Yes. Definitely yes.

Unfortunately you and them might have different ideas of "patriot". If the government tells them it's best for the people, who are they going to stand with? The government or the resistance?

In Iraq they knew something was wrong when they were over there. The information they were getting was bad. Every time. ZOMG, WMD are heres! Every time, there's nothing, and the CIA isn't that incompetent. Still, how many said fuck this and came home in chains? How many picked up a gun and shot men, woman, and children that they couldn't understand instead?

Mosquitoes, spiders, and mice are alive too. We don't mind killing them arbitrarily. What sets the fetus apart from humans is that it's not an intelligent life form with feelings. You can terminate it at a relatively early stage (IIUC, abortion is only typically allowed in the first 3 months) before it has developed into anything resembling intelligent life.

It's beside the point, but we also readily allow the brutal slaughter of intelligent lifeforms of all kinds that can feel the brutality for reasons ranging from sport to cuisine to inconvenience to ignorance.

Append:

Although I'm not sure why I'm referencing other animal species when society as a whole, though not necessarily me, also tolerate the murder of men, women, and children. For example, see Iraq War.

Okay...let's not get into the abortion debate (I'm anti-abortion for the record).

They said that about cigarettes too.

So you believe prostitution should be legal, but abortion should be illegal? Is this right? Or do you believe prostitution is moral, but abortion is immoral?

If yes to either, how can you form a consistent worldview in which abortion is wrong but prostitution is not?

The only consistent worldview with these two positions I can possibly think of is a socially liberal worldview in which you also value all sentient life--i.e., life that can have subjective experiences although not necessarily have developed higher cognitive functions like selfhood. This means you'd be have to be a vegetarian or think vegetarianism is ideally better than being a carnivore/omnivore, at the very least. So I guess I might also ask: do you think vegetarianism is better than being a carnivore/omnivore, or are you a vegetarian?

edit: ok I should be done thinking of and then asking further questions until a response.

You said you were anti-abortion. What am I to take from that? Anti- generally means 'opposed' and wouldn't be used if you simply don't like something. In your case, it seems abortion is acceptable in arbitrary situations, so you're not 'anti-abortion' so much as you are against the completely arbitrary distinction of having an abortion after sex without protection.

If you are having sex for recreation, and do not want a baby, then carrying a pregnancy should not be a consequence of sex, regardless of the protection used. Do you think people who, say, ride a bicycle without a helmet should not receive medical care if they are in an accident? Should rugby players not receive medical care, since unlike the similar sport of American football, they don't use any protective gear? Etc, etc, etc...

If you think so: your simple views of consequence are juvenile at best and are not respectable.

There is no reason to expect a women to carry to term if she does not want the child, because it is a clear violation of her right to bodily autonomy. By arguing otherwise, you are simply creating arbitrary exceptions to the idea of bodily autonomy. You--and only you--should have the final choice when it comes to your body.

If you have unwanted growths, or some part of your body is making you sick, or whatever--you have the right to remove those parts of your body. And up until the fetus is no longer depending on the women--i.e., it is out of her body--it is her right to decide what is done with it.

edit: and of course you have to add some bullshit feminazi boogeyman crap. Why not?

You know, anti-feminists want to legislate wombs! Anti-feminists want to punish women! That's it, anti-feminists hate women, simple as that! By making generalizations about an incredibly broad group of people, you are no better than those you decry! And if you aren't aware, that is an example of your hypocrisy from the feminist caricature you constantly reference, not views I actually hold about the 'anti-feminist' group.

edit 2: Ok, look, you're a programmer. Do you think it's fair that programmers are often represented as socially inept and introverted? And often enough, creepy or unhygienic or obsessed? Surely not! Do you feel the need to call out lazy programmers who build crappy software, whenever someone says so? Surely not!

By saying 'feminists are X' or 'feminists do X' or 'feminists believe X', you are no better than those who would say programmers are socially inept, they are creepy, or they are lazy, or whatever else.

Until you address some problems, there is no point whatsoever in discussions with you, because it will be so incredibly repetitious. Do you know why?

You're ignorant.

You lack the means to critically examine your own beliefs, let alone arguments and statements made by others.

You are quick to reject anything that does not agree with your existing, and all together, dissonant worldview, while you are quick to accept anything that does agree with it.

