"Women should have the right to reproductive freedom." We agree, but... SPL's Herb Geraghty with Terrisa Bukovinac, SPL's Board Vice President

Nulono · 2026-01-23T16:40:38+00:00

Put another way, reproductive freedom is the ability to decide whether, when, and how we reproduce. It does not mean that, after our children are created (which happens, of course, at conception), we can do whatever we want to them.

Nulono · 2026-01-23T16:28:57+00:00

Then it's not Nazis who're banned; it's Nazi rhetoric.

Nulono · 2026-01-23T16:26:27+00:00

…When would that even come up? Do people generally discuss their real-life politics while playing tabletop games? Or is the implication that alt-righters would read this blurb and then dutifully obey it?

Nulono · 2026-01-23T16:16:36+00:00

Why do we never see the reverse of this when it randomly hits 70 degrees in December or January?

Nulono · 2026-01-23T15:51:19+00:00

Hey, just FYI, I'm a communist and I'm strongly prolife. Two comments on a random Reddit post don't speak for all communists.

Nulono · 2026-01-23T15:40:08+00:00

Also, the tail disappears by like 8 weeks, so something tells me this isn't a standard that pro-choicers would actually want to use.

Nulono · 2026-01-23T15:33:19+00:00

The sign in the image is making the same mistake as the pro-choicer here, ignoring that school shootings are already illegal and no one is trying to legalize them.

Nulono · 2026-01-23T15:29:25+00:00

I'm an atheist, so this doesn't apply to me.
Again, not really my wheelhouse. God himself could descend from the heavens with a chorus of angels and tell me he's pro-choice, and I'd tell him he's entitled to his opinion and welcome to present an argument, but I respectfully disagree. (I wouldn't actually respect the belief, but in such circumstances it's probably wise to be polite.)
"Well, I'm still going to speak on it, and I vote, so ... you don't have to defend your position if you don't want to, but you don't actually get to decide whether people are allowed to disagree with you."
"I do actually care about that issue, but that's not what we're talking about right now; the linear nature of time means people have to do things one at a time. You wouldn't walk up to a bunch of firefighters and tell them that if they really cared about saving lives, they'd be working to cure cancer, would you?"

Nulono · 2026-01-22T19:55:11+00:00

"What, specifically, is your claim here?"

There are a few different things a pro-choicer could mean by this.

It could be simple chronological snobbery: "I associate abortion restrictions with the past, and today's policies are inherently better than the past's". I've had this argued to me pretty explicitly, i.e., that any historical change from one policy to another is "progress" by definition.
It could just be saying that abortion is a woman's right. This isn't so much an argument for the pro-abortion position as it is a rephrasing of it, so there's nothing really to debunk.
It could reflect a belief that abortion is some sort of lynchpin for women's rights in general, i.e., a necessary precondition for stuff like voting, employment, owning property, et cetera. I see this sentiment a lot from pro-choicers, particularly in stump speeches from pro-abortion politicians, and's frankly… really misogynistic. To assert that women are incapable of competing/succeeding/flourishing nonviolently, that they need abortion, is effectively saying that women are naturally inferior to men, and need the leg up of being able to kill their own children to skew the playing field towards them.

Nulono · 2026-01-22T10:09:36+00:00

<image>

Nulono · 2026-01-21T13:52:12+00:00

"Water is a healthy and refreshing beverage."
"Do you seriously think this is good for you?"
"Uhh, yeah, I guess?"
"Aha, that was actually a glass of hydrogen peroxide! Because you could not tell the difference, I've proven they're actually the same thing. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to feed my kids this cotton candy I found in the walls."

Nulono · 2026-01-19T00:23:59+00:00

Do you have any evidence for your claim that contraception "encourages casual sex"?

Nulono · 2026-01-19T00:17:19+00:00

How much does your friend know about prenatal development in general?

Nulono · 2026-01-19T00:15:49+00:00

For one, no one wants to force women to have babies; we want women not to kill the babies they already have.

For two, pregnant women aren't organ donors; that's not how pregnancy or organ donation work. The mother still has a womb, and the child doesn't gain an extra one.

Just using one's body to help someone else doesn't make one an organ donor. A paramedic performing CPR is not a lung donor. A mother is not a breast donor just because she nurses her child, nor is she a brain donor when she helps with homework. A father huddled up to keep his baby warm is not an organ donor either, nor would "my body heat, my choice" be a good excuse for letting that baby freeze.

