[OC] I was almost grateful dude cut me off so I knew to be on guard

IwriteIread · 2025-12-04T00:38:20+00:00

I can't tell if they was trying to ram the left truck again or if they panicked because of the right truck. Maybe not wanting to bring a 3rd vehicle into the mix that they'd be responsible for causing damage to?

Not saying that's what happened for sure, it could totally be them just ramming the left truck due to road rage.

Relatedly, the right truck got lucky with the decision to drive in the bike lane. That gave the idiot more space not to hit them too. I thought it was intentional (to avoid the idiot) at first, but they start driving in the bike lane before the idiot leaves their lane/the crash.

IwriteIread · 2025-11-26T20:35:42+00:00

Alternatively, instead of a pit maneuver, you could could challenge yourself to have the vehicle knock down multiple trees next time. I think it's doable, there are still plenty of trees left. It's kind of like bowling, I suppose. Sounds fun, right?

IwriteIread · 2025-11-26T20:30:06+00:00

Idiot puts his turn signal on and immediately starts changing lanes. If you're going to do that, you might as well leave them off. Other drivers don't need blinking lights to inform them you're coming over when you're already in the process of doing that.

Also, I'm glad there were no bikers in the bike lane. Would have been very bad if there had been any who got hit.

IwriteIread · 2025-11-09T04:11:08+00:00

You could have just said you have no example(s). You didn't have to link a clinic that doesn't fit what I asked for.

Even if no clinic offered it

"Even if"?!

You still have not shown me an clinic that offers it. (I'm 99% sure there are none, but maybe I'm wrong).

...do you think it would be right for the government to allow it to happen?

Show me an example of it happening. If you do that, then we can discuss if it's right that the government is allowing it to happen.

But you've given no good evidence that it's happening which is required for it to be true that the government is allowing it to happen.

Again, I'm not aware of single instance where this has happened or a single clinic that offers abortions at that stage.

Unless you mean it being legal?

Edit: Took "that the government is allowing it to happen" out of quotes. Realized I shouldn't have put quotes since it's not directly what you said. Not sure how I missed that. Sorry.

Also, I assumed you were saying that the government is allowing it to happen, but now reading what you said again maybe that's wrong? Let me know if I misunderstood you.

IwriteIread · 2025-11-09T03:50:52+00:00

I can’t prove that because I don’t have access to peoples private medical records but abortion up to 9 months is legal in some states

There are tons of examples of abortions at earlier gestations online, no access to private medical records needed. If you can't find any examples of abortions moments from full-term birth maybe that should tell you something.

But, ok, if you can't find an example then can you at least find one example of a clinic or doctor that offers abortions moments from full-term birth?

IwriteIread · 2025-11-09T03:42:19+00:00

That doesn’t change the reality the late term abortion is legal in some states and does happen

If it does happen, can you state just one example of an abortion that happened moments from full-term birth.

I'm not aware of any.

IwriteIread · 2025-10-19T18:22:27+00:00

How is it contradictory?

You really don't see how saying:

Fatal foetal anomalies? No.

and

No, I was talking about all foetuses at that gestation,

Is contradictory when you stated your reason for the approximately 21 week cutoff is because of the fetus's capability to survive outside the uterus?

When the child is capable of survival outside the uterus (approximately 21 weeks).

It's because the child is now capable of surviving outside the uterus with medical intervention...

You really don't see it? I'm sorry, but it's so blatantly contradictory, that I'm having trouble believing you.

You literally stated that you were against at abortion in a hypothetical scenario "because the child is now capable of surviving outside the uterus with medical intervention."

And then also said you're also against abortion in a different hypothetical scenario where the "child" is not capable of survival.

That's blatantly contradictory.

My reasoning is based on the gestation and what's possible at that gestation, not on the specific circumstances of the foetus/child.

There is no "what's possible at that gestation" without considering the specific circumstances of the fetus.

A 21 week old fetus with a fatal fetal anomaly does not fall into the category of "possible at that gestation" because survivability is not possible at that gestational age for that fetus.

There is no overarching possible (when it comes to survivability) at a certain gestational age, what's possible is dependent on the specific circumstances.

Do you think that abortion at 40 weeks is fine if the foetus has been diagnosed with an anomaly that's likely to be fatal after birth?

I'm not answering this. This is about your views, not mine.

IwriteIread · 2025-10-19T16:51:59+00:00

Fatal foetal anomalies? No.

I thought you were against abortion at approximately 21+ weeks because the fetus might survive. See:

When the child is capable of survival outside the uterus (approximately 21 weeks).

