Would you rather live in a society controlled by ultra-right

>>8133405

Probably the right wing one, for purely selfish reasons:

I'm not effeminate
I'm sort of bi, so could settle down with a woman if needs be
Secret sex parties are the bomb

Also fascist regimes are easier to take down than super left wing ones.

File: 1467783713168.jpg (265KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 720x720px

I'm not a faggot and I keep my sexuality in the bedroom so I would pick the right wing one.

>>8133405
The right wing one because of the sharia part. Otherwise it would be the left wing one for personal convenience, although the right wing one would be better objectively.

Option 1, right-wing

Heck, I'd be the greatest supporter of the regime

>>8133405
>castrated for being transgender

isn't that exactly what they want?

>>8133493
It doesn't get rid of benis, just the testicles.

>>8133405
I'd choose left-wing every time.

*insert clapping emojis*

>>8133405
Why does every left wing nut assume that every conservative is religious?

t. a conservative non-religious bottom

>>8133609
>can't figure out why right-wingers would be associated with religion
>bottom
Why are bottoms so stupid? What's wrong with them?

>>8133405
i'd go full hermit mode in both cases
> ultra right-wing religious tradicionalism
i'd buy so many drugs to the point i wouldn't recognize my own face in the mirror in order to stand this
> jailed for not using someone's ze/hir/frogself pronouns
And this would make me consider daily joining ISIS and making everything halal again. Or using a c'thulian unpronounceable pronoun and call everyone by "hey, you" so i could send everyone out of that fucked up society

>>8133609
>right-wing
>bottom
dude, buy a fucking brain please

>>8133619
The cheerleaders of Islam are all left-wing.

>>8133646
Except for the Muslims themselves, many of whom are conservative.

>>8133628
There is nothing wrong with being a right-wing bottom.

You can be a bottom without being a SJW LGBT retard

>>8133624
In the left-wing world, peace has been achieved worldwide by making a yearly sacrifice of white men to the global south, so there's no isis to join.

>>8133405
I like the sound of the left wing one.
Cis gay, but I hate LGBT "culture" and drag so go ahead and kick me out, and since the laws and rules are established, it doesn't really matter who is in power. Pronouns would be mildly irritating, yes, but it's better than being forced into degenerate, secret, casual sex or repression and having to raise god awful kids to get medical treatment.

>>8133656
>left = good, right = evil

>>8133740
Me too.

Left wingers are annoying but at least we would have our rights and can pretty much ignore the sjws in most circumstances.

I know very few people irl who are literal sjws and I don't know any trenderqueers so I haven't had to deal with special pronouns at all (yet). If I did, it would be extremely annoying, but worse things could happen.

>>8133405
You know, the choice isn't too hard when one of the options involves castration.

>>8133765
In practice, yes, especially from a LGBT perspective, but that's not the definition I'm using. Religious fundamentalism, of the sort that leads to theocratic societies, is almost exclusively a right-wing phenomenon.

>>8133956
Wrong, it's exclusively left-wing.

>>8133956
Not all right wing people are religious.

I would consider hardcore lefties to be more evil than hardcore right wing

>>8133968
Why?

>>8133980
I think its ok for people to have an opinion that homosexuality is wrong.

I don't think its ok to force people to adhear to your beliefs about accepting everyone.

>>8133405
second one sounds like liberalism, not leftism :3

>>8133964
[citation needed]

>>8133968
>Not all right wing people are religious.
Never said that they are. There are non-religious right-wingers, I'm not denying that. However theocracy and religious fundamentalism are almost always right-wing, with the possible exception of a few cults which aren't well-established enough to be taken seriously as religions.

>>8133998
I personally think it's fine to have an opinion, but I personally don't think that it's okay if your "lack of acceptance" gets to the point where it harms people.

>>8134071
>harms

Define harm?

You hardly ever see gaybashing happening in the west anymore.

Lefties say that wearing a halloween costume, or not baking a cake for a gay couple is harm

>>8134078
I'd say that wearing a Halloween costume isn't harm (unless a "death to f*gs* sign is part of the costume or something) but discriminating against LGBT people is harm if it results in them living in the streets, or having to go far out of their way to get their needs met compared to straight people.

>>8134116
So should a private owned bakery be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings?

