Comments by "King Orange" (@kingorange7739) on "CNN anchor challenges anti-abortion activist" video.

  1. Wow what a wonderful thing to compare your own child to a parasite. Even ignoring how that isn’t the case on a biological level, it also ignores that a Fetus does provide health benefits to the mother.
    2
  2. Also the fact you can’t tell what the 10th amendment is and the fact it has nothing to do with women is remarkable. Do research before commenting
    2
  3.  @katgibbs-mccoy4947  that’s not what the 10th amendment is. The 10th amendment goes as follows. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The overturning of Roe V Wade has been in adherence to the 10th amendment not against it
    2
  4.  @katgibbs-mccoy4947  Once again incorrect on both counts. Heartbeat begins 22 days after fertilization. With its earliest detections at 5 weeks. Also arguing on the grounds of viability is a rather slippery slope. I also mentioned that for something to be a parasite, it would have to be a parasitic organism (typically of a different species) that forcibly latches on to its host and only operates at the expense of the host. However science has already proved that health benefits are provided to the woman by the Fetus including but not limited to stem cells.
    2
  5.  @denniswakabayashi9000  murder charges has nothing do with the actual act of murder
    2
  6.  @denniswakabayashi9000  You seem to not grasp that just because something can be done legally wouldn’t change the act being carried out on what it is. Stealing is still stealing even if it’s legal, murder is still murder even if it’s legal.
    2
  7. I couldn’t agree more. That’s the dishonest thing about the pro choice movement
    2
  8. Nice try at using the most rare and extreme case to try to justify the other 99.9% of cases that isn’t carried out over that. Start being honest with your argument
    2
  9. Ok why should it be up to the mother? 🤦‍♂️
    1
  10.  @dadadadoog  That was not my question
    1
  11.  @dadadadoog  I saw the point you were trying to make. But it isn’t relevant. 🤦‍♂️
    1
  12.  @dadadadoog  Ok similar arbitrary lines were drawn when it came to slavery. Just because something historically has been done doesn’t make it ok to do.
    1
  13. In most cases no since the action is done before conception
    1
  14. Actually the baby doesn’t
    1
  15.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Right, so let’s put that logic to the test. The Nazis doing to Holocaust was perfectly legal within their country, yet it was still one of the largest mass murders and genocides in human history. Do research before making assertions
    1
  16. Clearly you don’t pay attention to basic biology. It’s not her body we are concerned on
    1
  17. Basically
    1
  18. How so?
    1
  19. Ok and here is a very basic rebuttal. At what point should a “Clump of Cell” be regarded as a human being with a right to live.
    1
  20.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Right so let’s get this straight. You take someone who is biologically at a same level of development and as around the same age, and you determine that one is a human being for being born and the other isn’t? Ok so here’s a simple question, is the birth canal some magical gateway of humanity?
    1
  21.  @denniswakabayashi9000  it really isn’t moot. You are drawing a rather arbitrary line that from a biological pov has no sense. 2. Legality doesn’t equal morality. We have seen many times in history that things that were morally abhorrent were legal for a long time. Slavery comes to mind. Or maybe even the Holocaust considering the Nazis committed that because the Jews weren’t persons to them. No matter which way you slice it, basing the validity of a life on “personhood” is completely arbitrary. 3. I find it rather funny that you would deny the humanity of someone who biologically is far more developed. So by your logic, an 8 month who is born a month early is more human than a 9 month who is going to be born in 2 days. As mentioned before there is no sense behind that and you don’t have to be a religious zealot to clearly see the gaps in that logic.
    1
  22. Yes we make mistakes, that doesn’t give us the right to harm others to bail us out from them. Also if I think stealing is ok, you are forcing your beliefs on me by your logic
    1
  23. Omg are you actually schizophrenic?
    1
  24. Right so we should legalize theft again because if we don’t there will be unsafe theft
    1
  25.  @michaelreidperry3256  Not an answer
    1
  26.  @michaelreidperry3256  That’s a lot of assumptions based on things you really don’t know
    1
  27.  @michaelreidperry3256  It really isn’t. The point in case you couldn’t tell is you could apply that logic on just about anything with “If we illegalize it, it only gets rid of the safe versions.”
