"No actual intelligent person in modern society can call themselves a Conservative or Liberal. If you call yourself either one, you're likely an idiot." Agree or Disagree?

submitted by Mcheetah from (self.AskSaidIt)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Mcheetah[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (43 children)

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.

[–]PsychoTranyRedditMod 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your inital post made perfect sense. It's easy for someone to twist it because they want to start shit. Ignore that dumbassery.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But that's also welfare, and you hate welfare right, so you'd be against that, too.

Don't you feel any shame about the way you constantly have to make strawman arguments?

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And you want MORE of that shit? More fatherless "niggers" as you call them,

Why don't people like you ever come out and make that argument directly? Just say "I support abortion because it reduces the amount of niggers". It seems to me that you dance around the topic because you are so dumb you think that what you are arguing is somehow different than that direct sentence. That if you inject "hur dur some of those niggers are white" that it is not racist and therefore not evil.

You literally spaz out over other people using the word nigger simply to address directly a violent cross section of black people, yet you advocate for their whole sale slaughter in the womb for crimes they have not yet committed. Your position is so much more disgusting and evil than any "racist" calling violent blacks niggers.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He, unlike most pro-life advocates, actually put his money where his mouth was

Advocating for welfare is not "putting your money where your mouth is" because it is not your money.

How many people who want more welfare are willing to have that money come directly from their personal income, and not the income of those who oppose it? Literally none. That is hypocrisy.

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Easy there chief

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Once sperm fertilizes an egg, the potential of human life is there. There already is a soul. Any sort of action removing this potential is abortion.

[–]YoMamma 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

There already is a soul.

There's no evidence of a soul in a fertilized egg. You can't prove that it has a soul. The first ideas for the location of the soul was that it resided in the heart, because one can hear a heart beat when a person is alive. For example, ancient Egyptians believed this, that the soul resided in the heart, which was evidence of life when it was beating. Ancient Greeks and Romans believed that the soul was in the center of the brain or cranium. Christians have always located the soul in the center of the cranium. Thus, a fetus can have a soul in two traditional manners: once its heart forms and starts beating, OR once it becomes aware of itself. Many in the secular and religious world see the latter - cognitive self awareness - as the first indication of LIFE of the fetus.

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I can prove it. You havent understood the argument. There is potential for a human there. There is none for sperm nor egg as they are. When the embryo is formed, there is. You have a soul there. Because it can be human, hence, it has a soul.

It has potential for life, therefore, soul. It has nothing to do with conscience, perception of pain, heartbeat. The point is that if you as a spermatozoon had no point in living until you fertilized an egg. You are just a cell. But once you do, then you become life. Greeks and Egyptians made their own empires, but did not build our civilization by themselves; what was good in them was maintained. And the CATHOLIC, not modern CHRISTIAN view, that shaped your world, is that once a woman is officially pregnant, she is carrying LIFE. Period.

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Because it can be human, hence, it has a soul. ...It has potential for life, therefore, soul.

False. You have nothing to backup your claim, no historical information, no factual evidence, and no other resource to back up your claim, and your argument about a potential to be human is illogical as well as impossible. It is impossible to prove that something with the POTENTIAL to be human has a soul. A 'potential' does not necessarily exist. It cannot be known if the 'potential' being will exist as a being. A soul can only be in an ACTUAL living body. When the body is NOT actually living, it does not have a soul. Something that has the POTENTIAL to be a human is ALSO an unfertalized egg, as well as a sperm. Those cannot actually have a soul, nor can a fertilized egg.

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

If potential does not exist, prove that a healthy embryo does not bring forth a human being. A soul is there, because otherwise God wouldnt bring it to our world.

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

You misunderstand what I wrote. I did not state that the potential to be human did not exist in the fertilized egg. I stated that "a 'potential' does not necessarily exist." You're conflating the possible and the actual. A soul is not in a thing that merely has the potential to be that thing. That would be impossible. A soul can ONLY be in a fetus who ACTUALLY exists. A fertilized egg is NOT alive and does NOT exist as a fetus

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

All fertilized eggs carry the potential to be life, and as such, have a soul. You may seem confused because I never stated it is in the same state as when you are a fetus. And yes, it is alive, if it carries a life. If it does not, then it isnt. Simple.

