• That_Devil_Girl@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    So I can drive in the HOV lane, I can’t be mass arrested, and attempted murder against me is considered attempted genocide?

    My tax return is going to be enormous due to how many dependants I have. I’ll have enough money to get TF out of this crazy place.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      What they’d really hate is not being able to jail pregnant women because the fetus is innocent

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Pregnant women kills an abusive husband and Texas tries the mother and fetus for murder…

          It’s less funny when you think about how they probably wouldn’t blink

        • abcd@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          But what if the fetus told the pregnant woman it would kill her and itself if she doesn’t kill her husband. Afraid of dying and losing her fetus she kills her husband.

          Let’s say the fetus gets a death sentence because obviously this person initiated everything. Would they wait for it to be born before killing it? Or would they kill it before birth what would be basically an abortion. But abortions are outlawed…

  • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    62
    ·
    3 months ago

    Roe v. Wade came into existence as Biden’s career was taking off fifty years ago

    it has now been two years since Roe v. Wade fell and if it took fifty years to for it to fall then we may have a long time to wait for our rights to be restored

    this will just be some campaign promise for either side to exploit and asks donations on whether to keep things restricted or to restore rights eventually

    US citizens need to wake up and realize both side are just empty promises and words we need actual leadership in the Senate, the Congress, The Presidency, and the rest of the government

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        37
        ·
        3 months ago

        Lol, why do you people always force everything into a false dichotomy? If you have a problem with the statement, at least confront the actual argument being put forward.

        Nothing they said is false, the Democrats over the last couple decades have slid further and further to the right, mostly because they care more about economic policy and decorum than protecting people’s rights.

        Are they better than the Republicans, of course. But that doesn’t mean we can’t be critical when assessing if they’ve met our expectations. Saying both parties need better leadership is just stating the obvious, it doesn’t mean this person’s urging people to not vote, or to vote for the worse party.

        This country is in for some rough years if our only qualifications for leadership positions is just being better than Republicans, that bar is too low.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          40
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          What dichotomy? I asked who they are canvassing for. You do know people have to canvass for a candidate in order for them to get elected, right? If you want a better candidate than what is offered, they aren’t going to magic themselves into office. Campaigns take work.

          I take it neither of you are canvassing for anyone and are just hoping you’ll get what you want by wishing for it.

          • wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            ·
            3 months ago

            No, they don’t understand. They’d rather just sit in their basements and complain on the Internet rather than get out into the light and actually try to effect the change they wish to see.

            • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              3 months ago

              Lol, I’ve been a district delegate for the DNC in one of the most conservative states in America… What have you done?

              This is why I asked how canvassing was related to the original claim, as we are now focusing on the strawman argument instead of actually addressing the criticism in question.

              Considering he is one of the most active users in this online community, I’m guessing your description of standby basement dweller is more accurate for flyingsquid than anyone else here. Doing memes and drowning out criticism online with flawed rhetoric is not the same as political organizing.

          • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            23
            ·
            3 months ago

            So the only people who are able to be critical of their elected officials are people who have the leisure time and the resources to work for political parties for free?

            take it neither of you are canvassing for anyone and are just hoping you’ll get what you want by wishing for it.

            First of all, this is a strawman argument. It has nothing to do with the original claim, which you didn’t ever address. Secondly, I have served as a district delegate for the DNC in my state, and you have an optimistic view of how much actual choice is actually provided to voters.

            Candidates don’t just say I want to be a state senator, sign me up. They go through a vetting process of the state’s political party, and each DNC chapter has its own means to determine which candidates they throw their weight behind. Depending on where you are, unless you have seniority in the local chapter you don’t really have a choice on who you canvas for.

                • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  16
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  He asked the person he originally responded too, not me. I’m just asking how it’s a relevant question… which he is going through great lengths to avoid answering.

              • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                17
                ·
                3 months ago

                So your rebuttal was a complete non-sequitur? Seems you’re not being very honest here.

                Maybe a better approach would be to actually address the argument instead of relying on logical fallacies to silence peoples concerns.

                So who are you canvassing for?

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It wasn’t a rebuttal, it was a question. One you have not answered. And yet you expect me to answer yours.

                  The problem here is you’re trying to argue with someone who asked a question.

  • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    3 months ago

    Being a person doesn’t give them the right to someone else’s body to survive.

    Unless we’re legalizing forced blood, liver, marrow, and kidney donation?

    • p3n@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’ll probably get down-voted to oblivion for asking, but continuing this train of thought: If a woman gives birth to a baby and simply walks away, should she be charged with a crime?

      If not, why?

      If so, why?

      There are plenty of examples of this, so it really isn’t thoeretical.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes, because that baby is helpless and is her responsibility to take care of. It’s also an actual person, not a potential person like a fetus is.

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Moving the goalposts. That is not “simply walking away.” That’s following an established process in place.

            • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Following the established process for what?

              Is it for “walking away from parental responsibility?”