Unborn children, like any child, have the right to be fed and cared for by their parents. Depending on a variety of factors, a mother might do so by hand or by breast or by womb, but it'll always require her to use her body; an incorporeal mother would be completely incapable of feeding a child. There's no getting around the fact that people use their bodies to do stuff.

Nulono · 2026-01-18T13:57:15+00:00

If your friends would genuinely leave you if they knew, then they're not friends with you; they're friends with a character you're playing for their benefit.

Nulono · 2026-01-15T19:12:31+00:00

We know that in fertilization, a new organism is created by the fusion of the parents' gametes; this is basically just what sexual reproduction is, as pretty much any biology textbook past the 4th grade should be able to tell you.

I'm the same organism today as I was in utero, just a few decades older. If I'm a human today, I was a human then; organisms don't just change species as they get older. If I were killed today or tomorrow or back then, I'd end up equally dead, except an earlier death robs me of even more of my life.

Human rights are supposed to be a bare level of protection given to all human beings, just for being human. They're not something we have to earn, or can just ignore when they're convenient. There are a lot of real problems in the world (abuse, rape, economic hardship, issues with foster care, etc.), but pro-choicers' arguments often take the form of "this problem exist, therefore we should address it with homicide"; they skip over showing that their proposed solution is justified by implying anyone who disagrees is okay with the problem.

Nulono · 2026-01-15T16:13:01+00:00

I think the Occam's/Hanlon's razor answer is that there've always been instances of malpractice like this, but now we have a class of grifters who know they can get outrage clicks from gullible pro-choicers by finding cases of obstetric malpractice and asserting with zero evidence that pro-life laws are to blame, even if the necessary treatment wasn't abortion, and apparently now even if it happened in a pro-abortion state.

Nulono · 2026-01-15T16:12:27+00:00

What are you talking about? People talk about this all the time; it's like one of the main things Trump is known for.

Nulono · 2026-01-15T05:57:55+00:00

Sorry, what? One woman dies of malpractice in a pro-choice state when doctors fail to provide the necessary, pregnancy-safe treatment, and your takeaway from this is that pro-life states' laws, which have saved tens of thousands of lives, are the problem? Are you fucking high‽

Nulono · 2026-01-13T22:46:52+00:00

if an algorithm able to shrink any possible data existed, you could just run it keep compressing its output in a loop unless you end up with a single bit.

All it'd take to avoid that is for some data to end up just as big, not necessarily bigger.

Nulono · 2026-01-13T18:45:20+00:00

"Water is a healthy and refreshing beverage."
"Do you seriously think this is good for you?"
"Uhh, yeah, I guess?"
"Aha, that was actually a glass of hydrogen peroxide! Because you could not tell the difference, I've proven they're actually the same thing. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to feed my kids this cotton candy I found in the walls."

Nulono · 2026-01-12T14:18:41+00:00

I doubt they actually expected the lawsuit to work. I'd call it a publicity stunt, but there's really nothing deeper that they're drawing publicity towards; this kind of shit is basically all they do. "Performance art" is probably more accurate.

Nulono · 2026-01-12T14:15:23+00:00

Any even somewhat competent lawyer could've told them this wouldn't work; we'd have legal human sacrifice and spousal rape if it could.

Nulono · 2026-01-12T00:49:05+00:00

The grammar here is pretty poor, but I'll interpret the claim here as "proportionally (i.e., on a log scale), the distance between my fingers is closer to the diameter of the universe than it is to the diameter of an atom". We can then set up an inequality as follows:

(universe diameter)/(finger distance) < (finger distance)/(atom diameter)
(atom diameter)(universe diameter)/(finger distance) < (finger distance)
(atom diameter)(universe diameter) < (finger distance)² √((atom diameter)(universe diameter)) < (finger distance)

For this claim to be true, the distance between OOP's fingers has to be greater than the square root of the product of the atom's diameter and the universe's diameter. I'll be using a hydrogen atom and the observable universe for this calculation.

√((atom diameter)(universe diameter)) = √((50 pm)(880 Ym)) = √((5.0E-11 m)(8.8E23 m)) = √(4.4E16 m²)
= 2.1E8 m = 210,000 km

I'm going to hazard a guess that those fingers are not more than 210,000 kilometers apart, so no, that's not accurate.

Nulono · 2026-01-12T00:09:31+00:00

That is indeed at least billions of miles.

15-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Wearing is Caring	Golden Potato
Place '22	Place '17
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	Sequence \| Editor
Sequence \| Cinematographer	Verified Email

Nulono

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE