BestGarbagePerson

That's some dedication right there.

For myself: Getting up in the morning. It's so fucking hard. Had a doctor tell me my adrenals are messed up due to a lifetime of traumatic situations. Still, I'm amazed at people who are just "up." No matter what time I wake up, it feels like being aroused at 2 am after only sleeping for 2 hours.

It's some other comment in this thread. I saw it somewhere and I "got it". He would've probably done better if he linked to it. I'm not against dark humor.

It's 3 parts unbreakable kimmy schmidt and one part breaking bad.

Thanks very much. There aren't a lot of ex-hindu's in America who I can talk to and who understand. I appreciate your reply. Ty <3.

Hitler also surrounded himself with mystics to appeal to this type of thought. I don't want to make the cliche "It's literally Hitler!" argument, but that's what bullshit artists are good at. Pandering.

That's why Trump also has surrounded himself with Christianists. He's a bullshit artist. He knows that gets the fundies McFatwas moist.

Oh I've got one from the Doterra idiots too!

"Snorting Oregano Essential Oil can prevent CANCER!"

I'm out now. Better every day. Thank you for asking. This moment was probably the defining moment that made me realize I had to go, although I was an atheist in hiding for about a year prior.

Yes, I was in a raj-nishi style hindu cult with a guru and yoga and etc. I'm out now. 2 Sorry, 3 years and 10 months.

WTF is this shit. If her behavior is abusive, he needs to change absolutely nothing about himself.

Vibes? Vibes are absolutely subjective and frequently used by BPD as a imaginary transgression so they can continue to justify their rage and abuse.

I would know. I had a BPD parent. I would literally be doing absolutely nothing and yet, my presence alone would be "demonic."

enough to talk about her behind her back, who you should love above all earthly things

WTF is this guilt-tripping trash. This is not the place to shame a person looking for support.

then she'll probably pick up on it

No she won't. BPD people fundamentally lack cognitive empathy. They imagine things to justify their paranoia and rage. Have you been diagnosed with BPD?

That I had a "closed heart chakra." That week I had been sexually assaulted byanother member a high ranking member of my cult. I was struggling with shame and guilt and terrified to tell anyone. I was doing my best to keep it all inside, forgive the person, and complete my jobs. The bitch who said this to me literally cornered me in the stairwell to tell me this.

I think I laughed at her when she said this.

Not "are you doing okay?" Not "you look down honey, what's wrong?" Not "Is there anything you need to talk about?"

Nope. Just "You're spiritually clogged in your heart area." Like I was the tin man from the Wizard of Oz?

Ofc I didn't tell her a damn word of what I went through. I wasn't going to give her the leverage over me.

It was pure projection. 100%

I later learned she was diagnosed many years earlier with BPD. It fit her like a glove. She was vindictive, jealous and frequently delusional.

You should check out the term "survivor-ship bias" on your googler.

Okay. cracks knuckles Let's see if I can disentangle your assumptions here.

Viability means it can reasonably survive outside of the womb.

Viability means the potential of a child to survive outside the womb. Which is not a reality until it actually is surviving outside the womb. You just replaced "potential" with "reasonably" because you don't understand the concept I think.

No, which is why I'm for abortion early on.

At what statistical probability point of viability? Since when are people's (in this case women's) rights removed based on a statistical probability of someone else's health? Since when do you have a duty to retreat from something inside your own organs based on a statistical analysis of the probably autonomy of someone else? (answer: never. It's a violation of human rights to determine any class of persons as de facto superior to another class based on any measure.)

In the example you gave (forced c-sections), I'm assuming the waiting has already been done.

This makes zero sense to me. It would be as if saying a woman has no right to say no to sex if she's been having sex for a certain amount of time. Do you understand the concept of continuous consent? Again, explain to me why anyone can be forced to have a duty to retreat from something or someone that it is physically impossible to retreat from this includes de-escalation of force, being forced to "lie back and think of england" at any point as well.

Please use legal terms.

Actual children. They're just "natally challenged" at the moment. If the only difference between a child and a "potential child" is a few centimeters of flesh, there's a problem with your definition of "child".

