agenda
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-09-24 5:05:42 PM  

Bonzo_1116: vestona22: jso2897: zgrizz: The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.

Doesn't really matter. Anything that Republicans can do between now and the election that shows Americans who and what they really are is a good thing - and this reversion to a brutal, archaic 19tn century law does that.
It's more honest than their wishy washy little 15 week ban.

How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.

When it's thr product of rape, for one.

Or anencephalic, for another.

Or a harlequin syndrome.

Or ectopic.

Or any number of other reasons, up to and including that the woman already has kids she can't afford to feed because poppa skipped town like the fine upstanding man he is.


I think it's important not to get mired down explaining why somebody might want ("deserve") an abortion. It doesn't matter why, how the pregnancy happened, none of that.

What matters is that all people have the right to bodily autonomy. Full stop.
 
2022-09-24 5:06:31 PM  
Wonder how the voters are feeling about that...

Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size


Oh. OH. But, by all means, please continue to help their campaigns.
 
2022-09-24 5:07:24 PM  
"Explain to me how (combination of good sounding words) can be (bad word)."
That sort of combination of words only comes out of the mouths of liars, phonies, and others who intend to deceive you.
Any person who respects the truth knows that anyone can set up any symbol of something they brand as "good" and do unspeakable evil in the service of it.
It's the Devil's favorite trick.
 
2022-09-24 5:08:03 PM  

rosekolodny: Bonzo_1116:. Full stop.


Especially for the kid.  Right?
 
2022-09-24 5:08:43 PM  

rosekolodny: Bonzo_1116: vestona22: jso2897: zgrizz: The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.

Doesn't really matter. Anything that Republicans can do between now and the election that shows Americans who and what they really are is a good thing - and this reversion to a brutal, archaic 19tn century law does that.
It's more honest than their wishy washy little 15 week ban.

How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.

When it's thr product of rape, for one.

Or anencephalic, for another.

Or a harlequin syndrome.

Or ectopic.

Or any number of other reasons, up to and including that the woman already has kids she can't afford to feed because poppa skipped town like the fine upstanding man he is.

I think it's important not to get mired down explaining why somebody might want ("deserve") an abortion. It doesn't matter why, how the pregnancy happened, none of that.

What matters is that all people have the right to bodily autonomy. Full stop.


True true.
Just irritating to see a Lazarus account.
 
2022-09-24 5:10:06 PM  

vestona22: rosekolodny: Bonzo_1116:. Full stop.

Especially for the kid.  Right?


It's not a kid. It's not a baby.  It's cellular goo with some vague structure to it.

Outshined_One: vestona22: Outshined_One: vestona22: How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.

When you order omelets for breakfast, are you disappointed when you don't get pulled chicken?

I note that you dodge the question:  How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?

Moat any medical procedure involving the removal of cells going to be "brutal." Removing a cancerous mass is brutal. Removing a tumor is brutal. Amputating a gangrenous limb is brutal. Removing an ectopic pregnancy is brutal. Each is necessary for the survival of the person bearing it.

You're trolling, but your point contains more loaded presuppositions than a first year philosophy student attempting an ontological argument.


Bro, you're going to have to dumb down that diction for someone that needs to be reminded they have to remove their mouth from the window to breathe occasionally.
 
2022-09-24 5:10:57 PM  

vestona22: Gawdzila: vestona22: jso2897: zgrizz: The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.

Doesn't really matter. Anything that Republicans can do between now and the election that shows Americans who and what they really are is a good thing - and this reversion to a brutal, archaic 19tn century law does that.
It's more honest than their wishy washy little 15 week ban.

How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.

Let's reframe the question, shall we?

No.  Let's stick to the actual question:  How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?


Because it isn't a baby, it is potentially a baby, but isn't yet. So it isn't murder in any way shape or form, it is the removal of a collection of cells that are not viable outside of a host. If the host for any reason does not want that growth inside them, they have the right to remove it.
 
2022-09-24 5:11:51 PM  

vestona22: cryptozoophiliac: vestona22: Outshined_One: vestona22: How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.

When you order omelets for breakfast, are you disappointed when you don't get pulled chicken?

I note that you dodge the question:  How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?

How is murdering logic through begging the question acceptable discourse? You've assumed a murder where one must be proved. Indeed, you've misidentified a zygote as a "baby" when they are clearly not the same thing.

/I'm being trolled, aren't I.

You are not.  You're being asked to explain yourself.  You refuse to to answer a simple question, "How is not killing babies brutal"  You can't.

Literally from Mirriem-Webster;
Definition of feticide
: the act of causing the death of a fetus


But you are not causing the death of a fetus, thus your argument falls apart.

This is not a fetus.

uk.mypetandi.comView Full Size
 
2022-09-24 5:13:37 PM  

Outshined_One: vestona22: Outshined_One: vestona22: How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.

When you order omelets for breakfast, are you disappointed when you don't get pulled chicken?

I note that you dodge the question:  How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?

Moat any medical procedure involving the removal of cells going to be "brutal." Removing a cancerous mass is brutal. Removing a tumor is brutal. Amputating a gangrenous limb is brutal. Removing an ectopic pregnancy is brutal. Each is necessary for the survival of the person bearing it.