    1
  28. Are you capable of being honest for two minutes of your life?
    1
  29.  @Bane_of_the_Moonsea  so let me get this straight. Your argument is you believe every pro lifer is a Fascist then by your logic. I don’t think I need to get into how ridiculous of an assertion that is
    1
  30.  @denniswakabayashi9000  because once upon a time there was no law against a slave driver either. My goodness are you dense. And the primary 2 reasons pro lifers are against prosecuting the woman goes as follows. 1. Given that many women have been so brainwashed to believe that an unborn child isn’t actually a child or human being. There would be an argument that they weren’t entirely sane or had an understanding of what they were doing. As such, prosecuting them would fall in the same slippery slope as prosecuting someone who is proven legally insane. 2. It’s counter initiative to pro life goals. The goal is most pro lifers after abortion would be made illegal is to gradually transition women into understanding the value of her unborn child. The notion is to get her to understand why she shouldn’t, not simply threaten her with potential punishment.
    1
  31.  @denniswakabayashi9000  I already explained this before. To answer your first question, no I don’t consider women to be stupid just because they got indoctrinated into believing what they are killing isn’t a valid human being this goes without saying. As for your second point, laws to prevent those things would be the next logical stop to be passed. However much like Lincoln’s stance against slavery, If you take the most extreme options straight away then less people will be likely to stand behind it. It’s counter intuitive to the movement
    1
  32.  @denniswakabayashi9000  And no overturning Roe was the first major victory the pro life movement has acquired in over 30 years and now the work can be done to correct previous mistakes. For now that is through state bans against abortion.
    1
  33.  @denniswakabayashi9000  As mentioned no progress occurs overnight. You seem to forget there is such a thing as accounting for opposition and having to some times make compromises with them. The fact you can’t grasp this showcases either your lack of intelligence or your blatant dishonesty. Oh and I should mention southern states made the same argument in regards to slavery
    1
  34.  @denniswakabayashi9000  It really isn't. Both are still rooted in dehumanizing human beings for the sake of one's personal agendas.
    1
  35.  @denniswakabayashi9000  I grow tired of having to explain this to you. It is counter productive for the pro life movement to push for women to be punished, especially rn. The goal is to convince them not to do it and that doing it is wrong, not threaten them with reprisals.
    1
  36.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Slavery wasn't abolished overnight either. Actions were done to make gradual abolition. If you cannot grasp that politics does not go from 0 to 100 instantly, then that is on you.
    1
  37.  @denniswakabayashi9000  I grow tired of explaining this. Try to push punishment on women is counter intuitive for the Pro life goals. For the last 50 years, Roe V Wade was still in state and the short term goal was to get that overturned. Now accept that fact or F off.
    1
  38.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Clearly you have become blind. I already explained this before, that the goal isn't to punish the women. That to advocate that would be counter productive to the movement. The point is to convince women not to do it, not to threaten reprisals against them. The reason reprisals are being called upon against the doctors is because they are actively trying to profit off the deaths of that child and taking advantage of the woman's desperation.
    1
  39.  @denniswakabayashi9000  The Democrats said the same thing about slavery during the 1800s. It’s amazing how quickly history repeats itself. Once upon a time the pro slavery ballot won time and time again. Didn’t make it right, nor did it change the simple fact that people change and society changes. 🤦‍♂️
    1
  40.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Also we aren’t talking about people in other countries as they have no bearing on what the US does here.
    1
  41.  @denniswakabayashi9000  The south said the same thing about Lincoln. Trying to claim absolutes won’t do you any favors
    1
  42.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Perhaps not for now, but as mentioned, things change. And the fact Roe V Wade did get overturned is showing that pro life is starting to gain ground.
    1
  43.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Which can be changed overtime or if a ban is done on a federal level then that too would override the state decision.
    1
  44.  @denniswakabayashi9000  You are aware plenty of women are also part of the Pro Life movement. So saying they won’t vote “against their interests” is false. Also any mother who actually values the life of their children and all children isn’t voting against their interests by supporting pro life. Also abolishinists faced the same problem when trying to rid slavery. Do some research on history and you’ll see the parallels rather quickly
    1
  45.  @denniswakabayashi9000  you mean aside from the fact that abortion isn’t the only political issue? The best answer is sentiment hasn’t fully changed yet, which is to be expected when making gradual transitions against it.
    1
  46.  @denniswakabayashi9000  You seem to fail to grasp that many states have already passed anti abortion laws against doctor assisted abortions. And as mentioned, there is more to a political victory than just won issue. And nope, we aren't. The side advocating the death of unborn children are, and just like slavery will change. The movement is patient, whether it takes us 5 years or 5 decades, we will get it done.
    1
  47.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Ok, it was also political suicide for Lincoln to claim he would outright ban slavery. Hence why he made an Anti Slavery stance and not an abolitionist stance. And even that led to the south attempting to secede. Does that make Lincoln's choice wrong? In short, no.