>>8133405
I would rather not live in a society governed by extremes, because that's a sign of a dying society.

>>8134123
No, but if the cake is already made and they're just refusing to sell it to people because they're gay, I'd say that's pretty stupid and hard to justify.

>>8134132
>hard to justify.
Justification isn't required for the exercise of freedom. If it is, then it's no freedom.

>>8134129
Ok.

You end up living in a society governed by radical centrists. One day you find out your neighbor is planning to beat you to death. You don't like this, so you take him to court. The court decides to let him beat you half to death.

>>8134137
By "justification" I mean "having a potential motive that doesn't make you a bad person".

>>8134116
What makes you think gay bashing wouldn't come back under a right-wing regime?

>>8134161
Their motive is keeping true to their religious beliefs.

Its not like a gay couple can't just give their business to another bakery

>>8134190
Thats not how regimes work.

Did gay-bashing become a thing during the 8 years of bush?

>>8134161
Motive is irrelevant to the issue of whether people have a freedom or not.

>>8133405
Seems to me a lot of people voting for right-wing are completely overlooking that they will zealously hunt down and entrap LGBT. Look at what they're doing with illegals.
Right-wing are big on LE. Left-wing, they'll force LE to wear body cams and put in a lot of oversight.

>>8134222
...lawful evil?

>>8134222
Right wing are hunting down illegals because they are illegals.

Right wing people dont care about LGBT people

Just don't be a flamboyant faggot and make a half decent effort to pass and they will leave you alone

>>8134238
They don't need to go by your appearance if they catch you in a sting at a gay club or off a dating app. They won't even have to be after you but if you're there, you'll get caught in the net.

>>8134281
>if they catch you in a sting at a gay club or off a dating app
This would only ever happen in far-left countries such as the Middle East and Africa.

I choose neither :^)

> t.centrist

File: Nothing+beats+the+furry+nazi+s+nothing+_0bf96be4d2e2997933b565cb8656c154.jpg (297KB, 1120x744px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1120x744px

hail the great Adolf Hitler

>>8134479
What would a radical centrist society look like?

>>8133405
Left easily. It's a shitty world but at least I can still transition and then go live out in the woods with my bf or something.

Right means I'll just die. There's nothing to live for in that world if I have to repress for life.

>>8133405
The only reason to ever pick the ultra conservative scenario here if you're bi and can we happy being in a hetero relationship forever. Why would you ever pick it if you're gay or trans? The ultra left wing society is bad too but at least you can still be gay/trans without being jailed.

>>8134518
neutral_planet_from_futurama.jpg

>>8134566
I dont want to go to jail for refusing to date a tranny with a vagina.

I keep my sexuality in the bedroom so I have no reason to fear the right wing one

>>8134582
>implying you won't be ratted out by one of your straight neighbors
>implying they won't conduct raids

>>8134598
>getting raided for having a male roommate

>>8134582
"Keeping it in the bedroom" is a huge risk, especially considering you'll have to marry a cishet and have several kids with them. It'll be very hard to keep things hidden.

Plus in the radical left wing world trans people would almost all transition as children and be virtually indistinguishable from cis anyways.

>>8133405
The only one that could happen in this timeline is the left wing one

>>8134613
But the right wing scenario already exists in some places.

>>8134610
I prefer my men to be real men

>>8134610
>especially considering you'll have to marry a cishet
just marry an aap and everything will look perfectly wholesome.
t. agp

>>8134619
Not anywhere in the west

>>8134621
>real men
>fags
choose one, honey

>>8134634
a fag is a flamboyant gay.

t. normal gay

>>8134634
I prefer my men to be cis thank you very much

>>8134634
i have penis i am a man

>>8134621
And how are you going to find men to fuck in the extreme right wing world?

Right wing world = Near impossible to find a partner, easy to be outed by people, if you get outed you go to jail or are castrated

Left wing world = You might have to fuck a tranny every now an then even if you don't want to. Still better than literally going to jail for life.

>>8134652
Not to mention that in the right wing world you WILL have to fuck a cis woman on the regular. If you're a gay guy, isn't that even worse than having to fuck a pre op FtM?

>>8134666
I'm bi so I wouldnt even care

I can just ride a dildo to get my anal fix

>>8133405
>Sharia government with women in it
Top Kek!