You're trolling, but your point contains more loaded presuppositions than a first year philosophy student attempting an ontological argument.


You are incorrect.  "Brutal" has a distinct meaning.  It's easy to look up.  The question was not philosophic, it was specific.  "How is not killing babies brutal?"  Your attempts to dodge and deflect are a sign of the failure of your logic.
 
2022-09-24 5:14:26 PM  
vestona22:
You are not.  You're being asked to explain yourself.  You refuse to to answer a simple question, "How is not killing babies brutal"  You can't.

Fetus, not babies. In the major religions- there is no soul until first breath, aka outside of the womb. So nothing is being removed other than a cluster of cells.

Define brutal in a medical setting? How is a abortion compared to open heart surgery, Where the ribs and sternum is broken? How about amputation where body parts are cut off shears and bone saws? How is taking a pill to make the body reject tissue, or having medical instrument extract tissue through the vagina "brutal"?

Not all abortions done on "living" fetus. Many are already dead or do not have the proper parts to sustain life? What is "brutal" about removing dead tissue so a women can live?

If life is so precious, the why do we have so many hungry starving children in the world? Why doesn't society feed them?
 
2022-09-24 5:15:08 PM  

vestona22: Outshined_One: vestona22: Outshined_One: vestona22: How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.

When you order omelets for breakfast, are you disappointed when you don't get pulled chicken?

I note that you dodge the question:  How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?

Moat any medical procedure involving the removal of cells going to be "brutal." Removing a cancerous mass is brutal. Removing a tumor is brutal. Amputating a gangrenous limb is brutal. Removing an ectopic pregnancy is brutal. Each is necessary for the survival of the person bearing it.

You're trolling, but your point contains more loaded presuppositions than a first year philosophy student attempting an ontological argument.

You are incorrect.  "Brutal" has a distinct meaning.  It's easy to look up.  The question was not philosophic, it was specific.  "How is not killing babies brutal?"  Your attempts to dodge and deflect are a sign of the failure of your logic.


Define "baby", please.

Please also note that you've dropped "murder", so that's nice Mr. Lazarus.
 
2022-09-24 5:17:24 PM  

zgrizz: The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.


The judge ruled that Jim Crow laws, which were paused when the 1965 Voting Rights Act was adopted, were ok after that act's provisions were ruled unnecessary.
 
2022-09-24 5:18:31 PM  

vestona22: Gawdzila: vestona22: jso2897: zgrizz: The judge did not say this.

The judge ruled that existing law, which was paused when Roe v Wade was decided, was in force after that law was overturned.

People with an agenda like to twist facts and make clickbait headlines, and Fark has never met hate speech it didn't green light - but read the article and learn the actual facts.

Doesn't really matter. Anything that Republicans can do between now and the election that shows Americans who and what they really are is a good thing - and this reversion to a brutal, archaic 19tn century law does that.
It's more honest than their wishy washy little 15 week ban.

How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?  Seriously, explain how not killing babies is brutal.

Let's reframe the question, shall we?

No.  Let's stick to the actual question:  How is not murdering unborn babies brutal?


Let's unpack that question.

First, you've got the question phrased as a negative: "How is not murdering brutal?"

This immediately begs your question: "Is not murdering brutal?" because your intention is clearly "Murdering is brutal." The real statement is, therefore "murdering [unborn babies] is brutal" and therefore "not murdering [unborn babies] is not brutal."

The next assumption is that "abortion is murder". Clearly in this context, we are discussing abortion, i.e. the termination of pregnancy, which you phrase as "murdering unborn babies" ergo, you presume that "abortion is murder." Therefore your question becomes "Abortion is brutal therefore not aborting is not brutal."

Now, let's review "murder." Murder is usually defined as "the killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought." There is no doubt that abortion terminates a pregnancy, of course. Your next assumption is that fetus = unborn baby = human being. This goes to the heart of the abortion debate, but we need not discuss that here.

By disingenuously phrasing your question "how is not murdering an unborn baby brutal?" your REAL subtext is "murdering a human being is brutal" thus putting anyone who attempts to respond to you in the impossible position of having to rebut your assumptions on multiple levels: Whether abortion is murder, whether it is brutal, whether a fetus is an unborn baby or a human being; and furthermore by phrasing it this way you make any response seem to support the antithesis of your position: "Murdering a [baby] is not brutal."

Of course, if abortions occurred in a vacuum and it was ONLY an issue of terminating a non-living being, your argument might be supportable, unfortunately for you, there is a whole raft of other issues surrounding whether or not to have, allow, or accept abortions that make "how is not murdering an unborn baby brutal?" the stupidest question ever uttered by human lips.
 
2022-09-24 5:21:04 PM  

Flat_Panda: vestona22:
You are not.  You're being asked to explain yourself.  You refuse to to answer a simple question, "How is not killing babies brutal"  You can't.


If life is so precious, the why do we have so many hungry starving children in the world? Why doesn't society feed them?


Because people like yourself would rather pontificate than actually spend their $$$ on them.
 
Displayed 50 of 128 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.