    1
  48. ​ @denniswakabayashi9000  Actually it isn't. There are plenty of states that are preventing drug based abortions. Texas places restrictions against it, Arkansas, and most heavy restricted states require in person pick ups, "Medication abortion must be provided in person because state bans the use of telehealth or mailing pills or requires in-person visit"
    1
  49.  @denniswakabayashi9000  And once when red states do completely tighten their policies within the red states, that will be pushed into the blue states as well.
    1
  50.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Already debunked this. It’s clear at this point we are just going around in circles so I’ll leave it to time to decide which one of us will be right
    1
  51.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Nope. But you feel free to keep trying. Once again the south made the same argument in regards to slavery. Now quit being a bot and echoing the same words
    1
  52.  @denniswakabayashi9000  doubtful
    1
  53.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Once again I’m not going to debate with someone who just keeps repeating the same stuff. You’ve become a bot at this point
    1
  54.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Get tired of reading off a script? At least try to be original or stop wasting my time
    1
  55.  @denniswakabayashi9000  I already explained before, there is more than one platform in relation to a political candidate.
    1
  56.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Ok you are aware this isn’t the first time politicians leave out more controversial questions. Right?
    1
  57.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Because as I already explained to you before, going from zero to 100 straight away potentially alienated people. It is better to make gradual transitions where it can slowly be eased into them. Slavery up until the civil war operated with the same agenda
    1
  58.  @denniswakabayashi9000  it’s not fooling anything. The fact you don’t grasp this is baffling. Just about every politician on both the left and right will avoid saying controversial points of their platform. Biden did the same thing when talking about Vaccine Mandates.
    1
  59.  @denniswakabayashi9000  For now states are all to decide. And limiting abortion on a federal level is going to be easier to pull off than trying to ban it overnight
    1
  60.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Slavery was still a contention issue even 70 years after it’s beginning of discussion. Laws related to racism was a topic of issue even over a 150 years later. So I don’t see why you would think this would be any different. Abortion has remained a topic of major debate since the 1970s. And it’s still going to this very day. Also I’m not a prophet. I can’t tell you Precisely how long it would take.
    1
  61.  @denniswakabayashi9000  which if banned or restricted at a federal level will override said state constitutions
    1
  62.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Ok Lincoln didn’t call an open banning of slavery during his campaigning either. Again, anyone with a basic concept of politics would understand that what they preach more often than not does not equal what they believe
    1
  63.  @denniswakabayashi9000  ok and as I mentioned slavery was once unrestricted to and it gradually had to become more restrictive up until the American Civil War, and even it had its fair of set backs. The fugitive slave laws of 1850 being an example. The only reason you are not grasping the point of the comparison is because you are relying on hindsight logic. Yes we know now that slavery got outlawed but for those leading up until 1865 that was not a certainty.
    1
  64.  @denniswakabayashi9000  And if you’re not grasping my points made, that’s on you. You’re not even pretending to argue in good faith instead devolving to the tactics of a troll.
    1
  65.  @denniswakabayashi9000  that’s where the fight is made for now. But what do you think would happen in a hypothetical where doctor assisted abortion would be made illegal. Do you really think the movement would just stop there? Or do you think it would shift just like every movement does?
    1
  66.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Because we aren’t stupid. Pushing any reprisals on women who do abortions especially rn would only backfire on the movement as a whole. Again basic political strategy. I mentioned this before and I get tired of repeating myself. TRYING TO CRIMINALIZE WOMEN SEEKING ABORTION RN WOULD BE COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO THE PRO LIFE GOALS!!!!!
    1
  67.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Ok there weren’t laws against those who enslaved people either. Research history before commenting
    1
  68.  @denniswakabayashi9000  Look, I’m not going in circles. You think what you want. I really don’t care. It’s clear I’m not going to change your mind no matter what
    1
  69.  @denniswakabayashi9000  I already said I’m done debating this with you
    1
  70.  @denniswakabayashi9000  I already said I’m done. It’s clear I’m not going to change your mind and you’re not going to change mine either. So I’m leaving things here. Please respect that
    1
  71.  @denniswakabayashi9000  what part of I’m done do you not understand? I’m not going to continue going around in circles with you. It’s clear neither of us are going to agree, I’d rather leave things at that. Now for the last time, leave me alone.
    1
  72.  @denniswakabayashi9000  I don't want to deal with your berating either. I already explained my points, clearly they did not convince you and that is fine. But I am not dancing circles with someone who is effectively being a troll at this point. Last warning, leave me alone or you are getting reported.
    1
  73. Nice try at a strawman.
    1
  74. Exactly
    1