        • notjustlurking@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          What if she was impregnated against her will? What if she was forced to birth the child against her will? Is it still her responsibility?

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            It is her responsibility to make sure the baby isn’t just being left to die somewhere, yes. If she wants to take it somewhere where others will take care of it, so be it. But it is NEVER right to “simply walk away.”

            • P00ptart@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yeah, there’s no excuse for dumpster babies when it is so easy to leave them with responsible people who will ensure the child grows up safe, in a loving home.

              • samus12345@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                While it’s not easy to find safe, loving homes, at least give the kid a chance at life rather than dooming it to a horrible death.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            “What is a woman was raped, then locked up for 9 months until she gave birth, then let free. Would she be at fault if she abandoned the baby?”

            1. Considering the severe mental trauma involved here: No, I don’t think she would be.
            2. What the fuck is wrong with you?
            • samus12345@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yes, she would be if she left it on the street or in a dumpster or something. If she doesn’t want it, she should surrender it to someone or someplace that will take care of it What the fuck is wrong with YOU that you think it’s acceptable for a baby to be left to die?

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                She’s been locked in a room and tormented for 9 months. I’m not saying it’s “acceptable”, I’m saying it’s understandable if the first thing she does is run away from the symbol of her torment. Much like how murder isn’t acceptable, but if the first thing she did was murder the person who tortured her there wouldn’t be a jury that would convict her. There is a strong case for temporary insanity.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Yes because you have an active duty to seek continuation of care when leaving someone helpless. It’s like walking away after trying to help an unconscious stranger when you learn they need cpr. You don’t necessarily need to give them cpr but you should have to at least call 911 for them

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes, because it’s trivial to simply leave the baby at a fire station. The important distinction is that it’s drastically easier to carry a baby for 10 blocks than 10 months.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        She is not and should not get in any trouble. If anything the decision should be celebrated, as long as we’re talking about a safe dropoff at a hospital or other safe haven.

        The child will go from a mother who was in a situation so bad she was willing to give up her baby, to most likely a couple that’s been waiting years to adopt and are dying to be parents.

      • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I can’t see down votes (blahaj user), but I hope you weren’t downvoted to oblivion. It’s good to ask questions that examine one’s beliefs and those of others. It’s a great way to grow as a person. I personally believe the more difficult and awkward the question, the more it should be considered.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It’s easy to bring a baby to a facility and say “I can’t do this.” There is no punishment for doing so.

        It’s much more difficult to leave a fetus at a facility and say “I can’t do this.”

        It is also very difficult to get a 3rd trimester abortion unless there are some major health risks involved. During the 1st trimester (when 95% of abortions are performed) the fetus is physically incapable of feeling pain.

    • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 months ago

      But people under a certain age are required a child seat, no? So unless those rules are changed, it would be hard for any pregnant woman to legally sit in a moving car.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Ah, good point. But doesn’t that mean that the pregnant woman can’t ride in the car at all, since the young “person” inside them doesn’t have a way to be put in a seat?

        It looks like Florida and West Virginia have no seat laws, so pregnant woman in the carpool lane are good to go there!

  • popemichael@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Meanwhile, the “slippery slope” logical fallacy falls over, down a hill, and dies.

    Then starts spinning, creating a perfectly cylindrical hole, and catches fire due to friction, and self cremating.

      • phorq@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        Español
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        This is the plot of Baby Driver, right?

        Edit: I’m stupid, I was thinking of Fetus Driver

    • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Depends on the skin color and the class of the fetus.

      A fetus that comes a from white, upper class. The answer would be as minor.

      A black, poor fetus. Definitely being tried as an adult.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 months ago
    Stateline Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

    Stateline is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

    Bias: Left
    Factual Reporting: High
    Country: United States of America
    Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/stateline-bias-and-credibility/

    Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News


    Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
    Please consider supporting them by donating.

    Footer

    Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.

    Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
    If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.

  • fukurthumz420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    fuck religion. prove your god is real or stfu. stop letting conservatives have a say in the government of this country. just put your fucking feet down people. stop letting idiots speak.

  • ZhaoYadang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    “Fetal personhood” was always the next shoe to drop after they overturned Roe. I was a little surprised the court didn’t go straight there in Dodd.

    All that shit the court said about the states being able to decide about abortion? Lies. These right-wing nutcases are out to ban abortion everywhere. And they will, through fetal personhood. We can’t pass a law to kill a PERSON without due process, can we?

    It’ll happen in the next five years unless we reform the court or impeach the six frauds. Based on our current tendency to go from bad to worse, I doubt either of those will happen.

    Emigrate now if you can.

    • Trubble@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      3 months ago

      How? Where? None of us have money saved anymore. Groceries and rent have made sure we can’t save any money for anything.

      …Unless, there is an adopt an American family movement I haven’t heard of? Can we start one?!

      • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I’m Sally Struthers, and I’m here to talk to you about the reality of life here in the nation of America. This is a photo of Timmy. Timmy is a 28 year old middle-manager at a large box store. With just $400 a week Timmy can finally afford the new master cylinder in his 2006 Camry and get a new used iPhone 8.

