5 ms·

Even if we ignore the gun topic, he was extremely anti abortion, including in rape situations. He argued for heinous perspectives and oppression. He didn't des

Even if we ignore the gun topic, he was extremely anti abortion, including in rape situations. He argued for heinous perspectives and oppression. He didn't deserve to die, but he wasn't advocating for a world of opportunity and hope. Just oppression and hate. Let's not act like he was some saint helping people.

dinkumthinkum 1y ago
But the problem is what you're saying doesn't follow. Charlie Kirk believed that abortion involves murdering a human being, violently, which it does. He believe in the rare circumstance of a pregnancy occurring from rape that the child is still innocent and should not be killed. That is explicitly advocating for life and non-violence, whether you agree with the premise or not. I think the left really has to reckon with something extremely important. As much as the left is pompous and pretends to be so much more "educated" that conservatives, they have a hard time following through positions logically, which is seems quite odd for supposed intellectual superiors.
- ironman1478 1y ago
  What about if a person can't support their child at that time in their life and they don't have a support system to help them? the government doesn't make it easy to give a kid up for adoption and also doesn't make it easy to adopt kids. The kid will likely not have a good life, especially as the government cuts benefits. Is it really worth bringing a child into this world if you're setting them up to fail? Is that really the correct thing to do? Are you really being kind to the child by kicking it in the teeth from birth? What if the birth will kill the mother? Is that not okay either? It's not even political. You just follow the logic and you kind of have to support abortion. There isn't really a logical reason not to. I actually believe the world is really messy and you have to have solutions that deal with the messiness. Being absolutist in any direction will never be right. Taking the extreme opposite position of mandated abortions is equally stupid and quite frankly as childish. It's surprising anybody on this site would defend something so illogical. Also read this: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/16/what-actually-happens-when-a-country-bans-abortion-romania-alabama/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/16/what-actually-happens-w... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770
  - jalapenos 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - ironman1478 1y ago
      You could read the links I posted to see the consequences of extreme policy decisions, like very wide bans on abortions. You can either meet people where they are and try to work with them, or you can be extreme and reap the consequences. It's not like the people of Romania were then or are now woke lefties. Charlie Kirk would've loved Ceausescu. Also read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s%E2%80%931990s_Romanian_orphans_phenomenon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s%E2%80%931990s_Romanian...
      - qcnguy 1y ago
        > or you can be extreme and reap the consequences This part of your post is very unfortunately worded given the context. I'll try to parse this in the most generous way possible, namely that you're talking about the consequences of abortion on adults and not advocating that right wing Christians "reap the consequences" of their "extreme policy decisions" by being murdered by leftist radicals. Anyway, you're not responding to his point: the consequences of abortion bans are born by the adults instead of the children. Instead your counter-argument is that the consequences are such that violence against the children is legitimate and not "extreme". Kirk's argument is that whatever the consequences are, it doesn't justify violence or murder of children, which is inherently extreme. You aren't rebutting his argument, just restating the left wing position in different words. And Ceausescu was a left wing dictator.
        ironman1478 1y ago
        The abortion ban in Romania was born by the children and effected them in innumerable ways. The consequences fell on the children. You can read all the text I linked. Romania had a huge amount of children who were abandoned because they could not be taken care of. allowing abortion would have prevented all of that suffering. Abortions will happen whether you like it or not and if they cannot happen, people will figure something out to get what they want. It's like sensor noise, it exists and you can't make it not exist. You can either accept it and work with people and try to develop healthy solutions or you can ignore reality and cause problems for everybody. Ceausescu was not left wing or right wing. Just like trump, these people are apolitical and just sit on the side that gives the ability to rule. I also strongly subscribe to the horseshoe theory of politics, so in my mind the far left == far right. Also, just so you know, I'm an extreme capitalist. I believe in economics and numbers. The numbers are what lead me to my policy perspectives.
- antifa 1y ago
  > hard time following through positions logically, Spoken like a person who either doesn't know or doesn't care that current anti-abortion policies in several red states have women scared to get pregnant, despite wanting to do so voluntarily, because doctors are refusing life saving procedures on the mother if the state can possibly perceive it as abortion, leading to many scenarios of live births to dead mothers, including one case of a corpse being artificially kept alive for weeks for the sake of the baby. The abortion laws of most blue states are already a rational compromise (still a very conservative leaning one) between the practical rights of women and the religious beliefs of far right totalitarians.
  - nandomrumber 1y ago
    31 seconds. Every thirty one seconds an abortion is carried out in the US.