>>8134745
it's obviously a millet system

>>8133680
>nothing wrong with being a right-wing bottom
yes, you have an ideology that wants to fuck you up as a lgbt and not in the good way. If you seek pain and destruction without any bdsm attribute you must be retarded. It's like the "T-trump sempai is with us desu" meme and then you have mike pence.

>>8134190
What did I say that suggests that?

>>8134194
>Their motive is keeping true to their religious beliefs.
I don't think religious beliefs is a valid motive, because literally anything can be justified under religious belief.

>Its not like a gay couple can't just give their business to another bakery
Unless you live in a remote place and it's the only bakery in the region.

>>8134205
It is however relevant to the morality of an act.

>>8134234
Law Enforcement

>>8134238
>Right wing are hunting down illegals because they are illegals.
Yet many of those illegals have never actually harmed another person. If right-wingers weren't hypocrites, they'd go after themselves first for the harm and suffering they have inflicted on the LGBT community.

>>8134950
>and then you have mike pence.
as vp.

vs hillary "i want lgbt folks stoned and raped by mexicans and blm and muslims btw thanks for the cash saudis" clinton as prez.

>>8134713
That's why I said
>unless you're bi

File: 1489632808978.jpg (126KB, 334x499px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 334x499px

>>8134950
Right wing politicians haven't done anything to me

Trump is pro LGBT.

Hilary has 20+ years has a politician who has voted down LGBT rights.

Infact she only switched her stance on gay marriage in 2013 because she had to for the 2016 election.

I really hate it when lefties think that bottoms are idiots for being rightwing. Yes there are more conservatives who hate us than there are liberals, but lefties have gay haters too.

I'd rather support people that hate what I do than support people that support people who want me dead (Islam).

Also I hate trannies.

>>8134977
>hillary "i want lgbt folks stoned and raped by mexicans and blm and muslims btw thanks for the cash saudis" clinton
Funny, I don't remember her saying that.

>>8134950
>yes, you have an ideology that wants to fuck you up as a lgbt

>lefties think conservatives operate on a hivemind

Also how exactly do conservatives want to fuck me up? By not letting me force a christian bakery to bake a cake for me and my BF?

>>8134975
Anything can be justified under religious has long as it doesnt harm non consenting parties.

It's wrong to force a christian bakery to bake you a cake. But that doesn't mean its ok for satanists to sacrifice kids.

>>8135013
>I'd rather support people that hate what I do than support people that support people who want me dead (Islam).
I have yet to see a single leftist that considers the killings of gays by Muslims to be a good thing. However there are conservative groups that support bills in foreign countries that make homosexuality a capital offense.

>>8134975
>Yet many of those illegals have never actually harmed another person.

Thats irrelevant.

They are illegals because they entered/stayed in the country illegally.

Ergo they need to go back.

It doesn't matter if they are law-abiding or not. They are not allowed to pick and choose what laws they follow.

>>8134975
>they'd go after themselves first for the harm and suffering they have inflicted on the LGBT community.


What harm and suffering have they inflicted on gays/bis/lesbians?

>>8135023
then you'll deserve it when you get your way, she gets hers, and you're dangling from a crane.

>>8135023
She didn't say that but when she accepts money from nations that kills gay people its a bad sign.

Regardless she was only pro gay marriage 3 years before the election.

During her time in state office and first lady she was firmly anti gay marriage and I would bet she secretly still is

>>8135053
If a bakery can refuse to serve gays because that would make them complicit in sin, wouldn't it also be sinful for a christian firefighter to put out a fire at a gay bar? Should christian firefighters be allowed to let a gay bar burn to the ground?

>>8135097
Not getting a cake is different from being burned to death in a fire

If the cake was an antidote to some poison I'll consider the idea of forcing a christian bakery to bake me a cake

>>8135065
I disagree. Some crimes are far worse than others.

>>8135072
Denying them the right to marry and adopt for decades if not centuries. For deciding that killing a gay or trans person is less severe than killing a straight cishet.

>>8135075
>you deserve to be murdered for not being delusional
wew lad

>>8135123
Fair enough. But what if the gay bar was unoccupied at the time? Would the firefighter's duty still outweigh their religious freedom?

>>8135138
That fire could spread to surrounding buildings

>>8135125
>I disagree. Some crimes are far worse than others.