I only put it in scare quotes because it is your definition of things. It doesn't matter to me if it's a potentially "viable" child or an actual child.

Any child, adult, grandmother, animal, rock or vegetable that would be occupying someone else's body without consent would not have this extra right to occupy/use/own another person's body.

Let me quote to you the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause:

Basic:

"The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws"."

Actual Text:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis added]"

And Commentary (bold my emphasis):

The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. ... It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all person who may happen to be within their jurisdiction. [emphasis added by the U.S. Supreme Court][122]

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Equal_protection

So explain to me why and how, you thinking "neonatally challenged" babies, deserve extra rights over womens' bodies that are not applicable to any other person in any other circumstance.

Explain how that is not a violation of the 1st, 5th, 8th, 13th and 14th amendment.

Explain how women deserve to lose their right to self defense and due process based on your believe that the "neo-natally challenged" deserve superior rights to women's bodies that no other person has.

I'm not so sure the right to be removed from a woman's body when viable is that much of an imposition.

This proves you don't understand bodily autonomy nor what the burden of labor and birth is.

If I somehow found myself inside your chest cavity, I think I'd deserve being cut out in a routine procedure rather than murdered.

You also don't know what murder is either. Murder is unjustified homicide with malice intent. No one has a duty to retreat or de-escalate force from a threat to their own body, which they cannot retreat from further. No one. No legal person For ANY REASON can be forced to relinquish without consent, due process and just compensation, the safety of their own physical body for someone else.

I don't think you are pro-choice. You think you are, but you are not.

Thank you for answering some of these questions. I hope you realize the contradictions therefore. You realize viability means potential right? Is a potential child more valuable than an actual person? Can you breathe potential air? Can you eat potential food?

And even so, why is it that no other "person", except "potential children" according to you, gets superior rights over a woman's body? Does anyone have a duty to retreat from something they physcially cannot retreat from? (duty to retreat includes waiting btw.)

Please answer the other questions.

You didn't answer my question. Why is that?

Your response being what it is, then maybe you can answer these questions.

Do you believe that if a woman is destined to die from a birth, and she didn't get an early enough abortion, should she be forced to die?

Do you know what labor is? Do you even acknowledge that a d&e is safer than normal birth?

Do you believe that people's whose bodies are conscripted by the government deserve just compensation?

Is there any percentage of women forced to suffer, be disabled and die against their will with no compensation that you find acceptable? (Given by your reply i would say you do have a value on that. Some number of women deserve to suffer and have their rights removed)

Please answer these questions.

No, loss of life is not seperate. If it was about loss of life you'd also force organ donation and blood donation on parents of already born children. But you don't believe that correct?

If you use subjective hyperbole to argue for objective and universal morality, you are being farcical. I state facts, you think this is the first time I've heard the word "convenience" to describe the bodily rights of women all people?

Regarding consequences, abortion is a consequence. Its just not the outcome you approve of. Saying a natural risk requires only one outcome you approve of, yet you cannot make a coherent objective legal and moral argument for that? Even when I repeatedly ask you. Even when I throw you the bone in terms of where to start regarding consent. That's also a fail.

I did not label you anything like any kind of "sexist women hater" either. I do not tolerate lies like this. I will label you as someone who uses hyperbole and exaggeration in place of actual argument.

Edit: also hate children wtf are you on about?

I agree with late term abortions, since they do on fact save lives. I do not agree with anyone put through any risk, no matter how small, without consent, and that includes forcing a woman to submit to a birth she doesnt want. To you support forced c-sections? What about forced late term abortions? If you are agaisnt any one of these things then you are also pro-late term abortions, unless you admit you contradict yourself.

This is not cold and detached for me. Nor is ot scripted.

In fact its pro-life people who think women should be subject to some statistical analysis of their risks and then be granted or denied their right to a late term abortion. Fuck the woman and her family if her pregnancy ends up killing her but she fell on the wrong side of a standard deviation.

To me, no one gets squatters rights to anyones body. And that includes everyone. And in the same way no one is forced to donate an organ for any reason, a person is not denied an abortion for any "not good enough reason."

