Part 2

Conservatives are far less likely to use condoms than liberals because they value marriage and family over sex with strangers.

"Conservatives don't fuck for fun," is what you're implying. Even if your statement was true, it's still hypocritical as shit. Condoms and contraceptives are literally abortion. It's also "anti-natural" if you want to get into the whole God shit. Without condoms, the woman would be impregnated. The only logic plothole involved here is using the idiotic logic that "it doesn't count until it reached the egg," even though without condoms, the sperm would've reached the egg anyway, so it's still abortion. It's still "preventing human life," as conservatives describe it. It doesn't make any sense to separate sperm and an embryo, anyway. Neither one is an actual baby. Babies aren't formed until the third trimester, which is six months along the pregnancy. So it's impossible for anyone to be pro-life, use condoms (let alone any form of recreational sex, including no condoms, tubes tied, getting snipped, or the "pull-out method"), and not be a huge fucking hypocrite.

"Abortion is murder because you prevented a life from being born, but using condoms to prevent a life from being born, is acceptable." Make that shit make sense...

no one is advocating for laws respecting religious doctrine.

Man... I'm not even going to send you a thousand different links here, cause you wouldn't read them. I mean, you're just objectively wrong. Just Google Kristi Noem and Ron DeSantis, yourself dude. You're just objectively wrong here and I'm surprised you'd even try to argue this with as much as Republican politicians talk about pushing more Christianity/religion into US laws.

Not even getting into that, the Separation of Church and State means you can't mention anything about religion influencing and affecting law and government. But since America has been shitting all over that idea for hundreds of years now, it doesn't even matter much anymore. Still pointing out how it's against the Constitution and what the Founding Fathers wanted, though others interpret it in other ways. Let's just put it this way: Replace Christianity with Islam or Wokeism, and see if it's still okay to ignore the Separation of Church and State. I honestly don't even care that much about it; my point is that people are hypocritical all the time about shit and willing to look the other way when things benefit them or they agree with them.

The pro life argument is about saving the lives of innocent "babies."

Except 1) it's objectively not a baby, hence the terms "embryo, fetus, and baby," 2) your opinion on it being "baby murder" is just that; an opinion, and 3) the important point: no one gives a fuck what some random guy in Iowa or Arkansas thinks about their right to opt out of parenthood or not.

There is absolutely nothing about that which insists that the parents have to raise the child.

Irrelevant, but also wrong. Do you not understand what labor is? Do you think it's as easy as just taking a shit, leaving the baby there, and walking out? I mean, I'm not even a woman here, and you're making me have to explain to you how intense child-bearing is. How some women don't even survive it. How painful it is. And you're saying no one has the right to opt out of that? All because you think a 6 week old embryo is the same thing as a "human baby" when it objectively isn't. Do you think scrambled eggs are hot wings, too? Do you think grains of sand are diamonds? I seriously don't fucking understand how so many people don't know what the process of development is. If you want to say an embryo will one day be a baby, then fine. Say that. But it isn't a baby and abortion isn't "baby murder."

And if your argument is "adoption," I'll redirect you back to your previous point:

Obviously doing more of something that does not work is fucking stupid.

Do you know how fucked the adoption system is? But that's also welfare, and you hate welfare right, so you'd be against that, too. Can't have adoption and be against welfare. So I know you're not thinking of that as an option, anyway right?

Again, I already made the other points about how no pro-life advocate on Earth gives an actual fuck about the welfare and safety of that embryo that becomes a newborn, post-birth. No one is actually "pro-life," they're just anti-abortion and don't give a flying fuck about "that precious baby" once it's out it's mom's cooch. It's just "I hate abortion! What's that? Can't raise the child after popping it out? Oh well; ain't my fucking problem! And you ain't getting a dime from me, either! Figure it out!" And then if we have actual newborn homicides and murders skyrocket because abortion is banned nationwide, people will then want to bitch about that too, as if they didn't see it coming. As if you can FORCE someone to be a loving, responsible parent...

