Comments by "" (@timogul) on "FOX 2 Detroit" channel.

@sapphire5559 Access to abortions have been abolished in roughly half the states. The Supreme Court did not directly cause that, but it did allow that to happen. It would be like if a busy intersection once had a Stop sign and you just removed it one day, and accidents occurred. Yes, removing the Stop sign did not cause those accidents, but it did allow them to happen.
11
Accidentally doing the right thing.
9
@WAllen-bn1ej That's irrelevant to the conversation at hand though, since no human lives are ended against their will.
7
It's worth noting that free speech does not mean a guarantee of a platform. The speaker in question was always owed the right to talk, but never owed the right to do it on their stage. The university was in the wrong for offering it to her.
6
@spankyssurprise1361 No babies are at risk here. Nobody's talking about harming any babies. Don't be gross.
5
Why the hell would someone invite an anti-abortion speaker to a MEDICAL school?
5
@davidchang5265 But she was well known as an activist on the topic. If a school invited a Klan leader to speak, would it really matter whether or not his topic in that speech had anything to do with race?
4
@exi8550 Some of the worst sins have been committed by people who claim to believe in God. Belief in God is never a justification for one's actions.
4
@davidr7872 Birth. That's when life begins according to the law. It is why you are allowed to vote at 18 years after your birth, and not 17.3 years after your birth. If YOU believe life begins earlier than that, then YOU can choose not to have an abortion, but your beliefs on the matter should not limit a woman's actions.
3
@derpydino1915 But standing up for a woman's right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy is the right thing.
3
@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep It's a walk-out, which is a dignified way to peacefully protest something one disagrees with. It is far better than those people in school board meetings across the country who chose instead to shout threats at the school boards over imagined "CRT" in their classes.
3
@Tensolin01 Why do you take joy in the pain of others? Do you believe this is the impulse of a good person?
2
@66littlejimmy Yes, it's ending a pregnancy before a human life is created. Do you know what it is?
1
@dp9629 I feel like you are trying to make a semantic argument, like you want me to list a state, and then you will so "no, actually, you can get an abortion there," even if the rules in place makes it impossible for women to actually get an abortion there, either by making it impossible for clinics to operate or by only making abortion theoretically possible before a women could even realize she was pregnant. There are currently 8 states in which the laws have made abortion unavailable to women in that state within any reasonably margins, another 9 in which similar bans have been blocked temporarily by the courts or are planned to go into effect soon, and another 7 in which there is a time-based ban that would prevent many women from seeking an abortion after they realize they are pregnant. The short list of full bans with no exceptions are Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
1
@WAllen-bn1ej Fetuses are not yet babies, and do not yet have a will. It would be like claiming that felling a tree is done "against its will." You need to possess a will to have something be done against it.
1
@66littlejimmy Of course it's not already a human life, it hasn't been born yet. I mean, do you track your age from the date you were born on, or the date you were conceived?
1
@dp9629 I disputed the facts of your argument because your "facts" were in error.
1
@66littlejimmy It is no species yet, because it has not yet developed into a living organism.
1
@Time4Project2025 You have biological components at 6 weeks, but cannot function outside of the womb yet, so are not yet an independent organism. Most people, including most pro-life people, do not support the abortion of viable fetuses, but most people do believe that the right to abortion should exist for non-viable fetuses. Nobody is in favor of harming premature babies.
1
@Time4Project2025 It exactly means that pre-birth are not alive. Yes, there is a grey area in between alive and not-alive, that it true of all things, but pro-choice people tend to err well on the safe side of that line, very few people support third trimester abortions except in cases where the woman's life is at risk and/or the fetus has no chance of viability due to extreme complications. On the other end of the spectrum, many abortion bans that are not outright total bans can have cut-offs of a month and a half, pretty far from six months.
1
@Time4Project2025 I think people should have respect for nature, but that always needs to be weighed with respect for other people. Your stance seems to paint the life of the woman as irrelevant, that if she becomes pregnant, she should have no options over the next nine months of her life but to continue to support this fetus. I don't believe that is an acceptable demand to make of anyone. I do not believe that abortion should be taken trivially, I don't believe it should be done "for fun," and I don't believe that anyone seriously holds the view that it should be "fun," but it is sometimes necessary to allow the woman in question to continue her life un-pregnant. Until there is an alternative to abortion that would allow the woman to no longer be pregnant, abortion is the best option available, and should be protected. I should also point out that most current "fetal heartbeat" laws are not based around an actual medical heartbeat, they are based around certain components of the heart becoming active. It's more of an appeal to emotion than anything scientific. People also like to pretend that their cats can talk.
1
@Time4Project2025 We can encourage responsible practices, but should not be banning abortions. Banning abortion won't cause anyone to be more sexually responsible, that is a completely unrelated topic. It's fair to discourage people from having abortions, so long as you still respect their choice to not behave as you would choose for them to behave. Your beliefs should not limit their choices.