I never said they weren't. But all crimes need to be enforced.

>>8135125
>Denying them the right to marry and adopt for decades if not centuries

It's 2017. Yes there are still conservative politicians agaisnt gay marriage, but it's not exactly going to be repealed in anyway. Also your generalizing all conservatives with conservatives from the past.

>>8135097
>>8135138
Different anon, the difference here is that a baker isn't contractually obliged to serve anyone who walks into her shop.

A firefighter, while on duty, is obliged by his employment to fulfill his responsibilities to every person and property (occupied or not) his station covers.

Also, religion is irrelevant. All this applies regardless of religious views. If a firefighter's religious views prevent her putting out fires in gay bars, she can't sign up to the duties of being a firefighter.

>>8135179
>It's 2017. Yes there are still conservative politicians agaisnt gay marriage, but it's not exactly going to be repealed in anyway. Also your generalizing all conservatives with conservatives from the past.
If what conservatives did 20 years ago shouldn't be punished, neither should crimes done 20 years ago.

>>8135237
>a baker isn't contractually obliged
>is obliged by his employment to fulfill his responsibilities to every person and property (occupied or not) his station covers.
What actually decides whether there is such an obligation or not?

>>8135569
>What actually decides whether there is such an obligation or not?
Well, the nature of the job. A shop front is an open door to browse products. There's no agreement there.

A firefighter is employed by the state which was a responsibility to all residents, or by a private fire station that sells its services to residents, who pay for it either collectively or individually per property. Either way, there's the obligation. In theory it could refuse to accept money from gay residents or the owners of gay bars, but in practice that wouldn't happen (the difference between a family Christian bakery and a chain store) and there would be other fire services to hire, even if they are more distant and more expensive, and there would be profit and customer pressure not to discriminate. Even if a gay person or gay bar was left uninsured, fire services they haven't paid for may still be obliged to help under their contracts to other residents because of the risk of the fire spreading and related reasons.

>>8133405
>castrated for being a tranny

I'm pretty sure they want that, I'd fuck them if they didn't have a dick desu.

>>8135569
>What actually decides whether there is such an obligation or not?
Its called a paycheck

>>8135651
>castrated for being a tranny

>I'm pretty sure they want that, I'd fuck them if they didn't have a dick desu

i fuck them either way, your almost there ;)

A Right-wing dystopia would be a steelbath that purges the Left of weakness, allowing it to arise Phoenix-like once more and create a popular front against our fascist overlords.
A Left-wing dystopia just finally and irrevocably kills any hope of actual socialism, forever.

I'll take right-wing, please. When no one is left alive who believes in HAES or thinks that "demigirl" is a thing, we may have a chance.

>>8133405
>left-wing
you meant liberal

File: 1481512743544.jpg (17KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x300px

>>8133405

So your asking would you rather live in the Middle east or Canada?

>>8135729
>A Left-wing dystopia just finally and irrevocably kills any hope of actual socialism, forever.
Crap, you just made me want to pick left over right just so that happens.

>>8133405

Absolutely, 100% certai I would pick left wing. I would gladly give my life to fight a right-wing society if that's what it took to live.

>>8136037
Why? A resurgence of classical Leftist ideas, sans either sjw-bullshit or Soviet-style authoritarianism, would be in the interest of pretty much everyone who doesn't own any means of production (and no one on this Nigerian bedpost maintainance bbs owns those).

>>8133405
The first just sounds like Middle Age Europe.

The second is a bit weirder since in the real world there's no way that the pronouns thing will be enforced unless pronouns are made very clear. If they are enforced without pronouns being made clear and easy, just complain about ableism because it is justified there. Sharia law seems like a funny thing to worry about in a leftwing society since you just described a government fundamentally incompatible with Sharia. Real Sharia law would look a hell of a lot closer to the right wing dystopia.

So left wing dystopia any day.

>>8135013
Trump flip flops just as much as any other politician despite what you or his cult might believe.
He may claim to be pro LGBT, and maybe he is, but it doesn't matter for shit when he picks an extremely anti-LGBT vice president, appoints anti-LGBT people to positions of power, etc.