If someone thinks that a person who would do abortion is already "evil," then why the fuck do you even want them as a parent, to begin with? How is that not the more fucked-up option? One everyone else will have to pay for too. Either literally or through the bodies of that future serial killer or rapist you forced into the world to be neglected and unloved.

And then you dumb-fucks wonder why we have thugs punching white women in New York City right now and it never clicks in your pea-sized brain that "maybe they had shitty parents, and a shitty childhood, which resulted in them being shitty people?" And you want MORE of that shit? More fatherless "niggers" as you call them, not that it's just a one-race issue. Good God, you are one DUMB motherfucker. And if you were anyone else, I wouldn't even resort to pointing this out or stooping this low. But you? You deserve to be mocked for being such a stupid shit and trying to intellectually flex online and looking even dumber in the process.

...It is a "living human being." They should be held financially liable.

Says who? Who gives a flying fuck what you think they should be held to? You think someone sparing a future child from a lifetime of abuse is worse than putting them through that abuse cause you think an embryo is an actual developed human life when "it is literally a biological fact" that it is not. You know an embryo doesn't even have brain function or a consciousness, right? If you were arguing against third-trimester abortions; you know, an actual baby, that'd be one thing. But you're arguing something that is closer to sperm, is the same thing as a baby, or as you called it, "a living human being" when it literally is not by objective medical facts, and that no one should be able to opt out of parenthood because of what you think and feel is "a human being?" I thought the woke were the only ones who did "feelings over facts?" Not that you give a fuck about anyone but yourself, anyway. You're the type of person who'd love to see more "non-whites" aborted, but then want to moral-fag online about how "abortion is wrong." But no, you're not a hypocrite at all!

You'd rather a billion more fucked-up, suicidal, angry, mentally ill people enter the world than sparing those people a lifetime of misery, abuse, and shit from a mother who didn't want them because "they should be held financially liable?" I can't even fathom how fucking idiotic that sounds and how fucked your priorities in life must be. Not that I'm surprised or anything.

This is why I don't respect the pro-life argument and how fucking DUMB it is. If it had a fucking lick of logic or intelligence to it, I could understand it better. Only time a pro-life person was able to convince me is if I gave him the choice between a woman aborting a child and that man having to immediately raise the child himself and take up parenthood of them, and he said he'd do it, 100%, no hesitation. He also actually wasn't anti-welfare, either. He, unlike most pro-life advocates, actually put his money where his mouth was and actually proved to be pro-life than just anti-abortion. If most pro-life advocates were like him, I'd not only respect their argument, but I'd probably actually join them.

I rarely ever see that with others, though. It's just them wanting to stick their hand up a woman's cooch and control their life through government force; the same shit they accuse the woke left of doing. But no; "it's only bad when they do it!"

I spent half an hour typing all this shit, and in the end, you've not said anything to convince me you're anymore intelligent than when I began. And again, I already know how you feel about black people, and a bunch of other people out there based on what you've said on here before, and if I could block you, I would. But since I said I'd argue my points here, I have. Your arguments boil down to, "I feel like my emotions are facts" and everything else is a "nuh-uh!" to deflect criticism on conservative viewpoints you damn well know others have. But I tried.

Part 1

I honestly not even sure I should bother responding to you of all people, since you're the "niggers are subhuman trash" type I see on here all the time. I said before the only reason I don't block you is because I literally can't on here. Considering I already know where you stand and how you feel about me, I shouldn't even bother with this response. But I'll do it anyway, pretending you'll respond in good faith, though I doubt it.

This is a left wing understanding of conservatives. In reality being conservative has nothing to do with religion. ...Religion has nothing to do with conservatism.

I didn't make the rules of conservatism, nor am I on either side. I doubt if you asked other (Western) conservatives, they'd tell you it's okay to be a conservative and atheist. So it's not exactly me making the rules, here. I get what you're trying to say here, but no. That's not part of their rulebook anymore than being a Christian who doesn't believe in God still qualifies as a "Christian." I'm talking about Western First-world conservatives here, not the broad concept of wanting a family and a clean lifestyle.

Recognizing the evils that jews do is not "hating jews". That is a dismissive slander that implies that calling out jews is irrational, emotional, and unfair.