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

You're just repeating yourself, again. Re-read my responses. You're wrong, have no evidence, have no basis for the argument, and the assumption is obviously illogical.

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Claiming things does not make them true.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"Conservatives don't fuck for fun," is what you're implying

I made no absolute statement about sex with relation to political leanings because obviously sexual practices are not perfectly correlated with politics. I said "far less likely".

Furthermore, fucking a steady partner is still fucking for fun. But when they get pregnant they are far more likely to get married and have a family then liberals are. They are also far more likely to be in a steady relationship before they start having sex. They are far less likely to have one night stands, or have sex with people they don't like and are not willing to marry.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I made no absolute statement about sex with relation to political leanings because obviously sexual practices are not perfectly correlated with politics. I said "far less likely".

And what you said isn't true. Just look at the most recent map of teenage mothers:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/teen-births/teenbirths.htm

The truth is, we see more promiscuity in red states. They're full of people like Bristol Palin: loudly proclaiming the virtues of purity and family while letting their boyfriends raw-dog them on a daily basis.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Liberals exist in red states too.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Condoms and contraceptives are literally abortion

Literally not. A human life is created when the egg is fertilized and the a new genetic sequence is created from the combination of the mother's and the father's genetic code, and that new sequence begins it's life.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's also "anti-natural" if you want to get into the whole God shit.

Conflating religion and conservatism is left wing propaganda.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Without condoms, the woman would be impregnated.

Or she could just not have sex with strangers. There used to be a word for that.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Abortion is murder because you prevented a life from being born,

That has never, ever been the argument. Abortion is murder because you are killing a human life.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Killing a human life" is not the definition of murder. Otherwise, all instances of war, self-defense, execution, euthanasia, etc., would be murder.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

the Separation of Church and State means you can't mention anything about religion influencing and affecting law and government.

Literally not true. You can not claim there is any law at all that ever existed which has not been influenced by religion in any way because all laws are created by humans who's thoughts are influenced by religion.

Read the constitution. it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". It means simply that congress can not pass a law simply because a religion demands it.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

my point is that people are hypocritical all the time

You are once again claiming hypocrisy based on your strawman argument that conservatives want something they don't actually want. It is not the conservative position that laws should be passed simply to enforce Christian beliefs.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

your opinion on it being "baby murder" is just that; an opinion

Every single genocide in history has been based on that same argument. Those are not real humans. They are sub human. It is a disgusting argument.

In this same rant you accuse me of being racist and not seeing non whites as human, and go off on how disgusting that is, then you turn around and argue that it is fine to whole sale murder unborn babies because they are not human.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you not understand what labor is?

Do you? It is the consequence of unprotected sex. It is not forced on anyone, they do it to themselves.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And you're saying no one has the right to opt out of that?

You absolutely have the right to opt out of that. By not having unprotected sex. What you are not allowed to do is get rid of the consequences of your own actions by murdering someone else.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

. Do you think scrambled eggs are hot wings, too?

You are having an extremely difficult time understanding the concept of fertilization, and procreation. An unfertilized egg is not a chicken. But a fertilized egg absolutely has a chicken inside of it. If you crack an egg and find a chick inside you will call it a chicken. If you go to a restaurant and they server you an unhatched chicken when you ordered an egg you will not be happy. You will not accept the argument that it isn't really a chicken because it hasn't hatched yet.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you know how fucked the adoption system is?

Not fucked enough to justify MURDERING ALL THE UNWANTED CHILDREN. The system is fucked because of pedophiles, all of whom are liberals.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

sparing a future child from a lifetime of abuse

Then we should kill all the undesirables because their lives will be substandard. We should kill all the non whites to save them from a lifetime of racism.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You know an embryo doesn't even have brain function or a consciousness, right?

Factually inaccurate. The baby starts moving at just 6 weeks.. There is no way to measure consciousness, however, studies have shown that babies in the womb learn speech patterns and remember music they have heard.