        Please give today.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Not the only next step. They are also looking to ban contraceptives. IUDs will be up first because some believe life begins at fertilization.

      • EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I didn’t think they let it get to fertilization. The copper ones kill sperm with ions and the others, I thought, were just slow release hormonal BC.

      • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        How the fuck would they even do that. Stopping fertilization isn’t killing a ‘person’ as defined by them either.

        • Soggy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          3 months ago

          Moralizing laws aren’t new at all. Look at how many “dry” counties we have, how many places close liquor stores on Sunday, the restrictions on strip clubs, the history of sodomy laws… the Evangelicals have been trying to take over for a long time and this is what happens whej we tolerate even an ounce of religious rule.

          • PenisDuckCuck9001@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            The evangelicals have been terrorizing normal people and forcing their bigotry on everyone for centuries. Enough is fucking enough.

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              My ancestors came to the conclusion that it starts when they get annoying. Its just that we cant take counter terror actions we once did because of things like forensics and police, just let us burn them in their churches damnit. Also we usually ignored the more humanist ones, atleast yoh could have reasoned debate with men like John Brown so long as it wasnt something like slavery.

  • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    It makes me wonder, why are the religious obsess with abortion when the US allows divorce, even though the Bible forbids it? Why not campaign on striking down divorce as well?

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      because republican donors saw it as a way to create political division after Roe, so they required the churches they donate to to adopt the catholic theology of fetal personhood. This had the double effect of letting evangelicals feel like the state was oppressing their freshly adopted religious belief and persecuting them.

        • Blumpkinhead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          I originally read that as "minimum wage laws"and was confused as to why they were fighting to raise wages, then I reread it and realized, “oh, they just want to fuck kids. That tracks.”

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      The Bible is actually pro-choice. Kinda. It only mentions abortion once. That’s Numbers 5: 11-31. It tells you how to perform an abortion.

      • Brutticus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        That is… a stupefying description of what is written. I had to read the torah in primary school. Half a day, every school day, one book per year, (two for Leviticus), in Hebrew. I was confounded. I thought maybe Rabbi had us skip that part.

        The part you are referring to is referred to as “Sota” which describes a magical ceremony where in a man would bring his allegedly unfaithful wife before a Beis Din, and she could drink a magic potion, snickeringly referred to as “sota water,” to prove her innocence. The logic goes that if the woman was unfaithful, “these afflictive waters shall enter your innards, causing your belly to swell and your thigh to rupture” . This could be taken mean an abortion, but in my grade school class, we were very giggly, because we thought it meant she would explode.

        Further, the potion is described being water, dust from the tabernacle floor, and an invocation written down and dissolved in the water (Number 5: 17, and 23), and is explicitly stated it won’t hurt an innocent woman. (28). This passage does evoke abortion. But it describes a magical ritual that it claims will only cause abortion in unfaithful women, and the potion provided wont cause anyone to abort (although it is gross). Claiming in instructs an abortion is a massive stretch.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Doesn’t that mean that the bible condones abortion in the case of infidelity? In which case, shouldn’t Republicans want that to be an exception?

          • Brutticus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            It could be interpreted that way… I think? The language it uses refers to seeds.

            וְנִזְרֳעָ֥ה זָֽרַע

            The situation (infidelity, the graphic imagery of swelling bellies and rupturing thighs) naturally implies abortion, but the ‘Nezre’ah Zerah’ implies the potion will cause barreness.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Fair enough. Of course, this is also from the same half of the Bible Christians conveniently ignore when they want bacon for breakfast, so I guess it’s on the moot side of things.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Yes, I boiled it down to bare bones, but if you ask almost any Rabbi if abortion is allowed, they will do their typical Rabbi thing of trying to dance around the answer so you answer your own question, but if you try to pin them down, they will say that it isn’t forbidden, but should really only be used if the mother in danger of health complications, like death.

          As I understand it, The Talmud or Mishrad goes further into how to prepare butter waters, and there is a root that also goes in there that was well known to facilitate an abortion.

    • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      My brother honestly wants to get rid of divorce so that people will “take the commitment more seriously”.

      He said this after his fiancee left for another guy. Hilarious at first glance, mortifying when you realize what he actually wanted to happen based on what he said.

    • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      it’s always about control, forcing women to have kids to carry on religion. once they’re an adult, divorce doesn’t matter because they don’t care, you’re an adult. once the baby is born, they couldn’t care less. it’s also about punishment. a man can’t be a whore, but if a woman gets pregnant, especially out of wedlock, she’s a whore and deserves it.

      edit: these are not my views at all, this is what is forced on women in America through religion and to a large extent, the Republican party. they’re treated like burdens and baby makers and deserve pain and suffering like eve did in the book of tall tales.

  • DLSantini@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    3 months ago

    Pretty soon they’ll be trying to put me in prison for mass-murder every time I jerk off.