No, my argument is that if you engage in an act of procreation that - surprise, surprise - leads to procreation, you have willingly engaged in an activity for which you knew the risk of in advance

Is procreation illegal or legal?

Answer the question. Is procreation something you wish to make some type of breach of tort for which you can remove the right to bodily autonomy from for merely engaging in it?

Are risks of legal activities therefore consent to having your rights taken away by the government, because you belong to a certain class of persons?

and a child has been created of which you have no moral right to kill for your convenience and ignorance.

That's your subjective opinion and not only is it insulting (since 99.9% of women know what risks sex are - do you think we are mentally deficient or something) its also cold because this word "convenience" is a hyperbole compared to what pregnancy is and does.

Convenience is when you go to a drive through. Inconvenience is when you have to take an extra day for the DMV.

Please define in your own subjective terms, how loosing up to a quart of blood while you shove an 8 lb person out of your genitalia, which then rips an internal wound in your uterus called the placental detachment is just an "inconvenience."

If you are going to argue objective morals, I beg you to divest yourself of subjective terms.

Draw a connection between my argument and sexism, I dare you

Well since according to you women are ignorant and selfish that is what leads them to being pregnant. . . I dunno what you think but I honestly know its not objective.

I just think it doesn't hold water with most people because they see their first duty as protecting children, not protecting the bodily autonomy of individuals that chose to have sex.

When you can get a tax break for an unborn fetus and drive in the carpool lane with a pregnancy, then that is a worthy avenue to follow.

The truth is I have been arguing this for years now, and I have changed pro-life people's minds by talking about these basic rights.

People are just naturally more viscerally drawn to the morality of the thing being permissible or not than they are a more nuanced legal argument.

Theres nothing nuanced about what I say. I stick to the very concrete legal terms. Every once and a while, I get someone who claims laws are not moral by nature of them being laws, and so therefore I challenge them to create a new consistent framework to re-define the entire concept of self-defense, murder etc.

Because, and again, this is not "nuanced", if these concepts don't apply to everyone equally (bottom-up/top-bottom), they are not moral.

Plus, I don't think it does any favors to cede the "it's baby-killing" ground. I think it's better to say "no, it's not baby-killing, AND here's the legal argument as well".

Not in my experience. They use that argument to nit-pick viability. If you agree with them that it's killing, but reinforce that NOT ALL KILLING IS MURDER, you really do get to the core of it.

In fact, you can even agree that it's tragic in many cases, especially since a majority (99%) of late term abortions are of WANTED babies. But something being TRAGIC doesn't make it WRONG/ILLEGAL or IMMORAL.

And this is where you educate them on the BASIC laws that 90% of them didn't even know.

Otherwise a lot of people will just see the pro-choice argument as anti-responsibility and pro-degeneracy rather than what it is: a legally and morally defensible position.

Disagree. Nope. In my experience you snuff that out when you ask them if they think sex should be a legal activity or an illegal activity. I have shown them WHO stats before (if they start out with the slut shaming before everything) that a majority of women who get abortions are married and already have kids.

But no. You don't run into a hungry belly with regards to these types of arguments. And I have changed people's minds. Like I said, I've been doing this for years.

That is the US version of the definition of murder.

Even the most liberal states that require you to retreat from your own house before using lethal force, WOULD NEVER CHARGE SOMEONE WITH MURDER for defending their own body.

I highly suggest you read the entire article on the legal definition of murder as there is a reason it is very specific. People's rights are defined by these legal terms. They are concrete and detailed for a reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

It's an unending argument.

No one has a duty to retreat from something they physically cannot retreat from, even if that thing is a PERSON.

Similarly no one has a duty to retreat from a PERSON merely because that person is legally innocent (unfit for trial.)

Even when you acknowledge that a fetus is a person, no one person has de facto rights to own, use and occupy another persons body, merely because of their class, health status, age or any other definition.

It is a violation of the 14 Amendment.

These terms are the heart of the pro-choice argument.