Yeah, maybe Hilary secretly is anti-gay. Who knows. But she definitely wouldn't be letting so many anti-LGBT politicians into power. Whatever her personal beliefs are don't matter for shit if she doesn't act on them, and that likewise foes for Trump. I couldn't care less if he holds up a rainbow flag or tweets about Jenner, none of that matters when he's actively making things harder for us, whether intentionally or not.

Also, Clinton definitely isn't that anti LGBT. In her time as secretary of state, she enacted a policy that lets trans people change their passport much more easily. Previously you'd need an amended birth certificate, which depending on your state could require going through the name change process or getting SRS, something a lot of trans people don't even want or can't afford. Now all you need to change your passport is a doctor's note, which is very useful because you can use your passport in lieu of other ID you might not be able to change yet.

>>8136278
>but it doesn't matter for shit when he picks an extremely anti-LGBT vice president,

Has pence made any anti lgb policies in office?

>she enacted a policy that lets trans people change their passport much more easily.

Do you think I care about trannies?

>>8136324
>Has pence made any anti lgb policies in office?
Vice Presidents have little legislative power, but Trump still put him in a position of authority. He has a lot more of an ability to spread his retarded ideas now.
And don't ignore the anti LGBT cabinet members or supreme court justice.
>Do you think I care about trannies?
Whether you do or not is irrelevent. The point is, she's hardly anti-lgbt when she did things like that.

>>8136278
>But she definitely wouldn't be letting so many anti-LGBT politicians into power.
She's be letting millions more anti-LGBT animals into the country.

>>8136341
>being protrans policy makes it ok for her to make anti gay policy

>>8133405
Guess it's time for civil resistance. It may not happen in my lifetime, but I'd hope that one day people could live in a western style liberal democracy again. Though I live in the middle of nowhere so I don't think it would really bother me that much. Yet more rules to largely ignore. If the men with guns come to kill me or take me away, it's not like the words they use will make much of a difference.

>>8136345
>She's be letting millions more anti-LGBT animals into the country.
Even if that were true, that's a completely different matter from putting anti-LGBT politicians into some of the strongest positions of power in the country. Even if in just 8 years a tenth of the US was made up by radical Muslims, which is completely ridiculous, my chances of actually being hindered by that are pretty low compared to my chances of being hindered by anti-LGBT politicians who are already in power.

If you think the extremely low chance of being murdered by a homophobe is worse than the very real possibility of having your rights curtailed, you need to get your head checked.
>>8136347
No, enacting pro-trans policies make it unlikely you also want to enact anti-gay policies you dense fuck.

>>8136363
>If you think massively increasing the chance of being murdered by a homophobe is worse than having to find a way to survive without gay marriage, you need to get your head checked.

File: pronoun fine.png (1MB, 1188x1329px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1188x1329px

Option A is basically sharia law
Option B is basically NYC
I'd rather live in NYC over Shitstainistan any day

I'm bi so the second one.

Radical-far leftist societies are against idpol... Their only goal is to have all people provided what they need and the abolishing of capital and the capatalist system.

>>8133405
2nd alternative, obviously ignoring your attempt to claim that sharia law would allow any of that.

>>8136377
>massively increasing
It's still negligible. It's like saying you'd turn down winning a prize of 50 billion dollars if doing so would halve the chance of being killed by an asteroid.

Uhhh as a religious conservative I don't really "get" your first description but I guess I'd take the second? Except for the obese feminists in government, its not THAT bad (hopefully the Sharia Muslims would balance out the obese feminists?). Like, we don't need drag shows or cis gay LGBT+ groups. But we do need rights including right to remain celibate.

>>8139454
>Uhhh as a religious conservative
stopped reading there

>>8140131
I love how tolerant the left is

>>8139454
>implying obese feminists are a bigger problem then Sharia Muslims

>>8140459
They are the same problem. Western feminists and other leftists are the fifth column.

>>8140459

Obese feminist will promote abortion (baby murder).

Don't know about sharia muslim. Ban pork?

>>8140459
Obese feminists tend to tell younger girls its ok to be fat.

>>8133405
>where drag shows are outlawed
sign me up

>>8140555

>abortion (baby murder).

Looks like someone already lives in number 1

>>8140671

????

>e gays and trannies have zero rights,
nope.
>an be jailed for life or castrated for having gay sex or being transgender,
nope
>and have no access to medical care or employment unless you conform to a 100% traditional hetereosexual lifestyle by marrying and having several biological children with someone of the opposite sex (while conforming to sexist gender roles and forcing them on your children)?
nope.