dinkumthinkum 1y ago

But the problem is what you're saying doesn't follow. Charlie Kirk believed that abortion involves murdering a human being, violently, which it does. He believe in the rare circumstance of a pregnancy occurring from rape that the child is still innocent and should not be killed. That is explicitly advocating for life and non-violence, whether you agree with the premise or not. I think the left really has to reckon with something extremely important. As much as the left is pompous and pretends to be so much more "educated" that conservatives, they have a hard time following through positions logically, which is seems quite odd for supposed intellectual superiors.

ironman1478 1y ago
What about if a person can't support their child at that time in their life and they don't have a support system to help them? the government doesn't make it easy to give a kid up for adoption and also doesn't make it easy to adopt kids. The kid will likely not have a good life, especially as the government cuts benefits. Is it really worth bringing a child into this world if you're setting them up to fail? Is that really the correct thing to do? Are you really being kind to the child by kicking it in the teeth from birth? What if the birth will kill the mother? Is that not okay either? It's not even political. You just follow the logic and you kind of have to support abortion. There isn't really a logical reason not to. I actually believe the world is really messy and you have to have solutions that deal with the messiness. Being absolutist in any direction will never be right. Taking the extreme opposite position of mandated abortions is equally stupid and quite frankly as childish. It's surprising anybody on this site would defend something so illogical. Also read this: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/16/what-actually-happens-when-a-country-bans-abortion-romania-alabama/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/16/what-actually-happens-w... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770
- jalapenos 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - ironman1478 1y ago
    You could read the links I posted to see the consequences of extreme policy decisions, like very wide bans on abortions. You can either meet people where they are and try to work with them, or you can be extreme and reap the consequences. It's not like the people of Romania were then or are now woke lefties. Charlie Kirk would've loved Ceausescu. Also read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s%E2%80%931990s_Romanian_orphans_phenomenon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s%E2%80%931990s_Romanian...
    - qcnguy 1y ago
      > or you can be extreme and reap the consequences This part of your post is very unfortunately worded given the context. I'll try to parse this in the most generous way possible, namely that you're talking about the consequences of abortion on adults and not advocating that right wing Christians "reap the consequences" of their "extreme policy decisions" by being murdered by leftist radicals. Anyway, you're not responding to his point: the consequences of abortion bans are born by the adults instead of the children. Instead your counter-argument is that the consequences are such that violence against the children is legitimate and not "extreme". Kirk's argument is that whatever the consequences are, it doesn't justify violence or murder of children, which is inherently extreme. You aren't rebutting his argument, just restating the left wing position in different words. And Ceausescu was a left wing dictator.
      - ironman1478 1y ago
        The abortion ban in Romania was born by the children and effected them in innumerable ways. The consequences fell on the children. You can read all the text I linked. Romania had a huge amount of children who were abandoned because they could not be taken care of. allowing abortion would have prevented all of that suffering. Abortions will happen whether you like it or not and if they cannot happen, people will figure something out to get what they want. It's like sensor noise, it exists and you can't make it not exist. You can either accept it and work with people and try to develop healthy solutions or you can ignore reality and cause problems for everybody. Ceausescu was not left wing or right wing. Just like trump, these people are apolitical and just sit on the side that gives the ability to rule. I also strongly subscribe to the horseshoe theory of politics, so in my mind the far left == far right. Also, just so you know, I'm an extreme capitalist. I believe in economics and numbers. The numbers are what lead me to my policy perspectives.
antifa 1y ago
> hard time following through positions logically, Spoken like a person who either doesn't know or doesn't care that current anti-abortion policies in several red states have women scared to get pregnant, despite wanting to do so voluntarily, because doctors are refusing life saving procedures on the mother if the state can possibly perceive it as abortion, leading to many scenarios of live births to dead mothers, including one case of a corpse being artificially kept alive for weeks for the sake of the baby. The abortion laws of most blue states are already a rational compromise (still a very conservative leaning one) between the practical rights of women and the religious beliefs of far right totalitarians.
- nandomrumber 1y ago
  31 seconds. Every thirty one seconds an abortion is carried out in the US.