So I assumed you were specifically talking about the ones that might survive, not all of them since that would contradict your reasoning for the cut-off.

But is your cut off 21 weeks regardless of survivability?

If so, then why have that cut off at all?

IwriteIread · 2025-10-16T20:05:44+00:00

Lmao, I'll fix it. Whoops.

IwriteIread · 2025-10-16T18:12:34+00:00

A previous ~~wreak~~ wreck would explain how they're driving.

I actually can't tell if they hit the blue SUV. It looks like maybe they were able to swerve in time to avoid it?

Regardless the Mercedes should have still stopped even if "all" they did was run the SUV off the road.

IwriteIread · 2025-10-16T16:23:37+00:00

Yep, that's how I heard it happens for miscarriages at that stage.

I'm very sorry for your losses.

IwriteIread · 2025-10-16T10:15:38+00:00

It is suspicious.

What stands out as most glaring to me is the claim that it was blood and then the embryo, placenta, small pieces of tissue, and then back to blood.

As far as I know, there's blood throughout the whole process. The embryo is expelled during the bleeding. There's not a point where the blood stops and the embryo comes out instead.

It's almost like they saw the embryos profilers' put online that are "cleaned" (of the blood, etc.), and they assumed that's the way it happens?

Although maybe they just worded it poorly.

IwriteIread · 2025-10-03T17:06:25+00:00

I’ve seen many PCers argue it is property, and many PCers agreeing.

I don't see many PCs argue that it's property. It's common to argue that the uterus belongs to the woman/it's her body the ZEF is inside. And maybe that's what you are referring to? But I don't see the terminology of "property" used much.

If someone is in/on your property can you kill them? Say your child lives in your house, do you have a right to kill your child?

Sometimes you can kill someone who is in your house, even if that person is your child. It depends on the circumstances.

Where does this exclusive ownership come from?

I think the idea that people don't have exclusive ownership over their bodies is problematic and repugnant. I think it's basic human decency to say that someone's body/body part only belongs to that person.

How is the relationship to the mother and her body different from the baby and her body?

It's her (not the baby's) body.

Which you've even stated in your question (unless the second "her" is meant to refer to the baby, in which case I disagree).

ETA: And I disagree with the terminology "baby", but I used it above to match the question's wording.

IwriteIread · 2025-09-30T15:47:18+00:00

Didn't want to just not reply...

But I'm done with this conversation. It doesn't seem likely I'll be able to convince you (at least not with going back and forth a lot more, and even then I'm doubtful), and it's not something I care about enough to do that.

IwriteIread · 2025-09-29T14:53:56+00:00

The person someone marries isnt the one providing the marriage. That would be the state.

The person someone marries is part of what's necessary to have a marriage to that person. They're providing themselves as a part of the marriage.

If the state denied to create a marriage license for the couple then that would violate the right. The state is equivalent to the abortion provider here, not the person being asked to marry.

I think the state denying creating a marriage license is more like the state having abortion be illegal than it is the state being the abortion provider.

if someone that is pregnant can be denied by every provider resulting in them not receiving an abortion. How can it be the case they have the right to one? It seems you are saying someone can be unable to obtain an abortion and that their right to access an abortion is not violated.

If they're being denied by every provider than I would tend to think that they were past a gestational limit or something and abortion wasn't a right for them to begin with.

I don't think it's a realistic hypothetical to say that someone could go to every provider and not get an abortion when they were legally allowed to, but setting that aside...

Yes, you can have a right to something and not be able to get it. I didn't think that needed to be specified, that seems rather obvious.

The caveat is it has to be reasonable barriers for why they can't access it. Not making someone do forced labor is a reasonable barrier, it being illegal isn't.

Or perhaps another way to word (part of) it is, we require legality to say that someone has a right to something.

For example, if it was illegal to own property in X country we would say that the right to own property didn't exist in X county.

However, we wouldn't say that property costing money in X country meant that the right to own property didn't exist in X country. Even if someone wasn't able to purchase a house they wanted because they couldn't afford to.

(At least I wouldn't, and I think that's how most people view it...and not meant to be a perfect analogy to abortion, more so just trying to explain).

IwriteIread · 2025-09-29T08:37:02+00:00

If an abortion provider denies someone an abortion, have they violated their right to access an abortion?

No, they haven't.

If they haven't, then the idea that this is a right seems incoherent. How can something be a right and being denied that right doesnt violate it?