If you say so... "I don't hate the subhuman scum; I'm just trying to 'save them' from burning in Hell." Again, this coming from the same dude who has said so much fucked-up shit about African Americans on this site... Not even trying to bring up other shit, but like come the fuck on... Am I supposed to act like you never said that before? I already know how you think; I can't just ignore it in a vacuum. But getting back to your main retarded point of "not hating the trash; just hating their evil actions and behavior..." to excuse your bigotry. No; that shit doesn't fly. I don't even care about how you feel about Jews or anything else out of your old Boomer mouth; just calling you out on your shit. Nothing to even argue here; it's an illogical point you made. I guess all we can do is agree to disagree, here.

It is also completely divorced from political leanings as a lot of conservatives are just as brainwashed on the Jewish topic as liberals, and many liberals recognize Jewish crimes like the genocide of Palestinians.

Whataboutisms, okay. I don't even know how you can say it's "divorced from political leanings" and literally bring up Palestine in the same sentence. I honestly couldn't care less about the Hamas shit, but if it was a black-and-white issue, everyone else in the world wouldn't be taking a side in defending the Lawful Evil versus the Chaotic Evil, but sure.

Human life. obviously.

It's stull fucking illogical, retarded, and hypocritical as shit. But 'K. As if humans are so fucking special. I'm not even a vegan, mind you. But if you're gonna be "pro-life," then actually fucking mean what you say and don't shoot a mailman for stepping onto your lawn cause "My Castle Doctrine" and shit. Don't own a gun or kill animals. If God is the ultimate answer, then you shouldn't be hurting the life He made, as well. It's not like you CAN'T live life as a vegan; you just don't want to. I'm not a vegan, but I'm also not saying shit about how "precious" life is, either. If soylent green was a thing in real life, I'd probably eat it. I'm not a hypocrite like you.

And just to be clear here, I'm only talking about banning abortion as a law, not one's personal beliefs on it. I don't care if someone is personally against abortion, but to tell other people they can't opt out of parenthood, as if it's any of your fucking business, is what has me pissed off. Like, no one fucking cares what you think about abortion if it means they're gonna be forced by law to either raise a child they don't want and can't afford, or actually kill an actual baby, post-birth. The laws and extreme overreach of government power, is the issue here, not someone's opinion on being pro-life or pro-choice.

I'm far from anti-gun or anti-second-amendment or a vegan, but I'm not also moral-fagging about being someone who "respects life and God's word and sees it as sacred." Fuck off with that hypocritical bullshit. Nothing annoys me more than hypocrites, which is why I especially hate the retarded pro-life argument and why I brought it up. Most human beings on the planet can justify murder in a thousand different ways; don't act like any conservative - or anyone else - gives a fuck about "human life" while also advocating for the genocide of black Americans, or Palestinians, or Jews, or straight white males, or whatever fucking group or demographic you'll hate tomorrow. Tribalism is what most humans ascribe too; kinda the point of my post. But the certain conservatives wanna moral-fag about hating abortion, while also comparing single mothers to trash and implying welfare is theft of hard working people.

Clearly you are biased and care more about insults than about intelligent conversation.

Projection and bullshit, but okay. Don't bother playing if you have nothing to say. Especially since you're a literal white nationalist (and not in the woke Liberal sense, either.) Trying to argue "bias" and "insults over intelligent conversation" when I've seen the dumb shit you've said in the past. Now THIS is me being biased. A Conservative race-realism retard thinking he has any level of moral intelligence, let alone actual intelligence? Blow me, faggot. That's the most insulting thing you could possibly ever say to anyone on here. My shit adds more value to society than anything you've done in your entire existence, and I'm not even a Liberal saying that to you. How's that for insults over intelligent conversation? Not that your inbred redneck ass is capable of either one. If you were to ever do anything valuable for the human species, you'd pull a reverse It's A Wonderful Life and jump off a bridge. And no one would even care about you if you weren't such a disingenuous, phony, low IQ, moral-fagging, hypocritical, dumb sack of shit, fake-conservative, fake-Christian, Dunning-Kruger, pseudo-intellectual that proves the point of my entire post better than I ever could have. "Intelligent conversation" from you? Fuck off.