Sorry you are wrong. I HATE how the left wing has aligned itself with killing children though. Like, how the fuck did murder become acceptable?

File: embryofetus.jpg (30KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 800x600px

>>8140701
this isn't a child idiot
it's a fetus
please call it what it is

File: 398405_10150472123961226_176833256225_9000600_1950001550_n.jpg (74KB, 592x960px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 592x960px

>>8140711

That's a child. Just because its small and still developing doesn't make it "not a child". You used to look like that when you were little.

Murder is wrong. Full stop. Would you like it if someone killed you? No? Then don't do it to others. Just that simple.

>>8140701
I'm personally against abortion but I do think people have a right to get one, simply because if they couldn't do it legally they'd just use more dangerous methods which could kill the mother too.

>>8140760
Citizens have more rights than humans.
Humans have more rights than unborn humans

Regardless of whether its morally right, its the persons body. They can do whatever they like to their own body.

>>8140805

You can use this argument for murdering an adult too. If people can't murder adults legally they might use more dangerous methods which might get them hurt too.

Does that make it okay? Would that be acceptable to you? If not, you need to really take time to think about your position.

File: is-it-really-just-your-body.jpg (88KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 960x960px

>>8140827

>Humans have more rights than unborn humans

This is a nonsense statement, like saying "humans have more rights than teenage humans".

>Regardless of whether its morally right, its the persons body. They can do whatever they like to their own body.

Wrong. Being inside a persons body does not make them part of a body, just like being inside a car does not make you part of the car. Does a pregnant woman have 2 hearts, 4 eyes, and 2 brains? No. She has one brain, one heart, 2 eyes, etc.

Stop trying to justify MURDER.

Hell in spite of being left-leaning, shit like choicers is what makes me not want to vote Democrat.

Its such a cartoonishly evil thing you think "no way are people pro-murder, they probably don't realize what abortion is, they think its just like the pill or something".

Then you meet them online--"oh wait there are literally people who are pro-murder".

>>8140843
Humans do have more rights than teenage humans. Can teenage humans legally drink or rent a car?

>>8140843
The person who owns the car is allowed to kick people out of the car if they dont want that person in the car.

>>8140829
False equivalency.

Firstly, if a mother accidentally kills herself trying to abort her pregnancy through unsafe means, then the fetus still dies, every time. Whereas if someone tries to illegally murder an adult the victim will not always be killed. Both fetus and mother dying is worse than just the fetus dying.

Secondly, the only thing that makes abortion dangerous is when it's illegal and the people who want abortions have to use unsafe methods. Whereas murder would still be just as dangerous for the perpetrator even if it was legal.

Finally, adult humans have different rights than fetuses. If you think otherwise you're just beeing needlessly reductive. Fetuses cannot feel pain or suffering, at least early in development. More developed humans can. We give them rights that avoid pain and suffering for that reason, if a fetus can't experience pain and suffering then there's no reason for it to have those rights.

>>8140829
Thats not even an argument you moron. No one is supporting murdering developed persons

File: 551ff4fc350b52e535089d575ff3d106.jpg (60KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 720x720px

>>8140880

Are they allowed to rip the person up limb-by-limb because they are "just another car part"?

No?

Then fuck off and stop trying to justify murder. You aren't "kicking a baby out of the car" (by the way, if this resulted in a childs death no way would it be allowed), you are dismembering a child.

File: tumblr_n9m6je2XIL1sx0zdeo1_500.jpg (88KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 500x500px

>>8140889

Development is a spectrum, humans aren't fully developed until 25+. But it doesn't make it okay to murder anyone under 25. If you wouldn't want someone to murder you then don't murder other people.

>>8140884

>Both fetus and mother dying is worse than just the fetus dying.
Yes. But that does not make it okay to murder a child, so.

>the only thing that makes abortion dangerous is when it's illegal
Successful abortions 100% end in literal death and murder. So yeah, I'd consider that "dangerous".

> Fetuses cannot feel pain or suffering, at least early in development. More developed humans can
A human under anesthesia (or knocked out via other means) cannot feel pain or suffering. Do you think its okay to violently murder and dismember an adult as long as you put them under anesthesia first?