Therefore, next time someone argues to you about the "baby killing" go ahead and agree with them, then explain to them that the fact of an egg being fertilized doesn't mean a zygote has an inalienable right (once it has burrowed on its own into the walls of the uterus - which btw, it does autonomously or else it's not a pregnancy) to occupy women's bodies that NO OTHER PERSON HAS. Merely because it is a zygote/fetus.

I'm telling you this because you will waste far less time, and it is in fact, the entire point of the pro-choice view.

There is so much wrong with this.

You're opinion is noted and ignored, especially after your spectacular failure in defining what murder is.

First, does putting airbags in the cause a baby to be killed?

First nothing, your "moral" argument is about putting undue burdens on legally abiding citizens that would violate their bodily rights, simply because they dared to engage in a legal activity with a certain risk.

Even a CRIMINALLY AT FAULT driver deserves the same rights to their organs as everyone else.

But lets be even more specific.

Lets say two people are legally swimming in a legal swimming hole. Neither one nor the other is engaging in reckless behavior for which anyone could be found legally responsible. Lets say one accidentally pokes a hole in the others lifejacket, without knowing. One starts to drown and pull the other down. What you are saying is the one that is being pulled down, (who even lets say, accidentally poked the hole) doesn't deserve the right to self defense.

Secondly, no because you can’t endanger a child that doesn’t exist.

You clearly don't understand the concepts of bodily rights and self defense. You wish to take away the woman's right to protect her own body from unwanted risk, contact and harm (deny her the right to an abortion) because she engaged in a certain activity.

With regards to adults; there are only 3 ways you can remove bodily rights from them:

1) They are breaching tort (breaking the law) for which therefore they forfeit their rights to self defense. For example, if you are robbing someone, you don't have the right to self defense while violating another person's rights. So in that case, are you saying you wish sex to be some kind of breach of tort for which you have the right to remove women's bodily rights from?

2) they are military conscripts. For which they are provided an oath of service, means of arbitration, just compensation and etc. Should women be forced to sign up for some type of military service if they want the right to have sex? For which if they die or are injured in childbirth they are provided with just compensation?

3) They are deemed mentally incompetent. (Which I'm pretty sure you don't believe women are mentally incompetent by nature of being women)

So please answer my question to you, if it is not 1 of these 3 things (the act of sex means you take women's rights away) can you explain to the class how women have a unique duty to retreat from something they physically cannot retreat from?

Nope, that's not even close to the definition of murder.

And no, that is not what malice is either. FFS.

Again, ignorance prevails.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.[1][2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

The Unlawful – This distinguishes murder from killings that are done within the boundaries of law, such as capital punishment, justified self-defense, or the killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants as well as causing collateral damage to non-combatants during a war.[9]

with malice aforethought – Originally malice aforethought carried its everyday meaning – a deliberate and premeditated (prior intent) killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."

Malice has to do with the intent. It has nothing to do with time passed.

But lets get into what doctors do.

Doctors and policemen are granted EXTRA powers to protect the people that other people do not have.

Police for example, are the only ones who do not have a duty to retreat because protection of society is their job.

Doctors have the same rights. They protect the welfare and wishes of patients, they have the RIGHT to help others exercise their bodily autonomy.

Lastly, let me ask you a very important question, since when does anyone have a Duty to retreat from something they physically cannot retreat from?

How long btw, have you held these views without doing the research on what these terms actually mean?

Just like if you don't want to get into a car accident, don't drive. Amirite?

Those sluts who operate a moving vehicle deserve no airbags if they get into a car accident!

Don’t kill babies when they risk/reward doesn’t work out for you.

Sex is legal right? Just asking what you think about the right to defend yourself from risks of legal actions. Sex by itself isn't some kind of reckless child endangerment or child neglect or something right? You can't automatically remove the rights of self defense for a person for engaging in a legal, unregulated act, correct?

I love how you treat women as if in their entirety as a gender, sex is just some kind of las vegas trip or something like that. Like no woman ever has a wanted pregnancy that turns out to be dangerous for them. It's kind of telling. What do you actually know about what happens to women during pregnancy. Do you know how zygotes implant? Do you know what happens during labor? Do you know the types of complications and recoveries women have to go through?

Do you consider the act of sex a de facto draft to give birth? If so, where is the just compensation?