Is that better? Did I "step my game up?"

Welfare in moderation is fine. ...Welfare does not work and we should get rid of it.

That may be your stance, but most conservatives I've ever met or read online outright hates the welfare state and wants it abolished. And there are pros and cons to the issue, but you can't argue for pro-life and then abolish welfare. Like, who the fuck do you think is going to take care of all these babies you forced into existence from parents that don't want them and won't raise them or take care of them? Children don't live off of pure oxygen and money doesn't grow on trees. How do so many conservatives not see the hypocrisy in that? It's impossible to logically be pro-life, but anti-welfare and you can't force these reckless, unfit, terrible mothers or parents who don't even want to be parents, to become good parents or raise their children. Either the state will, or the children will just die. Pick one, but you don't get both just because you wish life was that peachy. Yeah it'd be nice if stupid people didn't fuck let alone get knocked up while doing it, but that also means 95% of the human race right now probably wouldn't exist, either.

Obviously doing more of something that does not work is fucking stupid.

And yet you advocate for federally-enforced pro-life mandates in a society that can't even get half-decent parents even when it's planned, but also want limited/no welfare at the same time, meaning these unwanted babies you want to bring into the world will just flat-out die then, and can't see how fucking retarded that is, or the same sentiments shared by other conservatives. So, you're "fucking stupid" then.

Exactly how many parents out here in 2024 Western society do you think are actually "good parents?" Like 45-50% at the most? Probably more like 20-25%, realistically? The current real-life world is overpopulated, there's limited resources, even less resources now since the dipshit Democrats want to give all tax dollars to illegal immigrants, and crime is skyrocketing, and yet you want to add more fuel to the fire and create more shitty parents, have them create more children that'll end up as criminals and mentally ill, take up even more resources, and worse of all, do jack-fucking-shit to actually ensure those all those unwanted children you forced into existence will actually survive to adulthood? Got it. More of something that does not work is stupid; I agree.

A decent intelligent person wouldn't be part of modern society i

What would they do? Live "off the grid"? Like an isolated Brazillian rain forest tribe, or like the semi-nomadic groups in the Sarah - the Arabs, Berbers, Bedouins, Fulani, Nubians and Tuareg? Or build a cabin in a remote forest and hunt for food every day. If that's a choice of someone moving from a modern society to a semi-nomadic life, it's certainly not a smart one.

I identify as liberal. I don't identify with the modern left or the Democrat party.

That statement is contradictory. You ("you" in the general sense) cannot call yourself "Liberal" while also doing everything that is not now, or in the past, ever been seen as "Liberal." This is not me doubting you or anything; this is me saying that's how it works. You can't be a Feminist without believing in Patriarchy, you can't be a Capitalist without believing in the Free Market, and you can't be a Christian without believing in Jesus or God. I didn't invent what a modern-day "Liberal" is. The term has changed. The Swastika used to mean "the mark of well being" and a symbol of peace, but you're not going to get very far getting one tattooed on your head nowadays and trying to explain that to people.

If you said, "I lean more to the left and would be closer to being called a 'Classical Liberal'," that'd be one thing. But if you're part of the club, you don't get to change the rules. Not that I think most Liberals in the 2024 Western world would see you as a "Liberal," anyway. That's kinda the whole point here. You can still believe in capitalism, free speech, private property rights, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc, without having to pay the fees and join the membership of being a "Liberal." I certainly agree with those things. (Most modern Liberals would call those beliefs "Far-right, MAGA-hatter, Trump, January 6th" values, anyway; that's how far-gone they are.)

I get what you mean; I haven't changed since I was 19 and in the 2000s, up to 2015, considered myself a "Liberal," too. Then in 2017, thought I might have been a "Conservative." Then I figured out I'm just a (mostly) rational human being who doesn't want any of the bullshit membership dues and second-hand beliefs pushed into my head attached to what I call myself or how I choose to live my life. You might think it's semantics, but with how polarized and divisive people are nowadays, it's really not. Try calling yourself Conservative in southern California or super-blue New York City and see how popular you are.