Its wrong. End of story. Stop trying to justify it. Show some empathy, show some humanity, show some compassion. This is basic human ethics 101.

File: da45690f35f5f45020608574b7f944c5.jpg (16KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 236x236px

>The hypocrisy of people defending child murder on an lgbt board

Whyyyyyyyy

>>8140760
No, it's a fetus. Call me a fetus-killer all you want, I don't give a fuck. When you call people child-killers, the implication is so shocking because people think of ACTUAL children being killed, not fetuses.
If someone had aborted me when I was a fetus I wouldn't have cared or felt it at all or been aware enough of anything to know what was going on. So yeah, that's why I'm okay with it happening to fetuses.

File: 9e5e520669c7ea3d4ee3f959000e4359.jpg (323KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 960x960px

>>8141006
>No, it's a fetus
Child refers to any human pre-puberty, including infants, toddlers, tweens, and yes, fetuses.

>ACTUAL children being killed
I didn't realize children in utero were imaginary???

>If someone had aborted me when I was a fetus I wouldn't have cared or felt it at all or been aware enough of anything to know what was going on.

Wow the same thing holds true if some "pro-choicer" idiot murdered you in your sleep tonight. You would not be aware or care and if they do it fast you won't feel it. But its still WRONG, you know that right?? Its wrong to kill a baby, you know that right?

>>8133405
first one,how do they find out I am gay?
By conform you mean I have to specifically fuck someone of the opposite gender in front of court or ? I'm cis so I will simply live by and fuck with my lover in private without being seen.

>>8141960
>Checks NSA database
>Sees you've posted here multiple times and already admitted you're gay
Sorry anon, we can't take any chances. To the chambers you go

>>8141043
Reminder that no western nation will make abortion illegal

>>8141043
>>If someone had aborted me when I was a fetus I wouldn't have cared or felt it at all or been aware enough of anything to know what was going on.
>Wow the same thing holds true if some "pro-choicer" idiot murdered you in your sleep tonight.


I have memories. I have family and friends that will suffer when I die.

Fetuses don't

>>8136488
option b has sharia law as well oops

>>8133405
in the end it's like choosing to be burned alive or being drown.

>>8140893
>Are they allowed to rip the person up limb-by-limb because they are "just another car part"?
If that is the only way to remove them from the car, then yes. Even moreso when it's your body. Are you willing to go to jail for murder when you refuse to share your food with a starving person? If you don't think others have a right to your property even if they absolutely need it to survive, you can't go around saying they're entitled to anyone's body, either.

>>8142012
It's very obvious that Sharia is only applied to Muslims.

>>8140940
Would you still consider gay marriage defensible if it entailed FORCING straight people to have gay sex against their will? People who are pro-choice aren't like "yay I love killing babies because I'm pure evil", it's because they don't think anyone is entitled to use their body without their consent. If there was a way to avoid the admittedly regrettable situation where the death of a fetus is necessary to ensure bodily autonomy, pro-choicers would be fine with it. Their desire is not to cause harm to the fetus, but to protect the mother's freedom. However, many people on your side oppose even the use of birth control, which only increases the chances that a woman is going to have to make that difficult decision.

>>8144768
You give up your right to eject someone from your body when you chose to let them come into existence there.

>>8144791
>People who are pro-choice aren't like "yay I love killing babies because I'm pure evil", it's because they don't think anyone is entitled to use their body without their consent.
Yet they believe they are entitled to other people's property, labor and earnings.

>>8144853
We have technology to supercede the laws of nature.

Women can have sex now without risk of pregnancy. Also it feels better without a condom.


Tough luck kiddo. Abortion will never become illegal in a western nation

Abortion is the person with the fetus's choice. Not yours.

>>8144865
>Women can have sex now without risk of pregnancy.
Which is why they are ALWAYS responsible when they get pregnant and have ALWAYS given up their right to their body as much as their baby needs it.

>>8145230
Modern law would disagree with you

Tough luck

>>8133405
If we're assuming that orthodox religion is always right wing (as some anons here claim) then both scenario's are ultra-right wing.

Not that it matters because in both scenario's you'll end up murdered.

>>8145253
Modern law is wrong. Get over it.

>>8145624
clearly it isn't since abortion will never be illegal

>>8145630
We both know that's not true.