You think you're an independent thinker unlike the rest because you listen to independent YouTubers and read independent journalist's articles on independent websites, while in fact you are being spoon-fed opinions via the persuasive methods used by these biased YouTubers and biased journalists and biased websites.

You lack the reading comprehension skills to identify the appeal to emotion used to prey on you and exploit your bias, and you lack the critical thinking skills to examine the argument and verify credibility of any data presented.

You don't recognize these failings and project them on others who disagree with you.

And best of all, you are going to say no, it is I who am guilty of all the above, not you! So!

I am ignorant! There is a great lot I don't know. I work towards reducing my ignorance, but it's a monumental task that requires a great amount of time! Over the past couple years I have greatly refined my views, and I'd say a good few are sound, but there's so many that are still questionable! It's a never ending task, since the only thing I definitely know is that we can't be absolutely (i.e., 100% flat; 99.999999% is not absolute!) certain of anything!

I don't have a hard time critically examining my beliefs! It's something I do whenever my beliefs are called into question. It's something I do whenever I find a belief of mine unsatisfactory, or when some new information contradicts it. Am I perfect? Definitely not! I have made mistakes and will continue to do so. But I learn, and will come closer to a sound worldview over time!

I reject ideas I have found wrong with great certainty! I don't re-examine evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection whenever I encounter a faulty argument. But if I have a belief, and a reasoned and supported argument is made contrary, I will examine the belief! Similarly, if I hold a belief, and a poorly-reasoned argument is made in favor, I reject the argument, because coming to the right conclusion the wrong way means the conclusion is little better than chance!

I'm not guilty of falling for the idea that media doesn't influence me! That's why I use a various of news sources for non-scholarly things! That's why I eliminate all-around negative influences of the media when possible, such as advertisements! But for things that require evidence, and data--I go to the author or journal articles, I read the article, and I examine the data if possible! I don't read the editorialized summary by a some media rag and accept it!

I can say I don't have poor reading comprehension skills! I usually spend about a couple hours (i.e., two hours) a week reading dense works--poetry and prose! I've memorized some poetry--like T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men" in the past two? three? months--and always work towards expanding, with Ozymandias by Percy Shelley next! Recently I read a few transcendentalist works, and I've been reading Paradise Lost when I can! When I read a post, I take the time to carefully ensure I understand, and if not, I ask for clarification rather than making assumptions!

So I do recognize my failings! But that's the nice thing: I don't necessarily have to be know the answer or be right to recognize when someone is wrong. How nice!

How nice!!

You guys seem to be just vomiting from the keyboard without making any sense.

Aaron, you talk a big game of "data" and "references", but if you actually attempt to verify your references they don't back your claim. You also do a terrible job of citing them. I digress. In other words, you're no better, except your arguments also don't make sense (to me at least). It appears to be only in your mind that you're doing actual, hardcore research with references and data to make claims. The few times you do post data or references they just don't support your ideas.

Specter, you've actually impressed me lately. I hate to say it, but I've found you actually making meaningful contributions to the discussion! Arguing that "abortion" is wrong when sex is unprotected just makes you look jealous of people having sex though... Seriously. Abortion is always good. In fact, abortion is especially good for men that wanted casual sex for fun and don't want to pay for the baby. The only real problem with "abortion" is that women are granted full reproductive power. We need to give men equal power over the decision to abort, keep, support, give up, or raise a baby. You can give men the right to opt out without forcing the woman to risk her body or health. You made the argument that it's OK to have an abortion where protection is used, but unless you plan to implant all vaginas with surveillance systems we won't know whether they did or not (you might think that's a great idea, but I've seen those angles and they're really not...). Ultimately, you sound like you do support abortion, but you're somehow convinced you have to be against it because of religion or blue balls or who the fuck knows. It sort of hurts your credibility in this entire debate to be so confused and wrong, and you were doing so well! Well, in my opinion on all counts. Others are welcome to their own.

I think we need to take a break. Things are getting monotonous in here. Maybe this will help to lighten the mood...

They will never make it illegal, I know that, but it doesn't change my view of thinking it should be illegal.

As for religion, those who use that as an excuse for it being illegal do so by using the same line: "It's a sin against God!" I'm not exactly on a talking basis with God so I don't stress over that aspect.

A person suffering from blue balls; I would imagine they would be all for abortion and starting to line up any woman that would have sex with them from 18 years of age to ~50 years of age.

