for example child-birth of any kind has a risk of death.

🤔

rather unlikely is still a chance of death

so you wouldn't make an electoral action that supports it either right?

because you are by essence *putting yourself in that chair*

by electoral action supporting 'pro life'

so you do want to put yourself in that chair because you're by essence making decisions *for those people*

well you *impact* people's decision by electoral action.

so you are putting yourself in that chair 🤔

you can't pretend to 'not want to be put in that situation'
but also simultaneously influence the decisions of people in that situation.

it's quite inconsistent

but you want to limit other people's 'choices' by well

electoral action

by limiting their choices 🤔

or 'legal' choices

@Ben Garrison never thought i'd have a fascist agree with my reasoning lol

so your encouraging people to go against the justice system?

so like a black market?

🤔 so the government interfering with people's personal lives no longer matters?

I just have a problem with conservatism not everything fits perfectly in place for me
pro choice
and the government not interfering with people's lives makes sense

pro life
and christian ethos morality makes sense together

but together

no that doesn't quite mix.

christian ethos morality (as in all lives/souls are valuable and you shouldn't 'destroy' one.)

@An Elbow if your argument is based in reality it should be convincing in a logical sense

but when i try to logically analyse it

it falls apart.

@Neon i feel there is some inconsistency is conservative thought.

"Not, it is not limiting their choice. **You are free to break the law.** There are just some consequences that you need to accept."

read back everything i've literally gone through and poked all the holes already.

'break the law'

the law is what?

what law would they be breaking?

also stop the ad hominem

i am trying to take your opinion seriously

and logically debate it

insulting me doesn't help me convince me

arguable

there's a lot more energy being put into being angry at my differing view

rather than actually demonstrating to me the 'objective' truth in this whole thing.

^this

i prefer

"abortion is murder to some people because it depends on how people define murder."

what is false about this statement, i've only said what reality is like

is literally stating reality 'false'

some people think abortion is murder

is true

but if that is correct or not depends on what some people believe *is* murder

that is also true

imagine it this way

everyone builds a reality bubble around themself

and they want to believe *that reality is the objective one*

and sometimes we need people to pop that reality bubble

'just cause' is a subjective terminology

by its very essence

therefore you've argued against yourself

@Ben Garrison @Neon is 'just cause' a subjective statement or idea?

^^^^^^^

'intentionally ignoring' what?

'just cause'

i could put up hundreds of analogies of 'differing' ideas of what just cause means

iraq war for example

some people think bush was right some people don't

was there 'just cause' for that?

as the facts unfold we change our opinions like the iraq war wasn't really a success... it didn't end terrorism

at the time with our limited facts we thought 'hey invade iraq it can't go so bad'

but in retrospect that didn't go so well.

you can play semantics till the cows come home but my point stands, there are no 'objective' reasons to do anything.

the only ideology i know of which argues morality from material reality is marxism.

well lets even take 'being alive'

suicide is an option

people can even choose *not to be alive* against their very nature of self-preservation'

the choice of not obeying self-preservation instincts on their own is what makes us more emotionally developed than other species and really 'human'

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

other animals have to obey fight or flight or self-preservation

or like

most of them

well as far as we know.

@Ben Garrison wait which part is objectable?

i can correct it

or re think it

🤔 there are other elements but this high level of emotional intelligence is one element

most insects act closer to drones i.e ants or bees

and insects make up the majority of the biomass

of Earth

well it's quite interesting to explore different thought paths especially this existentialist reality of the world or absurdist.

instead of having a very linear train of thought.

it's quite linear to think one has the objective truth to reality and everyone else just doesn't understand them.

so both pro choice and pro life are wrong they're absolutes

*RADICAL CENTRIST*

In my opinion

I feel the individualism argument is strongest

that this is a 'restriction' on the 'personal lives' of people by the government and therefore morally wrong.

The woman if they are pro life should be able to keep the child

the woman if they are pro choice should be able to abort the child

at least that's how i would interpret 'MAXIMUM CENTRISM'

I'm not really convinced by the 'abortion is murder' argument.

yes?

goddamnit

do i have 2 hours to waste?