>>8145653
>implying any western nation is going to undo its abortion laws

>>8145624
How would you even enforce anti-abortion law? It's inside the woman's body. She can kill the unborn child inside of her at any moment in any number of ways, or even make it look like miscarriage if necessary. There is really no way to prevent women from doing that when they don't want a child, it's been going on since prehistory.

>>8145690
Not undo. Restore.

>>8133609
Because then you are just an idiot. We are trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

>>8133847
It's not that. It's stressful, especially at first, but over time it becomes like recognizing more colors, when you name. You just see people differently.

>>8134200
Bush was basically a liberal. It's already come back, what with the trying to call every gay person a pedophile meme. Evangelical propaganda, also used in Russia to bash gay people.

>>8133405
In both cases the corrupt would punish anyone they don't like regardless of whether they are guilty or not. I'll flip a coin and be a freedom fighter until I'm killed or permanently incapacitated.

tell me again how offing myself isn't an option?

>>8135081
This is exactly what I've been saying all along. People try to tell me 'Oh, Trump hates gays because he <made up reason> so let's all submit to Madame President!' It's fucking enfuriating,

I just come on this board to shitpost but there is genuinely something wrong with you people

>>8144853
Wrong. Bodily autonomy is not something you can "give up", that's essentially saying mothers should be considered slavery. At most you can consent to allow your body to be used by another, but you still reserve the right to withdraw that right at any time. Not to mention, the main need for abortion is in case of rape and unwanted pregnancy, in which case the mother did not "let them come into existence there".

>>8144861
>Yet they believe they are entitled to other people's property, labor and earnings.
Because those things are FAR less personal and intimate than one's body. Are you seriously saying you'd rather be raped than have to pay taxes?

>>8145886
It's a lazy response, kind of like saying "neither".

>>8133405
>choose left-wing
>make up disability that means you can only use names, not pronouns or some shit that avoids use of pronouns

>>8148827
>Bodily autonomy is not something you can "give up", that's essentially saying mothers should be considered slavery.
Male babies won't have bodily autonomy. What's your doublethink for not considering males slaves?

>>8149140
>Male babies won't have bodily autonomy. What's your doublethink for not considering males slaves?
Society considers children to be essentially property until they come of age.

>>8150622
Poor doublethink attempt.

>>8135569
>crimes down 20 years ago
Illegals are actively illegal right now

>>8150631
How is that doublethink? If babies were actually regarded as free individuals, then I'd say it would be inconsistent to deny them bodily autonomy. But as it is we don't consider children (even beyond baby stage) to have the right to choose where to live, what to wear, or even what time to go to bed. Given that, it's not at all inconsistent for them to be denied bodily autonomy.

>>8155103
Living in a country without attacking people or taking away their rights is a much less severe crime than fighting against gay marriage.

>>8133405
The thing is the right wing one has existed in the past.

The left wing one is a spook created by alt right who need a boogeyman because they're the shittier political ideology.

File: MsTW3NT.jpg (684KB, 3248x3248px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 3248x3248px

>>8133405
the former, I have feminist leanings but the reality is that as awful as marrying straight is, it often works out to a crafty gays advantage. this is why traditionalists shitting on gay rights makes no sense. forcing someone to conform on the surface as a straight person just means they are practicing infadelity, potentially planned infadelity. it leads to more degeneration but instead just moves it out of public perception. Meanwhile enforced traditional values for gay pairs would mean that they live and contribute to a family unit and are not being promiscuous

>>8155213
she probably meant how you acted like the double standard on autonomy for girls and boys doesn't exist.

>>8140760
You are an especially retarded clump of cells if I do say so myself.

Do you boycott wire coat hangers???

>>8155452
Girls don't really have any more bodily autonomy than boys do at that age. FGM is regarded as much worse than male circumcision, but that's because anatomical differences mean FGM is inherently more damaging than a properly performed circumcision.

I'd go for left wing. I'm a cis lesbian. So right wing would force me to break my body to give birth to parasites and get touched by a dude. That's a complete nightmare. But left wing wants the same, it wants me to be touched by a dude in a wig. So both options are essentially the same but at least I have a chance to fight that shit in court in a left wing world and I'm not forced to be pregnant. Ugh.

>>8133405
>where lesbians can be taken to court for not fucking a mtf
SOLD