As for why I'm anti-abortion, it's because I'm a father and I would have spent the rest of my life depressed wondering what the baby would have grown up to be if my wife aborted him. I've met a couple of women whom had abortions and grew up regretting it. I've read stories for anti-abortion about how some women told about their abortions in high school, deciding to have kids later and have bouts of depression due to wondering about the kind of person the aborted baby would have grown up to be. Because of those experiences, I just can't wrap my head around how people can have abortions and never look back.

People don't like my view on it and I am fine with that. That is the whole point of freedom of speech. It's just my opinion on the matter as a father and husband. I'm not a politician and I have zero pull to have any bills passed so I'm no threat to people that are gung-ho for abortion.

That is also why I didn't care that Aaron attacked my intellect over my opinions. He may view me as ignorant, but I feel it is more damaging to go on the attack over differing views.

I really don't think you have ever spent the time reading my sources at length. In fact, I don't think you know how to perform any sort of research. You levied fantastical criticisms against them that would be eliminated by reviewing the study methodology from the organizations themselves.

Your fantastical response built to my introductory post in your quarterly anti-feminist thread--that showed me there was no point in continuing, so I didn't. There is no point in discussing anything with you, or Spectre Phoenix, or the few others like you, because you are indoctrinated by the echo chamber you've constructed--even on this forum!

To anyone not in the 'feminists are ruining the world echo-chamber'--pretty much everyone else--you're nonsensical when you post your quarterly bullshit threads about how feminists are controlling the world and making everyone's life worse.

Look, I disagree with raynebc or Edgar or various others, but I don't think any of the things I suggested about Spectre Phoenix apply in any great deal to them any more than do to me so I value their participation, and even though they have [some/many/most] views that are pretty much the opposite of mine I can respect their views. However, my criticisms I levied against Specter Phoenix apply to you as well, I'm sorry to say.

It seems on topic to me

Aren't these people against the CoC because they want to behave this way? I don't get it...

Thank you! I find myself relating more and more to my elders than the younger people every day.

The REASON gun control is such a hot button issue for conservatives is that THEY KNOW that if you give a liberal an inch, they will take a mile. They will not be satisfied. They will want more and more.

THAT is the current political climate in the USA. It cannot be debated. You ask any congressman, any political analyst, they will all tell you that we have one of the (if not THE) most opposed congress we've ever had in the history of the USA. Both sides are out only for themselves and the American people are secondary concerns.

There are TONS of conservatives who are for taking guns away from the bad people. The problem is that liberals:

- Don't know anything about guns and are elitist morons. (Coming from Bill Maher himself.)

- If liberals are given an inch, they will take a mile.

- Liberals' solutions for guns are feel good measures that won't protect anyone, but will hurt innocent, law-abiding citizens. The Assault Weapon Ban did nothing to stop crime.

Here's a woman who didn't even understand what was in her own bill:

But still felt it was okay to take away the rights of law-abiding Americans.

You can feel whatever you want about gun control, but there is ZERO excuse for not even understanding your own bill that is poised to effect law-abiding citizens.

Here's another guy who has no idea what he's talking about.

I'm not arguing to change liberal's opinions. I am explaining WHY conservatives oppose you.

Would anyone vote for a conservative anti-birth control bill if they didn't even know how birth control works? If they thought pills work like "little abortions?" Hardly.

p.s. One more for fun, oh man, these are hilarious (skip to #2 at 0:56):

p.p.s. Out of respect for Beoran, I won't reply any more non-CoC related posts. But I felt like I had to explain it since so many people are apparently oblivious to how anyone could hold an opposing opinion. ("They're not just against me because they're dumb or mean?!")

[edit] One last thing I forgot to mention. Banning guns if you're on the terrorist watch list. Can NOBODY see the problem with banning the ability to protect yourself if "the government" decides to put you on a list that has no due process, no judge, no jury, and extremely effective consequences?

Certainly liberals would have no problem with an arbitray list that curbs your civil liberties. Oh wait, the ACLU hates the No Fly List.

https://www.aclu.org/infographic/grounded-life-no-fly-list

So how is the right to travel on a plane worth protecting, but not the right to self-defense? Because "guns are icky."

Guns should only be given to cops. Oh wait, they're the ones killing all the black people.

Found this article from January of this year.