1
@karami8844 Not in an abortion. Abortions take place before any human babies exist. They do not have any "will" to be against.
1
@Tensolin01 Big Twice fan? I tend to prefer Can't Stop Me.
1
@Chaddy_D Klan members also believe their cause is righteous. That doesn't mean that it is. No babies are harmed by abortion. Abortion exists before babies do.
1
@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep Well, US law would be what is relevant here, but the Bible also believed life begins at "first breath." But yes, it is a subjective determination, there is no objective fact of when life begins, so, again, nobody would have the right to impose on you what you could do with your body just because their beliefs are different than yours. Also, "god given rights" appears nowhere in the US Constitution. It is a purely secular document that firmly separates church from state.
1
@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep That isn't how it works. Moral rights are decided by people, and they change all the time. What "good, moral Christians" did centuries ago would be war crimes today. Things that we consider moral today might be considered heinous crimes in a generation. You can believe that the laws that govern your actions are received from a higher power, but that does not give you the right to impose them onto others. Also, your third paragraph about "science" is not describing actual science, it's describing "pseudo science," which is religion wrapped in the language of science. None of the things you claim there are accurate to actual science.
1
Standing up for what is right is a very different thing than standing up for what is wrong. Standing up for what you believe in is not always admirable, and it would be foolish to draw such false equivalencies.
1
@derpydino1915 Not all people who get pregnant had consensual sex. That ten year old girl in Ohio certainly didn't. Many states that now ban abortions do not have any exceptions for rape, nor plans to add any, and even if they did those would still be practical bans, since access to abortion services would tend to be impractical if it ONLY applied in cases where they could prove they were raped. Doctors that performed such abortions and women that seek them out would constantly be harassed over it. And plenty of women that get pregnant did take reasonable steps to avoid pregnancy, like taking the pill, or using condoms, but these are not 100% effective. There are practically no women that routinely get abortions, outside of satirical comedians. But at the end of the day, none of that matters, because a woman can be as promiscuous as she wants, and it is still not anyone's right to tell her that she has no option but to carry a fetus to term. You can disapprove of her lifestyle all you like, that never grants you ownership over her. Again, it's fair to reasonably criticize behavior you consider "irresponsible," but at no point should you be able to prevent a woman from getting an abortion well before any viability period.
1
@derpydino1915 1. And I pointed out why you seem to think you're saying the right things on this issue, but are clearly out of touch with the reality of the situation. What does "if they were raped, they should be able to get an abortion" mean? In a magical fantasy world, it would mean exactly that, that every woman who is raped would be able to get an abortion, no worries, but we don't live in a fantasy world. In the real world, several states outright ban abortions even in cases of rape. Even if they correct that eventually, or we are talking about states that currently have rape exemptions, it would still end up being impractical, since aggressive anti-abortion law enforcement would be constantly targeting these women and the doctors that treat them on the grounds that "maybe they weren't raped, maybe they're trying to trick us," and it would CERTAINLY lead to a great deal of drama for both, to the point that operating a facility that offers abortions in the state would be unworkable. Plenty of states have been working toward EXACTLY that "dream" for decades now, up to this point trying to work around Roe to do so, but now completely unshackled. Again, the point is that women should not have to be raped to be able to seek an abortion if that is what they choose to do. Your decisions should have no impact on their ability to make that choice and see it through. 2. Again, pills and condoms are effective, but it still leads to tens of thousands of unintended pregnancies each year. Yes, some of them they decide to keep the baby, but sometimes they do not, and that is their choice. No, your apparent scorn for their sexual behavior never justifies preventing them from getting an abortion if that is their decision. 3. Getting an abortion is also a form of "taking responsibility for their actions." It is not the choice you would apparently make if you got pregnant (although really I kind of doubt that), but you do not get to make the choice for them. You can disapprove, that's fine, but not prevent them.
1
@derpydino1915 2. Why does there "need to be a limit?" You would like there to be a limit, but there's clearly no need for one. Again, in general it's not a problem that actually comes up in the real world though. Also, ALL abortions are "out of pocket" It's been illegal for decades now for taxpayers to fund abortions in any way. Did you think that taxpayers were paying for abortions? 3. But abortion has nothing to do with murdering anyone, it takes place in the process before anyone exists to be murdered. That's sort of the point.
1
@scottcomstock4964 Yes, completely unlike that. You have been grossly misinformed about the BLM protests, and don't seem to understand that the violence surrounding those protests were caused primarily by right-wing counter-protesters, not by the left-wing protesters.
1
@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep You believe that CRT is being taught in schools because that is what you have been indoctrinated to believe, but it is not true. CRT is a college level subject, and is only being taught at that college level. The lessons being described as "CRT" by the right are not at all related to actual CRT, and are just normal American history and sociology topics that are completely uncontroversial to a rational person.
1