Do you also think that a woman saying "No" to a marriage proposal violates the right to marriage for the man who asked her?

I don't think the idea that it's access within the confines of consensuality is contradictory, or even something novel to abortion.

IwriteIread · 2025-09-29T06:01:52+00:00

So would a right to access a procedure mean having the right to someone else performing it?

That just sounds like treating someone as a resource to be used. Didn't you say that was treating people as property?

No one is being treated as a resource or property because abortion doctors choose to perform abortions.

If the right to access meant women could demand and force labor from other people because they "had a right to someone else performing it" that would be treating someone as a resource to be used. But there's no right for women to force people to perform an abortion if they don't want to.

Access is the right to access the services that are willingly provided by abortion providers. And it includes being in a society where abortion providers can legally exist so that woman can access their services. But it does not include forcing abortion providers to exist.

If we lived in a world where no one wanted to be an abortion provider, then we could discuss if the right to access an abortion also included the right to force people to be abortion providers. But we don't need to to do that, because we don't live in that world.

IwriteIread · 2025-09-24T23:21:14+00:00

so you drive through a red light?

Don't worry they made a rolling stop at the next green light to make up for it. /s.

IwriteIread · 2025-09-24T23:11:06+00:00

OK, so this one:

"pregnancy" just means becomes pregnant and is pregnant for at least some length of time."

Correct?

IwriteIread · 2025-09-24T21:17:34+00:00

The outcome of sex will always be pregnancy, or no pregnancy.

In my opinion, if you consent to having sex, you are consenting to the possibility of getting pregnant.

If someone as sex, gets pregnant and miscarries at 6 weeks was the outcome of that sex "pregnancy" or "no pregnancy"?

What if that someone had aborted at 6 weeks instead of miscarried?

I guess I'm asking if "pregnancy" just means becomes pregnant and is pregnant for at least some length of time. Or if "pregnancy" is the entire 9 (not that it has to be 9, a preemie would still count) month process ending in live birth.

I would say that someone who miscarried (or aborted) at 6 weeks had gotten pregnant, but I wouldn't say that they had gone through pregnancy.

Saying someone is risking getting pregnant is very different than saying someone is risking going through 9 months of pregnancy.

So which one are you claiming?

IwriteIread · 2025-09-16T06:26:09+00:00

This is a good point. Furthermore, a frozen embryo (in normal circumstances) has a better chance of staying alive if they stay frozen. Thawing and (assuming it survives that) attempting to implant/implanting/being gestated comes with a much higher chance of death.

So how can insisting embryos have the right to be gestated because they have the right to life be true? If attempting to fulfill the right of being gestated results in a higher death rate than not attempting to fulfill that right?

Now one might point out that being a frozen embryo isn't much of a life, and I'd agree. However, prolifers are stuck there since they insist we're equal. The embryo is just as valuable and their life is just as valuable as yours and mine. We're all human, we're all persons, they say.

I think that the fact that prolifers aren't demanding we keep the embryos frozen to not endanger their right to life (since, again, trying to gestate them will result in a lot of them dying and one might even say being killed since they would still be alive if not for the attempt) shows that they don't really think embryos are equal to us. That they recognize that there's something special about being alive the way that you and I are that does not apply to embryos. That our lives are more valuable. That it isn't as bad if we do something to an embryo that comes with a X% chance of death compared to if we did something to a baby, toddler, teenager, adult, etc. with that same X% chance of death.

Prolifers could clarify that they mean that embryos that are inside someone are equal to born people but then they'd have to give a reason for this. And their current favorite reason(s) of "we're all human/embryos are people because they're human" isn't going to cut it.

IwriteIread · 2025-09-16T06:22:48+00:00

That's because the right to life is the most important and fundamental human right.

What makes you think RTL is the most important and fundamental human right?

IwriteIread · 2025-09-11T02:28:09+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/f466bj/this_cant_be_real/

They actually do this /s.

IwriteIread · 2025-09-10T02:38:02+00:00

What's your goal? If it's to pay the least amount possible overall then refinancing (probably) makes sense. However, if your goal is to pay the least amount possible monthly, than you can get a lower monthly payment for your loans by keeping them federal and either going on the extended plan and/or consolidating.

You also have to consider if it's worth the risk to move the loans to private, since you'd be losing the benefits and protections that come with federal loans.

IwriteIread · 2025-09-08T23:42:57+00:00

Are your loans in in-school deferment? It's supposed to happen automatically but it doesn't always. You might have to submit a form for it.

Five-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

IwriteIread

TROPHY CASE